For example, as recently as 2016 I castigated then House leader Paul Ryan for his statement that it was feasible to "scale down federal assistance in favor of much more charity" - citing the House of Help City of Hope in D.C. and Catholic Charities in Janesville, Wisconsin.
But as I pointed out (Jan. 11, 2016 post):
"Ryan here is obviously looking at the fact there are now 40 million on food stamps, up 53% from 2008 and 54 million on Medicaid, up 21% over the same interval. But what escapes him is that the amount of charity that would be needed to leave government out of the picture is actually some twenty five times more than the actual volume of charitable giving!
For example, to make charity ends meet and fill the gap in the absence of government assistance, those rich Catholic and other lobbyists in DC would need to give about 14.9% of their income, not the usually cited 7.7% Similarly, all the other alleged generous conservo states would need to at least double up on their giving."
Contrary to Zinsmeister's twaddle, the situation has arguably gotten much worse not better, so private charity is even less able to cover the costs needed for the typical American family to survive. The Federal Reserve working paper from last year is germane here, indicating the average middle class family does not even have enough reserve cash on hand to cover a $400 emergency. Meanwhile, too many are bamboozled by the monthly jobs report numbers, unaware most of those jobs are low pay - or at least not enough to (singly) cover exploding health, housing, food expenses. I.e. if you work two or three jobs you might, I say might, make it. (Let's also bear in mind that average wages have remained stagnant for at least 40 years, factoring in inflation.)
In Denver, for example, the average monthly rent has now reached $1680 - way more than most of the current residents can afford. Many dwellers in originally low rent apartments are often issued notices they have to leave for "renovations" then are invited back after but with a 50% rent increase- which is way beyond their means.
In some apartments a formal eviction notice isn't needed, only the notice of rent increase, say from $575 /month to $975/month. That amounts to what one enraged resident said is a "quiet movement": Can Zinsmeister's private charity cover such rent increases, far less the cost now to get a mortgage in Denver? I doubt it. (It is estimated a middle class family now needs a down payment of $68,000 for a typical Denver home just to be able to manage a $969/ month mortgage payment. And that presumes a job earning at least $90,000- 94,000 a year.)
Compounding this, we learned yesterday:
(WSJ, p. A2) that developers are planning to add more rental units (371,000) this year than at any other period since the 1980s. The problem? Most will be aimed at the wealthy in many major cities. Why?
The minimal affordable housing stock nationwide also puts the kibosh on the claim that "an increase in luxury housing might encourage more economically mobile renters to move up." But not when such renters are only earning $20.75 /hr. as they are here in the Springs, on average. So they can barely afford an apartment for $650/month using Section 8 subsidy, far less the $1385 for a regular single bedroom apartment.
Most newcomers to our state, for instance, have nowhere near the earning power to afford a single family home in Denver, or the Springs. Add in a family calamity like a child's illness, a bread winner's serious disease or injury, and there is a rather rapid descent into homelessness or at least trying to survive in one of the city's homeless shelters, e.g.
A homeless family crowds into a corner of an Aurora, CO shelter. A food shortage at the shelter meant it had to seek outside assistance
Which truth be told is still preferable to living in a tent near Denver's Lincoln Park - which is now beset by rats. ('Rats Close Park Near Colorado Capitol', Denver Post, Jan. 16, p. 1A)
Meanwhile, Zinsmeister paints progressives as "opponents of civil society" - which he conflates with private philanthropy. This is because "77 million ordinary citizens" donate "the lion's share" of charitable gifts annually. But as one alert WSJ letter writer has noted (p. A14, today), those 77 million ordinary folks donate "mostly after tax dollars".
Zinsmeister goes on in conflationary mode (ibid):
"The lion's share comes from ordinary citizens, 100 million of whom annually donate an average of around $3,000."
Thereby conflating the 100 m givers, mixing the 77 million ordinary folk (like wifey and myself) who donate in after tax dollars, with the 23 million who only pay capital gains tax - then get enormous ordinary income write-offs on their largely self-directed charities. As the same WSJ letter writer puts it: "They are not only giving away tax -free appreciated property but are also able to eventually shelter 100 percent of their donation against taxable income, a twofer."
