« | »

‘Tie Our Hands, Or We’ll Keep Stealing’

From The Hill:


Perriello: ‘If you don’t tie our hands, we’ll keep stealing’

By Eric Zimmermann – 03/18/10

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), one of the more vulnerable Democrats heading into the 2010 election, unleashed some pretty strong rhetoric on spending in a recent chat with constituents.

Asked about keeping Social Security and Medicare in the black, Perriello faulted lawmakers who had "raided the cookie jar," and urged passage of legislation that would "tie our hands" so lawmakers can’t "keep stealing."

"If there’s one thing I’ve learned up here, and I didn’t really need to come up here to learn it, is the only way to get Congress to balance the budget is to give them no choice," he said. " The only way to keep them out of the cookie jar is to give them no choice. Which is why, whether it’s balanced budget acts or pay as you go legislation or any of that–it’s the only thing. If you don’t tie our hands, we’ll keep stealing."

In other words, Mr. Perriello is telling us: ‘Stop us before we steal again!’

Of course he is admitting the obvious, that the members of Congress simply cannot control themselves.

For the record, Mr. Perriello voted for the effort to block the Democrats’ ‘deem and pass’ Slaughter solution, yesterday. (The effort failed, despite his vote.)

Nevertheless, his spokesmen are sounding like Mr. Perriello will still vote for the so-called ‘reconciliation’ bill in the end, anyway.

Once again proving just how right he is.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, March 19th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “‘Tie Our Hands, Or We’ll Keep Stealing’”

  1. BigOil says:

    Keep voting for the extension of unemployment benefits Mr. Perriello – you’ll need it soon.

  2. Mithrandir says:

    If Republicans have any sense in their heads, they will run this ad in every state, over and over and over again until the mid-term elections are finished. — it’s best to start over-saturating the market right now.

    Who better than a Democrat to finally tell the American people that they are obsessive-compulsive thieves and liars, to such an extent, that they no longer have the capacity to control themselves without intervention. .

    ~Perfect opportunity, but I have no faith that the Mr. Magoo Republicans will do much with this…..

  3. proreason says:

    They are addicted to power.

    But the people are becoming addicted to their destruction.

  4. GetBackJack says:

    On the sad passing of Fess Parker, Glenn Reynolds reminded me of one of the best things I ever copied into my Hard Drive …

    If you say this better, please … get voted into Congress.

    Not Yours To Give

    Col. David Crockett
    US Representative from Tennessee

    Originally published in “The Life of Colonel David Crockett,”
    by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

    One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

    “Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the 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. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

    “Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

    He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

    Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

    “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 as 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.

    “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

    “I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
    candidates, and—‘

    “Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again.”

    “This was a sockdolager…I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

    ” ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
    …But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

    ” ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

    “ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

    ” ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

    ” ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. ‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.’ “The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; 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 to 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.’

    “I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

    ” ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

    “He laughingly replied; ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

    ” ‘If I don’t’, said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

    ” ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

    ” ‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

    ” ‘My name is Bunce.’

    ” ‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

    ” ‘Yes.’

    ” ‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

    “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

    “At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

    “Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

    “I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

    “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

    “In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

    ” ‘Fellow-citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’”

    “I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

    ” ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

    ” ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
    credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

    “He came upon the stand and said:

    ” ‘Fellow-citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

    “He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

    “I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’

    “Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

    “There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

    • FCAFlyer says:

      Thanks for that, GBJack.
      It was a different, time with a highly informed and patriotic populace; all bent on building a GREAT Nation. What we have today is unrecognizable from what our fathers and forefathers fought and died for. What a shame. Tough, tough times ahead. Thank God for the freedom of speech on sites like this – at least for awhile . . . . .

  5. Right of the People says:

    Did you notice that Perriello’s solution to them stealing from us again is to enact even more legislation? That’s what’s wrong to begin with. These bozos think they can just pass laws that will fix everything and if one law doesn’t fix a problem, hey no problem we’ll just pass another “better” law. When have they ever repealed a bad law? Not in my lifetime.

    And just who does he propose to pass these new laws, the same Klown Posse that’s in the House and Senate? That’ll happen right after they pass a bill cutting their salary and imposing term limits.

