The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Other People's Money

6.9.08 @ 12:01AM

REALLY CARING
Re: Peter Schweizer's Liberal Scrooges:

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?
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

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.

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.
-- Rick Arand

I just want to make a quick point on the use of the allusion to Robin Hood so often used by such Liberal Scrooges as outlined in this article.

This allusion has really been bothering me of late, in no small part because of the "Robin Hood Program" here in Texas that takes money from richer school districts and moves into the budgets of poorer ones.

It is technically true (according to legend) that Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. But it's important to remember that Robin of Loxley lived in the 11th century in England. A time when the rich were the Aristocracy, and thus the Government. Anytime one uses the government to take from one to give to another, it is not an action worthy of Robin Hood.

He was fighting the government. We should remember that instead. I'm sure that Mr. Schweizer was using this allusion in irony.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

As a military officer I make significantly less than the Democrat politicians who want to appease terrorism, raise working American's taxes and punish successful American corporations, but I still give a heck of a lot more to charity than they ever do (I make their racist Presidential nominee look like the empty suit he is). Of course, I'm a lifelong Republican and a conservative, so I'm actually interested in doing good rather than spouting a lot of BS like greedy Democrats (the party of the rich) who want to steal from the workers and give to themselves and their special interest groups.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

"The charity that hastens to proclaim its good deeds, ceases to be charity, and is only pride and ostentation." -- William Hutton.

The Bible commanded that a tithe be made to assure social justice. Today, few give a full tenth of their earnings to charity to assure that their brethren are fed and sheltered. But the good people of the Exodus were not being taxed for near 50% of their incomes, nor did they have to deal with oppressive bureaucracies. If Big Brother would get out of the way of business and out of our pockets, charity rates would surely soar. Human beings, generally, are of a generous nature. It is under the crushing burden and heel of big government that people become callous. When people believe the governments' claims that it can cure all of its social ills, the social contract frays and becomes shredded. The social contract is like a summer dress: it is best when it is light and unrestricting, causing much stimulation in both the beholding and the wearing. When we are feeling freer as a people, we will give more even when others are not looking.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Mr. Schweizer misapprehends the liberal dogma. That is best illustrated by a joke currently circulating on the net.

Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain are walking together in a city and spy a poor man on the street begging.

Mr. Obama looks through his pockets and says to McCain "I've come out with no money. Could you give him something for me and something to me so I can buy lunch?" McCain does that.

Ms. Clinton snatches Mr. McCain's wallet and takes out $25.00. She gives the beggar $5.00 and keeps the rest explaining "that's for administrative costs." She pockets the wallet.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Business, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, United Nations, NATO, Energy, Oil