The American Spectator

p> REALLY CARING br> Re: Peter Schweizer’s Liberal Scrooges : /p> p>Peter Schweizer is confused. Liberals don’t give away their own money. They give away other people’s money. The reason? Why in the world would one subsidize compassion personally, when you can get someone else to do it — and still get the credit for it? br> — Arnold Ahlert br> Boca Raton, Florida /p>

What does it cost an individual to be generous with someone else’s resources? Just enough to assuage one’s sense of responsibility for the plight of the less fortunate apparently. But can we really call compulsory participation in government social programs charity? In his book, Who Really Cares?, Arthur Brooks differentiates between governmental attempts to alleviate social ills and real charity, “Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues.” No matter how much the government extracts from a person’s paycheck it does not qualify as true charity.

p>When asked about their miserly contributions to charitable organizations I’ve read statements by prominent progressives who justify their lack of giving by maintaining that it’s the government’s job to take care of the disadvantaged. Others advocate granting the government the power to extort an even greater percentage of their (and our) income for such purposes. Since they can easily afford higher tax rates, it seems like the logical choice to them. It reminds me of the retort Ebenezer Scrooge gave when questioned about his refusal to give anything to assist the poor at Christmastime, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” After all, he paid his taxes which were collected to take care of these unfortunate occurrences didn’t he? In other words, do what you need to do just don’t ask me to get my hands dirty.