Unconstitutional Charity?

In my last post, I asked what government programs could be considered unconstitutional; and even if they aren't, should we consider keeping them regardless?  The argument breaks down to how the constitution is viewed.  One side believes that our government was founded by men inspired to create an exceptional form of governance dedicated to maintaining freedom through the ages.  The other side views the constitution as a "living document " that changes with time to fit into an ever-changing society.  I believe that our nation's founders were men inspired of God and that the Constitution is sacrosanct and that the federal government should do only what is enumerated in this exceptional document.  Since the 1930s through today our government has spent phenomenal amounts of money to improve our society.  What is often overlooked is the power gained by Congress and presidents; they are essentially bribing the electorate with their own money.

  I recommend that everyone read the following link, an excerpt from the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett written by fellow congressman Edward S. Ellis.  Ellis tells of a bill in Congress that would pay money to the widow of a military veteran.  Davey Crockett stood in opposition of said bill and because of Crockett's speech the bill was voted down. When Ellis asked why Crockett would oppose this humanitarian gesture from Congress, he told of an encounter with one of his constituents who was going to vote against him in the next election because of Crockett's vote on an earlier bill (a bill that would pay to reconstruct a widow's house after a fire). The reason this constituent would be against this outpouring of good will is illuminating and instructional.

 In the speech that Crockett gave in opposition to the bill, he offered to pay a week's salary to start a fund for the widow.  No other congressman would put up their own money. It is far too easy to spend other people's money and without personal commitment, how can it be considered charity?