Faith, Hope, and . Government? By Gary C. Lawrence If a neighbor confides that he and his family do not have enough food to eat, 91% of Americans in an Audience Alliance poll said they would feel a moral obligation to help.1 But this admirable impulse, strong as it may appear on the surface, is under attack, not from the heartless 9% who don’t realize that we are all beggars, as King Benjamin explained,2 but from a growing belief that government should intervene and become the guarantor of charity. Of those nine out of ten who feel a moral obligation to help their neighbor, an unbelievable 29% actually agreed with the proposition that “society has a duty to enforce my obligation.” In other words, “I want to help but I’ll wait until government forces me to do so.” Fortunately, 58% of those feeling the urge to charity say government should butt out, a percentage that has undoubtedly shrunk since the days of our hardier ancestors. Further evidence of a growing “let government do it” mentality is that 58% agreed with the statement that “government has a duty to provide food” for this neighbor. The danger to a supposedly self-reliant people is how easily this attitude might morph into the belief that government has a duty to feed all of us. There are three problems when government becomes the source and conduit for charity:
Waste Without a doubt, waste is the prime descriptor of government programs. Excessive administrative costs, bloated bureaucracies that do not create wealth, and sloppy execution are the warp and woof of such programs as many independent audits have confirmed. But it goes beyond that. Faceless bureaucrats who run government entitlement programs deal only with quantitative criteria as they determine who gets what. If a person fits an impersonal Washington-created formula based on things that can be quantified, he is entitled. No room is left for qualitative judgments. Yet it is the qualitative assessment that makes local, person-to-person assistance so successful. People voluntarily involved in charity programs at the local level are more likely to know the recipients and can work a solution that goes beyond cold statistics. They consider additional factors and are more likely to know, for example, if the person is truly seeking a job or only going through the minimum motions needed to qualify under a government program. They are more likely to know if there are extenuating circumstances in the family that a government formula does not take into account. In short, volunteer organizations are more likely to know the real needs involved and are more skilled at uncovering fraud. (I’m reminded of a bishop in my stake assigned to handle requests from ostensibly stranded members seeking assistance. Smelling a scam in one such phone call, he asked the “member” what his calling was. “My what?” “Your calling, your job in the Church?” “Oh, I uh, uh, I help the priest with the candles.” Dial tone.) Stunted National Character The scriptures tell us to “succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees,”3 and that we “should impart of [our] substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.”4 The scriptures do not say to pass laws that will tax others so that charity can be administered by government. Those who favor such forced income redistribution say that “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity” and “.giving is a selfish pleasure and in many cases is a downright destructive and evil thing.”5 Better, such liberals say, to let wise central planners protect the self-esteem of the downtrodden. And they prove it by making fewer personal donations to charities in dollar amounts than their conservative counterparts, even in many cases when it comes to non-religious charities.6 This may be why a certain potty-mouth vice president gave a whopping 1.44% of his income last year to charity, while the average (and less fortunate) American family gives 3.5%. He apparently justifies his miserliness because he pays taxes, a bit reminiscent of one Ebenezer Scrooge deflecting a request for a charitable contribution, “Are there no more poorhouses?” While there will always be haughty givers, true charity has two converging meanings – to give freely of our substance because of the pure love of Christ. Character is improved for both the giver and the recipient when the act of charity is performed in such a spirit. The giver who recognizes that all he possesses comes from the Lord does not feel superior to the recipient. The recipient so blessed by the charity feels an obligation to respond in kind, to improve himself, and that when he is blessed with possessions, he in turn will share them with others. How can we learn to love all people if our contact with those who walk a different path is limited? If government intervenes and takes over the face-to-face task of charity, what opportunity will the taxpayer have to empathize with those who are suffering? How can we grow in character if government places an antiseptic barrier between those who can give and those who are in need? Serving others through direct contact is part of Christ’s gospel and is necessary for our growth. But if we let government tax us to deliver charity, thus shielding us from the sweet, character-building experiences we would otherwise have, we will be the poorer for it. Diminished Gratitude Government-run charity not only robs us of money and character, but more critically the benefits of gratitude. When people receive help from government, whom do they approach, look in the eye and say, “Thank you” in a heartfelt way? It doesn’t happen, at least not in the same way a person says thanks when he receives help from members of his own community who have built a charity service with their own contributions. Roger Scruton notes in the April issue of the American Spectator7 that the “proper response to a gift, even a gift of charity, is gratitude. People who feel gratitude also wish to express it. The easiest way is to give in one’s turn.” But, he goes on, that desire fades because “the state deals on impersonal and equal terms with its citizens [and] charity is replaced by justice.” The recipients in time come to view the charity as a right and entitlement, and entitlements in turn spawn claims, resentment and even lawsuits. The administrators of government funds, compassionate as some may be, become swamped with people pressuring them for their entitlements and are reduced to being conduits applying unbending formulas. Any feelings of gratitude that once may have impelled a “pass it forward” attitude are squashed. Scruton concludes, “[When] you receive what is yours by right you don’t feel grateful. . The spirit of gratitude retreats from the social experience..” When a person receives help from a voluntary organization, he or she is more likely to perform an act of charity for someone else and a pass-it-on chain begins. When a person receives help from government, however, that’s the end of the chain reaction. Gratitude is one of the natural glues that bind society together. If the glue goes, we go with it. * * * Gary Lawrence welcomes comments at ga**@la**************.com. 1 Audience Alliance poll, N=1000 registered voters, March 29-April 7, 2010. 2 Mosiah 4:19 3 D&C 81:5 4 Mosiah 4:26 5 Ralph Nader and John Steinbeck respectively, as quoted in Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares, pp. 64-65, Basic Books, New York 6 Brooks, esp. pp. 11-30 No Comments | Post or read comments |