.jpg?1305035296)
When there is an earthquake or tsunami, when there is hunger and poverty, there is no other country in history that has been more charitable than America. America, bar none, is the most-giving country that has ever existed.
Claire Gaudiani, author of Generosity Unbound, mounts a spirited defense of the impact of philanthropic freedom on Americans and America's culture. She asserts that America's distinctive tradition of citizen-to-citizen generosity has been a powerful engine of economic growth, social support, and upward mobility. Americans believe in providing a helping hand, and such help makes a difference.
Unfortunately, more and more Americans are looking to government to care for the welfare of citizens. The proliferation of programs, assistance and entitlements allow some Americans to feel "charitable," but they're "charitable" with other people's money. Like modern day Robin Hoods, they want politicians to take more from the rich and give to the poor and middle class.
But these are not the "evil" rich who Robin and his merry men could justify robbing. These are the same rich Americans who have earned their wealth legally and already give the most to charity. Census data shows that households earning $200,000-plus, which comprise only 2.6% of all households who submit tax returns, give nearly 50% of all individual charitable contributions.
But no matter who pays the bill, isn't caring for the general welfare of citizens one of the roles of government? Commenting on the Constitution's general welfare clause, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
James Madison agreed: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
But what about giving welfare to the poor, saving businesses "too big to fail," or paying for the medical care of people who can't afford to pay. In 1794, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object to Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist French refugees. He asserted, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." He added, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
This limit on charity was not limited to the founding fathers. President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
This is obviously not the America of today! Today, at least two-thirds of our multi-trillion-dollar federal budget is spent on "charity" or "objects of benevolence." People would argue: How would Americans cope without government support. Isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron counters, "The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."
In the days before FDR's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society, it was the Christian church and other community charities that provided food, clothing and shelter for the poor and destitute members of society.
For example, during The Great Depression and thereafter, the majority of "soup kitchens" and "shelters" were run by local churches. The homeless were provided a warm meal, a place to rest, and a chance to hear the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. Christians in those days understood that if you were to address the needs of the soul, it was best to first address the needs of the body.
That commitment of Christians is even evident in today's challenging times. Rick Dunham, the president and CEO of Dunham+Company, reviewed the results from their 2010 Philanthropy Survey. "When you dig into the data, you find that more of those who frequent religious services indicate that in spite of the economy, they are continuing or increasing their support of charity in 2010 compared to 2009," he said in a press statement. "Fewer of these households have reduced or stopped their giving. This is especially impressive as there is actually a 10% increase in the number of non-religious households who say they have stopped their giving as we enter 2010."
Americans still care, and care is best provided by our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent, existing religious and community organizations, and other local resources. It's time we let Americans meet the needs of those in their midst instead of leaving the job to wasteful and distant government programs. We've done it before, and we can do it again.
Dennis Prager reminds us of the cost of "government giving:" "Not only does bigger government teach people not to take care of themselves, it teaches them not to take care of others. Smaller government is the primary reason Americans give more charity and volunteer more time per capita than do Europeans living in welfare states. Why take care of your fellow citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?"
Maybe it's time we return to being a people of charity who are ready to give a hand up, not a perpetual handout that creates dependence on government.
Maya Angelou, the celebrated American poet, captures the reality that in giving we also receive: "I have found that among its other benefits, giving liberates the soul of the giver... When we cast our bread upon the waters, we can presume that someone downstream whose face we will never know will benefit from our action, as we who are downstream from another will profit from that grantor's gift. Our bounty, once decided upon, should be without concern, overflowing one minute and forgotten the next.... When we give cheerfully and accept gratefully, everyone is blessed."
May it be so.
