Pointed questions for members of Congress

Walter E. Williams

Senators and representatives are back home meeting with us, 
hoping we'll vote them back in come November. If I were inclined 
to attend one of those meetings, here are a couple of issues I'd 
raise.

I've read our Constitution and find no authority for the federal 
government to socialize our medical system through the mandates 
debated last session. How can a congressman, who's sworn to 
uphold the Constitution, contemplate such tyranny? Your typical 
congressman will plea that authority is found in the "promote the 
general welfare" clause. If that's what the framers meant, then 
Congress can do anything limited only by a majority vote. What 
stops it from buying me a yacht in the name of promoting the 
welfare?

If your congressman comes equipped with a law degree from one of 
our elite universities, he might answer, "That Williams guy you're 
listening to doesn't understand that our Constitution is a living 
document." But a living constitution is like having none at all. How 
would you like to play poker and allow Hoyle's rules (the poker 
"constitution") to be a "living document and adjustable to the 
changing times"? My three-of-a-kind has a chance of beating your 
straight flush.

Here's an issue anyone can raise, but let an able-bodied young 
person have the first go at it. "Mr. Congressman: I'm 23 and in 
good health, and rather than have $3,000 a year taken out of my 
compensation for health insurance, I'd rather take a risk and instead 
put that money toward -the purchase of high-tech equipment, so in 
five years, I can start my own business. When you mandate that I 
spend it on health insurance, you are pretending to know the best 
use for my $3,000. How can you know that?"

A smooth-brained congressman would probably answer, "That's 
why I support employer mandates, so you won't have to pay." Of 
course, you and I know whatever you receive in wages and benefits 
is paid for by your producing a comparable amount of value. A 
smarter congressman might say, "If you get sick and can't pay, 
you'll be a burden on society, and that's what's wrong with your 
being free to decide whether to buy insurance." While that's a better 
answer, it points out problems of socialism, not freedom. As free 
people, we have the right to make independent decisions and 
personally live with the consequences--good or bad--and not be 
able to burden others.

You might have a congressman who will brag about his support for 
the crime bill. Just ask him for a date when you can walk the streets 
safely and remove those bars around your windows. Originally, it 
was after the Brady bill was signed.

He might reply, "I don't know, but at least we've banned 19 types of 
assault weapons." Don't debate with him over what's an "assault" 
weapon. Just raise an issue I've pondered for quite some time: "Mr. 
Congressman: Has Congress authorized federal agencies like the 
FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to use military assault weapons and 
other types of rapid-fire weapons against American citizens?"

If he says no, he's a liar. If he says they're only authorized for use 
against criminals, ask him whether his agents ever get overzealous 
and whether Randy Weaver's wife and child were criminals and 
whether the scores of women and children slaughtered in Waco 
were criminals. Since government non-army agencies have 
high-powered, rapid-fire weapons, law-abiding citizens should be 
able to have those weapons as well.

After all, a non-totalitarian government has nothing to fear from 
law-abiding citizens.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason 
University, Fairfax, Va., and a syndicated columnist. Readers may 
write to him c/o Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 
700, Los Angeles, Calif. 90045.