The federal government imposed an unprecedented tax on Americans for a new plan, citing the words of the constitution: “To promote the general welfare.”

Negative reaction was immediate:

• National Association of Manufacturers: “A first step toward socialist control of life and industry …”

• Chairman of General Motors: “The dangers are manifest.”

• Rep. John Taber, R-N.Y.: “Never in the history of the world has there been any measure so insidiously meant … to enslave workers. … Opens the door … to a power so vast as to threaten our institutions …”

• Rep. Daniel Reid, R-N.Y.: “The lash of the dictator will be felt.”

The occasion for this new tax plan and the outcry against it was the passage of the Social Security Act on Aug. 14, 1935.

Several cases against Social Security reached the Supreme Court in 1937. We may think of judges as being “liberal” or “conservative.” A more helpful distinction describes judges as “strict constructionist,” or accepting “implied powers” in the constitution.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were “strict constructionists,” feeling that our government can legislate only in areas specifically named in the constitution. This understanding of the constitution has remained as a check against unconstitutional laws.

On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton and many others have believed that the clause in the preamble and in Article I Section 8 of the constitution ordering the government to “promote the general welfare,” carries “implied powers” to meet new conditions with new responses. In 1937, the Supreme Court held that Social Security “promoted the general welfare” and thus was constitutional. This use of the “general welfare” and “implied powers” in the constitution underlies many of the laws that are foundations of modern American life.

There have been other cases of federal law moving into new constitutional territory. Our federal government launched a new plan to support medical care for the elderly.

The outcry was immediate:

• The New York Times predicted “There will be long lines of old folks at hospital doors, with no rooms to put them in, too few doctors to care for them …”

• The American Medical Association vehemently opposed the plan, placing large ads in one hundred newspapers: “This is the beginning of socialized medicine …”

• Hospitals in Mississippi and other states refused to accept the plan, which included all races.

• The government paid 5,000 workers to go door-to-door in an attempt to enroll reluctant seniors. One elderly widow said, “If I sign up for this, they will take over my house and throw me out.”

The plan in this case was Medicare, advanced by President Lyndon Johnson, and passed by Congress in 1965.

We naturally feel fear or uncertainty when any new plan affects our lives. New plans often have problems that need correction. This was true with Social Security and Medicare, and it is true of the Affordable Care Act.

An unfortunate response to the fear of newness occurs when unscrupulous groups exploit fear with exaggerated claims and outright lies, which lead uninformed voters to panic and fight against the very things that will enhance their lives.

— Allan Smyth lives in Prineville.