“You Can’t Love Through the Federal Government”

I recently “retweeted” (if you don’t understand what that is, don’t worry about it right now :) a quote from Tom Coburn in which he said, roughly, “you can’t love through the Federal Government.” In response to that, I was asked what the difference was between giving to a charity, and “giving” (through taxation) to the government. That seems like a fair question, so I’d like to address it a little more fully.

Let me start off by, perhaps, splitting a hair. You don’t “give” to the government. It was suggested that one might “give” by voting for higher taxes, but it’s still not giving. As I said on twitter, taxes are compulsion, not compassion. Before I ever see a penny, the government has taken its cut from my paycheck to spend on what it (not I, necessarily) deems appropriate. I think this is a semi-important point as you can’t be force to love someone. It has to be a choice, which taxes are not.

Perhaps an even more secondary issue is that by voting to “give” through higher taxes, you’re forcing your “charity” on everyone else. The left loves to get worked up in a lather any time there’s a hint of religion in the public square, shouting complaints of forcing one’s religion on others. They don’t seem to have a problem, though, with forcing their “charity” on others’ pocket books. That hardly seems loving. Sure, someone might get helped through this new tax, but everyone is hurt, to one degree or another, by the higher tax. It seems kind of like offsetting penalties in a football game if you ask me.

A more serious issue is that the federal government is a black hole of waste and inefficiency. Remember “The Bridge to Nowhere” or the new “Airport for No one?” The larger the government gets, the more money is wasted on pet (or pork) projects. Oddly enough, Tom Coburn is one of the Senators involved in the fight to reduce such wasteful spending. One might argue that the funds for these and other atrocious projects come from the general fund, and not some special fund that would likely need to be set up for this new charitable venture. While that may be true, we’ve seen time and again where the federal government raids one fund to shore up another. One needs only look at Social Security to see how poorly its funds have been managed. Given the federal government’s history, then, it’s likely that very little of your “gift” would see the people for which its intended. Furthermore, since our executive leadership changes every four to eight years and the legislative composition can change more frequently, there’s no guarantee that a good program will continue into the next administration with the same focus and mission.

Charities, however, are much different. They exist for one purpose, to give aid, and it’s usually a very focused mission: food, shelter, clean water wells, hospitals, clothing. Some, though, can be very general, such as the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief efforts or the Salvation Army. Either way, these organizations have a single goal, which is charity, not the wide-ranging, often seemingly unfocused goal of the federal government, which is to govern. Additionally, given the much smaller size of the average charity, one has a much better chance of understanding exactly where your money is going, and there are numerous laws on the books to help reduce fraud in these charities. Furthermore, it is a true gift, freely given, not taken. While that doesn’t guarantee it’s an act of love — many give just for the tax breaks — it allows for the possibility of truly love-driven donation.

Having said all of that, what is the difference? If I had to pick one word, it would be “volition.” As I noted earlier, you can’t force someone to love you, nor can you force someone to love someone else. If you have children, you’ve likely seen something similar when trying to get one child to apologize to another. What you end up with is often a sulky, half-hearted (at best) “I’m sorry” grunted out as quickly as possible so the child can go play.

Furthermore, it seems to me that it’s the Biblical model. I know that many may not accept the Bible as authoritative, but, given the context of Senator Coburn’s speech, I think is appropriate to address. The first example that comes to mind is Paul’s trips to Macedonia and Corinth, during which he took up a collection to help the Christians in the church at Jerusalem who were suffering under a brutal local government. Paul did not admonish the Believers to give more money to Rome. Rather, he asked them to take up a collection and give it to him, so that he could take it to those in Jerusalem.

I think, then, that you can allow the government to take away more of your money (and mine), but I don’t think that’s truly a loving act. It seems to me be an attempt at kindness, marred by an act of robbery, the net effect of which I would not call love. That, I think, is Mr. Coburn’s point.

TagsPolitics, Religion