|
Government Forced Charities
You may be a generous person by nature. You may shovel an elderly neighbor's snow, or give your pocket change to a beggar. Generosity is usually considered an admirable trait. Should generosity be imposed by law? Is selfishness a crime?
It is the hallmark of civilization that we help those in need. No other animal in nature displays the compassion of humankind. In fact, our desire to help extends well beyond our own species. Foundations exist to save the whales, save the rainforest, and many other natural resources. Hundreds...no, thousands, maybe even millions of charitable organizations exist in the world today, from the Salvation Army, American Cancer Society, United Way, to the Make-a-Wish Foundation, etc. These organizations operate through voluntary private donations. The nobility of their efforts are not in question. Furthermore, their continued existence is a tribute to their success. Indeed, I applaud their ability to convince "regular people" to give up their hard-earned money to benefit a stranger facing more difficult circumstances.
The bone I am about to pick, however, is aimed
at one particular group of charitable organizations. I am
referring to our varying levels of government.
History In the early days of our country, our government took no part in charity. All charity was the work of churches, philanthropists, and the average person having a sense of community. It wasn't done because it was mandated, it was done because people wanted to improve their community as a whole. Over time though, our various governments joined in. Today the federal government spends nearly $2 TRILLION every year in support of "benevolence," accounting for about 2/3 of the annual federal budget. State budgets, while somewhat smaller, have similar ratios. County and municipal governments also participate, though individually with even more modest budgets. Some programs offer financial assistance to existing charitable organizations, other programs run the operation entirely, like Welfare and Unemployment programs.
Conflict? Is support of particular charities demanded of citizens? In America, the answer is most definitely YES. When tax-collected money is spent to support any charity, no matter how popular the charity might be, it is a FORCED support. In this light, government-sponsored charity is in direct conflict with the contention that we are a free society. Shouldn't a person be able to choose which charities they support or even to choose to support none at all, just as they choose which religion they believe or not believe? This is another example of our eroding liberties. If left to the freedom of the people, the charities that receive support will be an accurate reflection of social views. If a majority of people strongly believe in a particular cause, the free market would bestow a lot of support to that cause. Conversely, if a majority of people disagree, or are apathetic to a certain cause, it will not garnish great support. Ergo, society will solve the problems it sees as most pressing. To argue that nobody would support charity if they are not forced to, is a fallacy. Charities existed for thousands of years before our government imposed itself.
As it stands, with so many charities being supported by tax dollars, it makes all of us contributors to all charities. I find this forced support similar to a military draft.
And finally, the biggest travesty in the charity-world is the preaching of particular MORALITIES under the guise of charity. Our federal government's Faith-Based Initiatives go well beyond helping the needy. The first 3 programs are aimed to eliminate premarital sex and children born out of wedlock. These PERSONAL VALUES do not help the needy, yet they are mixed in with programs that do. Yet another example of the villainy of "King George."
There is an argument that the term "general welfare" which appears in the preamble of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to issue unlimited benevolence. However, that was not the original intent. The issue did indeed exist in the burgeoning years of our country. James Madison said "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Later, he added "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined ... [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." See more quotes at later in this essay.
Conclusion I do, however, believe the most basic charities should be shared by all people, and could be supported by tax revenue if the PEOPLE so choose (has this question ever appeared on a ballot?). That is, the basic survival-level endorsement of food, clothing, and shelter. Read my essay on Social Programs for more information. The survival of people is in the interest of all humans. Any more than that should be left to the freedom of the individual. I earned my money and should be allowed to spend it as I see fit. It is wrong to force someone to support such a variety of ideals that it impedes their own decent living.
Imagine a man trying to support a wife and 3 children on $8/hr. At that income level even the basic necessities like soap and toothpaste are a challenge. Now consider how wrong it is to collect tax from that person in support of Prisoner Re-Entry Programs (as an arbitrary example). What a travesty that his meager income must go to educate a convicted criminal rather than to buy pencils for his children's schooling.
This is not to say that charitable activity should stop. It should continue as it always has with great success in the private sector (historically, government intervention in charity has been spotty). Governments should impose no impediment to charities, and people should be free to contribute to causes based on their own conscience.
Want more? http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/reed200603020809.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz47.html
Relevant Quotes “Charity begins in the home.”
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -- James Monroe, 1794 in response to French refugees seeking relief in Baltimore and Philadelphia
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide
for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." -- Franklin Pierce, 1854 Presidential Veto Statement
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." -- Grover Cleveland, 1887 Presidential Veto Statement
Scary Quote “Government cannot be replaced by charities...” -- George W. Bush, White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Grant Catalog |
The opinions expressed
here are mine alone. Care to comment? Click
HERE |