 Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
"Ideology aside" I'd make three points:
1) Making charitable work a government responsibilty deprives us all of a very important opportunity: The ability to voluntarily help others by giving money to charitable agencies. I think everyone likes to feel good about themselves by giving in this way. I get no feeling of having helped others when my money is forcibly taken by the government.
2) I do not believe that government efficiency in doling out assistance is anywhere close to the efficiency of private charities.
3) Hunger has been eliminated in America, at least as far as it is possible to do so with money. That doesn't mean that there aren't many hungry children with absent fathers and drug-dependent mothers, but this isn't an issue of money/food/resources. I do not believe any person with the mental capacity and will to look after himself/herself/their dependents need ever be hungry given the present safety net(s). What is today considered "poverty" in America bears no resemblance to poverty in most of the world. That's a good thing.
|
In response, I say this:
1. No one is deprived of anything. The Government does not displace and disrupt the entire field of caring for people who occasionally fall off the trail; free and widely available public education at all levels hasn't stopped people from contribuing to private educational programs or systems. And there's a certain paradox involved in the public and private financing for the treatment of the hungry; it's because our politicians make hunger a "private giving" issue that it does not get adequately treated with public resources, which results in hunger continuing in our society. As stated by one commentator: "if the federal government paid $12 billion more to eliminate hunger, the cost would be borne by all taxpayers. The cost of running charities, by contrast, are borne by individual philanthropists and volunteers, and the indirect costs of hunger are borne largely by hungry people themselves. What our political leaders have done is opt to have charities feed the hungry -- it constitutes a hidden tax." "While it would be much cheaper to do it federally, by privatizing the response, political leaders avoid moral and fiscal responsibility."
2. Well, I think you're plainly wrong here when it comes to eliminating hunger in America. Soup kitchens and distribution of food by the charities was the primary means of feeding the hungry and poor before the Food Stamp, Child & Nutrional Care, and School Lunch programs eliminated most of the hunger in America. Undoubtedly, there are some charitable programs that have done better jobs than the Government, but even the Red Cross does poorly in some instances, like Katrina.
3. Hunger has not been eliminated in America, if we defined hunger as people who are in need of food, are hungry and cannot afford to fund that basic need on their own. Yes, our safety net programs eliminate most of the hunger in America, but lots of people, typically children and the homeless, go hungry every minute of the day and these safety net programs don't always reach them. Here are some fast facts from the Center for Hunger and Poverty:
- Nearly one in eight US households do not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs. Over 38 million people live in these food-insecure households, including 13.9 million children.
- More than ten million people live in households that go hungry; close to one-third of these are children.
- Over 40% of low-income children live in households that are hungry or at risk of hunger. One-third of female-headed households and more than 20% of Black and Hispanic households are uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the basic needs of their members because of insufficient money to buy food.
|