Growing up I really did not like Charles Dickens' novel, A Christmas Carol. All I could see was a grumpy, mean old man with regrets and yes, a scary ghost or two. To my young mind this was not the stuff of Christmas. I am glad to say that over the years I have matured and learned to appreciate A Christmas Carol and would even name it among my favorites.
Early in the novel, Ebenezer Scrooge is approached by two fellow businessmen and asked to make a donation to the local orphanage. You may recall Scrooge's response, "No." Do you recall his rationale? He reasons away his lack of charity because he pays taxes. Since the government takes a part of his tax to help fund the orphanage, he has already made a contribution.
Do you know when American giving was at it's apex?
*During the Great Depression. Yup, when people had the least amount to give, they gave the most. Is it possible that the sense of community, caring for one's neighbor and bearing each other's burdens led to charity on the micro level? In other words, people were giving locally in order to care for their community, more specifically the people in their community.
Is it also not possible that the growth of the welfare state has contributed to the decrease in charitable giving because like Scrooge we, as a nation, view our taxes in part as a charitable contribution?
Additionally, I wonder if welfare implies that the government is caring for my neighbor and I am in turn absolved from my responsibility to my neighbor. In a sense, I have "subcontracted" my responsibility to the government. This article by Arthur C. Brooks seems to confirm that idea.
As "Soaps" said in response to the first blog about community, "When I am my brother's keeper n he is my keeper Community happens :)"
I am not advocating a total stop to welfare, nor is this intended to become a political post and debate. Rather the focus is on community.
What do you think? Is it possible that welfare enables a conscious, or even subconscious, abdication of our duty/responsibility to our neighbor and community? Might another unintended, and ironic consequence be the weakening of community and a strengthening of classism?
As always I look forward to your comments.
* I have been looking for this stat but can not find it. If anyone has this verified lease let us know. I know I have read that as a percentage of personal income people gave just over 3%, now people give on average less than 3%.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteGood post. I wholeheartedly agree. I've heard that this has played out in former communist countries. The government "took care" of everyone, so they really had no culture of philanthropy. I also hear that there is a similar problem in places like Germany where taxes are so high and the government is expected to the the caretaker. It robs the people of demonstrating compassion.
God has made us to be generous-it's part of being made in His image I believe and we must be free to express that.
The disaster in Haiti is another example, money poured out as people saw the need-even in a recession!
Government leaders must never forget that they are not the only ones contributing to society...they must work in partnership with business and the church (or any spiritual entity).
Thanks Bob, and thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comments. Many EU nations are backing away from their high levels of socialism, including Germany.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think there is validity to your statements here.
ReplyDeleteFor example...
if I have a friend thats in a tough spot, who I know would qualify for unemployment...
I'm much more likely to help them get the things done so they file and start getting unemployment, then I am to pay their rent for them.
In part because I know the funding they would receive from the government is sustainable... whereas I can't promise them sustained financial help over a long period of time.
Additionally with income tax as high as it is (as well as student debt being at an all time high in the work force)... i think that its easier for people to FEEL like they have less money and are not able to give, because they see it as well i only have a tiny percentage of my annual salary to actually work with.
I will check at work and see if I can find the giving statistic for ya.
The Welfare System does more. It segregates people, divides people, and it takes away any remaning self respect that a recipient has.
ReplyDeleteThe system forces its participants to abide by their rules, and its the government that makes the rules.... When Governments make the rules then you must abide by them or get into trouble or loose all sources of help.
The system does not have limitations, and therefore has become a free ride.
Example: I know of a gentleman who is capable of working, bagging or working at a fast food restaurant. but why should he...the government pays his rent, gives him $300 in food stamps and $1500 plus a $250 check midway through the month.
Now I am not saying he should be cut off, but clearly a re-evaluation of his benefits are in order...
As of now there is no incentive to become self sufficient...instead the government allows him to live life free....
I must add I have seen his department NICE....and his LCD HDTV and its bigger than what I could ever afford, and I work every day....
Further questions that were asked
ReplyDelete"Do you think if the system were cut WAY back, even privatized that people would care for their neighbor when the chips are down or would they hang 'em out to dry, or at least turn a deaf ear?"
The system needs reform, as a Conservative small L Libertarian I say why rely on Government, its YOU, yourself that has the best thing going... invest in yourself.
Caring for a neighborhood is not a racial, job, rich, poor status. It comes from the heart. It comes from having self respect, not just for you, the individual but everything around you.
I was taught as many of my peers I am sure, to keep your hands to yourself. Not to touch, or play on things that are not yours. This is still true for me today, its so ingrained by my upbringing that it is hard to escape.
Now for an example of what I mean. Hartford Connecticut in the early 80's was going under some sort of revitalization of sorts. There was this one apartment complex that was mostly section 8 housing that I recall that the residents were protesting and screaming at their local government to fix.
Mind you windows were broken, plumbing either leaking or not working, trash and garbage all over the place, just deplorable conditions. So the state came to the rescue. Now when I say state I mean the STATE OF CONNECTICUT with tax payers money.
The individuals were moved to new places to live for the next 18 months while the units were gutted, rewired, replumbed, new fixtures, new walls, new ac and heating units, new fencing, new everything...roofs, gutters, carpets, flooring.
The residents were moved back in with much fanfare and the look on these peoples faces were of smiles and happiness.
By the time the first year was over, most of the windows had been broken and the trash on the lawns were piled higher than before...rats infested the area...along with drug use.
So the residence were complaining again, about the same issues that they were screaming about just 2 years prior.
