Pattye Benson

A friend sent this recent editorial, ‘Tea Partiers and the Spirit of Giving’ from the Wall Street Journal (see below) and I think it could make for some interesting dialogue on Community Matters. Do you support government providing for less fortunate, making charitable contributions, etc. or should those decisions be left to the individual?

Holiday season and end-of-the-year giving . . . how does charity factor in to decisions. Some suggest that the government giving funds that are collected from one group of people (taxpayers) and giving to another group to buy their votes is not charity and should be called it for what it is – politics. Conversely, if an individual (vs. the government) willingly gives funds to another individual or group of people, does that create the true essence of charity? Do you think we should go a step further and suggest to Washington officials that the money we earn is ours and that as Americans we should be in the driver’s seat as to how, why and to whom money is spent.

Locally, we could look at our volunteer fire departments. Some residents suggest that it is the resident’s responsibility to write personal checks and help fund the firefighters. Other residents would suggest that our tax dollars should fully fund the fire company needs and that our taxes should be adjusted accordingly. Two distinctly different ways to look at funding.

Do you support this saying, “Give a man a fish and he can eat for that day . . . but teach a man ‘how’ to fish and he can eat for a lifetime.” Please read the WSJ article and offer your comments . . . I would be interested in hearing on which side Community Matters reader fall.

Tea Partiers and the Spirit of Giving –
Charitable gifts are a cheerful protest vote against the growing state.
By Arthur C. Brooks, president of American Enterprise Institute
Wall Street Journal, 24 December 2010

By now everyone knows that the dramatic November election was not an endorsement of Republicanism, but rather a rebellion against expansionist government and an attempt to re-establish America’s culture of free enterprise.

The tea party activists behind the wave—and more importantly, the nearly one-third of Americans who classify themselves as “supporters” of the movement, according to Gallup—endure endless abuse from the politicians they have dethroned and the pundits they have challenged. One particular line of attack focuses on their supposed selfishness.

It is common to hear that the popular uprising against the growth of the welfare state, with rising taxes and deficits, is based on a lack of caring toward those who are suffering the most in the current crisis. As soon-to-be ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi puts it, the tea party is working “for the rich instead of for the great middle class.” Others have asserted that the backlash against the growth of government is nothing more than an attack on the poor.

Few would disagree that free enterprise is grounded in one’s self-interest. But self-interest is not the same thing as selfishness in the sense of unbounded consumption or disregard for the less fortunate. In fact, the millions of Americans who advocate for private entrepreneurship and limited government—whether they are rich or poor—may be stingy when it comes to giving away other people’s money through state redistribution, but they are surprisingly generous when it comes to giving away their own money privately.

Americans in general are very charitable, by international standards. Study after study shows that we privately give multiples of what our Social Democratic friends in Europe donate, per capita. But not all Americans are equally generous. One characteristic of givers is especially important in the current debate: the opinion that the government should not redistribute income to achieve greater economic equality.

Consider the answer to the question, “Do you believe the government has a responsibility to reduce income differences between rich and poor?” Many surveys have asked this over the years. In 2006, the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) found that Americans were almost equally divided on this question (52% in favor, 48% against). This is in stark contrast to the Europeans. For example, 94% of the Portuguese in the 2006 ISSP survey were in favor of redistribution; only 6% were against.

When it comes to voluntarily spreading their own wealth around, a distinct “charity gap” opens up between Americans who are for and against government income leveling. Your intuition might tell you that people who favor government redistribution care most about the less fortunate and would give more to charity. Initially, this was my own assumption. But the data tell a different story.

The most recent year that a large, nonpartisan survey asked people about both redistributive beliefs and charitable giving was 1996. That year, the General Social Survey (GSS) found that those who were against higher levels of government redistribution privately gave four times as much money, on average, as people who were in favor of redistribution. This is not all church-related giving; they also gave about 3.5 times as much to nonreligious causes. Anti-redistributionists gave more even after correcting for differences in income, age, religion and education.

Of course, there are other ways to give than with money. Here again the results may be different from what you might expect. The GSS in 2002 showed that those who said the government was “spending too much money on welfare” were more likely to donate blood than those who said the government was “spending too little money on welfare.” The anti-redistributionists were also more likely to give someone directions on the street, return change mistakenly handed them by a cashier, and give food (or money) to a homeless person.

So what does all this tell us? Contrary to the liberal stereotype of the hard-hearted right-winger, opposition to income-leveling is not evidence that one does not care about others. Quite the contrary. The millions of Americans who believe in limited government give disproportionately to others. This is in addition to—not instead of—their defense of our free-enterprise system, which gives the most people the most opportunities to earn their own success.

Obviously, not all charity has ideological connotations—nor should it. But for many, especially at this time of year, giving is a cheerful, productive protest vote against the growing state. It is America’s quiet tea party.

My very best wishes to all during this holiday season. . .

May you use this time for thoughtful reflection and appreciation for what is truly meaningful in your life.

Remembering the words of John Lennon –

And So This Is Christmas;
And What Have We Done?
Another Year Over; A New One Just Begun;
And So Happy Christmas;
I Hope You Have Fun;
The Near And The Dear Ones;
The Old And The Young.

A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong
And so happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let’s stop all the fight

A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

~ John Lennon
Happy Christmas (War is Over)