Why Personal Charity Would Work

I checked my email early this morning, and I was so excited to have an email asking me a question, specifically about what I thought an ideal government would be:

“what i wanted to ask was, what is your ideal government? you didn't really get into that. you mentioned a lot of determination and i wasn't sure if you were still kind of giving a bit of a life lesson or trying to reference something specifically. you mentioned government programs. what do you want to happen with that? i'm interested to know considering the election date is nearing.”

                I believe that my ideal government is one that stays out of the way as much as possible, while still protecting my rights and the rights of those around me. Government that provides defense, safety, and opportunity, is central while keeping government as local and direct as possible. I strongly believe in as localized government as is possible, as it is much more democratic in my belief. It’s much more tailored to the situations and events that happen, and allows for people to hold those in power directly accountable, and directly connects the consumer (us) with the government. It also allows individuals to have much more of an immediate and significant impact on policies that affect them.

                It’s such a big subject to write about, I have to focus somewhere so I’ll start with helping the poor and needy. As for the large social programs we have, I have a fundamental difference with them, in that there is huge difference between private charity, and government welfare programs. I have seen a private program in action that I believe helps much more and is much more effective and beneficial to all. The welfare program of my church, the LDS church is set up as follows. This taken from the fact sheet given at www.providentliving.org

Basic Principles

As disciples of Jesus Christ, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strive to follow the Savior’s admonition to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and those in prison (see Matthew 25:35–36).

 

The responsibility for each person’s spiritual and temporal well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church.

When members and their families are doing all they can to provide for themselves and still cannot meet their basic needs, they may turn to their bishop for temporary assistance.

The bishop, as a local minister, is in the best position to determine the nature and quantity of help required to meet the individual’s or family’s specific needs.

Once a month, members of the Church go without food and drink for two consecutive meals and contribute a fast offering at least equal to the value of the two meals. Bishops then use the fast offerings to care for those in need.

To assist bishops in helping members become more self-reliant, the Church has established storehouses, production projects, thrift stores, employment centers, and family services offices in many locations. Church members volunteer their time, talents, and skills to do much of the work in these facilities.

The purpose of Church welfare assistance is to help people to help themselves. Recipients of these resources are given the opportunity to work, to the extent of their ability, for the assistance they receive.

The Church also sponsors humanitarian relief and development projects around the world that benefit those of other faiths. These projects include emergency relief assistance in times of disaster and programs that strengthen the self-reliance of individuals, families, and communities.

Hundreds of full-time volunteers with skills and experience in education, agriculture, social work, business, and medicine serve throughout the world as part of these humanitarian projects.

More information is available at www.providentliving.org.

The great thing about a system such as this is that everyone wins, and those who need helped are truly helped. The givers gain the great feeling of helping people, and gain compassion and love for their fellow man by serving them voluntarily. Those who receive help, receive not only personalized help and job training and placement, but also are personally responsible to help in any way they can. It doesn’t rob them of self-respect, it makes them empowered and full of hope, as they work to contribute while they are getting help. It also works in that the main goal throughout the whole process is to better the person’s situation by finding them new work skills that leads to new jobs and self-sufficience. It truly is teaching someone to fish for a lifetime, rather than just giving them a fish for today.

                Contrast that with the huge impersonal government programs that take money from taxes. I personally don’t feel good about paying taxes, I don’t get the warm feeling in my breast when I see the taxes taken out of my paycheck. The money is given without feeling that it is doing good, so the giver loses that feeling. The gratitude and personal responsibility is replaced by a sense of entitlement, and a loss of self respect as people become dependent on the system to survive, a terrible kind of bondage. People become lifelong welfare recipients, and lose hope in making a better life for themselves.

                I think that we should keep welfare programs privately working, Americans are much more charitable than people think, and I think that people can help more, but figure that the government is doing it now. To those who think that Americans are cheap and unconcerned, I would like to include a column by John Stossel, a reporter famous for his 20/20 reports:

                The New York Times and Washington Post editorialize about America's "stinginess." Former President Jimmy Carter says when it comes to helping others, "The rich states don't give a damn." Standing outside the White House, the singer Bono told the press that America doesn't do enough to help the needy: "It's the crumbs off our tables that we offer these countries."

It seems obvious to Bono and President Carter that America offers "crumbs" because the governments of most other wealthy countries distribute a larger percentage of their nations' wealth in foreign aid. Yes, the U.S. government gave out $20 billion last year, much more than other countries give, but that's only because we are so stupendously wealthy. If you calculate foreign aid as a percentage of our wealth, the United States gives much less than others.

Actress Angelina Jolie calls that "really disgusting" in my new TV special, titled "Cheap in America." "ABC News" will broadcast it tonight (Wednesday, Nov. 29 at 10 p.m. -- sorry -- I know some of you are reading this column after that). Jolie goes on to say, "I think most American people, you know, really do think we give more. And I know that they would if they could understand how little they give and how much more we can afford to give, absolutely, without even noticing."

But wait a second ... when talking aid, why do Jolie and the others talk just about what the government gives? Why conflate America with our government? America is the people.

Jolie could look to herself as an example of the generous American. She gives weeks of her time and millions of her own dollars to charities. America is 300 million private individuals, and their contributions far exceed what government gives. When you include those, America is anything but cheap.

After the Asian Tsunami two years ago, the U.S. government pledged $900 million to tsunami relief. American individuals donated $2 billion -- three times what government gave -- in food, clothing, and cash. Private charities could barely keep up with the donations.

Americans' preference for voluntary contributions over forced giving through government is one way in which Americans differ from other people. (Don't think it's forced? See what happens if you don't pay your taxes.)

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks's new book, "Who Really Cares", points out that Americans give more than the citizens of any other country. Individually, Americans give seven times more money than people in Germany and 14 times more than Italians give. We also volunteer more.

And thank goodness we do, because charity does things better. I notice the difference on my way to work. In my neighborhood the "Men in Blue" -- that's what they call themselves -- clean streets. I wondered who the "Men in Blue" were. Day after day they did menial work energetically ... even enthusiastically.

It turns out that they are mostly former street people, ex-alcoholics, and drug addicts. A private charity, the Doe Fund, puts them to work while trying to teach them to be responsible and stay clean.

One year later, 54 percent of the "Men in Blue" are drug-free and employed. That's twice the success rate of other city shelters.

I'm still not sure exactly what makes Doe Fund successful, but they clearly have discovered something. I never see government workers clean anything with enthusiasm. Doe Fund workers do. It's why I voluntarily give them some of my money.

Charity almost always does it better.

America is a uniquely charitable country. So when you hear that "Americans are cheap," just remember: We gave $260 billion in charity last year. That's almost $900 for every man, woman, and child.

I’m a big believer that people are basically good, and that we just have make sure that people know what and how to help, and that they will.