It’s not about whether the government mismanages the charitable process or adds costly layers of bureaucracy to the process, etc. It’s the fact that they have NO RIGHT in the first place to FORCE taxpayers to contribute to “good causes”. The Brethren have been extremely clear on this matter at all times. Why do we a) not read what they have had to declare to say about the matter, and b) not heed their words by following them in every respect? Rather than speculate that perhaps compassion by government is a good thing, why not just read for ourselves the utter logic and doctrinal simplicity expounded by Ezra Taft Benson in “The Proper Role of Government” (Google it). Therein he proves that the “government” is not some autonomous entity, but is just the representative of the will of the people. And just as a small group of well meaning citizens has no moral right to force others of its group (by gunpoint and threat of imprisonment) to give up money to some charitable cause – just because the majority agree that would be a good thing – the “big group” of citizens (called the government) has no moral right to do so either. Period. Read what Benson the Brethren have said and you’ll put this compassion by force issue to rest. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single declaration by the Brethren supporting Government Compassion, but you’ll find numerous clearly showing that the government has NO moral or constitutional right to be involved in it.

Support the Brethren. Support the Doctrine. Support the Constitution! Satan supports Government Compassion. He did in the pre-existence and he does now.

It also robs the receiver of the chance to ask for help and earn the benefits received. Just like Satan’s plan to force us all to heaven, government forced charity replaces genuine righteousness in the people. I believe far too many people do not reach out to the needy because they believe that the government takes care of it and the small gesture they could offer seems insignificant compared to what government programs offer.
Then there is the issue that government handouts invite abuse of the system, encourages broken families and absent fathers, and create a sense that we can get something for nothing. I believe that government handout programs do more harm than good.
I disagree that deductions are government welfare. They are allowing us to keep our own earned money not the redistribution programs that people usually mean when discussing government charity.
Eve said that it was good for us to suffer so that we could know joy. If government will not let us suffer, how will we learn to value joy? Not all suffering is bad. Many times suffering brings repentance and better choices.

I think we might make amazing progress if we used the kind of creativity that is characteristic of God.

Blessings,
Wally

Recently, our local Juvenile Judge hosted a conference on troubled youth in our community. 80 people attended the conference. Each of those 80 represented at least 10 others in their various government agencies. My first reaction was shock! Approximately 800 people in our community are employed caring for folks in trouble with some kind of poverty. Be it spiritual, emotional, mental, physical, psychological, temporal, they all have serious enough lack in their lives to warrant some kind of intervention. I wondered how many people were receiving services as compared with the number employed providing services.

I was the only attendee who was not a government employee.

I would have expected that 800 people could spread a pretty wide and thorough safety net. Not so. The universal opinion of the group was that way too many folks, especially children were falling through significant holes. It was interested that because of budget constraints due to the failing economy, many looked to me to plug the holes.

I’m the LDS Branch President at the Youth Detention Center. We are stepping up to the plate, but are very restricted in what we can do because of government regulations. Those who would volunteer have nowhere near the access individual youth that agency employees do.

I came away from the conference with new awareness and humility.

1. The depth and breadth of need was appalling.

2. The efforts of the agencies and their personnel were heroic despite being under compensated.

3. Every social worker put children foremost and their concern was deeply felt and genuine.

4. Most were operating with failing models.

While people and their care are foremost in the programs, policies and hearts of these agencies. Rehabilitation and recovery seem to be largely lacking as shown in statistics across the board. It appears to me that this failing is largely due to the procedural strings that come attached to every penny the government offers the agencies.

I am aware that much, if not all of what Wally does in his work is aimed at prevention. His approach is the exception rather than the rule. Most if not all of the agencies I witnessed at the convention were involved in fighting brush fires rather than preventing them. And too many of those are mere band aids on problems needing tourniquets.

The universal angst I detected on the part of social workers across the board gave me the impression that even they feel their efforts are amounting to little more than straightening the deck chairs on the titanic.

Conclusion: I don’t object to us caring for the less fortunate by means of the government and taxation. I just struggle with the prevailing methodology and the wasteful, bureaucratic way in which it is administered. Obviously, we have nothing in place that is better.

-Wally

Charity is something that can only truly be initiated by an individual. The church’s welfare system is the only one of which I know (I should be better read on this) that appropriately offers recipients opportunities to earn and grow their way out of their difficulties.

