U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is kind of nice to have around, just as a model of liberal dogmatism. Everyone’s good for something, if only to serve as a bad example.
Most recently, Schumer expressed outrage that President Trump is spending $200 million to build a new ballroom onto the White House. The project is scheduled to begin in September, occupying 90,000 square feet and seating 650, and Trump hopes to complete it well before the end of his term.
“Where’d this money come from?” Schumer demanded. “Did Congress appropriate it? I don’t think so.” He then attacked the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), suggesting that instead of targeting wasteful spending, Trump’s people were “making cuts on Americans to fund their ballroom.” Schumer sarcastically added that Trump “announced plans to build himself a new White House ballroom so he can eat his cheeseburgers in there in luxury.”
As my little country church mulls expanding our fellowship hall, I must admit that $200 million for a ballroom does seem like a lot of money. And if the taxpayers’ money is being used without congressional appropriation, that is concerning, especially for constitutionalists like me.
Still, people take pride in the beauty of their public buildings, and foreign visitors often judge a nation by the beauty of its capital city. Consider the structures of Egypt, Greece and Rome (often given by wealthy private persons) that have lasted for thousands of years, and the pyramids and temples of the Inca, the Aztec, and the Maya.
But at what point does the cost to the taxpayers become excessive?
“The White House is currently unable to host major functions honoring world leaders in other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent approximately 100 yards away from the main building’s entrance,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained.
And then she revealed that the ballroom won’t cost the taxpayers a dime – it will be funded entirely by Trump and other private donors, just as Trump personally funded the massive flags and flagpoles on the White House lawn at $50,000 each.
Why would Schumer simply assume that the taxpayers would have to fund this ballroom? Why would the possibility of private donations not even enter his mind?
Because liberals don’t think in terms of private charity. Government funding is their default position.
We might think liberals are more generous than conservatives, especially with other people’s money. It’s been said that if someone is drowning 100 feet from shore, a conservative will throw him a 50-foot rope and tell him to swim the other 50 feet for his own good. A liberal will throw him a 150-foot rope, then let go of the other end and run off to do another good deed.
But Arthur Brooks, in “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” concludes that conservatives give more to charitable causes than liberals do, both in total amounts and in percentage of income. This is true at all income levels. Brooks suggests several reasons why conservatives are more generous: higher levels of religiosity, skepticism about the government’s role in redistributing wealth, a strong emphasis on the family unit, and personal entrepreneurship. Other studies have challenged this conclusion, but it seems to be based on solid analysis.
Brooks also notes that Americans give more to charity than Europeans do. Americans recognize that private charities, unable to use compulsory taxation to fund their programs, take greater care to make sure their money is spent wisely and well. We also recognize that charity benefits both the giver and the receiver, and is pleasing to God.
“Who gives himself with his alms feeds three – Himself, his hungering neighbor, and Me.” – James Russell Lowell, “Vision of Sir Launfal.”
And here’s another point: The hard left – not liberals in general – hates private charity. In leftist thinking, managing the economy, taking care of the poor, and redistributing income are the functions of government. When individuals, organizations or churches engage in charitable activity, they usurp the function of government. And because government is the leftist’s god, usurping a government function borders on blasphemy.
Our founding fathers didn’t think that way. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, they authorized the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare of the nation as a whole, not for the specific welfare of individuals, regions, or socio-economic groups. James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, opposed a 1794 measure providing federal aid to French refugees, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
And so, Senator, the president is acting in the best tradition of our country’s framers by using private funds to beautify our nation’s capital. May it stand for a thousand years!
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu), as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org), and as Pastor of Woodland Presbyterian Church of Notasulga, Alabama (woodlandpca.org). He may be contacted for speaking engagements at [email protected].
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
