Carte Blanche: Charity Vs Government Spending

joel muniz

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," according to US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Celebrities and politicians have often thrown around this quote to illustrate their points. We could not have a functioning society without taxes. Not just that, but everything necessary for the flourishing of human life must be provided by a government that understands what that is and how to allocate resources. It reduces all of life's complexities to a known formula that can be easily manipulated to address any issues that arise. A cost assessment is generated for basic programs like welfare and government operations, and taxes are created and eventually increased to cover the costs over time. It seems simple enough. The answer to the question of whether the programs are working is just as easy to answer. Raise taxes again. Roads and schools can only function properly if they have enough funding; if they don't, they need more. In a nutshell, that is the logic used for anything the government runs. Efficiency is more important than efficacy, and impact is ultimately the ability to reach a predetermined end state. However, the most glaring problem for any government program is what happens when it solves the problem it was designed to fix? There's no way of knowing. It's never been done.

Most politicians will argue that the well-being of their citizens is the government's primary responsibility, especially for those who are vulnerable or unable to look after themselves. The war on poverty has been going on for sixty years, and in that time, over $27 trillion has been spent to eradicate poverty from the US. Despite the ambitions of multiple administrations regardless of party affiliation, the programs that targeted issues such as homelessness, food scarcity, and unemployment only contributed to the decline in poverty rates in the first seven years. So, where is all of the money going? According to the Cato Institute, the vast majority is not actually going directly to those who need it; instead, up to 70% is spent just funding the bureaucrats who run the programs—salaries, office space, pensions, etc. It is also easy to make the argument that the programs are self-defeating, in that the vast majority using them are on them for years at a time, if not longer. So not only do they not help, but they also keep people dependent on a system that ties them to government funding to survive. None of which helps those most in need. Regardless of what country anyone comes from and at any time in human history, it is a universal truth that government is neither speedy nor efficient. However, this doesn't mean we should lose hope. There is an alternative to relying on the government to solve problems that would benefit the country, but put them out of a job. Charities within the communities that need it and volunteerism can — and has always been — the most effective way to solve these problems. Because non-profits receive substantial funding from government subsidies, they are inclined to spend less on their stated missions. However, federal law requires them to spend at least 5% of their budget on charity each year. Recent Trump Administration efforts to significantly reduce the spending on foreign aid and welfare programs has had a surprising effect on these private foundations. Some have made it a point to increase, not decrease, their charitable donations, and philanthropy has increased from both wealthy individuals and private organizations. The fear that those most in need may be neglected or overlooked has prompted action from individuals as the government looks to rein in spending on programs that many depend on. A far quicker response than can be expected from the government and at the local level, which ensures resources get directly to those in need.

Homelessness is an issue that has always been relevant. However, what hasn't often been understood is how to solve the problem. The standard answer is that the government must provide adequate housing, meals, a living wage, healthcare, and so on. The answer continues to be, as President George H.W. Bush put it, "the soft bigotry of low expectations." The idea that so many are incapable without the government stepping in to save them. Private charities have raised over $10 trillion for social welfare since 1965. There is plenty of evidence that, as government spending declines, private charitable donations and programs increase to meet the community's needs. An article by Non Profit Quarterly shows that over 44% of foundations are considering grantmaking priorities to address new or worsening funding gaps. Going a step further, 54% are seeking new opportunities to collaborate with other funders. Foundations and non-profits are realizing that someone has to step in to address government shortfalls, and are doing so despite the likelihood of a steady decrease in federal funding. This means that communities not only recognize the issues but also respond to them as they become more evident. The government often hinders philanthropy and community outreach through red tape and overregulation. The primary issue is apparent in how the government has decided to address something as simple as solving hunger. There are rules in place about what can be explicitly offered and how. Dictating exact quantities and options eliminated children's freedom of choice and led to waste. It didn't matter to those who enforced these federal rules and guidelines because they didn't interact with either those who needed the food or those who oversaw providing it. Rules are rules, and they were not wasting tax dollars—only those of private charities, who were, after all, in competition with the government's monopoly. 

There are things which only the government should handle. National defense is a prime example. The terms 'highest bidders' and 'national security' are two concepts we don't want used interchangeably. That leaves a vast swath of territory that would be better off left to the people living in their communities to decide how best to handle their problems. Federal taxes that fund the ever-growing government are not as easily changed or negotiated as they are at the state and local levels. In fact, federal representatives and senators are not as easily dissuaded by their local electorates because so much state funding is guaranteed by these programs that employ large groups across the nation. At the same time, their constituents may not want them, but it's often in their own interests to vote for them. If that money and choice were left with state elected officials, it would be much easier for the people to voice their concerns and vote to end funding for what they don't want. If there is anything that donating time and money guarantees over government funding, it is the right both to choose and the right to change. If something works, it can continue; if it doesn't, then both money and time can be put into what does work without the distractions of appropriations, committee meetings, or reelection campaigns. The power to choose and the right to decide give the people the ability to effect lasting, meaningful change that the government often hoards for itself.