Attempts to be “charitable” on a government level add bureaucracy and disincentivize private giving. And they can never be charitable, because the “agency” principle is often hard-coded into rules and regulations.

I think that the government can do some things to encourage giving, for instance as stated above, allow those who are giving to be excused from some of their obligation to support the state. This is a logical encouragement as these gifts should be much more effective at lessening suffering and encouraging recovery than the government doling out support.

But when the government begins to “automate” the process of charity, the heart and soul are removed, thus leaving an empty husk of a provider, turning hearts away from their most glorious Parent. Discouraging us from giving because we know that the government has done the job already.

Also, the government is a creature of force. While the United Order is creature of agency. Trying to replicate the same charitable exterior is not possible without the coherent and light-inviting internal governing principles.

Could it be that America has replaced her God with Santa Claus? Gifts come from no where on Earth, at no expense to people, government, or politicians. (Although there is a North Pole, might not we discover that there is no real town with little elves at the North Pole?)

Could America’s values and governement be following the ideals of the “Santa fiction”?

I believe it costs more to give through government than to give it directly or through The Church or other nonprofit organizations.

I believe many politicians may sincerely hope to do a great deal of good through government-giving and that in many cases of giving they are correct but I also believe that without “protection”-oriented hurdles, controls and expenses placed on us by government “for our safety, health and welfare,” most of the good that is done by government aide would not be needed in the first place.

A point to ponder.

I wonder if the PC and Apple computer industry had a legal start. Were the garages that incubated the information economy zoned “industrial”?

So long as government keeps a healthy portion of law-abiding citizens powerless to sustain themselves, yes, we need liberal policies and liberal politicians. But what if we replaced the current liberal ones with the kind of liberal that not only cared but cared enough to set people free?

For conversation, let’s guess an arbitrary percentage of politicians who do care enough. Let’s guess the percentage at 1/3 of those on each side of the isle. A minority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats, each group of which eyes the other with suspicion while hoping that if they play partison long enough, eventually they may be able to get the majority of their own party to go along with them.

We can see several problems if this guess is correct: no caring majority exists. The caring minority can’t get together because of suspicion; it is fragmented into groups too small to constitute a powerful voting block.

On the other hand, if this were a correct guess, the good news is that if those who cared were to identify each fellow member and devise a proper solution, there is significant potential for enough less-caring politicians to be peruaded to vote with them so they could look good, too.

I have a hint for the caring ones. Once I had a neighbor with a simple business plan to sew underware and sell it at an out-of-doors market in Roseville, California. She got shut down because of “protection”-oriented government; she needed her underware federally inspected for the “health and welfare” of potential customers – according to legislators who made the relevant regulations possible by an act of Congress.

More than needing government to stop an enterprising woman from competing with big business, I believe my former neighbor’s prospective customers needed the liberty to engage in self-reliance for their health and welfare. The same “protection”-oriented measures that stopped her also stops millions of other Americans in their pursuits of “health, life, and happiness.”

If America and her government is following the wrong God in Santa Claus, and there really are costs to government gifts of “protection”-oriented restrictions and government liberality, a caring government would have to let people do things without the protections of a “nanny” state, so more of the citizenry will have the means for innovation, self-reliance, etc.

Some of these self-reliant members of society would then develope further employment opportunities for others; and eventually we would have more people able to afford the end of government welfare.

So another great question would be:

“How can we reduce dependence on government to the point that private charity could and would supply the need?”

And you already know my thought: stop government from making self-reliance and innovation difficult or legally impossible for innovators and self-employed merchants, manufacturers and service providers.

I believe the Church’s welfare system offers a wonderful pattern: help people to get on their own feet so that they can they can become self-reliant and be in a position to serve and help others. I believe a big part of the program is for those receiving assistance, according to their ability, to offer some kind of service or work, perhaps even if it is fulfilling one’s calling.

Of course there are exceptions where someone may be disabled, elderly, etc. that will require assistance without being able to perform any work or service in exchange. And these truly are exceptions in that the goal in these cases is not to help the person become self-reliant as that is not always a possibility.

There are numerous things we can do individually outside of the Church to assist the needy. We can donate food to shelter or food bank, donate time to prepare or serve food in a shelter, donate usable clothes and other items to shelters or Deseret Industries or Goodwill, etc. One doesn’t have to look far to find an opportunity to help. It only requires a willing heart…

It seems to me that our compassionate government is impoverishing us rather than rescuing us.