Shutdowns and Food Banks

The Schumer Shutdown may have been paused but the Obamacare funding problem won't go away, and neither will hunger if political interests decide to use the misery of our people to wield power. Democrats openly admitted it--they needed the shutdown to punish Trump and his supporters for a bad medical insurance plan they created!  "Leverage" some called it. Some agitators are furious today,

"Feeding America" is an organization almost 60 years old with noble goals--feed the hungry. It began with one man (some sources say one woman) as Second Harvest, a charity to collect and distribute food that might have gone to waste and redistribute it through food banks to local food pantries. I remember in the late 1960s attending a meeting in Clintonville about establishing a central location for food to be stored for local pantries. Recently, Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther called the local resources a "short-term approach to a crisis" [the shutdown] and said it was up to the federal government to fully fund food assistance. I don't call 60 years a short-term approach. Food banks have become a hallowed institution. Our food bank system here in central Ohio is massive. Our Commitment | MOFC

But low income people who are "food insecure," the current term for hungry, aren't stupid. They too are resourceful and want what's best for their households. As food programs expand, those households factor that into their budgets, leaving more cash for non-food items such as rent, utilities, clothing, alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, cell phone contracts, etc. Studies show that even with the lowest unemployment rate since the early 1970s, food pantries are still an important resource for many households, some increasing their visits from occasional to regular. That in turn allowed for many small businesses to make a profit from the various food programs.

Right now, with the longest government shut down, we're in a situation that we've taught people to use food sources outside their income which includes government assistance. Was it a mistake for us to be charitable? No. Charity is required from good people, but we need to remember that good intentions don't always bring good results.

Schumer Shutdown--is it over?

It looks like the Schumer Shutdown is over for now. The disastrous Obamacare increases will still need to be solved, and the payment for illegals worked out. A CR would have been the smartest thing to do although once the gov't gives a freebie it doesn't go away, Schumer will still be attacked by his own party because they want the female youth vote that seems to go with AOC grabbing his Senate seat.
There are still people who are missing a paycheck or SNAP and will be relying on food pantries. For the most part, these are run and staffed by churches, but the "donations" are probably government and non-profit managed. The slack is picked up by the people--YOU.

Unveiling the Truth: Are Food Pantries Funded by the Government? - PanFlavor

Giving Tuesday

Opinion: Giving Tuesday (following Thanksgiving, black Friday, small business Saturday and cyber Monday) might have been a good idea when it began, but it has become annoying. I think I deleted about 35 messages yesterday and threw out some snail mail. Some were from organizations I've already given to, and even though I know these are mass mailings, it irritates me to see begging and manipulating after I've already been generous. I'm of the opinion that, unlike true growth or the expanding economic pie, charitable dollars are probably fixed. We donate about 10 or 12% of our income and have for about 50 years. Our income and interests change (higher when we were employed) but our values haven't. Our cat died in 2017 so we don't contribute now to Cat Welfare. When Project Veritas dumped the founder, it lost our donation. When Pinecrest was taken over by Allure I no longer send a memorial to honor my parents. The money was shifted to Lutheran Bible Translators or Pregnancy Decision Health Center, saving babies from abortion.

Whether you give $5 a year or $5,000, getting an e-mail may move more for this orphanage or that little league team, but it may not change your overall percentage. There are only so many charitable dollars to go around. Does Giving Tuesday make people more charitable?

A few facts:  Now, AFTER I wrote the above paragraph, I actually checked my opinion against the AI fact checkers. I was told that 2012 was the first year with 2500 non-profits and over $12 million given/pledged. Now (2022) it's up to $3.1 billion, an increase of 15% over 2021. So what self-respecting manager of a non-profit wouldn't sign on for what appears to be an increase in gratitude and charity?

So, I ask you, are people more charitable than they were in 2012 or is it a shell game and the money just moves around, with the bigger and better advertisers getting the bigger share using a good gimmick, Giving Tuesday.

