By Savannah Aleckson, published in the Joplin Globe on May 3rd, 2020

 

It’s been a historic year already, and we’re not even halfway through 2020. From the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak here in the United States, to the subsequent bottoming out of the stock market and the accompanying job losses and panic, it’s been a rollercoaster. In an attempt to stabilize the economy in these tumultuous times, Congress recently passed the CARES Act, a massive relief package far surpassing any stimulus in US history.

The aim of the CARES Act is clear–to float an economic lifeline to those impacted by COVID-19. While help may be necessary for businesses and individuals suffering the undeserved economic consequences of shelter-in-place mandates, we ought to vigilantly watch interventions posited as “good” by the government. As we know, not everything touted as being helpful actually is. Thoughtful citizens ought to watch for three overlooked but very real negative effects of the CARES Act:

It will cause inflation, a win for bureaucracy and a loss for the average citizen.

The gargantuan size of the CARES Act is historic and provides relief to different sectors of the economy–large corporations, small businesses, non-profits and individuals–to the tune of two trillion dollars. Where does that money come from? It’s not money our federal government has, as we sit at a 23 trillion dollar national deficit. To cut checks to most Americans, float loans to businesses, and give grants to nonprofits, the government does a sort of sleight of hand–it sells government bonds that when cashed in require more money to be printed. It feels harmless; Americans need more money to weather this crisis. But does printing more money create more value in the economy? Does wealth increase when more dollar bills are in circulation? No. We know from Economics 101 that increasing the money supply without producing more labor, goods, or services causes inflation. Prices go up and tend to outpace increases in the average person’s paycheck.

Indeed, the ripple effects of these actions extend far beyond Capitol Hill–the local coffee shop where you get your morning pick-me-up will feel the effects, as will your next door neighbor who has been dutifully putting away a little money into savings each month and your own family as you budget for necessities like food and rent. Savings decrease in value because it takes more dollars than it once did to purchase goods or services. Inflation is like a tax on savings—rather than a direct tax paid to the government, inflation is the price paid for the government increasing the money supply.

It will prop up non-profits who have limited impact—or worse, a negative impact.

Under the CARES Act, nonprofits in existence March 1st, 2020 will be able to receive a loan up to 10 million dollars from the federal government. Should these non-profits keep their staff on payroll during this crisis, the loan will be forgiven, essentially turning the loan into a grant.

Is this a concern? Shouldn’t non-profits doing good work receive help to weather these trying times? Yes, they should. But who should give the help? The stimulus package can be thought of as the federal government giving back to taxpayers a portion of their own dollars they paid in taxes to use as they see fit (yes, a dream come true). But organizations claiming 501(c)3 status have never paid taxes. Should they receive money from a government to which they never gave? Rather than joining the money-grab and contributing to harmful inflation, nonprofits ought to lean on the compassion and generosity of donors in their communities, many of whom will soon receive an influx of cash from the return of their tax dollars.

Another compelling reason to put the onus of charity support on individuals is because the federal government is horrible at determining where resources should be directed at the local level. Private donors demand more accountability from the non-profits they support; they watch for indicators of a non-profit’s effectiveness, prudent spending, and a real impact made in the community. The federal government simply can’t be this discerning when distributing funds to nonprofits; in fact, no prerequisites are in place in the CARES Act to vet charities for their effectiveness. The unavoidable result of this indiscriminate giving is that effective, impactful charities won’t be the only ones who receive government funds, but ineffective, mis-managed, dependency-fostering non-profits will also–inevitably exacerbating the problems of unhealthy dependency and generational poverty.

It threatens the role of civil society.

In a global pandemic that has caused pain, fear, and a major economic downturn in our nation, help is warranted. And yes, a good argument can be made that the federal government ought to quell some of the damaging effects. However, as responsible citizens who value our liberty and want the best for our vulnerable neighbors, we must remain on guard against government’s usurpation of responsibilities that belong to us—namely, the responsibility to care for our family, friends, and neighbors.

