Chris Redfern, the Democratic Party Chairman of Ohio, apparently thinks that Americans are so stingy and selfish that the only way charity work gets done is if government taxes the people to make it happen. In a recent radio interview, Redfern expressed the assumption that "unfortunately most Americans would not" help out the poor. Even worse, Redfern honestly believes that freebies and charity work is just as much the proper role of government as funding the "military, law enforcement, and fire protection," proving he hasn't a clue what the proper role should be of the government America's founders created.
In an interview with Toledo radio station 1370 WSPD, Redfern made the outrageous comments on how selfish Americans are and how we need government to force us all to care for, as he put it, "the least among us."
Radio host LeFebvre, however, wondered why people making subsistence pay should be forced to pay the way of those who refuse to work? Using the situation of his board operator, Don Zellars, LeFebvre asked Democratic Party Chair Redfern why the lower middle classes should be expected to float the indigent? Close to the end of the interview, this exchange took place:
Fred LeFebvre: Don's question was more about, you know, he's struggling to pay his mortgage -- he's a brand new home owner here in Toledo -- his wife has to work, he's gotta pay for his own helathcare coverage here at the radio station, he wants... his questions is: how is it fair that he has to pay for other people before he gets his own money? How is it fair?
Chris Redfern: Well, if you're applying the same logic to those kinds of programs or projects or initiatives, you have to be consistent. Why does it make people uncomfortable when I point out law enforcement, fire protection, the military should be treated the same as the environment, or helping out the least among us? You know, Don was taught early on that it's his obligation as a human just to look out for the next guy. That doesn't mean you have to... ya pay for everything, it means the least among us...
LeFebvre: But I think Don would do that if he had a chance to on his own. Because he is a charitable guy.
Redfern: Ha, ha.
LeFebvre: I mean seriously, he would do it if he had a choice.
Redfern: Well, I suspect Don would, but unfortunately most Americans would not and if we remove that kind of support stratagem then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs or initiatives including the military, law enforcement, fire protection.
First of all, let us consider the arrogance of the rhetoric Redfern uses to describe the poor. I don't know about you, but I don't view the poor as "the least among us." Talk about condescension!
Secondly, it is clear that Redfern neither has an understanding of, nor any interest in, the Constitution of the United States. Someone needs to inform this addled pol that the "the military" is mandated by the Constitution. Charity work is not. The role of police and fire protection is truly a legitimate role of government. Charity is not. Contrary to Redfern's bald faced claims, there is NO "logic" or "consistency" that mandates charity work be done by government to the same extent as the military, police and fire protection. In fact, it is just a cynical warping of the truth used by Redfern to excuse his socialist theories and big government, nanny state policies. Our government was never intended to indulge in charity work. In fact, several presidents have been quoted exactly to that effect since the founding up until the socialist reengineering of government undertaken by FDR.
To quote a few...
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread which it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."--Thomas Jefferson
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and
unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison"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...." --James Madison
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity, [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." --President Franklin Pierce
"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." - Grover Cleveland
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. .. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."--President Grover Cleveland
"We must always ask: Is government working to liberate and empower the individual? Is it creating incentives for people to produce, save, invest, and profit from legitimate risks and honest toil? Is it encouraging all of us to reach for the stars? Or does it seek to compel, command, and coerce people into submission and dependence? Ask these questions, because no matter where you look today, you will see that development depends on economic freedom." --Ronald Reagan
Finally, Redfern's claim that American's are too selfish to give charity is an outright lie. At least it is an outright lie where it concerns conservative Americans. For instance, ABC's John Stossel found that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Of course, based on Stossel's work, perhaps it is expected that leftist Redfern never met an American that cares much to indulge in charity? After all, if he only hangs around other leftists when would he ever meet a generous American? Maybe he at least has an excuse to think so ill about his fellow Americans? Seriously though, it is only his illogical, uninformed personal experience as opposed to an opinion based on any fact that would make him think so.
But, even that aside, Americans over all, liberal or conservative, are far more generous than other peoples across the globe. As I wrote in 2007, according to CAF International, Americans individually give 1.67% of GDP whereas the UK gives only .73% while Canada gives only .72%. From there the bottom drops out with Australia giving only .69% and the rest at 40% or less. Unsurprisingly, France brings up the tail with .14% of GDP.
In the end, all we have here is a politician who does not have the first clue about the Constitution or the proper role of government. Not only that, but he doesn't care and that is to the shame of Democrats everywhere in Ohio that have supported this sort of unAmerican thinking.
(H/T Maggie Thurber of Thurber's Thoughts)
(Photo credit: The Columbus Dispatch)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I always love it when you
August 28, 2008 - 03:40 ET by USA4freedomI always love it when you see these peoples tax returns, when they give $100 (if that).. to charity while calling us cheep and selfish.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Hey. Give the man some credit.
August 28, 2008 - 10:02 ET by Calypso JonesHe KNOWS democrats!
Census
August 28, 2008 - 03:49 ET by the mad poleAccording to census,by 2042, caucasians will be the least amongst us.
