To the Editor
It is Colleen Wilson who deserves all compliments for the Library letter published in the Jan. 11, 2018 Chronicle.  
In my defense, I was over-tired (not to mention discouraged and disgruntled about over-extended Library memberships) when Colleen shared her melodious version of a vinegary-toned note I’d composed.  At any rate, I plead insanity, temporary or otherwise.  Although Colleen affixed my name to her creation, I should have taken time to realize the travesty I was committing.  In all honesty, Colleen’s name should have appeared first for the lovely letter she composed.  (I happily accept any and all accolades intended for the shameless embellishment of her upbeat prose.)    
Please drop in to the Library and renew your library card; your membership helps keep your library operating.  We welcome suggestions because PCL is your Library.  Volunteers are always welcome.  We are open Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10 AM to 6 PM, in the basement of the Cottonwood Community Hall.  The phone number is 208-962-3714; check us out on Facebook.    
K. Steinke, 
President Pro-Tem, 
Prairie Community Library [We Are One] Board)  

Redneck Review!
No. 147 - 2/12/2018
This is a second of a two-part effort to wind up a comment made in RNR 134, 11/2017,"In the near future, this column will review in detail comments made last week about the claims made..."  by Bastiat's LEGAL PLUNDER, Crockett's NOT YOURS TO GIVE, and Tyler's DEMOCRACIES LIVE ONLY AROUND 250 YEARS. 
Last week we examined author Frederik Bastiat's claim in a book he wrote about 1850,that government's which practiced LEGAL PLUNDER,  bluntly taking by force  (in taxes) from one person who earned it, then giving to another who was selected to get it, would eventually find it necessary to begin borrowing on future generations. Why?  Because the number of those who receive would grow putting more and more pressure on the ones who were forced to give!  In time, the nation would be buried in a growing and eventually out-of-control debt made necessary to continue the process!  Read his book THE LAW!
Today, attention is turned to a powerful argument found in an essay entitled NOT YOURS TO GIVE,  traced back to an incident which occurred during the years frontier man Davy Crockett spent in the nation's House of Representatives. The event triggering the hard lesson Crockett learned involved a fire which broke out in the capitol while Congress was in session!  A member, genuinely concerned about the families, sponsored a bill which provided federal money for the burned out families.  The bill passed easily, Crockett a supporter, and the ensuing law helped to restore the homes of the families involved.
Back campaigning later in his own home area,  Crockett met a former supporter, Horatio Bunce, who shocked him, stating he could no longer vote for him!   Bunce's argument, paraphrased here, said funds raised by  taxes were NOT YOURS TO GIVE, and that a government which chose to dip into the nation's treasury to help one citizen or a group of citizens was signing its fiscal death warrant.  He argued that to give to one meant that in fairness the government was forced to give to all!  He noted that families whose homes
were burned in the country far from the capitol rarely received help from the government, and had to get by on their own or with the help of local friends and neighbors.
He added that the practice would someday result in funds taken in taxes by government would find their way into the possession of individuals much better off than the giver!  A reality one might call a   REVERSE ROBIN HOOD EFFECT!
Congressman Crockett, the article goes on to say, was "stunned" by the force of Bunce's argument, and made him a deal.  He would go to his home and give a talk noting he had made a mistake, if Bunce would get together a number of families in his area. He agreed, and after a dinner and social chat,  the congressman stood up and admitted that he had voted without thinking, and that he would not repeat his error in the future. The evening ended, all returned home, convinced as was Bunce that Crockett would keep his word.
The article concludes by noting that Crockett had a chance to keep his word in the next session. A fellow congressmen sponsored a bill granting a sum of money for a widow of a well known military hero who had died suddenly, leaving her without support. Voting no, he argued that the money was not theirs to give, that charity was not involved, and that he personally would make a donation to the widow. If the well off others in his group would do the same, they would not need the government money.  His challenge was ignored, thus proving it is far more desirable to spend others money than your own! But CHARITY?
Jake Wren

Home

Classified Ads