A Different Kind of Government Spending

In a comment on my previous post (see below), Mr. Bolos asked two very interesting questions: "What would be the results if private charity was replaced by a government tax that gave to people in need? Would 'charity' end up in the hands of a very different group of people in need?" This gave me something interesting to think about, because I haven't ever really thought of government involvement in charity work.

I did some research on the topic and found an article from The Washington Times, and although it was written in April 2010, I think it still applies. After giving a nationwide poll, the author of the article concluded the following:

"Voluntary charity is a solid American virtue, but the conditions of who is helped, when and how should not be dictated by government. If government provides food for a family...it should come from existing government funds, not from an increase in taxes."

This brings up a few things. First of all, it emphasizes the strong American ideal of giving charity. Benefits have been around for a long time. Officials would hold balls during wartime to raise money for supplies. It's even a religious value in many religions. Second of all, it speaks to the issue surrounding the decider of who will be helped and how. The example the poll uses is a poor neighbor who needs food, and most Americans said it was the government's job to provide the neighbor with food if no one else is stepping up and helping them. However, this money cannot be money brought in by taxes. This is interesting to me, because the way I understand this is that the Americans are making the decisions of who gets to receive the charity, but it's the government that has to pay.

There are two feasible ways to go if the government gave charity. It could tax Americans, whether it be in the form of an increase in a current tax or the creation of a new "charity" tax. If this were to happen, it would be reasonable to donate to the cause that the majority of Americans deem most worthy. Another way to go would be to use government funds, but then it should be the government deciding where the money would go because it would be their money being used.

This is getting to be a pretty long post, but I would just like to quickly address the second question. If there was no private charity and instead it was the government who donated, the money would indeed end up in a very different group of people. A great amount of our private donations are sent out to different countries like Africa, India, and Mexico. If the government was in charge of giving out donations, the charity would probably only go to Americans. But is that a bad thing? We spend so much time engrossed in movements like Kony 2012, and we fail to see the poverty and the famine that are right before our eyes.

The Price of Charity

Today in class we had a great discussion about the recent Kony 2012 movement, and something Mr. O'Connor said really struck me. He said that many people hear of an issue in the world and immediately turn to their checkbooks, thinking, "How much do I have to make this check out for in order to forget about what's happening?"

This is an idea I've been contemplating for a while. The fact that people, especially in our society, consider writing a check and donating money as the same thing as time and hard work spent on improving an unfortunate situation. This is the reason for the countless benefits held for charities. Money is thrown around during silent auctions, live auctions, and raffle games. You even have to pay to be on the list. And if you make a large enough donation, your name will be mentioned several times! Once they have donated, they seem to think that the issue is resolved, when in reality it takes much more than a check to get rid of the problem.    

Colbert even satirized this concept in last night's episode of the Colbert Report during his interview with Katherine Boo (4:10-4:26) when he is talking about the slums in Mumbai, India. He asks Boo how much he has to pay in order to forget about the people in the slums, because if he thinks about them he'll want to pay more, and paying more will drain his bank account. Although he paints this in a comedic light, he makes me wonder: is it better to write a check for, say, $2,500 to a certain organization or is it better to spend a week or so during the summer helping to improve a third world country?

Comedic Racism

The other day, my mom sent me the following clip:

This show, Key & Peele, airs on Comedy Central. You may know them for their spoofs of President Obama. What I think is interesting in this clip is that both men switch between their real voices and the voices they think the other expects them to have. The latter voice is also what the TV viewers of America expect. This time, Key & Peele are making a spoof off of what America wants to see. Not all African Americans speak that way, but that is definitely something that the majority of America either doesn't know or chooses not to take into account.

When Peele (black vest) walks away, he states that he was about to get mugged- something a white person would stereotypically say. This is obviously racist, so why do we laugh? This is something I've been seeing- and hearing- a lot. African Americans will exploit the racism towards them by using derogatory language in their songs and acting in a stereotypical way on the screen. Why do they do this? My belief is that they do this to devalue the words and actions. By using them themselves, it can't mean a whole lot when other people use them in a negative way towards them. 

Honestly, I'm not sure whether or not this is very effective. If my theory is correct, there will soon be a time where derogatory terms will be flying openly all over the place and that could be hazardous. Just because you hear them frequently doesn't mean they are OK to use. 

What are your thoughts? Do you think that the devaluing of these derogatory terms and actions will make it OK for anyone to use them at any time, or do you think that it is better to emphasize that these terms and actions are wrong and hurtful?