Remembering the good old days before the church went high tech

This is an old photo taken at UALC on Thanksgiving Day--maybe 10 years ago. I don't know what's happening at your church or how other Christians stock food pantries for the poor, but I miss the days of this photo. Now in November we pick up smallish, printed bags with a list of ingredients/food items that will NOT be brought to the front of the church, but quietly whisked off to Lutheran Social Services for the food pantry before the actual holiday. Forgive me staff and pastors, but I think the "high tech, high touch" church has lost even "the touch," the personal involvement, and now it's all about making sure we follow the rules and check the church web page. In seasons past, I usually picked up $10-20 of non-perishable goods a week at the supermarket during November and put them in bags I kept in the kitchen. It helped me think about those who needed help. We were told how much more the food pantry could buy if we just wrote a check. But I also liked the idea I was supporting a local business who employed people who were taking the bus from parts of the city we suburbanites never see, or the truckers out on the free-ways, or the warehouse employees, or those who work in the processing factories and on farms to make sure we all can over-eat on a holiday. Call me crazy, but I liked seeing bags of groceries at the altar. I never remembered the sermon, but I knew my story.

Why do we give?

Six years ago I wrote this thought about giving, alms, charity, and mercy and the long term benefits.

"I read the Columbus Catholic Times, a hand off from a family friend. I'm learning a lot. Just this week I noticed a difference in how Catholics and Protestants use the concept of giving. Catholics suggest "works of mercy" or "works of charity," and Protestants say we will change poverty, schooling, politics, the environment, etc. if we just chip in $10 for the food pantry, or a backpack for Highland school child, or cleaning up a town after a flood or tornado. There's a huge difference. We are to give because Jesus gave first, not because we will end poverty (we won't) or make up for the terrible home of a child (we can't). According to Matt. 25, we will meet Jesus in those acts of kindness and service, so we do them without expecting the reward of change. Meeting Jesus is the reward."

Charitable donations by Democrat candidates

Oh yes, the tax returns are coming out.  We have a taxpayers Bill of Rights and #7 says you can’t be forced to share your information. But they are running for 2020 White House.  Bernie is a millionaire and Beto gives a few dollars for charity—probably donated his old cowboy boots or a truck to Volunteers of America and took a donation.

This has been known for years--not about Sanders specifically, but Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc. are not generous with their own money, but love to give away and transfer your wealth. Usually when they throw their hat into the ring, they up the donations (Obama’s donations soared in 2007). About 60% of the federal budget goes for safety net programs, and there are about 123 wealth transfer programs, then there are the local and state taxes. So I can see Dems say "I gave at tax time," but instead they'd rather complain that Republicans are stingy and don't care about the poor. The top 20% of earners pay 84% of the taxes, but that doesn't keep the Democrats from demanding socialism for the middle class.

Nothing helps a poor man like a job, and President Trump has certainly helped the poor.  And I’m on a pension (which doesn’t go up or down) but my own investments made more the first quarter than I ever did while working.  We shouldn’t become complacent, however.  Recessions go around about every decade.  There have been 2 since I retired in 2000.  So don’t stop being charitable just because of changes in tax laws.  That’s not why we do it.

Together we can change the world

Isn’t that just about the dumbest slogan?  I’ve heard it or seen it many times in many phrases, and it isn’t true, of course.  Get three people in a room with a white board and marker and you have a case for an argument even to state which world you’re referring to. This invitation to change the world just happened to come in an alumni pitch from the University of Illinois. They want my money.  If Illinois graduates were going to change the world, we certainly would have done so by now.

I’ve seen similar slogans about education, about poverty, about child abuse, about suicide, about the opioid epidemic, about trash in the ocean, about trafficking in persons, about friendships with Muslims, about political parties right and left, and any societal or religious problem out there. 

Our church is doing a “launch out” campaign.  Our summer home at Lakeside is non-stop fund raising—sometimes we go to a dinner, sometimes we’re invited to a really nice cottage to listen to a pitch, sometimes they just pass the plate. Right now it’s $3 million for the new swimming pool and wellness center.

