This is in response to the Nov. 1 letter, "General welfare: It's in the Constitution," by Rachel Ozretich. This is the fourth in a series of opinion exchanges.

The "promote the general welfare" phrase in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution was never intended to mean "provide the general welfare."

It wasn't until some time after Karl Marx gifted us with his poisonous philosophies that the phrase magically began to acquire its previously hidden meaning.

The preamble itself is only an explanatory statement. The real power of the constitution is contained in the subsequent articles and amendments. These make no mention of citizens - based on their mere existence - being entitled to any particular goods or services whatsoever, other than those specifically enumerated.

Ms. Ozretich's view is the modern "progressive" view that has gained far too much influence. Those holding this view can only achieve their ends through the use of force. I'm not disputing that they may be able to prevail, I'm simply saying that to claim this is "moral" is an absurdity.

If a constitutional spending limitation was in place for the protection of taxpayers, I might be persuaded to approve of a strictly limited amount of spending toward "providing the general welfare," but we now live in a society that does not even seem to think in these terms.

For the convenience of readers, I once again present the web address for a column that complements and expands upon my remarks:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-immorality-of-government-mandated-health-care.

Richard Hirschi. Albany