Skip to main content

How the Federal Government Decimated Private Charity

Prior to the Great Depression, private charities and state and local governments did a remarkable job of taking care of those in need. Since the mistakes of the Herbert Hoover Administration, however, and the continuation of those mistakes by Franklin D Roosevelt, we've never been the same.

In 1887, as the state of Texas faced a long and debilitating drought, the United States Congress passed an appropriation to help Texas's beleaguered farmers. As it reached President Grover Cleveland's desk, he vetoed the bill. He stated his reasoning: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Such federal aid, he said "weakens the sturdiness of our national character. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen," he continued, "can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

Donations to the plight of the drought-stricken Texans came in from all over the country, which equaled more than ten times the amount that Congress had intended to appropriate.

The ability of private charities, along with state and local governments, was scarcely questioned until the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which exacerbated the economic problems that the United States Federal Reserve had already caused and made more acute.

The economic malaise had become so pronounced by the middle of 1932, that many voices began to call for a federal solution to the problem, which was quite ironic in that the cause of the economic crisis had been the federal government itself. Amid the federal-government-caused crisis, the ironic siren call for federal government to supersede private charity proved irresistible.

Many private charities were staunchly opposed to the federal government relief programs being contemplated. Organizations such as the Red Cross were well aware that their ability to help the indigent would be decimated as federal government usurped private giving in the form of higher taxes. This is just what occurred.

The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 appropriated $300 million to provide emergency relief to  the various states. Ironically, the $300 million appropriation came from taxes exacted from the same people of the same states that were to be given the emergency relief. The inefficiencies are obvious. This time, unfortunately, Grover Cleveland was not on hand to veto this clearly unconstitutional appropriation.

Of the $300 million emergency funding, eight states took none of it, Massachusetts being one of the most prominent. Various philanthropic drives and local programs allowed Massachusetts to completely provide for itself during the crisis. They received no forgiveness from the federal government however, as taxes from Massachusetts were still exacted to pay for other states that had not many any such attempts at frugality, the most profligate being the state of Illinois, which made off with $55 million dollars of the relief money--almost 20% of the national total.

Shortly after taking office, FDR signed into law the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, substantially increasing what the Hoover administration had sadly put into motion, and making things far worse. Federal relief policies became incentives to such inefficiencies as states exaggerating what they needed for relief and making only abysmal attempts to raise local funding for their own assistance. More destructively, increases in federal taxation decimated private philanthropy.

Enough years have intervened since the Great Depression that we have all but forgotten what life was like before then. Before that time, private charities and state and local governments were more than matches for the economic relief problems that faced them. Happily, they still can be, if the federal government would gradually extricate itself from the welfare mess that it has caused.

Significantly, trillions of dollars in debt and projected debt have proven that the Federal Government is not fit for the task that it took for itself using the backdrop of the Great Depression as its excuse. The sooner we figure out that individuals can take care of their fellow man much more effectively than a faceless bureaucracy, the better off we'll be.

For more details, see chapter 6 of New Deal or Raw Deal? by Burton Folsom

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

To Have the Compassion of an Ogre

At least when it comes to using government as a weapon of compassion, I have the compassion of the ogre. I will explain below why I think government cannot and should not be in the business of compassion. The force of government has caused many people to show less compassion to their fellow men. On the other hand, some of the best things happen when government is not compassionate. In such circumstances, individuals personally begin to display more compassion. One such instance of this happened recently in Utah when the governor asked the legislature to convene a special session in order to (among other things) provide special monies to pay for dental care for the disabled . If they didn't fund the governor's compassion project, it would make the legislators look even more heartless in a year where the budget surplus was projected to be at least $150 million. In spite of these political odds, the legislature did not grant the $2 million that 40,000 members of the disabled

Hey, Senator Buttars: "Happy Holidays!!"

Utah Senator Chris Buttars may be a well-meaning individual, but his actions often don't come out that way. His latest lament, with accompanying legislation that businesses use the phrase "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays", is at least the third case in point that I am aware of. First, we were entertained by the faux pas made by the Senator in the 2008 Utah Legislative session, when referring to an In reality, America has a Judeo -Christian heritage, so maybe Senator Buttars should change his legislation to "encourage" businesses to advertise with " Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas"...? analogy of a human baby, of declaring that " this baby is black ". Then there was the attempt to help a friend develop his property in Mapleton, Utah, by using the force if his legislative office . Let's see if we can top that... Who cares that businesses hock their Christmas wares by using the term "Happy Holidays"? I