UALC—our church--is calling members to celebrate “how God has moved through the last 60 years of our church’s history, give our thanks as He continues to bless and use our church today, and praise Him for the vision He has revealed to us for the future.”  I don’t know what that vision is. In the late 20th century the vision was to expand to the west of the river and have multiple campuses plus a school, but then that didn’t look like a good idea, so the extra land was sold to pay the mortgage. I thought Peter and Paul and the church fathers had the church’s vision pretty well outlined. 

And the U. of I. wants alumni to “come together for our signature event to celebrate the launch of our most ambitious philanthropic campaign ever.” Claims it has a storied past and bold future.  Sounds a lot like my church launch and vision.

Soon I’ll be getting appeals in my e-mail to change a child’s life by buying a backpack with school supplies for a kindergarten student.  Oh, that it were so easy!

Help where you can; be compassionate and kind.  You will definitely not change the world or transform a life, but it will make you a better person.  And that glorifies God.

End of the year contributions, 2016

 Why do I have 5 envelopes for some organizations and none for others?

National Trust for Historic Preservation
Coming Home Network International, Zanesville, OH
Lutheran Bible Translators
Pregnancy Decision Health Center, Columbus
Lower Lights Christian Health Center, Columbus
St. Gabriel Radio, Columbus
168 Film Project (California)
Lakeside
COCINA (Haiti school)
EWTN (Alabama)
Pinecrest Community (in memory of my parents) Mt. Morris, IL
Salvation Army

Donations in Kind
Cat Welfare (memorabilia, jewelry), Columbus, rescue
Discovery Shop (wedding dress) Columbus, cancer

Memberships
Ohio History Connection
Columbus Museum of Art

End of year contributions

Our tithe goes to our local congregation, Upper Arlington Lutheran Church, but there are other groups we like to support through the year and especially in December.  By December, they all come calling.  Increasingly, I get appeals by e-mail--in fact on Dec. 30-31, I must have received at least 10 last minute appeals.  We usually stay with organizations we know, although this year there were some new ones.

A presidential candidate (no comment)
National Parks
Coming Home Network
Lutheran Bible Translators
Black Swamp Bird Observatory
Pregnancy Decision Health Center
Lower Lights
St. Gabriel Radio, Columbus
Mercury One Nazarene Fund (for Syrian Christian refugees)
168 Film Project
Lakeside
COCINA (Haiti school)
EWTN
Pinecrest (in memory of my parents)

The IRS is at it again!

 What could be worse than the IRS being in charge of your medical records?  How about crushing with a burden of paper work every organization you donate to? And not just demanding donor lists for conservative groups like they did to conservatives during the 2012 campaign.  This could also hurt you Democrats who have a heart for charity. The IRS has proposed a new regulation that would require 501(c)3 charitable organizations to collect social security numbers of donors who donate $250.  Mega death organizations like Planned Parenthood would have no problem with this, or the Clinton Foundation which has accepted millions from foreign donors while Hillary was Secretary of State.  But the little church around the corner?  Your local dog breed rescue group?

 https://www.501c3.org/irs-proposal-to-provide-social-security-numbers-of-donors-worries-charities/


“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” 1 Cor. 13:13

Should we be rewarded for our good works?

I read the Columbus Catholic Times, a hand off from a family friend. I'm learning a lot. Just this week I noticed a difference in how Catholics and Protestants use the concept of giving. Catholics suggest "works of mercy" or "works of charity," and Protestants say, we will change poverty, schooling, politics, the environment, etc. if we just chip in $10 for the food pantry, or a backpack for a Highland Elementary school child, or cleaning up a town in Kansas after a flood or tornado. There's a huge difference. We are to give because Jesus gave first, not because we will end poverty (we won't) or make up for the terrible home of a child (we can't). According to Matthew 25, we will meet Jesus in those acts of kindness and service, so we do them without expecting the reward of change. Meeting Jesus is the reward.

