Would the Poor Really Care Where Their Charity Comes From?
by John Reit (March 8, 2006)

The case can be made that, in many ways, conservatives and liberals are not that different from each other. We both want many of the same things. One of them being to help those we consider poor. With this issue, the similarity ends with our solutions to this “crisis.” Conservatives believe the only true way to help someone is with employment. It not only gives them an income, but teaches them responsibility and self-reliance. And if someone needs a helping hand getting back on his/her feet, we should look to private charities. Liberals, on the other hand, would rather just throw money at them and hope for the best.

Let's assume that the liberal solution is the way to go. For argument's sake, let's accept as fact that all a man needs to be financially secure is money. After all, this was the basic premise of the book, The Other Side , which was the inspiration for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson's War on Poverty. Does it matter where the money comes from?

Liberals have fought for decades to implement and then maintain government subsidies to the poor. Most of them have been vote-hungry politicians eager to paint themselves as saints on Earth, but many have also been private citizens who genuinely feel for the less fortunate and want to see their lot in life improved. Neither group really cares about the consequences of government welfare – whether or not it actually helps poor people – but simply that they are able to force taxpayers to be charitable.

But if charity is what they're after, why not rely on private organizations? There's so much data available that testifies to the inefficiency of government-run programs. Depending on the program, as much as 75 percent of taxpayer money goes to the operation of the welfare system. Leaving as little as 25 percent left for those this system claims to help.

Fortunately, the financial consequences of these programs can be measured. Their affect on their recipients cannot. After Social Security and welfare were expanded in the 1960s, American saw a surge in the illegitimacy, crime, and unemployment rates particularly in minority communities. The illegitimate pregnancy rate for blacks before LBJ's Great Society, for example, was 25 percent. It is now 70 percent. In other words, those for whom these programs were created actually suffered worse after than before they were implemented. Why? When you send a message that says, “if you're unmarried and get pregnant, we will take care of you,” it just might say to young black men (perhaps even subliminally) that even though it'd be nice if they stuck around and took care of the kids themselves… it's not imperative.

It's not as if this should have come as a surprise. The consequences of subsidized lifestyles were historically well known. In the 19 th century, Alexis de Tocqueville recognized the dangers of the English Poor Law, though he admired the ideals behind it. According to Tocqueville, t he beneficiary of charity did not have the luxury of guaranteed assistance; the recipient of government relief did. It was that “right” to assistance, Tocqueville noted, that undermines his incentive to work and therefore embeds a “poor” mentality.

So now that we have overwhelming evidence on its social and economic detriments – present day and historical – it's about time we came up with an exit strategy for this War on Poverty, and private charity is the only viable option.

What is it about this strategy that liberals object to? Why do they care where the money comes from as long as it gets to those who need it? I've read articles by so-called “progressives.” One of them theorized that charitable contributions by private citizens would be insufficient, noting a report that showed Americans contributed an average of only 3 percent of their incomes to charity. As lengthy and well thought-out as the article was, it completely ignored one very important point – the average American pays a third or more of their income in taxes, leaving only so much to contribute. Since the horrors of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina showed Americans are a very giving society, it can be safely assumed that the average charitable contribution would increase provided the government discontinued its role as universal problem solver.

If the left is so worried that private contributions won't match the actual amount of money that reaches the poor via federal subsidies , this would be the opportunity to put their money, and their time where their mouths are. Instead of screaming at politicians to steal from the taxpayer, those so dedicated to the plight of the needy could apply for jobs – or better yet, volunteer – at the charity of their choice. Perhaps in the Marketing or Public Relations departments where they could focus their passion and lobby corporate America to contribute to their causes. What company wouldn't want the recognition as a generous benefactor?

Of course, there is the ever predictable argument that there will still be those left behind; families who will still live in poverty.

Compared to what?

Exactly how is that different from our current situation? With over 70 years of government meddling, there are still poor people. There are still those who don't seem to have enough money. When liberals accept that there have always been poor people and there always will, perhaps they will be able to sleep a little better. They can at least take comfort that most poor people do not stay poor very long. Plus, those who do live in “poverty” live far better than the poor of other nations.

The fact is that before capitalism blossomed, most people truly lived in poverty. They lived on the equivalent of a few dollars a day. Most people were farmers engaged in back-breaking work (12 hours or more per day) for most of their lives with very little to show for it. Those who fell on hard times did not expect the government to take care of them. The Industrial Revolution allowed people to work fewer hours and for double the money than they would have made back on the farm.

Those in need did not go crying to the government. There were charities available that were more than happy to help them. Were there people left behind then? Yes. Are there people left behind now, even with rampant government assistance? Yes. So why are we so afraid to let go of federal welfare? Will the poor truly be worse off than they are now? Will they care where their meager assistance comes from?

Hey. What do I know? I'm just a cold-hearted conservative who doesn't care about the poor.