When it comes to serving the needy, there are two basic approaches. The first, inspired by Jesus Himself and required in the Old Testament, is sacrificial giving of oneself. This has been the cornerstone of American charity since the nation's founding, and it remains the most effective way to assist the poor.
Another, diametrically opposite approach is socialism, in which income is forcibly seized and then redistributed to groups and individuals favored by government officials. Socialism is rooted in the formula from Karl Marx—"from each according to his ability to each according to his needs." That is a fine arrangement when voluntary, such as in families, churches, and private charities. However, when it is imposed by force—and socialism is always accompanied by force since it violates human nature—it is soft tyranny masquerading as charity.
Since the 1930s, with the advent of the New Deal, the federal government, along with local and state governments, has taken on more and more functions that previously were handled by families, churches, and private charities.
Social Security, the largest government income transfer program, was originally aimed at assisting intact families. Now, it is an ever-growing tax on employees and employers that has driven a wedge between the generations. How? Because in centuries past, parents had more children partly to fulfill the biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply," but also as a way to insure that someone would provide for them in their old age.
Social Security removed the advantage of having children, since it guarantees income based solely on age (and previous employment). Someone who has no children gets the same amount as someone who had 10 children who grew up to pay into the system, thus supporting the childless retiree. Children are very expensive, as any parent can tell you. Social Security makes having them less advantageous, economically. Of course, many people will attest that Social Security has allowed millions of older Americans to live in at least minimally comfortable circumstances. But the other social effects are not often voiced or acknowledged.
The same can be said about Medicare, Medicaid, and many other enormous federal programs. The advantages are obvious, but the downsides are not so obvious. To pay for all this, the average American family's tax burden has risen from a mere 2 percent of income in 1948 to nearly 30 percent, when all taxes are accounted for. This has forced many mothers into the workplace who would, all things being equal, rather spend the time raising their children. Consequently, this has created a huge market for paid childcare, with the government subsidizing it via tax credits and in some cases through direct payments. Thus, families are paying taxes to create a system that offers incentives for them to spend less time with their own children. While this may delight feminists, who want all women to pursue careers instead of homemaking, it makes it harder for families that opt for a different model.
$5.7 Billion for "Paid" Volunteers On April 21, 2009, President Obama signed the "Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act" bill, tripling the size of the federal government's paid "volunteer" programs, including AmeriCorps. The billion over the next 10 years, and putting 250,000 paid "volunteers" on the government payroll.
Generosity has been a hallmark of American character. It's a product of the nation's Judeo-Christian heritage, and it's the polar opposite of cold, contractual transfers that characterize socialism. In fact, socialism is so ugly in practice that it has to destroy its competitor, private charity, hence the proposed assault on charitable tax deductions.
Some of the largest secular groups in America, such as the AARP, enthusiastically supported the Kennedy Act boondoggle. They stand to gain paid "volunteers" at the expense of smaller competitors, such as churches.
Faith-based charities are technically eligible, but will get squeezed out by "nondiscrimination" language. In practice, this means that a Catholic-run homeless shelter would have to employ atheists or Buddhists. The Salvation Army, perhaps the most effective charity, requires volunteers—not its clients—to adhere to Christian beliefs. Because of that, the Army will be shut out from employing any of the government's paid "volunteers."
