Outside Agencies
Well, it certainly seems that the outside agencies / non-profits / prof. services / professional charities are certainly being active on the local scene as the kvetching as tax fund spigots all over are being closed. They just don't seem to be getting the message that in many cases, that the general public is NOT stupid or ignorant about their mission. Rather, they would just prefer, in most cases, that their tax money not be spent on them.
Abbreviation - town support is NOT the same as tax money. Yet, many still think that access to tax money is the only yardstick to be used to judged the level of support.
Well, even the erudite George Will weighs in on this - in his latest column, he quotes from the book of one of our earliest guests on Meet The New Press - Dr. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse.
The money quote (pun intended):
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
As a conservative, I stick to the traditional view of charity - by an individual for individuals (or group of such people) as an active choice of will. It is an action that takes thought. It is a personal sacrifice that is willingly made to help my fellow beings (here or abroad)
Payment of property taxes is an obligation - not an act of charity. From my property taxes, I expect concrete actions put in motion via regulaed / approved methodology with measurable results.
Thus, there seems to be a wide chasm over my protestations of using my tax money for someone else's charities vs their belief that forced collective payments is their right to have government posses the right to do so.
And George enumerates some of these:
• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.[snip]
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other people's money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
