Posted by
Albino Moose on Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:00:00 AM
I am compelled to comment today about a column from Joel Stein of the LA Times.(
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09116/965290-109.stm). Mr. Stein is annoyed that Pres. Obama is only lowering the percentage of deductible charitable giving and not removing the charity deduction altogether. He doesn't like the deductions because he feels that monies returned to others who donated are the equivalent of his own tax money going to support charities with which he doesn't agree. Mr. Stein claims that when he pays taxes to support government programs, at least he had the opportunity to vote for a representative who could then approve the project. I don't really have an opinion on whether the governmaent should be giving these tax deductions. I'd rather they do away with the insane tax code completely and do something like a national sales tax. But I digress. Mr. Stein may be right about the voting issue, but he has a basic misunderstanding of real charitable giving.
Mr. Stein writes, "Now, I like charities. I've even, after drinking heavily, given to some, such as CARE, Kiva, Partners in Health and a bunch of ones where a friend was helping some group by either running, biking, bowling or growing a mustache." Is this really all the respect he can muster for people who work so hard at sometimes thankless jobs becasue the truly care about their cause?
He goes on to say, "Less than 10 percent of charity money goes toward basic human needs. That's because a lot of people contribute to things that also benefit them. Schools get the second-biggest part of charity dollars, which means donations to Harvard, Stanford and Exeter, which is kind of like donating money to money." Well, Bill & Melinda Gates gave millions to universities for scholarships and building projects, all of which benefit students. With all the complaining the libs do regarding spending on education, they should be glad that people donate to universities and set up scholarships. Don't most on the left talk about education as a "basic human need" or at least a right? Other than a tax deduction and some name recognition, how are the Gateses personally benefitting from these donations? Oh, wait, I think the problem may be that when people give to private charities, the charities can meet the "basic human needs" without interference from the government. When private charities lose financial support and have to stop their services, then the government can step in, tax the plasma right out of the American people, and have all kinds of control of their new dependants.
The real problem with government being involved in meeting "basic human needs" like healthcare (which Mr. Stein would like), is that the connection between the giver and the recipient is severed. Many people, including my in-laws, think that paying their taxes IS charitable giving. They send their money to Washington and allow the government to deal with all those icky poor people. Why should any of us actually see or touch the needy? Because the touch of a real person is infinitely more valuable than just a couple bucks. This disconnect between throwing money at a problem and truly serving the needy is detrimental to the whole country. At least now, government is still drawing a distinction between government programs and PERSONAL charitable giving; giving you think about, feel for, and through which you show love to your fellow man.
Charles Dickens addressed the more insidious view when he wrote of Scrooge's unwillingness to give to charity:
""And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned – they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
The liberals try to paint conservatives as the miserly Scrooge, when in actuality, it is they who don't want to touch or love those who suffer. They feel that a government program is the superior form of charity. But it is NOT charity. One's obligation to his fellow human is not paid when he pays his taxes. True charity involves just what the word implies: personal love toward others by virtue of the fact that they are also human beings. Charity is not just a checkbox on your to-do list. It is intentional, meaningful, and each individual person's duty.