    We need a rewrite of the constitution, not removing anything but adding some things like making the Bill of Rights a part of the body of the document, not just amendments. Amendments can be repealed with a 67% vote of both houses. Plus a rewrite of all the laws on the books, getting rid of the 90% that either are out of date and have no relevance today or are just plain bad.

    Unfortunately the only way to make this happen will probably be the forceful removal of the those now in power. Our forefathers fought a war over these same issues a couple of centuries ago, it might just be time again.

    End of Rant.

    • Mithrandir says:

      That’s what we get when we vote for a whole pile of sweet-talkin’ lawyers to sit in a room. Eventually they reach a saturation point where every law has been passed, and everything has been micromanaged.

      The only thing left to do is continued micromanaging, expanding, and collecting more taxes to feed what has been created. Why would they reduce and streamline something they spent all their time creating?

      At that point, the injustice and abuse of government is felt by all Americans. And as we are witnessing right now, we have a consensus that we will throw these clowns out by peaceful means first, and if that doesn’t work, it will lead to open insurrection. I would hate to be a cop at that point, as they have to choose between continue to abuse the people as their government directs, or side with the people, and collapse the government and their jobs.

  6. Liberals Demise says:

    Twenty thousand gun laws don’t stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes and the balloon boy wants what?

    GOD ……..HELP ME!!

  7. Mithrandir says:

    Texas my actually try to tie their hands, anyone else get this email? ~wow..

    1. Micro-Chipped Federal Employees:

    All employees residing or doing business in the State of Texas that are paid employees of the federal government will be GPS micro-chipped upon entering, enforcing federal law, and living within the boundaries of the State of Texas. All federal employees must submit their name and GPS monitoring number to the State of Texas before and during any legal action upon a citizen of the State of Texas. If it has been determined that unconstitutional action, enforcement of unconstitutional federal law, has been carried out within the boundaries of Texas, against a citizen of Texas, or a visitor temporarily residing in Texas, those federal employees shall and will be subject to apprehension and conviction of crimes against the laws of the State of Texas.

    2. Jury Nullification:

    Any citizen of Texas that is tried and/or convicted by federal law, will not be tried outside the State of Texas for any reason nor will any jury be selected from non-Texas citizens. The citizens of Texas have every right to nullify by jury, any federal law that is unjust, unconstitutional, and infringes upon the rights and sovereignty of the citizens of Texas.

    3. Overturning of Federal Law:

    Any citizen of the State of Texas, whether residing in Texas or temporarily in any other state, who has, or is about to have, their Constitutional Rights removed by any over-reaching federal law such as the unjust Lautenburg Amendment, Federal Health Care mandates, or any removal of voting rights, will be reviewed by the State of Texas, and that citizen’s right can and shall be reinstated within the boundaries of the State of Texas.

    4. Behavior of Federal Employees:

    Any federal employees, while carrying out their duties in the State of Texas, are found to be unduly menacing, harassing, bullying, or unjust to any citizen of the State of Texas, are subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and / or permanent removal from the boundaries, with their name, location, GPS number kept on file for future review, and denial of permission to re-enter the State of Texas for any reason, regardless of their federal appointment status.

    5. Ignoring Federal Law:

    It is within our rights, and therefore our responsibility to protect our borders, on all sides, from any intrusions or threats to our sovereignty that may occur. The federal government has jurisdiction over these matters insomuch as they are competent and willing to full-fill their Constitutional obligations. If it has been determined that they are negligent in their duties, the State of Texas has the right to ensure security for its citizens, in any way deemed necessary, until the federal government has proven it is capable and competent in executing its legal obligations to the State of Texas.

    That these steps are therefore needed to ensure the continued rights, safety, and security of the citizens of the State of Texas, I therefore submit these amendments, and encourage my colleagues to pass and enforce these measures for the establishment and future stability of the State of Texas, on this day, so help us God.

  8. Flession says:

    You know, I could get behind Sharia law in this one instance: don’t they cut off the hands of people caught stealing?

    Someone find me a scimitar.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »