Charity begins at home, not in Congress

I recently listened to a wonderful speech by Arthur Brooks, a great economist and author. He related a few facts about the giving and generosity of Americans. Let me relate a few of those facts to you.

In 2006, Americans gave $300 billion away to charity. American citizens, through private donations gave away to charity an amount that is more than the entire national income of Sweden. In answer to the question, “Are we cheap?” former President Jimmy Carter said, “Yes.” Further he said that the rich states “don’t give a damn” about people in poor countries. U2 singer and self appointed activist for the poor, Bono said, “It’s the crumbs off our tables that we offer these countries.”

Well, the data show otherwise. Looking at how Americans give on a per capita basis compared to other citizens of other countries around the world, we see that Americans give much more. In fact, the average American citizen gives away 3 ½ times more per year than the average French citizen; seven times more than the average German citizen and FOURTEEN times as much as the average Italian. Now all you economists out there want to know why this is. Is it because America is a richer country? By correcting for tax rates, inflation, etc… you see that the gap doesn’t close. This is a fundamental cultural difference.

Why is it that Americans give more? Why do Americans go out of their way to extend aid to those less fortunate, not only here at home, but around the world? Is there a reason that Americans are more charitable?

I believe that among our Founding Fathers, James Madison addressed this in all probability much more eloquently that I could:

“James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

Thomas Jefferson also had very specific feelings about charity:

1806 – “I deem it the duty of every man to devote a certain portion of his income for charitable purposes; and that it is his further duty to see it so applied as to do the most good of which it is capable.”

1812 – “Private charities, as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to every one’s circumstances, are certainly among the duties we owe to society, and I have never felt a wish to withdraw from my portion of them.”

So it would seem that our Founding Fathers wanted to leave the idea of charity to the individual. Did they know something we didn’t? I believe they did. I believe that they realized when men were free to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor, their “private property,” they would be more charitable. The examples above that show Americans are more generous than the citizens in other countries go to that idea. For even though we grumble and gripe about our “high” taxes, all of those countries have higher taxes than we do.

I further believe it is a philosophical difference between the far left and conservatism. For example, Ann Coulter notes the following:

According to their tax returns [notes Coulter], in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this ‘giving back’ stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million — more than twice President Bush’s 2005 income of $735,180 — but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s.

It would seem that conservatives give more. I believe this is backed up by looking to Mark Levin’s book, Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto. In it he writes that the Conservative has it in his nature to “live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger.”

It is in the Conservative’s nature to be more giving, for when one is content to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor, then they feel more able to give to others less fortunate. I also think that this philosophical difference about charity is the reason that Obama proposed the drastic cuts in the tax deductions on charitable giving. You see, the statist thinks that the sun rises and sets on a strong, authoritarian, centralized government. For how can the individual be trusted to give to charity, much less choose his own doctor?

But what Obama and the far left don’t realize is that giving is its own gift. It seems our brains are wired towards giving. Yes, that’s right. You see, when we give, our brain releases endorphins which elevate our feelings of euphoria. This lowers stress, makes you feel “warm and fuzzy,” and in general gives you a better feeling about yourself. Maybe that is why so many far leftists seem angrier. Who knows? But I do know that at Christmas time, I get a great feeling watching my children and grand children open their presents. More so, even than opening my open presents.

So to wrap this up, I would say that charity has to begin at home, because it cannot be mandated or legislated and the giver cannot be intimidated into giving. Charity truly begins at home, but it travels so much farther.

Arthur C. Brooks speaks at BYU