Empathy Deficit

Last week I told you that my first subject would be the quote from the Senator's wife, "We are living in a time where we are suffering from a deep empathy deficit."

It turns out that this was not her quote, but a repetition of one of her husband's go-to lines in his stump speech. "There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit - the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us - the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room.
As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier. There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You'll be free to live in neighborhoods with people who are exactly like yourself, and send your kids to the same schools, and narrow your concerns to what's going in your own little circle."

So, do we suffer from an "empathy deficit"?

The Senator maintains that this deficit is seen in the lack of government support for the programs that offer relief to those in need. Of course he would look at this instead of the facts.

Americans are the most-generous people in the world...Americans gave almost $300 billion to charity in 2006, setting a new all-time record for generosity. The showing was particularly impressive given that 2005's results benefited from a surge in donations related to Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami in Asia. (2006's results were effected by Warren Buffett's record setting pledge to the Gates Foundation).

Senator Obama (and most Dems) wants to expand the welfare state, to rely on the government for the provision of these benefits. However, there is a great deal of risk involved in this.

First--there is the risk of people reacting to the increased burden of taxation with the attitude of "I gave at the office". Remember, Ebenezer Scrooge's retort to the men seeking to collect for charity:

“...A few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”

Forced charity is not the way to go.

Second--increases to taxation will put downward pressure on the economy, and giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy.

According to the Associated Press:
Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2 percent rise as stocks rose more than 10 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis.


Just like almost every other social problem that the government tries to solve, the results of the "War on Poverty" has been a massive disaster. After $7 billion of wasted expenditures (more than twice the cost of World War II!), the number of official poor remains fairly constant.
Human Events has an excellent article on the failure of the "War on Poverty": http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860, and
the Heritage Foundation has an article which puts the plight of the poor into perspective: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm

I believe that what the Senator is talking about is true at some level. Per capita charitable giving among Americans is lower today than during the Great Depression. During the height of the Great Depression, charitable giving averaged 3.3 percent of annual income. It is now at 2% (however, add to that the cost of taxes to support the federal, state, and local programs--is it possible that we are still near the Great Depression levels???). I believe that we are seeing some of the Scrooge attitude with a large proportion of our money forced from our hands to support suspect government programs. "I support those programs (through taxation), they cost enough, the poor must go there".

During the Depression, we did not have federal programs (and few state and local programs) supported by taxation to help those in need, and a funny thing happened. Individuals stepped up and helped their family, friends, neighbors, and even strangers. Even with the huge problem of unemployment and poverty, starvation was not a problem in the 30's. This is not to say that times were not hard and there was not widespread hunger, but many charities filled the gap and provided the needed assistance. The first government programs didn't come on line until nearly four years after the Depression began.

There is another telling signal that our tax burden is hindering our ability to be our brother's keeper..."Many middle class families may believe themselves "too poor" to be charitable. Yet we see those with much more meager incomes are still finding the means and the will to give. Americans who earn less than $20,000 per year have one of the highest charitable giving-to-income ratios of any group in United States. These Americans clearly disprove the notion that charitable giving is the sole purview of the wealthy. " (from Crosswalk.com)

Americans who earn less than $20K are also exempt (for the most part) from taxes. Coincidence?

So, yes, we do have a deficit of sorts. But Senator Obama and other Democrats will find themselves unable to address it since their 'cures' will only worsen the symptoms. We need to free ourselves from the shackles of over-taxation in order to allow us to become more generous. Forced giving is not the solution.

One other thought...would you give to a charity with an overhead cost of more than 60%? This is a very conservative estimate of the cost for providing benefits from the federal government--it is likely only 25 cents of each dollar going to the programs which goes to the direct assistance of those the programs were meant to help. I personally would never voluntarily donate to such a "charity"...in fact, I would hope that the charity would be investigated and shut down.