Government interventions such as the CARES Act are dangerous. As resources are pumped into the economy in the form of checks to individuals, grants to businesses, or hand-outs to nonprofits, the unfortunate and all-too-common effect is the undermining of civil society; when we think the government is taking care of our neighbor, we’re less likely to.

These are unprecedented times, and certainly unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures to address them adequately. However, federal responses to crises should never interfere with the individual duty to care for our neighbor. When it does, our social fabric decays as we become an increasingly isolated and unconcerned society– certainly a more terrible crisis than the current one.

Savannah Aleckson is the True Charity Initiative Regional Director for the Joplin, MO area. True Charity seeks to equip charities, churches, and nonprofits with the principles and practice of effective charity.

by James Whitford

Our Founding Fathers said so. 

The debate as to whether helping those in need should be a matter of public or private funding is not new. Few would argue, though, that helping the poor is a not a responsibility within a healthy society. The question here is with whom does that responsibility rest? Government or the compassionate neighbor? Our Founding Fathers had an opinion. During the Haitian revolution, islanders fled to New England escaping French persecution. The influx of refugees proved difficult and a petition to the federal government was made for assistance. In 1794, James Madison stood on the House floor and objected, “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…Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” 

The fact that benevolence from the public treasury is not a power granted by the Constitution was reaffirmed by Thomas Jefferson in 1817. He penned, “Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.”

In like, Benjamin Franklin simply said “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.”

That was their opinion and if it’s yours, you’re already favoring private funding over public. 

But even if we set aside the hope of our Founding Fathers to spare this great Republic from a metastatic federal government, we should ask ourselves, “Can we afford it?”  

We can’t afford public funding.

Just checked the U.S. Debt Clock. Twenty-one trillion, two-hundred twelve billion, one hundred seven million and 6 other digits that are escalating too quickly for me to record. No, we can’t afford it. Not including Medicare and Social Security, the federal government projects to spend 918 billion dollars on caring for the poor this year. That number is important. Not only does it represent a fourth of our entire federal budget, but it’s very close to the annual debt escalation over the last decade. In a nation where we celebrate freedom, we’re wise to remember that the borrower is slave to the lender. Indebtedness and freedom don’t mix well. Jesus rightly said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Today, I believe we can rightly say, “Don’t take from Caesar what he doesn’t have.” Now on that point of what government has or doesn’t have, we should ask ourselves, “Whose money is it, anyway?”

Public money belongs to someone else.

Some may think this a lofty argument for private funding, but for the hardworking taxpayer, it’s very relevant. By that person, the question, “Whose money is it?” may very well be answered, “It’s mine!” Is he right? Consider Micah 4:4 and the description under Christ’s future reign: “…each man will sit under his own grapevine and under his own fig tree with no one to frighten him.” Whose fig tree? His own.  These and scores of other verses in the Bible indicate that private property is a natural right. John Locke, whose writings greatly influenced our current standard of law, conveyed personal property as a God-given right and the product of one’s labor: “…the Work of his Hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and…hath mixed his Labour with…thereby makes it his Property.”

In other words, if a man plows a field, the harvest is his. 

Whether it goes to Planned Parenthood or comes to my Gospel Rescue Mission, it’s not the government’s to give. It’s someone else’s personal property and that someone else should have the right to support what he or she desires. 

If you agree that it’s not the government’s money, then we must ask, “Can it be the government’s responsibility?”

It’s our responsibility

In Isaiah 58, God promises a life that flourishes when we divide our bread with the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the poor. Justice for the poor is His and ultimately, the Church is His vehicle to deliver it. In Isaiah 58, He was speaking to a nation of His people. Today, the mandate still rests with the nation of His people. 

There are reasons for that. Paul writes in 2 Timothy, “Support widows who are genuinely widows.” Pure and undefiled religion not only included helping orphans and widows, but discerning those who really needed the help. The Church, built by relationships, was the natural source for this accountability. This principle of people-who-know helping people-in-need would later be defined as subsidiarity, addressed by Pope Pius XI in 1931. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative…so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.”

Subsidiarity is about neighbor helping neighbor before the government helps your neighbor. 