Obama got the gimmes

Obama wants just a smidgen more from the rich to support his failing pre-school idea (for over 50 years and trillions of dollars Head Start designed to end poverty has shown no permanent gains in education for children). I admire the foundations the super wealthy support, but really, they can do both--just don't take the tax deduction and they'll have Obama's wish that the wealthy pay more. Also, it's been known for years that conservatives and middle income people contribute... to charity at higher rates than the super wealthy. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy red states are more generous than blue states. The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama. So wanting others to pay more sort of goes with the political philosophy. "Am I my brother's keeper" was first said by Cain after he killed Abel. I thought this was not a good choice of words for Obama's big push to help black men and Latino men.

Is this the worst Christmas song ever?

“Do They Even Know It’s Christmas?” is voted as the worst Christmas song ever by this writer at a Catholic site. It's from Band Aid 1984. He says it disrespects Africa and has images of neo-colonialism. However, efforts to end poverty or hunger always improve the heart of the giver, and rarely the recipient in the long term, in my opinion.

http://www.catholicismusa.com/worst-christmas-song-ever-po…/

Frankly, I didn’t remember it, even when I found it on the internet it brought back no memories.  But it must mean a lot to some because there were people defending it, believing they had made a difference.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/03/do-they-know-its-christmas-is-the-worst-christmas-song-ever/

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2014/12/17/worst-christmas-song-ever

“Do They Know It’s Christmas?” was released in 1984 as part of Band Aid, an effort organized by Bob Geldof in response to a famine that struck the east African nation of Ethiopia. The song certainly captures the spirit of the season, as its charitable aims are noble enough. The problem, however, is in how these good intentions are translated into word and deed. The song describes Africa largely as a barren wasteland, “Where the only water flowing is the bitter sting of tears.” It continues in this vein. Africa, the onetime breadbasket of the Roman Empire and home of the Nile River is a land “where nothing ever grows, no rain nor rivers flow.” The title question likewise plays into the supposed desperation of the continent. The only “Christmas bells that ring there are the clanging chimes of doom.” The response to this call is supposed to be charity from the affluent West, to “feed the world” and thereby “let them know it’s Christmastime again.”

https://medium.com/@magattew/stop-raising-money-for-relief-and-start-investing-in-africa-bd5c44a75557

In 1984, when Geldof’s first African Christmas song was released, no one thought of investing in Africa. Since then, China and India have already begun their path to prosperity.

Now some of the fastest growing nations on earth are African. Yes, Ebola is an urgent humanitarian cause that must be addressed, but we have long passed the point where it is legitimate (if it ever was) to re-enforce the stereotypes of a billion people when we have a very specific health crisis at hand.

Charitable giving

Jesus preaches and teaches more on money than any other topic. Liberal Christians will remind you, if you forget. However, he never asks believers/followers to take money from others and pretend it's their own generosity. Nor does he ever suggest they ask Rome to respond to their responsibilities. Nor does he ever promise you will end poverty or change lives if you give--except maybe your own. Although Americans are the most generous in the world--giving to charity more than the GDP of some prosperous countries--the lowest income and least educated Americans (bottom fifth) give beyond their capacity. The wealthiest give proportionately the least. Giving helps your health, your happiness and even your looks! The giving season is coming--don't be stingy. http://online.wsj.com/…/SB100014240527023043374045792143334

http://www.aei.org/publication/arthur-brooks-to-unveil-new-research-on-charitable-giving/

http://allchristiannews.com/less-tithing/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/19/68456_americas-poor-are-its-most-generous.html?rh=1

Kicking a gift horse in the teeth

Last year Wal-Mart donated $3 million to New York City charities, including $1 million to the New York Women’s Foundation, which offers job training, and $30,000 to Bailey House, which distributes groceries to low-income residents. It’s donated some $22.5 million all across New York state. In 2011, it donated $4 million to a city program that offers summer jobs to young people and since 2004 it has donated $16 million to the city’s charter schools. But corporate good will flies in the face of progressives' agenda so NYC Council has order Wal-Mart to stop. Meanwhile, unemployment and poverty in NYC is way above the national average, and under the leftist regime of De Blasio I suspect will get worse.

http://247wallst.com/retail/2014/06/07/new-york-city-ensures-no-good-deed-wal-mart-does-will-go-unpunished/#ixzz3447pq2rV

Wal-Mart the company and foundation gave more than $1 billion in cash and in-kind contributions during 2012, a record for Wal-Mart or any retailer. If De Blasio doesn't want the money, maybe your organization could use it.

http://foundation.walmart.com/apply-for-grants/local-giving

Is there really a compassion gap?