My question is this, MILLIONS of dollars were spent to help you folks live a better life, why did you not take pride in your housing, which was quite nice .... and keep it up. If you saw a McDonald's food bag or burger king bag or whatever on the lawn why did you not pick it up and throw it away. Instead you allowed these items to accumulate on the lawns and property.
And some point people have to say we can do no more, look what we gave you, and look what you did to it...you the resident allowed this to happen....Therefore when you give something to someone by way of someone else's money, because that what tax payers money is...its someone else's hard work that resulted in the collection of that dollar, to be used on those less fortunate, that in itself can lead to only one thing, dependence.
Michael, I agree that welfare is certainly one factor in the decline of charitable giving, and in that sense the erosion of community. Unfortunately I think that it is on both sides of the equation. As you point out, those who do not believe they... have a reason to give because the government uses their taxes to "take care of others," and hence an erosion of any sense of community. I also believe that there is an erosion of community for those that receive welfare. The aid they receive is not connected to the kindness, charity, or generosity of individuals or a community. There is a disconnect that what they receive comes from someone else. Sadly any sense of gratitude is often replaced by a sense of entitlement.
ReplyDeleteAnd so the question comes back to this...
ReplyDeletePRIDE and COMMUNITY, where and when does this happen.
Government can not teach people this aspect of life, it is up to the families to teach their children between what is right and wrong...
I remember the time that my brother stole a pack of gum from Stop and Shop Grocery Store. He got an Butt Whipping like I have never seen...right there in the parking lot while other parents walked by....you do that today, and someone is on the phone calling 911 and reporting you for child abuse...
We have gone from one spectrum to the other, and what one must ask is....
What have we done to the last two generations those born after 1980 and those being born now...what kind of society are we becoming?
One of respect or one of entitlement...do as I plase, do as I want???
When people say things were different when Iw as a kid, I now understand.
OK. The question is "Could welfare be eroding the community?"
ReplyDeleteI'm going to look at it the other way around: "Is an eroded community the reason we have welfare?"
As background: I struggle with panhandlers on the street, or waiting at stoplights clutching a tattered sign stating the required disaster synopsis. Homeless; Widowed; Vietnam Vet; Hungry Children, etc.
I don't know these people; I don't know their true story; their faces become familiar, though, and sometimes I see them at different locations based on the day and time of day. I have read articles detailing the secret lives of beggars in NYC, who have a family living in a lovely home they maintain in Florida. This is begging as business, a conscious decision to prey on the altruism of others.
Think about it: the predatory beggar is not possible in an established community that knows one another. In cities where people come and go, however, it became difficult to know who was truly in need and who was slacking. Consider, too, that the first major welfare act was passed in 1935 - several years after the Great Depression had uprooted families and destroyed communities all over the United States.
My mother tells stories about the Great Depression. Her grandfather owned a farm, and would send food in to their house in town, which in turn would be shared around to the neighbors most in need. I've often thought that the description of charity in the scriptures (share your meal with those who are hungry; share a coat - if you have 2 - with him who is cold) is a better fosterer of community than any dollar or twenty put into an alms box, bucket or cup.
The destruction of community comes with the destruction of relationship and knowing one another. When you know your neighbor, you know who's in trouble and who might be shirking. Giving a hand-out without requiring relationship adds to this problem. We end up having to depend on laws and regulations to determine who's "truly" in need, but that can backfire too, as we've all seen! The one who's trying hard (like THHynes described) but who could use a little extra help ends up getting nothing, whereas the guy who does nothing but learn the rules gets the full welfare benefit. We make it even worse, when we try and remove any sense of obligation in having received this handout, in the guise of trying to undo a sense of shame or failure by those needing help. I think the severing of charity from relationship is the biggest problem. . . . It undoes accountability, and dehumanizes both the given and the receiver. And as we've discussed, communities need humans! :-)
I LOVE the way you turned the question around. Very cool. While this post isn't necessarily about welfare reform, I can't help but wonder if a massive shift to "privatize" welfare by putting it in the hands of local not for profits and taking it out of the hands of the federal, emotionally detached government would clean things up dramatically and help restore community. How about we cap the federal tax rate at 15%: 10% to the Gov. and require everyone to give away 5% to their favorite charity? There would be plenty of money to run the country and have some left over for those areas with people in need but no source for charity and everyone else would be taking care of each other. Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article here about President Obama's Aunt, who has been receiving welfare and housing assistance for some years: http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-obamas-aunt-zeituni-onyango-and-liberal-hypocrisy/19656003
ReplyDeleteNote especially the last couple of sentences, which seem to emphasize this distinction we've been discussing of faceless versus relational giving:
"No one can contradict Onyango's claim that religious believers in the United States face a special and sacred obligation to "help the poor." But Christian and Jewish notions of charity emphasize personal involvement in the process -- giving directly to the less fortunate and helping them to overcome their difficulties rather than relying on costly governmental bureaucracies to do the job.
"In contradiction to these authentic American traditions, both Zeituni Onyango and her illustrious nephew seem to prefer a faceless system that delivers aid as a matter of entitlement and ministers to the incapacitated and the alien with the impersonal distribution of other people's money."
I think the "other people's money" aspect is important, as well, but I haven't thought it through.
Yup, I saw an article about her comments as well. She is here illegally and says she came as an immigrant and we are obligated to her. Honestly, I don't see the logic in her argument. One can try to immigrate, but that status is granted through an application process. It sounds a little like me walking into a company and saying, "I want a job, so you are obligated to give me one."
ReplyDeleteThe point about charity being a part of helping others "learn to fish" is well made. I could not agree more. Ironic that so many who seemed to have been driving the Peace Corps, which as I recall was populated by people of a liberal bent, have gotten into the business of giving away fish and creating what appears to be a dependent class. That article seems to be echoing my point. Thanks for posting that.