A clickable offering of books and articles that I've read recently and highly recommend, as we strive together to "Keep the Republic."
In a recent interview on The Late Show with David Letterman, President Obama talked about his view of the government's role in society. "We've got some obligations to each other, and there's nothing wrong with us giving each other a helping hand so that that single mom's kid, even after all the work she's done, can afford to go to college," he said.
The president is right about one thing: we have a moral obligation to help one another. But what the president revealed in his comments -- and what he has revealed throughout his presidency -- is a fundamental misunderstanding of how we ought to fulfill that moral obligation. In this recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Antony Davies and Kristina Antolin explain that it makes all the difference in the world whether our charity is voluntary, or whether it's coerced by the government.
"Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral. If we force people to give to the poor, we have stripped away the moral component, reducing charity to mere income redistribution," they write. When the federal government attempts to legislate concern for the poor, it intrudes on the sphere of life that properly belongs to private charities and religious institutions -- which do a great job and don't need government interference.
The ongoing expansion of government comes with growing costs, which we've seen recently with Obamacare. For when the government begins to legislate acts of charity, it inevitably will try to dictate matters of conscience -- as the Obama administration did with its contraceptive mandate for religious institutions. And this is another chilling reminder of the dangers of an ever-growing government that respects no limits.
Thank you for your continued interest in Congress and for supporting my efforts in Washington. Take care.