Nicholas Kristof wrote about one child and one mother for a story, and got 3 comments which he calls an "outrage" and "compassion gap" and then segues into criticism of all conservatives/Republicans--who actually have a much better record for compassion than liberals in all studies. Plus they believe a job is better for poverty than handouts and marriage is one part of the solution to generational poverty!!

He also equates affluence with being Republican, which is just catering to his base—liberal Democrats. Most who read the first story, didn't comment. During the recession, poverty (line) increased by 16%, but food support increased by 58%. And the recent decrease we heard about was because ARRA temporary funding came to an end 4 years after the end of the recession. There is no compassion gap, but the entire nation is getting weary of the liberals' excuses and their failed programs which keep the poor tied to and dependent on politicians.

And where does he come up with this? The liberals propose abortions and close charter schools that help poor and minority children.

“To break cycles of poverty, we have the tools to improve high school graduation rates, reduce teen pregnancies and increase employment. What we lack is the will to do so.”

Like most liberals, he doesn’t break out charitable giving by faith—and whether rich or poor (the very wealthy contribute by far the most,  just like they do taxes).  And although he notes the importance of marriage in getting out of poverty, it’s just a throw away line, almost a straw man so he can criticize conservatives who promote it. Even his formula isn’t correct:  it’s 1) marriage before having children, 2) finish high school, and 3) a job—any job. He lumps unmarried moms, drugs and crime together.

“Critics [this came out of the Clinton administration]  note that if a person manages to get through high school and avoid drugs, crime and parenting outside of marriage, it’s often possible to escape poverty. Fair enough. But if you’re one of the one-fifth of children in West Virginia born with drugs or alcohol in your system, if you ingest lead from peeling paint as a toddler, if your hearing or vision impairments aren’t detected, if you live in a home with no books in a gang-ridden neighborhood with terrible schools — in all these cases, you’re programmed for failure as surely as children of professionals are programed for success.”

This is a horribly depressing home life for any child with no government program in the world that could turn it around, but he blames a compassion gap. But that’s his implication—with enough compassion (there are 79 government transfer programs including Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, low income housing, Head Start, Healthy Start, etc.), we could turn this around.

Kristof insults all his readers by judging them based on a few   snarky comments on Twitter and e-mail.  Man up, Kristof.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/kristof-the-compassion-gap.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Besides, in 2008 Kristof noted that Conservatives were more charitable that Liberals.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

The rich pay far more. Is that fair?

"Taxpayers earning at least $200,000 represented 2.8 percent of all people filing tax returns in 2009, according to Internal Revenue Service data. However, they donated 37 percent of the $158-billion in itemized charitable gifts made that year."  The president not only wants to raise their taxes, but he wants to take away “charitable” loopholes.

http://philanthropy.com/article/Does-the-Charitable-Deduction/129212/ .

"There are 133,000 male heads of households and 143,000 female heads of households who make more than $200,000 a year." Obama calls them rich and wants to increase their taxes. Oh my goodness, a gender difference in income--but the female high earners (who need free stuff like birth control from the government) exceed the men.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0710/Obama-tax-proposal-Who-makes-more-than-250k-and-are-they-rich-video

I was looking at the table by the CBO of “Share of Federal Tax Liabilities for all Households, 1979-2009” and noticed a lot that wasn’t “fair.”  The top quintile (20%) in 2009 had a tax liability of 67.9% (55.3% in 1979) and the lowest quintile had .3% (2.1% in 1979).   The top 5% had a tax liability of 39.6% (28.1 in 1979) and there is no comparable figure for the bottom 5% because I think it is a negative number.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373

Charles Murray points out the top earners in the United States also tend to be college educated, industrious, married, and participate in a faith family.  And what does Obama reward?  High college debt, sloth, single women and spits in the face of the religious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html

Live simply that others may simply live

Saint Elizabeth Anne Seton was an Anglican with a large family who converted to Roman Catholicism after her husband's death. She founded the Sisters of Charity in the United States. This quote on living simply was featured today. I don't believe this.

