We're not as generous as we like to think

I saw a poster on the internet about how much we provide in foreign aid (not the one shown here) compared to taking care of our own poor, veterans elderly, etc. Pure mythology. We just aren't that generous--at least in the area of foreign aid.

We provide very little aid, and much of it has strings attached. Some countries' medical aid, for instance, has strings attached tied to our attempt to change their social patterns--not using DDT or using contraception or not using contraception--or pressure to allow our military bases. Americans seriously overestimate, 1) percent of gays in the population, and 2) percent of our own generosity. Both figures are probably 2-3% at best, and maybe less, but Americans routinely will guesstimate 20-30%.

"The entire international affairs budget – which includes diplomacy and aid – is less than 2 percent of the federal budget. Poverty-focused development assistance is about half of that – for a grand total of 0.7 percent of the U.S. federal budget in Fiscal Year 2014. Americans vastly overestimate how much the U.S. spends on aid. Surveys report that, on average, Americans believe the U.S. spends as much as 30 percent of the federal bud­get on foreign aid, more than Social Security or Medicare." (The Hill.com)

On the other hand, we do take care of our own quite well--24% of the 2014 budget on social security, 24% in various health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP), and 11% for "safety net" or almost 60% of our budget. Defense is only 18%--much smaller than our social assistance programs. There's a lot of waste and graft in that and it provides huge salaries along the way for the legions who are helping the needy, but it's a fact.

Myths about foreign aid

Percentages of federal tax dollars

The dignity of work

This is a repeat from a blog I wrote in 2006 after working at the food pantry.

Did you know that the "working poor" families and the welfare families in this country have about the same income, but the working families by percentage of income are the most generous of any group? Yes, they donate a higher percentage of their incomes than do the wealthiest income group; and welfare families with about the same income give almost nothing to others. There is dignity in work and self-sufficency. Occasionally, something happens to people of limited means--maybe grandchildren have to be taken in, or a heating bill is outrageous, the support check doesn't come, or there's an illness, so they need a little boost from the food pantry.

In the new era of hope and change

will liberals be more generous and sacrificial? I thought some of the campaign and inaugural remarks were insulting. I'm not ashamed of my country; I'm not looking forward to the government redistributing more of my income. But that seems to be the theme. Conservatives have always been more generous than liberals, so when I read this stuff "new era of responsibility," or "change has come to America," "expanding and improving volunteer opportunities," and "call upon all of our citizens to serve one another" I wonder if he missed d'Tocqueville in history class. I doubt that he has a clue what is going on beyond the beltway.

In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.

These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.

Full article by Arthur C. Brooks. We all saw the pittance that Joe Biden and Al Gore gave to charity, and the Obamas only stepped up to the collection plate when he started running for office. We've been tithing our income for over 30 years (yes, even when we were Democrats), and it's embarrassing that we give more than world leaders at a fraction of the income--not percentage, but actual dollars.

And the hype about how "finally" things are going to get done. Wow--has Oprah and her buddies in the media looked at how the Bush administration threw money at social problems? It was my main complaint about his years in office--he not only outspent the Democrats but there were fried chittlins and little oversight on everything being handed out, particularly to non-profits and faith-based groups, which only weakened them. If Barney Frank had help bringing down the housing industry, it was from all the grants given to ineffective groups that were profligate spenders bleating about the right of the low-income worker to an overpriced mortgage they couldn't afford. And now those same groups have their hands out asking for money to run foreclosure counseling programs.