Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Should We Be Providing ‘Charity’ to Ukraine?
In a recent speech, Rand Paul gave a powerful presentation regarding the millions of dollars we are giving to Ukraine. He likened our situation to a conundrum that Davy Crockett faced when he served in Congress. (Most of us perceive Crockett as an iconic symbol of the West, but he also served in Congress from 1827 to 1835.) And Paul told a story that speaks to our continual donation of funds and military equipment to Ukraine and how it extends a long, expensive, and debilitating process of trying to be generous to other countries under the guise of national security.
Although Crockett’s original speech was not transcribed, his ideas were captured in an 1867 article written by Edward Ellis and published in Harper’s Magazine, called, “Not yours to Give.” And the conclusions that Crockett reached challenged Congress’ intention to donate charity to the widow of a distinguished naval officer. He took his position from an encounter with a citizen who called him out for a similar funding decision that Crockett made in another devastating occurrence. Crockett was credited with the following description of the situation:
Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
Later, when Crockett was out on the campaign trail, he encountered a citizen who had once supported him, but was going to withdraw future support for the recent action that Crockett had supported in Congress. The man, Horatio Bunce, shared his reasoning:
The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.
Crockett took Bunce’s counsel to heart, thus denying Congress’ later efforts to provide charity to the naval officer.
* * * *
To be clear, I am ambivalent about our involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war. At this writing, our national debt is at $31,457,4472,102,309, or $94,292 per person. In how many different ways have we used federal funds to ingratiate ourselves to other nations, or to strengthen relationships with our allies, and managed to violate the Constitution? How many times have our intentions to be charitable to those in our own country violated the Constitution? Does our sympathy for the Ukrainians and the war inflicted on them by the Russians justify our apparent limitless funding to assist them? Is there any point where we have gone too far? Does the possibility of stricter oversight justify our borrowing even more money to fund our contributions to Ukraine?
Davy Crockett’s story begs the question: Do we know what we are doing in Ukraine?
[photo courtesy of Getty Images]
Published in Politics
I always thought with the end of the USSR that NATO should have gone away.
That’s what they want you to think.
Russia is behaving the way Russia has behaved for five centuries. Let’s wait until they’re Switzerland.
But I wasn’t. And my not referring to Rand was due to my liking to promote the first man I saw serve in Congress in the 90’s who possessed a great deal of integrity.
However Rand does seem like a chip off the old block. Kudos to both men.
No. Not apple pie.
It is starting to look like our actions in Ukraine have a created a pact among Russia, China, India & Brazil. That is most of the resources and most of humans against us. We need to be very, very careful about making national leaders choose between feeding their people and being on our side.
Actually you’re not. America’s not making it an issue that India’s buying crude from Russia in quantity and exporting processed to places like Europe.
What’s making people nervous is freezing accounts and edging towards confiscating assets to fund Ukrainian reconstruction/ war effort. Is the US still a safe place to stash your spoils?
Apparently the aggressive instinct in Russia continued in the absence of Communism. The need for NATO is that Russia sees fit to invade its neighbors like Georgia, and to threaten other former Communist Countries.
The US is a safe place to stash your spoils provided that you don’t attack other countries, and seek to torture and enslave their peoples. If you do, we reserve the right to hold you accountable.
The US sold many of its F-4E fighters to Egypt. “Foreign military sales” is heavily controlled.
You must have missed the last 20 years of Russian history- things like Georgia, the Donbas invasion, the seizure of Crimea, Syria, Chad etc.
Russia has been cooperating with China for years:
a) when the West embargo military equipment after the Tiananmen square incident, Russia became the major arms exporter to China.
b) “On the eve of a 2013 visit to Moscow “Xi, who arrived in Russia along with first lady Peng Liyuan, said he was keen to work together with Putin to develop “strategic cooperation,” stressing his personal rapport with the Russian strongman and calling him his “old friend.” https://archive.ph/20130411013534/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jI8_kZmr2INskAt4erPYLeDxW9Zw
Putin has called the Sino-Russian relationship a “special relationship” – ie comparing to the British- American relationship.
C) WW2 was caused by Nazi aggression if you think they would have stopped after Poland you are seriously deficient in historical knowledge.
Exactly right-Mr Thompson hasn’t looked at the arrangements. The nontransferable nature of the military sales is why Poland & the Baltic states haven’t given Leopard tanks to Ukraine already-Germany will not approve the transfers. Germany is seriously undermining it status as an important NATO partner and many countries close to Russia will probably try to avoid German military equipment (the Poles & Ukrainians in particular). Poland is pivoting to US M1s and Korean K2 tanks.
There has been a debate over United States aid to Ukraine, one that those who have opposed such aid lost by a lopsided margin last May, when the US House and US Senate voted overwhelmingly to provide Ukraine 40 billion dollars of aid.
The debate over whether the US should continue to aid Ukraine continues on. It’s just that Putin is continually making the case that the US should continue aid to Ukraine.
If Putin had not invaded neighboring countries over the past 15 years, NATO might have fallen apart completely.
But Putin gave NATO a new purpose.
I’m sure those Canadian truckers felt the same way about Canada. And they didn’t attack, torture, or enslave anyone. They just wanted freedom.
I’m leery of giving them straight cash . . .
Opposition to providing aid to Ukraine is a bit like opposition to helping a police department find, capture and detain a serial killer.
One can always say, “It’s none of our business,” because the serial killer hasn’t killed anyone you personally know.
But that’s very short-sighted thinking that opponents of aid to Ukraine are engaging in.
If we’re going to lead we have to lead. Leading does not mean impoverishing oneself. We always have weapons that need to be replaced and upgraded. That is not what we are doing. It looks to me like China is driving our policy. Is there any other explanation? And that is allowing the assumption that it is in our interest to help the Ukraine and harm Russia, which I don’t know either.
so you want the USA to be the banker to the kleptocrats?
Like looking through frosted glass.
Missed the point as usual.
Why is Blackrock prominently mentioned in discussions of Ukraine’s future?
Big business and big government are not the path to individual liberty.
Neither is enslavement to Putin….
Your point is always to do what is in the best interests of our enemies….
I’m more worried about enslavement to our corporate-run government, TBH.
No, because then I’d be doing what’s in the best interests of the Biden administration.
I asked a very smart man about the argument some use to oppose supporting Ukraine because of corruption. I won’t attempt a direct quote but he placed tolerating Russia’s brazen invasion as a worse evil. Ukraine’s imperfect government doesn’t excuse the invasion.
Personally, I think it would be hypocritical to complain about corruption in the government of other countries.
I remain bored with this reality show and mostly ignore it. Like most football games these days, I am just content to tune in the next day to see who won.
You mistakenly see everything thru domestic political agenda- the correct action is to push Biden to do more (he really wants to do nothing-like Obama).