- Can You Spare a Dime (Or Some Time)

Written by Rep. Frank Lassee

Wednesday, 17 September 2008 09:27

More government is not the solution for people who need help — but private charitable giving is.

Street Scene After writing about schools and education, I received emails from people of the more liberal persuasion, they argued for more government programs for even younger children. Their reasoning (feeling?) goes if the parents aren’t doing their job (yes, it is a job with real duties) raising children, society would be better off with more programs. They usually argue more taxes and spending today will save money tomorrow, somehow.

Some believe that right from the moment children are born, the state should parent for those parents who don’t or can’t do their parenting job. Since we can’t judge the quality of parents (it might make some people feel bad), the government should parent all children. Of course, we aren’t supposed to talk about the money that will cost. After all, it is for the children and society, according to them.

This line of reasoning comes from the belief that a system can and does care for children (everyone). We need additional programs, because we don’t want kids to suffer or fail to reach their full potential (whatever that means). So the government needs to step in and do more for all the kids. Why stop at only those kids that truly need help. Those kids will feel bad about themselves for being singled (grouped) out for more systemic help.

A different suggestion, respectfully offered, to liberals is that they do their part in addition to sending their money to the Internal Revenue Service (taxes). They should give money and time to organizations that are helping kids succeed, like Big Brothers Big Sisters. They do a wonderful job, making a real difference in real children’s lives, one at a time (they have a private system to do it, too).

What I find interesting is the thought that only a new or expanded government program can make the differences that are needed.

In a book recommended to me by one of my Notes readers, Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks, the author points out that government spending “crowds out” private giving. “Big government”, tax and spend liberalism, has less impact on peoples’ welfare than private giving. Because government programs relieve us of personal responsibility of caring for others as individuals. This leads to an “I gave (forced giving) through my taxes” attitude.

Food for thought. Private charity keeps us connected with our community in a way that government spending can never accomplish. I find it interesting that liberals want the government to step in and fill every need. (So they don’t personally have to?) Arthur Brooks also points out that conservatives give more generously (at all income levels) than liberals. I wonder why this is? Perhaps it is the belief by some that most government programs are cost effective, efficient, and well designed. Perhaps it feels better when the other guy is forced to give through taxes even if he wants to spend it on his or her family, kids and personal needs and desires.

It is interesting that those who want less government give more than those who want bigger (more expensive) government. Maybe this is because liberals give at the altar of their government.

Rep. Frank Lassee represents Wisconsin's 2nd Assembly District. His column "Lassee's Notes," covers events in the Wisconsin Legislature and statewide. Used with permission.