Compassionate conservatism – a disaster in the making?

On August 3rd, 2000, in his Acceptance speech , at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, President George W. Bush told a touching story of Mary Jo Copeland, “whose ministry called ‘Sharing and Caring Hands’ serves 1,000 meals a week in Minneapolis, Minnesota”, in his address of the problem of ever-increasing poverty and homelessness rates in America. Mr. President admitted that, “[the]…Government cannot do this work. It can feed the body, but it cannot reach the soul. Yet government can take the side of these groups, helping the helper, encouraging the inspired.” As a resolution to this problem, he assured that, “[his]…administration will give taxpayers new incentives to donate to charity, encourage after-school programs that build character, and support mentoring groups that s

This trend for private charities to be more successful should not, however lead to the conclusion that the government should channel their resources there, but rather that they should create more favorable conditions for this to happen naturally. Currently, the federal government has a monopoly on welfare tax dollars. It is time to end this monopoly by allowing private citizens to make decisions on how our welfare tax dollars will be spent. In short, the solution to the U.S. welfare-poverty crisis is to privatize the welfare state.

Giving government funding to religious charities would also take away from the people’s desire to contribute more, because the money would be forcefully taken out in the form of taxes, rather than contributed by the person out of their desire to help. After all, it is the voluntary donations, and not the coercion by taxation, which makes the charities so successful. Individuals help one another through love of neighbor. Tax money is based on coercion. There is neither compassion nor love behind a grant of money forcibly taken from taxpayers who may have no desire to support the charity in question.

hape and save young lives. “ He clearly had a bright future in mind for his people and undoubtedly the greatest of intentions. His view that something must be done about the current state of our welfare program is widely shared by the people. Yet, his proposal on providing religious charities with funding collected from the taxpayers inspired much opposition and an intense debate.

Implementing this bill may also corrupt faith-based charities and cause them to become dependent on the government funds, which have proven to be an addictive and corruptive force for many groups. Lobbying for, securing, and retaining that funding may become the top priority of these organizations, whose goals ironically include fighting the same abuse of government welfare by other people. In addition, charities will have to compete for the funds, as the Bush administration will provide only a small percentage of applicants with federal grants – according to Cal Thomas , out of 500 grant applicants, only 25 received the government's blessing. A future Democratic administration might deny grants to organizations that lean Republican and give them to those with dispositions closer to that administration's liking. Charities will then become another special interest, selling their political allegiance to the top buyer.

As Cal Thomas pointed out in his article, “The purpose of charity is to not only benefit the recipient but to bless the giver. That is what Jesus meant when he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’ (Acts 20:35). If givers, or people who might give, see government supplanting their calling, the human tendency will be to give less, or not at all, because government is giving more.”

• Still the poverty rate is higher today than it was the year the War on Poverty began.

Some topics in this essay:
Cal Thomas, America President, War Poverty, John Goodman, Michael Tanner, God Bush's, President Bush, , Tanner Americans, Minneapolis Minnesota”, religious charities, private charities, faith-based charities, welfare programs, welfare system, administrative costs, current welfare, government funding, families receive means-tested, families receive, means-tested benefit, receive means-tested benefit, corrupt faith-based charities, welfare tax dollars, costs government meddling,