Living simply has its own rewards, but it is always relative. Compared to some of our neighbors in our condo complex, we live simply. I am buying coffee in the morning for $.95 instead of $1.89 and putting the difference in our Haiti fund, but I could make it at home for five cents and put $2 in the kitty instead of one. A friend returned from India last Friday. She said the poverty was so appalling she could think of nothing but getting home to a shower and non-spicy food. She was so grateful for what we have!

Nothing is a more oppresive slave master than materialism and always wanting more stuff. Maybe we're not those hoarders like we see on reality TV, but our belongings own us. But there's no way that the stuff I don't lavish on myself makes it to a victim of the Haitian earthquake or the child of a low caste family that cleans latrines in India. Even if I were to take the money I saved and send it to a trusted NGO or Christian charity, there are just too many salaries to be paid and too many palms to be greased. What changes the lives of people is honest governments and solid infrastructures. Dictators will take your donation for an improved well and if there are no roads and no working trucks, the foodstuffs will be eaten by rats before it is ever unloaded at the dock or airport.

You do what you can because it is the right thing to do, not because you will change someone else's life. Look through Matthew 25 and what Jesus says about the poor, the imprisoned, the thirsty, the ill. He never promises a changed world; only a changed you.

Obama's Millionaire Obsession

President Obama's always been wealthier than we are, even in childhood, and unlike us probably didn't begin in the bottom quintile as a young man, having attended pricy private schools and colleges and then marrying a woman of some means and social connections from Chicago. However, he loves to play the wealth envy card, doesn't he?

With less than 19 months left before the next presidential election, Barack Obama has kicked off his campaign, doing coast-to-coast "town hall" meetings last week. At the top of President Obama's re-election strategy is what appears to be a personal jihad against America's "millionaires and billionaires," many of whom, he seems to think, are—there's no other word for it—un-American. So naturally the place he picked to pitch an assault on the wealthy was the Silicon Valley headquarters of Facebook, a place filled with millionaires and billionaires.

Since he never could acquire wealth on his own efforts, or was never allowed to given his parents' and grandparents' socialist beliefs, he now has to try to strip and demean others who have achieved.

Henninger: Obama's Millionaire Obsession - WSJ.com

Conservative Christians have always given more generously than liberal Christians who prefer to take hand outs from local, state and federal governments, then pass it on to the poor in various "good works." However, even the wealthy give more than their "fair share."

It is an eternal question whether the deductibility of such spending means the charitable activity by these people is bogus and driven only by self-regard. One man's answer: Eliminate the charitable deduction, drop—or flatten—the top tax rate and total giving will rise, not fall. Giving is what Americans do, at all income levels.

An oxymoron--paid volunteers

A better deal than Americorps! That only pays a stipend and qualifies you to be a "public servant" to repay your college debt. Charity for Debt might pay off your college loans at up to $20 an hour for your "volunteering." Plus, if you join Americorps to pay off your college loans you might get stuck recruiting people for food stamps.

We need a new name for this feel good enterprise (Charity for Debt is a "non-profit," but I don't know if it receives government grants for its own staffing and programs). Look. It's not charity if you're working off your debt. In the 17th century we settled a lot of the east coast with people working off debt--it was called indentured servitude. Some people worked off their trans-Atlantic passage. And you're not volunteering if you get your debt reduced for each hour you work. Oh, and it's tax free pay so an hour of work may go 30% further in "volunteering."

I can't balance my check book, but I know that much about how the non-profits (and the government) spin. I've also been a volunteer.