Charity... our responsibility or Uncle Sam's?

Conservatives often say that we would be much better off without government social programs. We contend that it is better and more efficient for the private citizens to donate their time and resources to help their brothers and sisters than to rely on the government to do this. The point of this post is to brainstorm and explore each path and point out the positive and negative aspects of each.

Government Subsidized Social Programs

Currently, we have many government subsidized social programs, and don't misunderstand, government subsidized means Tax Payer Funded. Some of these include, WIC, Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid, etc. Most of these, I believe were created either during the FDR administration as a response to the Depression of the 1930s or under LBJ and the Great Society. The purpose of these programs is to help support Americans (recently, even illegal aliens) who cannot support themselves for whatever reason. These programs aim to at least provide a comfortable existence. I think they do achieve this.

Unfortunately, we have to look at the cost. What are we losing as a result? This may sound calloused or cruel, but the reality is that there are many people living off these programs who are capable of providing for themselves. When the government does anything for any citizen, it MUST create a blanket program and set qualifying criteria. If Joe meets the criteria, he is allowed early Social Security, disability, and MediCare. The government is incapable of dealing with people case by case; it's a daunting task that would consume more tax payer dollars in administrative costs than you could imagine. So for efficiency's sake, we have the qualifying criteria. Back to Joe. Joe knows that he could work at McDonald's for $8k-$11k/year or he could draw his government subsidies for the same amount or probably more. Which will Joe decide to do? It is likely that Joe will decide that making just as much or more without spending time at McDonald's is the more profitable and pleasing choice. Because of this, government programs create dependency. When Joe starts receiving subsidies from Uncle Sam, what incentive does he have to wean himself from them? None. It's not like Joe can get a part time job and receive half of his disability. If Joe makes more money than the Qualifying Criteria says he can make, then he is cut from Disability and Social Security and MediCare. It is still more profitable for Joe to stay home and do nothing than to be a productive citizen.

What about the tax payers who are being productive? They are paying an extra 7.5% of their earnings to subsidize people they have never even met in corners of the country they have never seen... They are paying for Joe's lazyness! It's a good deal for Joe, it's a raw deal for responsible Americans who get up every morning and log 8-10 hours to support their own families and realize their own dreams.

Alternative, what does private giving look like?

First, let me qualify this by saying that we, as a society are so conditioned to letting the government take care of people that if all government social programs were abolished tomorrow, the result would be a disaster.

Having said that, if we never would have adopted these programs in the first place, Joe's life would likely be much different. Instead of sitting at home drawing a paycheck from Uncle Sam, Joe would be working. He would have to work because that is how you make money. However, people are generous, and if Joe was really in a sore place or needed help, his local church would be happy to help him meet his needs... not too much, not too little. You see, with a local philanthropy, resources can be, as the Bible says of the early church "distributed to anyone as he [has] need." (NIV Acts 4:35) This also makes every $1 of charity more effective than $1 of taxed money. Private citizens do not need the Politically Correct Qualifying Criteria with Highly Paid Administrations to distribute aid to a neighbor in need.

With 7.5% of income earned in this country back in the hands of those who earned it, more money will be available for charity. Will people use the extra 7.5% of their income for charity? Not always, but there won't always be a need for it either. Additionally, with a vacancy in the charity area, Charitible Foundations and Organizations will rise up because there are people out there who are very passionate about this issue and will do whatever they must to see to it that needy people are taken care of. And because the people are not looking to the government to solve the problem, Citizens will realize that it is a responsibility that must be taken seriously.

In the end, I hope that I have given some compelling reasons why government social programs are inferior to private sector charities. Ultimately, it will be near impossible for the government to give up what it already has, such is the nature of government--once it has control of something, it will never relinquish that control. While I'm not seriously advocating the abolition of such programs (as healthy for the nation as it would be in the long run), I am adamantly opposing the adoption of new social programs that expand the long arm of ever-growing government even further. IE, Mortgage Bailouts, Corporate Bailouts, Socialized Medicine (you know it works so well when you see the millions of Americans crossing the boarder to stand in a 6month line for Canadian Healthcare), Goverment Subsidized Warranties on GM vehicles, etc.