Redfern is either spouting
August 28, 2008 - 03:50 ET by winston smithRedfern is either spouting DNC myths or has taken up the liberal pastime of crack smoking. I recall the Brooks study from a few years ago which proved that Americans are the most charitable people in the world with American conservatives out-donating so-called American progressives by something like 30%. 3 out of 4 American households gave an average of something like $2000 a year to charitable organizations. So where's this greed Redfern speaks of? His accusations are not even close. Since I know of no other recent study that contradicts these findings, I'd be interested to know where Redfern is getting his information --- Paul Krugman? ChiComs? 50cent?
Redfern
August 28, 2008 - 04:52 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsPerhaps Redfern is right, in his mind, after all, he is a democrat and looks at other democrats and their behavior. Prime example is the democrat Obama who is a multimillionaire and has done nothing to help his brother, who lives in a shack on less than $12 a year.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
How dare he
August 28, 2008 - 04:52 ET by Cool ArrowHow dare this pompous money-gluttonous sac of pus try to tell me I need to be more charitable while he's robbing my family?
He and his party see the charity of the Heartland and fiend and connive for it like hyenas over a fresh corpse.
I dare not post on this page, nor form in my mind, the rage of my heart against that small stingy preacher of human bondage that is Chris Redfern.
Torches and Pitchforks!
I ♣ my seal
Charitable scapegoat
August 28, 2008 - 08:12 ET by AgnosticThis is just a scapegoat to help justify the failure of the liberal social programs. You see, their programs would work if people were not so greedy and selfish. Their programs work wonders but it is you, the bible clinging/gun toting breeders, that screw things up by not giving more.
Obese government is a religion.
August 28, 2008 - 04:55 ET by sarcasmoI'll bet this guy sincerely thinks he's morally right to want more than a tithe, since hardly-anyone questions it these days anyway...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Before Redfern makes a
August 28, 2008 - 05:41 ET by motherbeltBefore Redfern makes a comment like
but unfortunately most Americans would not
He might want to do a little research and he would find this and this and this and this Then he wouldn't say such stupid things.
But unfortunately, to liberals like Redfern, the answer to the question "how much should Americans give to charity?" like the answer to "how much should we pay in taxes?" (and in Redfern's mind they are the same) the answer is always "More."
Like most
August 28, 2008 - 06:48 ET by Warner Todd HustonLike most... no ALL... liberals, he isn't interested in facts.
And like most liberals, he
August 28, 2008 - 07:00 ET by motherbeltAnd like most liberals, he is accustomed to his assertions simply being accepted as "fact" and not being asked to back them up.
OOOOHHH SHIII. . .
August 28, 2008 - 05:43 ET by Cool ArrowI know there's gonna be a post on this today, because David Shuster just stated people were killed in Katrina because their WELFARE CHECKS hadn't arrived.
Now it's "George Bush killed momma"
Looks to me like the Libs are totally into killing poor people by ensuring somebody comes around regularly with their drug money.
Torches & Pitchforks
Must keep blood pressure down...
August 28, 2008 - 06:59 ET by on-the-rocksStatements like this from Socialists/Libs make my blood boil!
I came to despise Jimmy Carter a few years ago after a front-page Sunday Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, which featured a picture of him with his stupid grin and the caption "Americans are the stingiest people on Earth.".
To people such as Redfern and Carter, the only "giving" that counts is the taxpayer money they throw at a problem. The billions of dollars freely given each year by Americans to private charities in cash and labor mean nothing to Libs. We operate off of a Judeo-Christian ethic, while they operate off of a Socialistic/Old European ethic, that has lost sight of its own Judeo-Christian ethics.
To politely say that "There is room for improvement." is a valid point, but that is not what Redfern and his ilk are saying.
Those billions of dollars unrecognized by Redfern, Carter, et al, include the volunteer labor of our teenagers and young-adult children. In the last few years, members of our suburban Atlanta church have paid out of their own pockets to do volunteer work in Honduras; Costa Rica; Jamaica; Buffalo, NY; homeless shelters in downtown Atlanta; a Navajo reservation in New Mexico, Appalachia, and post-Katrina New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast; Habitat for Humanity; and prison ministries.
Within days of Katrina, our church members and those from nearby churches were loading up U-Haul trucks full of goods to send to New Orleans. Government didn't have to tell us to do that. That is what Americans are free to do!
A year or two ago, two church members from the Atlanta area died when an army truck overturned in Honduras. Perhaps a week earlier, a group from our church was in that same area and may have ridden in that same truck. That includes people from our own adult Sunday School class, one of which I have worked for.
It is not enough that they take our taxes, ignore our giving, and spit on us for "not doing enough", but then they have the arrogance to throw about out-of-context Bible verses (or snippets thereof). When Libs (including Barack Obama) use phrases such as "caring for the least among us" while championing abortion is at the very least blatant hyprocrisy!
By now we all know that abortion is more important to Barack Obama than comforting and giving medical attention - to those babies that survive late-term abortions - during their short lives.
Redfern and Carter are just the tip of the iceberg of this mindset. I could go on and on... Must calm down, must calm down.
on-the-rocks,You work
August 28, 2008 - 07:06 ET by rimskyon-the-rocks,
You work well under stress.. this is an excellent post! Thanks! Now, take some deep breaths and... have a great day! r
P.S. God Bless all in your Church and all the charity work that they do. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and them.
