Charity
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
- 1.the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
- 2.an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
- We often hear about the need to be charitable. I agree, in fact I feel it is essential to our salvation. Why am I writing about charity here, rather than on the rim? it is simple really. Note the first definition. Voluntary. Whether you believe in charity from a religious point of view, or from a humanist point of view, the key to charity is that it is voluntary. The second definition is a structured vehicle to aid those in need, whether it be the Red Cross, Salvation Army, various church charities, etc, The organization provides formal infrastructure to manage aid. It is completely dependent on the first definition. That it is voluntary. Do we capture a reoccurring theme here?
- As it is voluntary, charity cannot take on a government form. Governments can provide assistance, and do, but they cannot be construed as charities. Many feel that as government provides needs based assistance, that they can be satisfied they are doing their part to help the poor, and thus do not provide aid in soup kitchens, donate service, or funds to individuals or organizations. After all, they pay taxes, right, and taxes help fund those activities. In fact, this is what many on the left point out is the "charitable work" that the welfare state provides. They point out, wrongly, that it is hypocrisy that many of those that advocate reducing government aid, and reforming the system consider themselves Christians. They say that they are cold, uncaring, harsh, and on and on. They hint at racism, and all sorts of other -isms. What is the problem? Definition 1. Taxes are not voluntary. They are extracted under threat of fines, and jail time. At gun point, ultimately.
- Of course, those on the left fail to point out that when it comes to actual giving, most of them are cheapskates. They are scrooges who measure to the nearest tenth of a penny, (don't think so? check the price of gas.) While those on the right traditionally are far more generous, and when it comes to the charitable organizations, those on the right give to those charities that have a direct impact on the poor, not large groups that advocate for certain policy things (think Common Core, Planned Parenthood, etc.)
- So, let's pretend, for a moment that government is charitable, (as charitable as it can be, stealing from one group to give to another). How does it fare compared to other charities? When people are looking for a charity to donate to, they are often given the guideline that 85% of the donation goes to the end use, and is not swallowed in administrative costs. Some charities have a higher rate, some have lower, but let's see how the federal government compares to that benchmark. Federal statistics state that aid to those below the poverty level tops $60,000 a year, per family. That is at the top of the funnel. $60k a year. No one should live in poverty like that. The median income in this country is around $50,000. So there are bureaucratic costs. How much? Well, the estimate is out of each dollar allocated, approx. 15 cents makes it to the end user. Eighty five percent administrative costs.
- I have read that the founders knew that as government does things inefficiently (which we are living witnesses today) It should only handle only those things that can't be handled by anyone else. Perhaps if they focused on those things (border anyone?), and left everything else to charities, and people helping people charitably, things would be better.
- The poverty level before the Great Society and all the subsequent plans to win the war on poverty? 15%. The poverty level after over $40,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) spent? 15%. Except now we have millions who are trapped in that welfare state, which Starr Parker (black author) called "Uncle Sam's Plantation". Slaves to those who promise to keep the drip on. Maybe we should consider that war lost, and move on.
:
Comments
Post a Comment