Thus, the rightful jab by the NY Times, NPR etc. that any who invoke that ploy are guilty of an "elite charade", i.e. disguising their merciless taking (in tax breaks, write offs) by appearing to give back.
Thus, the rightful jab by the NY Times, NPR etc. that any who invoke that ploy are guilty of an "elite charade", i.e. disguising their merciless taking (in tax breaks, write offs) by appearing to give back.
As admirable as are the donations of those 77m "ordinary" citizens they do not come in concentrated, large amounts - so only have limited impact on large scale problems. Hence, our own charitable donations of roughly $250 / month (combined wife & me), are not the same as the Tulsa, OK billionaires plunking down $30 million at one time to provide low cost housing for the city's homeless, e.g.
Hence, the latter have vastly more potential to change lives for the better if they truly wanted to, but only a select few do. For example, if they truly wanted to they could invest billions in new antibiotic manufacture to halt the spread of antibiotic resistant bugs, and the increased incidence of sepsis in hospitals, etc. See e.g.
A New Year's Resolution For Bill Gates & Co. : D...
And:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-03/antibiotics-aren-t-profitable-enough-for-big-pharma-to-make-more
This conflationary error (private philanthropy with 'civil society') entices Zinsmeister to claim that those of us who actually oppose charity replacing government -state funding" insist it is "illegitimate" for "civil society groups to compete with the state". In fact, this is nonsense, as we've always contended private charity - from whatever source- needs to supplement government -state spending. Thus, the family that needs food stamps and shelter (shown above) also needs ready access to free kitchens and services in the area provided by private charities.
But one thing you do not do is take away the government support - say in Medicaid, disability benefits and food stamps- and expect charity alone to fill the gaps left in the wake.
As if to underscore this we now learn that the Trump cabal plans to alter criteria to receive disability benefits ('Tighter Disability Criteria Weighed', WSJ, January 10, p. A3) The move, and related ones, could toss over 600,000 mainly older workers to the wolves. Would private charity be able to make up the $30-40 million to avert homelessness, medical catastrophe? (Since the new plan also seeks "more restrictions" for Medicaid benefits.)
Then there is also the looming plan to toss another 600,000 (mainly women and children) off of the SNAP (food stamps) program by April. Will private charity be able to make up the $50m, say via expanding food kitchens? Again, I doubt it. Food kitchens in Colorado are already facing bare shelves even before the month runs out. Many of those needing help came to Colorado in search of better lives but found only debt and paychecks that couldn't cover rent or utilities.
In the words of Kathleen Romig, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (ibid.):
As if to underscore this we now learn that the Trump cabal plans to alter criteria to receive disability benefits ('Tighter Disability Criteria Weighed', WSJ, January 10, p. A3) The move, and related ones, could toss over 600,000 mainly older workers to the wolves. Would private charity be able to make up the $30-40 million to avert homelessness, medical catastrophe? (Since the new plan also seeks "more restrictions" for Medicaid benefits.)
Then there is also the looming plan to toss another 600,000 (mainly women and children) off of the SNAP (food stamps) program by April. Will private charity be able to make up the $50m, say via expanding food kitchens? Again, I doubt it. Food kitchens in Colorado are already facing bare shelves even before the month runs out. Many of those needing help came to Colorado in search of better lives but found only debt and paychecks that couldn't cover rent or utilities.
In the words of Kathleen Romig, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (ibid.):
"The sum total of it just makes it more difficult for people to meet their needs when they fall on hard times - really basic needs like food, housing, health care."
All of which again reinforces the position of progressives and the left that charity has its rightful place - in a civil society - as a supplement to government assistance and benefits, not a replacement for them. In addition, what we need to seriously consider now is Dem candidate Andrew Yang's proposal that everyone (especially in the lower economic strata) receive a universal basic income (UBI).
See also:
And:
No comments:
Post a Comment