I wonder what
August 28, 2008 - 07:19 ET by 10ksnookerHe thought of Jimmy Carter calling the Lord Obama "the black boy" --- Stereotypical southern racism, in the party of the KKK, the Democrat party.
This is a typical liberal meme
August 28, 2008 - 07:29 ET by c5thenLiberals think that Government should do everything. The vast majority of them have never studied let alone read the Constitution. Those who have, are just trying to find ways to reinterpret it's meaning to allow them to do what they want.
Redfern is a shill who is knowingly telling lies in order to make his chosen idiology seem more palatable to the struggling middle class. They who are having their hard earned wages stolen by the government in order to give handouts to the 'poor'. The adadge: "Give a starving man a fish and he will have food that day, but teach a starving man how to fish and he will have food for the rest of his life" does not compute to the liberals.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Liberals simply believe
August 28, 2008 - 08:57 ET by Sergeant ROCKLiberals simply believe that charity can only come from government, not individuals.
This guy is just as delusional as any other foaming-at-mouth liberal who chooses to ignore the simple fact that the United States is the most charitable country in the world.
LesserOf2evils '08
If you don't believe him
August 28, 2008 - 08:36 ET by theduck6you probably don't believe the democrat candidate for the Presidency of the USA has a half brother living in a crate in Kenya on $12 a month. "least among us" indeed!
He's not that rich!
August 28, 2008 - 08:47 ET by Kirk HallIts $12 a YEAR. If it were $12 a month he would have to be taxed at least 30%.
Charity
August 28, 2008 - 08:59 ET by iveseenitallSo many good works are done every day, but they don't show up on a tax return. Moreover, how many "lies" about charitable giving are written on tax returns? Furthermore, it has been well documented that much, if not most, of the money you give to "charitable" organizations doesn't even get to those for which it is intended. No one needs the government telling him/her what to do with his/her earned money. In fact, if you were to go to a poor neighborhood and hand out five dollar bills, you'd probably be doing more good than having the government rob it from you in taxes and waste it as they do. So many Democrats like this guy do not believe in the good hearts of most Americans. Yet they themeselves grab with both hands as they lecture you about how uncaring you are. So-called "liberals" make me sick.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The 'change' we'll get...
August 28, 2008 - 08:59 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. will have us all living in a crate on $12 a year!
LesserOf2evils '08
He has it backwards, as usual
August 28, 2008 - 09:24 ET by CobraMan"Why does it make people uncomfortable when I point out law enforcement, fire protection, the military should be treated the same as the environment, or helping out the least among us?"
Like most liberals, he has it backwards. It's not that he finds people to be "uncomfortable" about his assertions that all programs (government and civilian) are equal, it's that he finds himself to be uncomfortable when people point out the follies of his assertions.
For example, it's foolish to insist that a government controlled fire department is equal to a government controlled food distribution system (to the "needy") as EVERYONE needs equal protection from the dangers of fire, but not everyone needs the government to provide food to them. Most people are more than are capable to provide that food to themselves and their families without the government's help. They are also capable to provide food directly to the needy without the need for government involvement.
We don't need to rely upon the government in order to be charitable, all we need are resources. Since government uses more resources than it generates, why would any intelligent person rely upon the government to give less charity to people?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Chris is only
August 28, 2008 - 09:23 ET by NorthCoastertowing the line and spouting the talking points of the Dems. Chris has been a respected member of Kiwanis for years, so he knows from the inside how charitable and fraternal organizations work. Members of organizations give thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to support worthy causes. Many individuals in the country are active financially and as volunteers in the communities and organizations they contribute to. Some people that I know aren't blessed financially but they put in many hours of volunteer work.
Chris,
I'm truly disappointed that you've drunk the cool-aid so deeply.
The "least among us" will remain Redfern's constituents...
August 28, 2008 - 09:31 ET by ThalpyThe "least among us" will remain Redfern's constituents. He can't afford to fix them because that will place him on the outside.
Being from Ohio...
August 28, 2008 - 11:06 ET by danhat... I felt obligate to send the following to the Ohio Democratic Party - parts of which were quoted from this story. I wanted to send all of the historical quotes but ran into a "character" limit in the form:
Chris Redfern's recent radio interview presumed, when speaking about people giving to charity, responded in part with "...but unfortunately most Americans would not..."
Our Government was not formed to be a Charity organization. That is what Charity organizations are for. Duh!!
People do give and conservatives give more than liberals
.... Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
...include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
Next, a lesson from from some founding fathers and others
... "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread which it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."--Thomas Jefferson
"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...." --James Madison
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity, ... would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution subversive to the theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." --President Franklin Pierce
"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." - Grover Cleveland
Being an American is an honor. I prefer that, and believe that as a public figure you have a duty and obligation, to teach people to fish instead of taking my fish and giving it to others who refuse to help themselves.
Dan
++++++++++++++++
Normally I don't root for the disease. But in your case I am willing to make and exception.