Coerced Charity - we HAVE to have your money!
From the San Diego Union Tribune:
Far be it from us to criticize compassion. There is nothing wrong with helping one's fellow, especially if the person on the receiving end has fallen on hard times or is pursuing worthy causes.
Charity is a positive thing, and especially when it comes from private individuals as opposed to government. Otherwise, there is always the risk that the whole enterprise might become an exercise in fostering dependence
While the above is taken from an editorial bashing Oprah's new TV show, I was still surprised to see a major newspaper state what should be the obvious: government giving may foster dependence. Actually, dependence on the largesse of anyone can happen be it private money giving or public fund project.
Seemingly, it happens not with just individuals but with charities that have now gone on to be, over the years, professional social services organizations / NGOs / non-profits / pick your own name.
The Tribune editorial sets the stage for what I am really becoming tired of: in my local area, non-profits have become dependent on government tax money and believing that if they do not have access to it, chaos will certainly follow. After all, they are ceratinly talking as if they are entitled to it, that it is their right to have access to it. And they are not happy with elected officials (like me) and voters that are turning off the spigot. These NGOs are now letting people know of their plight by whining about it. It certainly seems that they think it will so help them:
The leaders from numerous human service providers said they understand that a number of budget committee officials [this would be me, among many -Skip] have questioned whether the money they are asking from towns is a form of "double dipping" as they received state or federal support that is funded through taxpayers dollars.
However, they say the support from municipal budgets is integral in allowing them to apply for and receive grant funding that requires agencies to prove they have support from local communities.
I note that they are not disagreeing that they are double dipping in applying for funding at multiple levels of government for tax funds. Given what they do here in NH, they will use each set of citizens (town, county, state, federal) as they believe necessary to get the funding. It is rather easy to see where I could be counted four times over at each taxing level for funding their program. And this practice is fair, how?
They certainly have made themselves dependent on that tax money, haven't they? We had welfare reform years ago - most people, even if grudgingly, admit that it worked - more people came off the welfare rolls and became less dependent on the government. Maybe it is time to do the same with NGOs / non-profits? Perhaps they would blossom as well? After all, don't we all know that the harder one works towards something, the better the outcome?
I also note, with more than a bit of annoyance, that we once again see a redefinition of terms and this is what drives me absolutely nuts. The two are absolutely not the same thing!
My definition:
Local community support = individuals within a given community agree with your mission and will support it and willingly give of their time and money.
Theirs:
Local community support = ability to persuade government officials to give us tax money.
After all, if you listen to what they say, which definition do you think they are using? And they WANT to grow (like any organization):
CAP gets a large majority of its funding through programs whose funding is linked in some way to the federal government, but he said most require community participation in the way of some form of matching support.
He said the support of local communities is vital in providing ancillary funding that allows him to hire more staff members to go out into the community in meet the needs of residents.
And then those self-same members (try "employees") have to justify their positions, right? No, not according to them. And you know what that means - growth means a need for additional funding, and the cycle never stops. They also believe that they HAVE to provide those services regardless:
"We have to provide those services whether they give us the money or not." said Keller (executive director of New Beginnings).
No, not really. Here is the cold, hard truth - no organziation is entitled to always exist. Government can, as it has the power to tax. Private companies start up and go out of business all the time if they do not provide the services or products that the market place does not want (or at the price they are asking).
Why should it be different with NGOs? While they do provide services, the measurement should be similar - if the general public (and not government) does not support their services via individual giving, why should they continue to be in existence?
Maybe there is a bit of glimmer of understanding that perhaps the times are a changin' in their area as well with them being "disturbed" at the access door to tax funds being shut. Or not:
Kathy Keller of New Beginnings (battered women's shelter) said a lack of support from towns like Gilford raises a question of awareness of how many people they provide services to in the town. She said in SB2 voting situations, groups like hers have little opportunity to reach out to voters and explain their services before people go in to mark ballots.
Well, THERE's an entitlement attitude fer ya!
Her words: a lack of support from towns
My Translation: Not a lack of support from the town, just a willingness to spend their tax money on government activities but not on NGOs. It is yet to be seen if there is a real lack of support (see below).
Her words: a question of awareness of how many people they provide services to in the town.
My Translation: Don't you people UNDERSTAND what we do and why you NEED US?
Her words: She said in SB2 voting situations, groups like hers have little opportunity to reach out to voters and explain their services
My Translation: A scam. Her group has been getting tax subsidies for years...I've never seen a comprehensive funding campaign from her organization (or others, other than United Way). She has plenty of time for next year - elections just happened. Do some quick planning and get on with contacting the PEOPLE in town and ask for financial support and just not their elected officials (true community support).