Some might say, “That’s impossible!” Edward Divine, a leader in the formation of social work and General Secretary of the New York Charitable Organization Society in 1896 challenged, “If there were no resources in times of exceptional distress except the provision which people would voluntarily make on their own account and the informal neighborly help which people would give to one another… most of the misfortunes would still be provided for.”  

I believe it. I was in Joplin, Missouri on May 22 of 2011 when it suffered a catastrophic disaster. A mile-wide F5 tornado rendered more than 7000 people homeless in less than an hour. I watched what government funding could never have done. The relief provided through personal sacrifice, private contributions and countless kind and neighborly acts was immeasurable and proof that in times of great need, a good neighbor can do much more than a big government.

Lastly, we can bet that with government funding comes government oversight. These strings are long tying our missions to bureaucrats in Washington. And though they may not seem too stringent, it’s only a matter of time before the administration changes along with the rules.  

To embrace liberty is to embrace more than just freedom from government tyranny, but freedom from government dependency. After all, the latter is certain to lead to the former.

A version of this article was published in the Joplin Globe on February 25th 2019 and Instigate Magazine’s January/February 2019 issue.

By James Whitford, published by the Hill on July 1st, 2018

After nearly two decades of service to our neighbors in need, I’ve learned an important lesson: People struggling in poverty need hope. And few things offer more hope than a job. My time spent in ministry to the homeless and poor has led me to support the work requirement reforms to welfare programs in the House farm bill as consistent with both Christian principles and practical lessons.

As Christians, we must never lose sight of our responsibility to go beyond alleviating the immediate suffering of those in poverty, but also to help people help themselves to rise out of poverty — for good. We must endeavor to empower those in need so they can feed and clothe themselves and their families in the future.

As Christians, we are called to charity, but we’re never told in the Bible that charity shouldn’t include work. In Deuteronomy, God instructed His people to leave the extra wheat in the fields and grapes in the vineyard for the poor wanderer, the orphan and the widow, but He didn’t say to glean or gather them for the poor. For anyone who wanted help, work was required.

And today, if we really care, work is still required. This means if a person is able, we must help him to find and keep a job. Unfortunately, the majority of able-bodied men and women on food stamps across America are not working even during a time of record-low unemployment. Now is the time for Christians to support the elimination of federal policies that have trapped so many people in hopeless poverty, dependent on the impersonal and inhumane “charity” of government.

My ministry has reinforced to me the power and hope of work — because I’ve seen it firsthand. The transformational power of work overcomes addiction and dependency, helping people discover self-sufficiency and a life of meaning instead.

The Prophet Isaiah calls on us not just to feed people but to “pour yourself out for the hungry and to satisfy the afflicted.” When we invest ourselves like this to really help people out of poverty, Isaiah goes on to promise we’ll “be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail.”

In our ministry, we believe that every person has a reason to hope that his poverty will end. But there is no meaningful path toward that goal if it does not include that most fundamental of anti-poverty programs: a job. People who come to us experience work and learn there is reason to hope.

That hope is lacking for far too many people on welfare today, and the House farm bill’s changes to the food stamp program would empower missions like mine to address it.

Every person is a noble creation who deserves the opportunity to succeed. We are failing in our Christian duty to love our neighbors as ourselves if we fail to provide all people, of whatever background, the real hope of a better tomorrow that comes through a job. Smart policy that prioritizes work for able-bodied adults helps ensure that we uphold that duty.

 

By Marvin Olasky, published by World News Group on April 24th, 2018

James Whitford received a doctorate from the University of Kansas School of Medicine, then moved on from rehabbing bodies to rehabbing lives. Whitford and his wife, Marsha, have given birth not only to five children but to the Watered Gardens Gospel Rescue Mission in Joplin, Mo., a city of 50,000. Here are edited excerpts of our interview in front of Patrick Henry College students.

Why the name, Watered Gardens? In Chapter 58 of Isaiah, God chastises His people for—in the short version—just going to church and not doing anything more. He goes on to say, “Is this not the path that I’ve chosen for you—to feed the hungry, shelter the poor, clothe the naked, welcome the poor into your house? Then you’ll be like a watered garden.” We see the blessing promised to God’s people when they’re helping struggling people be productive.

