Help from Government or Charities

Let Charities Take Care of It


The argument is that we don’t want a “big government” spending tax money to help with this health care/social issue/environmental/housing/etc. problem—there are charities.  Let people donate their money to spend on problems important to them without stretching the US deficit.  


I don’t know if this is an explicit argument on the public table—since I don’t expose myself to the full range of news and views—but I feel this is a stance that people take.  


People who have some care about the problems others face may tell themselves that church or other charities are taking care of this.  Charities are at least in principle a potent agency.  But if people feel this way, maybe they are inclined to let small-government, low tax arguers win them over.


You know “Fermi’s Paradox” paradox applied to the question of alien intelligence in other worlds:  A popular way this is stated…..If they are out there, why aren’t they here?  The same response can be given to this problem—the role of charities versus the role of government in addressing societal needs.     


If there are sufficient charities to tackle these problems, why are there these problems still naggingly with us?    (Of course there is the flip side:  if there is sufficient government spending to tackle the problems, why do we have charities?—see below)


There are major charities and there are major big-money donors supporting some of these charities.  And yet?   


Donor A:  I give my money to solving cancer.  Others are spending on other problems.
Donor B:  I give to save the whales and ocean ecosystems.
Donor C:  I’m using my meager discretionary million to fight hunger in Africa.
Donor D:  I can see supporting these various charities in Dallas.  I can’t afford to just scatter money to these other places.
Donor E:  I’ll be leaving some money in my will.
Also:
   Can’t—paying alimony in five states.
 And:
   First Mars.
Let’s ask Elon a favor, to support our initiative to address homelessness in Texas.  


The problems are still out there, despite the efforts of good-hearted titans of capitalism giving back, and despite the good-hearted parishioners giving weekly in their church, all over the country.  The problems, the needs, are still there and big.


And I am not saying that government spending should or is able to take the place of all charities.  But some needs do not attract many charitable donations.  And some needs do not seem to many to be valid or worthy.  You have seen that media attention can bring out a spurt of public interest and giving—for a family who or a community that suffered a tragedy.  That often does not last.  And there are so many stories of tragedy untold.


There is also the root cause problem.  As a people  working through our legislature, we can address root causes that have led to problems.  And of course, that is another aspect of government that is scary to some who know their guilt.


The flip side?  Why are there charities if government could handle things?  Really, charities came first, probably because governments have long neglected the poor and classes of people deemed too low to care about.