Charity starts out as a noble thing to do. It stems from the golden rule and from the beginning of family where there were always leaders, hunters, gatherers, nurturers and those less endowed with skills, like children who are charitably cared for within the family, extended family, village and beyond. Charity is ingrained in our being. Those that have, provide for those who have not.

The early United States had no government safety nets for those who came to seek freedom and make their own way. Many died in the process from wars, accidents, disease and even starvation and thirst in the land of milk and honey North America provided. From churches and well-meaning organizations, charities sprung up to deal with local problems and then grew to be national or international. Like tithing in churches, charitable giving has become ingrained in our society and incorporated into the tax law with the deduction for most charitable giving.

Beginning primarily in the 20th century, government stepped in to replace charity with programs like the old age survivors insurance program or Social Security for those who no longer could work and, although they worked hard all their lives, were unable to accumulate enough wealth to live on in old age. Welfare at the local, state, and national level was added to budgets to take care of those who did not fit in any other program but were in great need. Welfare's requirements were always quite stringent and often provided very little. Debtors were often sent to prison in England. That didn't happen in the United States unless a crime was committed by just trying to live by stealing.

With the New Deal, socialized programs of support like Social Security and other temporary measures like the WPA, provided a safety net for those without work. But there were those who always wished that everyone could compete for their fair share. These were the people who saw the Great Society ideas of the Johnson Administration to be dangerous and detrimental to freedom and prosperity. So, the Reagan Administration promised great prosperity for everyone through reduced regulation, free enterprise, and trickle-down wealth to the non-earners at the economic bottom. One had to be either working or own property to benefit from trickle-down.

From the 1980s, wealth in the United States and much of the world has been steadily shifting from the working middle class to the wealthiest, and often luckiest, members of society. When people complained that many basic needs were not being met, George H. O. Bush declared in his "One Thousand Points Of Light" inaugural speech in 1988 that charity by all of us, could do what the government could not or should not, do.

I haven't done a study of charitable contributions and their impact on society, but I have learned that many charities spend more money on fundraising and paying their executives and staff than they do for the intended recipients of their charitable work. I'm not sure whether wealthier people give their fair share or not either. There is some indication that they don't. That was not a consideration of this article. But it is a fact that since President Bush made that speech, the rich of the United States and the rest of the world have become immensely richer and I'm not sure whether charities have grown in number and in activity to meet everyone's needs who is on the losing side of this trickle-down equation.

In 2010, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates jointly announced The Giving Pledge for their fellow wealthy. Basically, signers of the pledge would give at least half of their accumulated wealth away during their lifetime or upon their death. While most of these billionaires do not like to be taxed for their income or their inheritance, as of May, 2017, 158 individuals and couples have signed the pledge. Where and how they give their money is not disclosed, but Warren Buffett has run seminars for individuals wishing to know how best to give their money away. I am not wealthy and not privileged to know what those lavish seminars teach.

Beginning with Andrew Carnegie, a poor Scottish immigrant who worked his way into position of ownership and then used fellow immigrants in a most brutal and uncharitable way to amass a great fortune, charitable foundations began. Carnegie became guilty for his uncaring action and immense wealth and started the Carnegie Foundation. As a result, many institutions in Pennsylvania and the surrounding states have his name on them, including Carnegie Mellon University. By giving his money through his foundation to build buildings and institutions, Carnegie's name is forever etched in our society. Something that wealthy people soon emulated starting their own foundations and charitable trusts, always ensuring that those funds would always grow, glorify the name of the founder, and be distributed only to those charitable causes that fit the foundations' objectives.

That is the problem with charity. A given charity may decide to end malaria. Malaria is only one of many diseases inflicting pain on the poor in the tropics worldwide. And, eliminating malaria results in an increasing number of children growing past infancy. Thereby needing water, food and other necessities that are becoming more difficult to grow locally from over hunted, fished, gathered and farmed areas that are already overpopulated and ruined for sustained agriculture. There is no doubt that these charities do good, but the repercussions of their doing good leave a lot of holes in a worldwide safety net. What happens to the least of us affects the rest of us.

Recent natural disasters have shown that government, like FEMA and charities like the Red Cross, often come up short when it comes to providing assistance, if only on a temporary basis. It is only government, with programs that provide education, regulations that prevent corporate abuse, and basic welfare or workfare (a reverse tax plan for the poor that Richard Nixon proposed but never got passed) that can give everyone a fair shot at life support and self-esteem.

I hope that someone does a study of what charitable giving does for those that need help in the world, and how it compares with government programs. No one wants to provide free handouts for laziness. Workfare programs may be socialistic, but they're not communistic and they're built to honor and reward initiative without letting anyone out in the cold.

It is a myth that wealth creates work. Most of the wealthy are people who simply manipulate money like hedge fund operators. There are exceptions like Elon Musk of Tesla, Richard Branson of Virgin interactive lowered and others who are creating private ventures to move the world forward and provide employment for those talented enough to help them innovate, but they are rare in the sea of inherited wealthy trying to preserve their wealth while lavishly spending. Most of that wealth creation jobs of servitude.

To sum up this long discussion, charity will only serve those who the charities' owners decide to help. Government programs, by their democratic nature, must serve everyone equally. And, government programs should never become perpetual entities, but must be regulated and often reviewed to see whether or not they are still needed as people leave poverty and are able to be productive again.

Copyright 2017 © Ronald W. Hull

10/11/17