It’s Easy to Be Generous with Other People’s Money

How could someone say no to giving Mother Teresa a medal?



I oppose the Gold Medal for Mother Teresa Act because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Mother Teresa who dedicated here entire life to voluntary, charitable work, particularly humanitarian.

During his time in the House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx) had a voting record of philosophical consistency perhaps unmatched in recent congressional history. He sought to limit government at practically every turn and to uphold a strict interpretation of the Constitution. His refusal to compromise remains one-of-a-kind in a political system generally marked by groupthink on the part of members of both parties. (This is not to say that compromise is not valuable in politics. It is just refreshing to see someone always willing to stand by his principles.) Many conservatives may now prefer his son’s approach. Although Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) may generally support similar principles, he is more inclined to work within the framework of the current system. Ron Paul’s desire to do away with an institution as entrenched as the Federal Reserve would require nothing short of radicalism.

However, it is perhaps the case that part of Ron Paul’s appeal was his radicalism, his role as often the only member of Congress to take issue with some of the most unquestioned conventions and incentives commonly bemoaned by a public that habitually assigns Congress an approval rating below twenty percent. It was not unheard of for the House to take a vote, and the final tally be 434-1 with the lone dissenting vote being that of Congressman Paul’s.

One example of Paul being the lone dissenter took place on May 20, 1997, when Congress passed H.R. 1650, which authorized “the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Mother Teresa of Calcutta in recognition of her outstanding and enduring contributions through humanitarian and charitable activities.”