We’re happier when we’re more productive? The Journal of Applied Psychology in 2015 published a study of more than 6,000 adults. They were unemployed for more than four years but sustained by the government in another country. No work, but they had everything they need materially. The researchers apply psychometric measures. On agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness, the adults dropped significantly compared with a control group. One result of people not working is grumpiness.

So poverty is not just a material question. Outside our mission doors one evening, a man stopped me and said, “I’ve been to a lot of different missions, but I’ve never been to one where I had to work for my bed and meals. You guys take the shame out of the game.” The guy standing beside him said, “We get to keep our dignity.”

We’re poor in dignity and also in relationships? The welfare system is so robust right now that there’s no need to develop relationships, either on the giving or the receiving side. When an elderly person has a cupboard full of government-subsidized food, you’re less likely to volunteer to prepare him a meal. Here’s the latest: Our government-subsidized distribution of smartphones with free data. Now people who are unhappy sink into this form of entertainment that’s been handed to them and that they haven’t had to work for. When the tug for relationship comes, they’ve been so placated by things given them that they’re less interested in developing a real relationship with someone else.

‘Chronic poverty and homelessness are almost always rooted in broken relationships of some sort.’

 

Aside from the smartphones, what other kinds of changes have you seen in the culture of poverty over the last 15 years? Younger people at Watered Gardens. State-funded agencies telling more and more people to be homeless so they’ll qualify for HUD’s Rapid Re-Housing program. I had a meal with a young man who said, “I was living with my mom and grandmother. Things weren’t going so well.” An agency said that if he would come and live at the mission, he’d probably qualify for his own house. It’s a strange web of incentives, starting at the federal level.

What’s wrong with supplying that young man with a house? A person doesn’t become homeless when he runs out of money. He becomes homeless when he runs out of friends. Chronic poverty and homelessness are almost always rooted in broken relationships of some sort—a broken relationship between a man and his family, between a man and his community, or between a man and God.

We’re both fans of Alexis de Tocqueville. What did he write in the 1830s that’s still relevant today? Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that when the state supplants fraternal social connections in a community, we have fewer of those associations—and when individuals find themselves in need, they’ll turn back to the state again—a crowding-out effect.

You also like his Memoir on Pauperism. Tocqueville pointed out two reasons a person works: to survive and to better his condition of living. Work/betterment is a natural cause/effect relationship that every person should be free to experience. Imagine if a person doesn’t work for fear that life wouldn’t get better or for fear that his life condition might even worsen. That’s what’s happening today. Our welfare policy has created an environment in which regular employment doesn’t seem to add up for many—and in some cases, at face value, it appears to worsen a person’s situation. Those who perceive work as punishment develop learned helplessness.

Tell us about your conversation with one man, Randy. On our fourth visit together, he mentioned that he was applying for a part-time job but had limited himself to about 15 hours of work per week, because “if I work more than that, I’ll lose my benefits.” He believes things will get worse for him if he works more. How sad. For Randy and countless others I work with on a daily basis at the mission, work is not adding up.

I want people to know about some of the programs you have going in Joplin. Great Britain now has a Cabinet-level “minister of loneliness,” but I suspect your Neighbor Connect program will work better. Neighbor Connect connects one neighbor’s need to another neighbor’s skill. We database what people are able to do and categorize them by skill. When we’re vetting needs, we watch for opportunities to get people together. We have volunteers preparing a meal and taking it to people who are elderly and in need. We watch for opportunities like that.

What does your Charity Tracker do? It tracks all of this information that swirls around in a benevolent community, all of the aid that an individual or family receives. We’re careful to protect privacy, but it allows us as a community to operate in a collaborative fashion: When we put in goals for an individual, those goals are then read by other organizations. We are in an Uberized society, and we’re figuring out different ways to make information count.

What is your True Charity Initiative? We start by pervasively educating a community through public service announcements. It can’t just be nonprofits and churches: The entire community has to understand. The PSAs would couple compassion and common sense for radio listeners and TV viewers. I’d hope to see communities form up to rethink charity. That might set the stage for policy change that respects and protects “subsidiarity,” where neighbors help neighbors and local churches and community organizations help neighbors before state and federal governments get involved. We need that because we’re now in a nation that’s sinking, with $21 trillion in debt and the divide between haves and have-nots widening.

You’d like to see a “Charity Zone” pilot program. To create a “Charity Zone,” churches and charities would form an association with the goal of having private local charity replace welfare. Charity Zone associations would partner with their local social service offices to offer food, cash and utility assistance, instead of having the government do it. Financing would be via a 50 percent tax credit that donors could receive for contributions to members of the association.

Is that idea getting any traction with legislators? Federal-level legislators give me a blank stare. State legislators get it and they’d be more than happy to try a pilot program, but their hands are often tied because welfare components are federally funded, with strings attached.

 

By James Whitford, published in the Joplin Globe on April 30, 2017

I was in a meeting with some people who work for a government-funded organization that helps other organizations get funded by the government. I hope that sounds strange to you. It should. The conversation was cordial enough but certainly had its tense moments like when I bluntly declined to participate with a group that strategizes to take tax dollars for the work of charity. Unfortunately today, the position that charity should be privately funded is often ridiculed as unrealistic. But that position is nothing new as is the temptation for legislators to appropriate someone else’s earnings to provide relief for strangers in need.

Less than 20 years after our nation’s founding, a debate arose in the House of Representatives as to whether the US government should provide relief for Haitian refugees pouring into New England. The recordings of that third congress revealed compassion was the driving force to consider whether the sum of $15,000 should be spent from the Treasury to aid those escaping a war-torn Haiti in the midst of revolution. James Madison’s dissent was clear: “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government. It would puzzle any gentleman to lay his finger on any part of the Constitution which would authorize the government to interpose in the relief of…sufferers.”

Was Madison heartless? Did his solid stance against government aid reflect an indifference to the suffering of others? Not at all. In fact, he pressed on to consider other ways to care for those refugees without compromising his principled Constitutional position. For those who had fought for freedom against the oppressive rule of a large and expansive government, their newfound liberty demanded this one remain small and limited. The state was to remain laissez-faire, hands-off in the affairs of men, providing only a simple framework of law and order upon which a free and flourishing society could be built; one in which each person was unrestricted to speak his mind, build his dream, defend his family, and to be charitable toward his neighbor in need.

What happened? Only a handful of generations later, that strict constructionist and limited government perspective has given way to a contagious dependency on a massive federal system whose gross overreach feeds the masses but never solves the problem. Instead, true charity that flows out of compassion, selflessness and love for neighbor is crowded out by a seemingly endless supply of state aid that incentivizes its recipients to remain sick and poor.

So why is it nearly every day, one can find another news piece decrying the proposal of federal cuts to various relief programs? Government programs that feed, house, help tutor, even programs that help people travel are all on the cutting block. Are we stuck in a box of believing government is required for us to help our neighbor? Are our community’s relief programs so dependent on government subsidy that they can’t stand alone with local support? Are we to believe that if a government program loses its funding, a more effective form won’t resurrect by the courage of a compassionate community? I don’t.

To conclude that a good work funded by the government needs government funding is to forget there was a day when the government wasn’t so necessary to do good work. There was a time when the expectation for government to feed the hungry, provide shelter for the homeless or clothe the poor was nil. It was once the work of charity. For nearly two decades I have witnessed the work of true charity rescue countless people from the streets, deliver hope and freedom to the addicted, restore families that were broken and put people back to work.

It’s foolish to put faith in programs afforded by a government that can’t afford them. Neither should we fear their end. Instead, let’s put our faith in God and the power of a community that cares. My experience tells me we have reason to believe.

Photo credit: Geoff Livingston US Capitol via photopin (license)

 

---

This article is just the tip of the iceberg for the practical resources available through the True Charity Network. Check out all of the ways the network can help you learn, connect, and influence here.

Already a member? Access your resources in the member portal.

---