Her words: before people go in to mark ballots.
My Translation: Stuck in neutral and in an entitlement dependent mode of operation on taxes. Notice the knee jerk reaction of going after the tax money via the ballot.
Learn to raise money the old fashioned way - by asking individuals.
-----------------------------------------
Quick aside - for those of you who may decide to bounce a Biblical commandment about helping the poor, so why not use taxes? I saw this over at PC Watch, and I agree with it. We, as individuals, are commanded to help the poor - not government. We should not foist that responsibility onto government. Remember, it is our attitude that is important (and works after that) to God - just having it taken from taxes is having no attitude at all.
A Bible study on poverty
In a new book, "Red Letter Christians," Tony Campolo makes the case that Christians can fulfill their duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless by electing politicians who will make this the collective responsibility of the government and all taxpayers. For fear that even one Christian in America might be so misled by the noted evangelist and theologian, I decided to do something Campolo failed to do - consult the Bible.
Of course, that's not entirely fair. Campolo does offer a scriptural citation for his prescription for coercive wealth redistribution by government. It just doesn't apply. He cites Matthew 25:31-46, in which Jesus explains the responsibility each of us has individually to be compassionate to our neighbors in need. Notice Jesus did not suggest those listening to Him lobby Herod to take care of the poor. Notice Jesus did not suggest this was Caesar's responsibility. Notice Jesus did not suggest people, listening to His words then or reading them 2,000 years later, should mug the rich and distribute their wealth to the poor.
Jesus didn't suggest anything remotely like that to help the poor and truly needy. Instead, he speaks to each of us individually. He lets us know about this because it is the best prescription for both the poor and for us who make the sacrifice to help. Sacrifice is not meant to be easy. Sacrifice is not painless. And personal sacrifice is clearly what Jesus is prescribing for His followers in Matthew 25 - and throughout the rest of the Bible, for that matter.
Jesus doesn't suggest spreading the pain and sacrifice by forcing non-believers to carry the load. Jesus doesn't suggest reducing our own responsibility by foisting it upon the entire nation. Jesus doesn't suggest stealing from the rich to give to the poor. But that's what Campolo's version of enlightened Christian socialism is all about. He specifically says problems like poverty are too big for the individual and too big for the church. Only government can tackle them, he says. Gee, I wonder why Jesus forgot to mention that to us?
When Jesus talked to the rich young ruler, He told Him to sell his goods and give the money to the poor. Even Jesus didn't force him to do so - which He certainly could have done. Had He forced Him, the rich young ruler would still not be in obedience and still not eligible for the rewards of the afterlife. That is the result only of a personal decision to follow God, not the result of coercion.
There's nothing compassionate about taking from those who have and redistributing it. In fact, it would deny the Zacchaeuses of the world (Luke 19) from the gifts of repentance, forgiveness and salvation. Would that be biblical?
Go further two more chapters in Luke to learn of the kind of sacrifice God values. The poor widow who gave two mites, we learn, actually gave more than the rest. Why? Because it's not the amount that counts in God's eyes, it's the faith motivating the giving that counts. Campolo has this all upside down. God doesn't want or need our money to perfect His Creation. He requires our obedience and faithfulness.
The Bible does, however, warn us about people who use the poor as an excuse to sin, as a rationalization for sowing discord, as a means of undermining the very will of God. We see this explored in John 12, where Judas condemns Mary for putting expensive, perfumed oil in Jesus' hair. "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" demands the man who would betray Jesus. The next verse goes to Judas' motivations: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein."
Judas was like so many "do-gooders" today who demand we show compassion for the poor by giving them, the do-gooders, our money. That's not the way it's supposed to work. You're supposed to help the poor. You don't need a middleman, a Judas, a tax collector, a bureaucrat, a politician taking a cut. It's no longer charity. It's no longer compassion. It's no longer obedience to God.
And what did Jesus say to rebuke Judas' insolence? "Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." It seems eliminating poverty is not what God requires of us. The poor will always be with us, He says.
So why help the poor? Because God commands it. He doesn't tell us to solve global poverty. He doesn't tell us to pass the buck to others. He doesn't tell us to enlist government in the cause. He doesn't tell us to make the poor a political cause. God wants us to look the poor person in the eye when we give. He wants us to show God's love when we do it. He doesn't want us writing bigger checks to the U.S. Treasury. He wants us serving Him. And through serving Him, we help spread the good news of His grace.
Source
