Rant Response

Note: I received this thoughtful response this morning to last night's rant. It is from my DS2. I emailed and asked permission to post it, and he graciously assented. Following his text is my own response.

Hi mom,
You've hit on a number of points I'd like to address. I hope I don't confuse the situation too terribly much.
First off, you're right. People do need to practice charity before preaching it. Even out here I try to find time to volunteer, contribute to organizations financially, and help out people who are far from home.
This is actually a time of year when this topic is on the tip of my tongue as this is the time when the military kicks off its big CFC (Combined Federal Campaign) drive encouraging us to contribute even if only financially to aid in these rescue/assistance org.s in their efforts.
I used to give to the CFC each year. Used to.
Back when I was in the infantry, the company was called to formation and the 1stSGT got out in front of the company and said nobody was going home until everyone in the company contributed to the CFC. I was going to... really I was. I gave every other year, why not this one... until he said that.
I resent mandated charity. It stops being charity at that point. Do you want someone to say they're sorry because they mean it? Or because they were told to? Do you like presents given out of love? Or those given out of some obligation because it happens to be a day of the year when presents are given? Do you want a doctor who treats you as a patient because he loves medicine? Or one who treats you as a number because he is told by an HMO or government organization that he must take shortcuts in care and treat more people than he is capable?
Charity should be of the heart. I didn't know Jesus when he was down here wearing sandals, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have counted the individual's portion of the Roman's tax revenue given to the meager improvements to the impoverished as charity.
People need to give of themselves, and I believe Americans can and do just that. Perhaps not as much as we could or should, but we do. After the Asian Tsunami a few years ago, the U.S. government pledged $900 million to tsunami relief. American individuals donated $2 billion -- three times what government gave -- in food, clothing, and cash. Private charities could barely keep up with the donations. In 2005, there was an average of $900 given charitably for every man woman and child in the United States, almost $260 Billion from the hearts of Americans.
When the government gets involved in "charity" or welfare, as much as 70% of the monies get eaten up in the bureaucracy in administering those funds. Example? John Chubb of the Brookings Institute once investigated how many members there were in the bureaucracy of the New York public school system. Six calls finally landed him with someone who knew the answer, but was not allowed to say. Six more landed him with the answer of 6,000 bureaucrats working in the central office alone. Chubb then called the Catholic Archdiocese to see how their numbers compared (the catholic schools there educate about 1/5 of the kids in New York). On the first phone call, the lady on the other end said, "I don't know.... wait a minute... let me count." The answer was 26.
One more small bit of unsolicited advice in the name of IMHO... Be careful of your comments there in your retorts.
"They say the government should not take care of the homeless, that churches and volunteers should.........They don't go to church and they don't help at the homeless shelter. "
Be careful you don't fall into that same broad brush stroke you're letting them spur you with, like the "They assume all Christians are Republicans."
Don't listen to those dumb-ole republicant's. Don't let them make you feel upset. You know you're living the moral road. We know you are. I for one don't "hate" your liberal leanings, mom. I love them. I love that you are passionate about care. I love that you offer these things up for discussion. It is good to see opposing opinion, even though I may not necessarily agree with your resolution.
As for working two jobs and still struggling... would it help if they didn't have to pay federal income tax? Would it help if their employers had larger budgets from which they could pay their employees? It happened in a not so distant past.
But that's a topic for another time. (re. Fair Tax, aka, 1999's H.R. 25 proposed by Congressman John Linder which would make most everyone sleep a little better on 15 April.)
Love ya mom. Don't let the man get ya down.
t

My response:

Hey son:
This is a good email. I appreciate your wisdom.

You pointed out some areas where I could have / should have been clearer. The "they don't go to church and they don't help…" was not a broad-based bias, but a targeted complaint regarding someone's blog: someone I know. Someone who I know doesn't go to church, doesn't help anyone, just sits and bitterly judges others. In fact, the person is so bitter, I do not think he is happy at all.

I don't blame you for not giving to the CFC. That would have made me angry, too. When I worked for BCBS, they called all of management into a room and asked us to contribute to the healthcare PAC. At the time, I thought it was optional. A week later I got a letter from our president saying he had noticed I had not given yet. Grr. I gave, but it was grudgingly. I was a single mom at the time and really resented the threatening way it was handled. I felt I had to give to keep my job. I gave $50, not knowing if it was enough or too much. That was more money then than it is now. It was 2 pairs of shoes for you guys.

You're right that Americans rally when the chips are down, but only when they are 'way down. The conservative blogs are saying welfare is not government's role, that it is charity's role, and I truly don't think Americans, as compassionate as we are in disasters, will carry the poor, voluntarily, consistently. And, if we did, it would be, as usual, 20% of us doing 80% of the work. It is, in our church. It is, in our PTA. And of course it would be, in helping the poor.

I used to love Dave Ramsey. He offered good, common-sense resolutions to people's money problems. Don't use your credit cards. Don't buy more house than you can afford. Pay off your debts. Live within your means. All still good advice.

When people call in with their problems, he gives advice. Like Click-n-Clack, but not as funny. Trouble is, he is giving the same old advice in a new age of problems. Sell that oversized house and move into a smaller one you can afford. Hello? Houses are not selling. Sell that tank and get a beater with better gas mileage. Hello? I see mini-vans all over town, in front yards with posterboard on the windshield: "$3,000 OBO." Nobody wants 'em.

He said the other day that ppl have been encouraging him to run for president. That he would not run b/c everyone would hate him. He would refuse welfare to everyone. "Get a job," he says. I turned off the radio and won't watch him on TV again, nor listen to him on the radio. He's fallen in love with the sound of his own voice. He's gotten comfortable with his same old answers, but the problems have changed around him.

If he could point out the job tree to us there are lots of folks who would climb it in a hurry. Here in NC the jobless rate is astronomical; I think we are 4th in the nation. It's heartless to say ppl don't want to work.

But I digress. Your points, all of 'em, are well taken.