Guest Commentary

The federal government is behaving like a bunch of children in an
elementary school class who are learning about the legislative process
by putting together a make-believe budget. Unfortunately, there is no
adult around to interrupt them and explain that in the real world,
people can’t spend twice as much as they take in, and that quadrupling
the debt over the next 10 years will lead to very bad things.

At least Tucson’s politicians made the effort and balanced the
budget. They did it with spending cuts and a collection of new taxes
and tax increases that were disparate enough to not raise anyone’s ire.
Those ranged from a new tax on hotel-room stays to an increase in the
environmental (trash) fee—a fee that both Nina Trasoff and Karin
Uhlich condemned when they ran for the offices they now hold. Both
Trasoff and Uhlich are up for re-election this fall. I doubt they have
anti-trash-fee planks in their current platforms.

It is disappointing that the City Council did not adjust spending
down to match revenues without increasing the tax burden. I would like
to see both spending and taxation reduced, so I started poking around
in past budgets to see what we could throw out.

I found a category under which the city of Tucson steals our
prerogative in regards to how we help our fellow Tucsonans. It makes
charitable contributions for us with tax money. It’s called “Human
Services,” and it supports outside agencies that help people like the
homeless.

I know of two organizations that provide direct services to the
homeless. They are the Primavera Foundation and the Gospel Rescue
Mission. Both do good works, and contribute to the betterment of our
city. In 2008, Primavera received in excess of $364,000 from the city
of Tucson. I could find no payments made to Gospel Rescue Mission.

I called Danny Hansen, associate executive director of the Gospel
Rescue Mission, and asked if they received financial support from the
city. He said that the Gospel Rescue Mission takes no government money.
Apparently, it affects the “focus on the work we are called to do.” He
added that the money always has strings attached; though those strings
might seem harmless at the time, they often change with new
administrations.

Gee, do you think that governments might want to leverage their
“donations” into more power, control or vote-buying? Who would have
thought?!

One might counter, “Yeah, well how about corporate donations? Don’t
they want to control, too?” Probably not; most are too busy building
missiles, rainwater cisterns, homes or whatever. They are usually
motivated by the “good corporate citizen” ethic, public relations or
both. Besides, it’s much easier to say, “Go pound sand!” to a
corporation than it is to the guys who can change the rules (write
laws) and who command the guys in the ninja suits (SWAT teams).

As I said, both organizations do good work. They do, however, have
different approaches to the problem. While they both offer contingent
services, education and job-training, the Gospel Rescue Mission offers
transformation to a new life through faith in Christ.

Now, if you do not believe in the value of that religious stuff, you
should not be compelled to support it. Of course, if you think that the
secular approach does not address the root causes and is urinating into
the wind, to a degree, you should not be compelled to support that,
either.

I’d like to think that, at this point, Americans are nodding, while
totalitarians are furrowing their eyebrows.

Look at it this way: If there is an interest among the people to
support the work of an organization, people will support it directly.
If there is little support among the people, and the government
represents the people, how can the government justify funding that
organization?

The difference between free-choice support and tax-money support is
force. Charity, when freely given, benefits both the donor and the
recipient. When money is taken involuntarily—ultimately by force,
if necessary—and given to an outside agency, the relationship
between government and the citizenry is changed. It also inhibits
character development by relieving people of adult
responsibilities.

It is un-American for a government to point a gun at a citizen and
tell him which charities he likes.

This article appears in Jun 25 – Jul 1, 2009.