| James N. Markels | ||||
|
|
Personal
Information Constitutionalist
Party Political/Policy
Writing Creative
Writing Resume |
by
James N. Markels Okay, maybe the whiskey bit is a little harsh, but one thing is for sure, it makes it a little difficult for single people to see couples around them exchanging gifts, cards and kisses on the day supposedly meant for such things while receiving nothing themselves. It’s like not getting any presents on Christmas morning. By missing out on what others are enjoying, a person can feel an amplified sense of loneliness. That seems like a harsh side-effect of an otherwise artificial holiday, don’t you think? So why don’t we do something about it? No, I’m not suggesting that we should be buying stuff for people whom we don’t have affection (or at least lust). That would be deceptive. But how about we have the government buy flowers or chocolates for otherwise lonely singles? That way everyone would be getting something on Valentine’s Day and nobody would feel left out. After all, doesn’t it make you feel good to get something from a “secret admirer”? Of course, that’s a silly idea. The Beatles noted that money can’t buy love, and that’s the real point of a day like Valentine’s Day. The gifts and cards are just props for conveying feeling; they aren’t feelings themselves. If you got a government-provided card on Valentine’s Day, you wouldn’t feel like anybody really cares about you. You’d know that some bureaucrat had your name on the list of single people and spent other people’s tax money to get you a meaningless Hallmark greeting just so you wouldn’t feel left out. Love is the real gift, and no government program can distribute that. The same thing goes for love of fellow human beings. When you care about others and willingly sacrifice some of your time and money to help those in need, the effect of that emotion shines through to those you’ve helped, above and beyond the value of the gift itself. And that is what’s great about volunteer and faith-based charities, and why they tend to be successful. There’s a big difference between that and when the government doles out money to those designated by bureaucrats as “in need.” That a portion of my money is taken from me by force through taxation and then given to someone who is deemed poor doesn’t equal a compassionate act, either on my part or the government’s. I made no moral choice in the transfer, and politicians made moral choices with other people’s money. There is no willing personal sacrifice involved by either party. The human element of charity is missing. And charity is precisely what is missing in the “Armies of Compassion” initiative that has started in the Senate and has President Bush’s support. While most would agree that charity has an amplified importance in the wake of September 11, the assumption of the initiative is that Americans won’t be charitable enough, and so a little force is needed. While some of the proposals increase opportunities for choice, such as allowing people to make charitable contributions from their IRAs, the initiative would funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into charitable organizations, both secular and faith-based. What’s so wrong about giving taxpayer money to charities? For starters, federal money always comes with strings (more like chains) attached. Federal regulations, paperwork, and investigations will accompany the funding, greatly affecting the way that regular charities work. Imagine the local soup kitchen in the basement of a church having to worry about the Federal Register and what’s in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. And this will be especially pronounced when it comes to faith-based charities because of the separation of church and state concern. Better hope the pastor has a law degree! With government money also comes government interests. The government isn’t just going to ladle out money to charities and not care about how the money is used. Politicians already see certain problems they want addressed and they are going to make sure that charities addressing those problems get more money. This will inevitably encourage charities to abdicate their original missions and go to where the money is, as has already occurred in Massachusetts where state funding emphasizing charitable substance abuse services resulted in Catholic Charities largely abandoning all other social services, even though those drug services only serve a quarter of the original client base. Charities that choose to take government funding won’t really be charities any more; they will effectively be vendors of government services. And with the government dangling so many billions of dollars before their noses, it will be difficult for charities, even faith-based ones, to refuse the invitation. But if what makes these charities so effective in the first place is that they get to depend on their own guidance and the compassion of donators, why should we want to supplant it with government guidance and direction? Isn’t that mistaking the Valentine’s card for the emotion? Private charities work because people really do care and help others out of their own free will. The government can buy all the greeting cards, hot soup and blankets in the world, but it won’t convince anybody that somebody cares about them. That’s the essential human element of charity that’s missing in the Armies of Compassion, and that element is too precious to be corrupted by politicians with good intentions. |
||
