When morning show host Fred Lefebvre used his board operator, Don Zellars, as an example of someone who wants to know why he has to pay for other people's homes and food while struggling to pay for his own, Redfern's comment was that Don must feel really good inside knowing he's helping so many people.
Redfern explained that America needs to tax people to provide charitable services through the government because, without forcing people through taxation, most Americans wouldn't help take care of the 'least among us.' When Fred pointed out that Don would be happy to help 'the least among us' if government weren't taking so much of his money first, Redfern said:
"I suspect Don would, but unfortunately, most Americans would not - and if we remove that kind of support, strategem, then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs, initiatives..."
Here is the chairman of a state political party who thinks government needs to take money by force from you and give it to others because you can't be trusted to do what he thinks is the 'right' thing with your funds. And if they didn't take your money and, instead, relied upon you for charitable actions taking care of your fellow man, there'd be no reason for the government program to exist. Duh! Isn't that the point?
America is the most charitable nation on the earth. We are the ones who give millions of dollars to charities - voluntarily - and who speed to provide material and funds whenever a tragedy hits here or in another country. Interestingly, conservatives are more likely to give money, time, etc... than liberals. Perhaps that's why Redfern thinks it needs to be forced - because he knows his fellow liberals, not Americans in general, won't donate?
Of course, Redfern tries to justify the concept by equating taxation for spending on charitable functions with taxation for national defense and police/fire protection locally. Not surprisingly, he fails to grasp the concept of statutory authority and limited government. That national defense is a Constitutional authority but paying for another's housing or food is not is conveniently ignored. Instead, Redfern advocates the concept that government - specifically a Barack Omaba government - better knows how to spend your money than you do.
In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said:
"I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
In 1854, after vetoing a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said:
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity."
(to approve such spending) "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
James Madison, the father of our constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said:
"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."
(source for quotes)
And there is the "Not Yours To Give" story of Colonel David Crockett, who reminded Congress:
"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
Our founding fathers would be appalled - and we should be, too!