Good Charity vs Bad Charity?

Most of you have figured out by now, that I am an easy going, live and let live guy.

I am hard to get ruffled.  I am called easy-going,  implacable, and probably boring….

However, reading an article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled, “Will Buffett-Gates Pledge Really Help the Poor”,  increased my blood pressure.  Those around me were probably worried I might have an  MI when my brow wrinkled, and I had a barely perceptible frown.

Why giving Billions is Bad….

Robert Frank in his WSJ article, discusses the concerns of Pablo Eisenberg, that this giving of billions by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will  increase the disparity between the haves and the have-nots.  That it will actually hurt the poor for Bill and Warren to give such huge amounts of money away.

Now, Mr Frank is an accomplished writer and author.  And, having written a line or two, I know a hook when I see one.  But this one worked.  I had to finish the article.  And to Mr Franks credit, I even had to go to the original by Mr Eisenberg, linked in his story.  The quoted original story was written in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.  (In south Georgia, we would probably call it the “Charity Times-Union” or something similarly rednecky…)

Now I am sure that Mr Eisenberg is a nice man, ” a gentleman” as the little ole ladies around here call ‘em.  But, I couldn’t help but think, “This is crazy!”  “What is this world coming to?” And even, “I can’t believe this is not an article written by Andy Breitbart, just to get himself on Fox News again.”

Now before I get accused of mis-quoting, or taking this out of context, here is a copied and pasted bullet point from the article published in the July 21-2010, “Journal of Philanthropy“.  It is the third bullet point in his reasoning behind the idea that giving away billions will lead to the poor getting poorer, and the rich getting richer.  Please go read the whole article by Mr Eisenberg, so you get this in the proper “frame” of his mind.

And I quote Mr Eisenberg’s article:

• “What steps will be taken to ensure public accountability? Will the funds that are steered into new or existing foundations follow the Gateses’ approach, namely grant-making institutions governed by a very few family members that, in a real sense, are not really publicly accountable? Do we want an explosion of these tax-exempt oligarchic entities with huge assets that can help set public priorities without public discussion or a political process? Would this be a healthy development for democracy? If not, what can be done to mitigate the potential undemocratic nature of these new mega-foundations?”

Now why does this bother me:  To quote Shakespeare, let me count the ways….

1. The obvious effort to continue to judge what is an “acceptable” charity and what is not.
2. The idea that a public entity needs to be developed to decide where a private charity gives away their money.
3. The ludicrous notion that money given to a hospital, university, or museum, is money that can’t help the poor.

Forgive me for thinking that educating a poor person, so they can better feed their families, and get a higher paid job that will result in a huge boom in self-esteem-can be better than just throwing money towards poverty.  I thought we all learned after welfare reform that the “Great Society” was a failed experiment at social engineering.  All the social workers I know, believe the work, training, and education incentives being used now, are a much needed improvement over just sending a check to a  drop-out mom of three.

Forgive me for thinking  money that allows kids from the poor public schools to go to the art museum,  that then inspires one child to become the next Picasso-is not a blessing.

Forgive me for thinking money given to a research hospital, that discovers the vaccine for AIDS, won’t help poor people all over the world.

And forgive me for thinking that in this country, when I decide to give away my hard-earned money, that I can give it to anyone I damn well please.

The Charity Czar

And finally, Forgive me for thinking that in a democracy, we don’t need a “Charity Czar” to decide what is a good charity  and what is an unacceptable one.  I can see it now, when a Democrat is in office, Acorn, Planned Parenthood, and any number of left-leaning 501 c 3′s have the Gov’ment Seal of Approval.

Then when a Republican gets elected, the new “Charity Czar” publishes their list in the official organ of approved charities: The NRA, the Right to Life, and the Baptist Foundation for Good Works, all have their hand out.

And it will be fun to watch, when the Metropolitan Museum, Harvard University, and Johns Hopkins, not to mention the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association change their director every 4-8 years, depending on who wins the White House…..”I am sorry John, I know you have raised 4 billion dollars in the last four years, but we have a conservative in the White House now,  so you’ve got to go!”

(Now before the two people that actually go to the link and read the original article say, “Mr Eisenberg didn’t mention Charity Czar!” please understand, that is my description of  what the “public entity” might be, that he felt needed to opine on what is an acceptable charity.)

Forgive me for this rant, but something about this just got under my skin.  And I feel a lot better for getting it off my chest.

What do you think?

Do we need a political approval of where our philanthropic efforts are directed? ( Now I know, just having a process for getting registered as a charity adds a degree of politics to the matter, but for the most part, the process has not been “politicized”.)

Let me know your thoughts, and thanks to Mr Robert Frank  at the WSJ for getting my blood pressure up today.  At least my staff knew I was still breathing….