On its face, they have a point. Giving directly to local community charities does do a good job of targeting the specific needs of the community. I both commend and acknowledge that point of view and the fact that Republicans as a group do contribute to charities at least on a par with Democrats. There will always be the need for private, direct, community-based giving.
The sneaky lie is that because private giving is the most effective means in some (or even many) instances, public (government) programs are not needed. There are huge problems with a private-only community safety net. The most obvious is that our communities are and always have been fairly discrete and highly segregated by income. Not many 1% earners live next door to the struggling family hoping for enough cash to run the furnace this month. Hard hit communities (think Detroit under Bush Jr.) can be overwhelmed--there simply aren't enough people willing/able to give enough.
Not every group needing help has the marketing ability or, frankly, the appeal to compete for direct giving. For instance, it isn't hard to make an inspiring video asking people to feed starving babies, or rescue abused kitties and puppies. Wonderful causes, much needed, and undeniably heartwrenching. But we also need drug and alcohol rehab centers, homeless shelters, and many other things that help the "less photogenic".
We need a public safety net, especially for those outside the mainstream community. From a purely ROI standpoint, it is cheaper and easier to publicly fund transient and homeless nutritional needs than it is to hire enough police to protect us and incarcerate the starving masses that would be reduced to stealing food. The anti-public school bunch always ignore this aspect--it is cheaper to keep kids in school than it is to deal with the problems that all those kids running around without direction would cause.
The worse thing about the sneaky lie is that it totally ignores just how well the private and public roles can work together. When more of a community's basic needs are assured by the government, more of that community's private giving can be directed toward the things that community really values. For instance, if most of the people in a town are at least assured of getting enough food through federal programs, the local charities might be able to focus on supporting low-income housing, or other things specific to that town.
= new reply since forum marked as read
