Government, Charities, and the Poor

It is wisely ordained by nature that private connections should prevail over universal views and considerations, otherwise our affections and action would be dissipated and lost for want of a proper limited object.

-David Hume


In 2008, the United Way had to cut its budget. It came up $500,000 short in its fundraising goal of $12 million. It has come up short the last few years. In its mission statement, the United Way states its dedication to improving the lives of the unfortunate by providing education, income stability, and health care to those in need. While the federal government did not provide a mission statement, it too seeks to provide education, income stability, and health care to those in need.

The federal government budgeted $589 billion for social and welfare programs in 2008, (GDP in 2008 was $1.4 trillion). Only five percent of the almost $12 million raised by the United Way went to bureaucratic overhead. Only six percent of the funds raised by the Red Cross went to bureaucratic overhead. No figures were available as to how much of the $589 billion spent by the federal government went to bureaucratic overhead. The government does not keep track of those figures. Whatever the percentage was, you can be assured that it was greater than 6%.

$589 billion is a lot of money. You would think that spending $589 billion in one year would substantially improve the lives of those in need. But it didn't. Nor did the hundreds of billions of dollars spent the year before, or the billions before that. The government spends trillions and poverty grinds on. People are still hungry, homeless, and in need of medical care. National health care will be of little help to the poor. They do not have insurance so subsidies and insurance market places will make no difference to their plight.

If one tenth of the money spent by the government on the poor and those in need was instead given to proven charities such as the United Way, the Red Cross, or Habitat for Humanity, the lives of tens of millions of Americans would be significantly improved. Habitat for Humanity could provide tens of thousands of quality homes to those that need them. The government can only provide subsidized housing and rent assistance for homes and apartments for those able to navigate the bureaucratic maze. Once they receive assistance, it will be for homes and apartments in neighborhoods that no government official or lobbyist would ever consider living in.

There is no glory in letting charities and private organizations take care of the needs of Americans unless there is a photo opportunity to be had. There is no control either. The government is reluctant to let people take care of themselves and each other. The government wants to be needed. It needs to be needed. And so it insists on providing services no one on Capitol Hill would ever dream of availing themselves of.

Services provided by the government are at best cumbersome and inefficient, as anyone that has had to avail themselves of those services can testify. At worst they are bureaucratic swamps virtually impossible to navigate by those who seek to take advantage of them. The appeal of those services is the control they offer to government officials and lobbyists. For them, the prize is the power to manipulate society to their preferred goals. They measure their effectiveness by numbers and dollars. If people are helped, all the better for their newsletters and press releases.

There is little the government can offer the poor and the struggling that private organizations and charities cannot provide better. The thing is, you have to give to charities. They will not take. Government, on the other hand, will take. Many people tolerate government taking their money to help those in need because it is convenient. The poor and suffering are helped with no effort on the part of those paying their taxes. They simply pay their taxes and sleep better knowing those in need are being tended to.

When it comes down to it, liberals just don't trust people. They believe that if they take their hands off the rudder, society would revert to the petty, racist, homophobic, greedy, sexist, and selfish thing it was before they came along. If the government didn't collect taxes and help those in need, those in need would not be tended to: they would starve and sleep in the streets. People can not be trusted to take care of each other. For liberals, the only thing that can be counted to keep people from becoming heartless savages is government, specifically, a liberal government.

Charities have long existed. They have long helped people. But you have to give to charities. They do not take. You do not have to give to government. The government takes. It may be more convenient to let the government take care of those in need, but there is no virtue in it.