Bush: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

From the New York Times:

President Bush urged Americans to help the neediest among them by volunteering to care for the sick, the elderly and the poor in a Christmas Day call for compassion.

"Many of our fellow Americans still suffer from the effects of illness or poverty," the president said in his weekly radio address. "Others fight cruel addictions, or cope with division in their families, or grieve the loss of a loved one."

"Christmastime reminds each of us that we have a duty to our fellow citizens, that we are called to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves," Mr. Bush added. "By volunteering our time and talents where they are needed most, we help heal the sick, comfort those who suffer and bring hope to those who despair, one heart and one soul at a time."

This as the President plans to cut even further from social spending for the poor, the weak, and the helpless, in order to finance (1) the war in Iraq, (2) his ill-advised tax cuts for the wealthy, and (3) his even more ill-advised privatization of Social Security.

One might argue (and many have) that compassion is better exercised through private charity than through public funding. I find this claim (in the current context) implausible for three reasons.

First, there is no reason why we cannot do both; even if increased government spending discourages some private charitable work at the margins, it encourages other forms of private charity through cooperative programs, and the net benefit to the poor is likely to be much higher. The government can also give incentives to private charities through tax benefits to make up for any marginal discouragement it produces. The key point is that the poor are no less helped if the government assists them.

Second, private charity can only do so much, and in many cases the government can reach much further. Despite the traditional stereotype that government inevitably wastes money, the non-profit sector is hardly a paragon of efficiency itself, and government programs often are able to leverage economies of scale that private charities lack.

Third, arguing that charity should be private rather than public simply gives government officials a convenient excuse to employ government monies to line the pockets of (or otherwise benefit) their wealthiest contributors and most influential constituents. The policies of the current Administration are a case in point. When this President exercises compassion in his deeds (rather than in his pretty words), it seems that the compassion he truly wishes to shower is upon the wealthiest individuals (in his tax breaks), the defense industry and Halliburton (in his Iraq policy), large drug companies (in his Medicare reform package), and Wall Street investment houses (in his proposed privatization of Social Security). Surely all of these folks need some brotherly love during this Holiday season, but, I dare say, the poor, the defenseless, and the millions of children in this country without health insurance need it far more.

(P.S. If you are pro-life and wish to add the unborn to this list of whom the government should protect, please see my previous post on what a pro-life Democratic position should look like.)