Only the government has the resources

I had a lovely dinner this evening with my friend and debate partner. His birthday is the day after mine so this was our time to celebrate. We've been friends for at least 15 years, though less than 20. We, of course, talk of many things and over the last year he has been a great help because he used to be (30 years ago) a college professor with sage advice for me new to teaching.

In our long rambling discussion he said he distrusts the idea that charities can meet the needs of 7 billion people. Yes, charities do great work (I support several and volunteer at a couple more, as does he), but those with money are too stingy with it to meet the great needs out there. Only governments have the capability and resources to meet those needs (alas, when the rich will allow themselves be taxed).

Maryam Al-Zoubi, writing for Campaign for America's Future, reports on a panel session put on by the Center for American Progress Action Fund that featured Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland that expands on my friend's idea. Yes, Cardin is Democrat -- you had to ask?

Cardin captured it all with this, “The federal government is the only entity to fight poverty in America. We need to do it because we can do it and we’re the only ones who can do it effectively."

Some of the ideas Cardin and others express:

Why fight poverty? Because (according to a Georgetown study) it costs the USA a half-trillion dollars a year.

Who is to blame for poverty -- the poor families themselves or the lack of progressive integrated programs? Al-Zoubi had heard (as have I) that poor people are poor because of their own fault and the government should stop bailing them out. They should work harder with the help the government already gives them.

Lisa Jacobs of Legal Momentum refutes that idea, the "combined income from all the poverty support programs is not enough to uplift the families out of poverty." A complete solution to poverty according to Raquel Russell must "look at transportation, childcare, family formation, job opportunities, job training, education, and nutrition for starters." The federal gov't should take back state programs because, Jacobs says, so many of them are "so regressive that they keep putting up obstacles to prevent people from even coming in through the door."

I'll echo what my friend said. The federal government doesn't spend enough to alleviate poverty. How can we expect charities to do so? That's especially true when considering that the feds don't have the money because the rich don't want their money to help the poor. These same rich people are not going to donate enough money to charity to make a difference.