OCR Text |
Show The National Enterprise, May 18, 1977 Page twenty-thre-e Pragmatic Dogmatics THE DECLINE OF PRIVATE CHARITY by Kent Shearer Organized eleemosynary is in deep trouble in Utah. So said Lowell F. Turner, the Executive Vice Presient of the Greater Salt Lake United Way, on May 9. He noted that cash contributions to benevolent causes have fallen short of overall growth in the economy. We have found that half of the people in major firms dont give anything, Mr. Turner continued. Why this state of affairs? A logical conclusion is that the decline of voluntarily financed private charity bears a direct relationship to the ascension of taxpayer funded social expenditures by government. Consider: 1. Into the twentieth century, the public sector provided little beyond, at maximum, bare subsistence to the In this let them eat cake atmosphere, private philanthropy was called upon to address basic down-trodde- by a government extortion of tax funds from those deemed wealthy enough to be forced to pay. A lobby of welfare recipients developed, and public programs became vastly more of Oz. expansive than the wildest dreams of Hugo, Beecher, and, for that matter, Nash. 2. Voluntary contributions, however, were not sufficiently extensive to relieve the width and depth of real suffering. The scramble to raise requisite donations through such affairs as smart set galas 4. Just as bad money drives out good, public charity dries up private benevolence. Funds - otherwise available for voluntary gifts therefore have fallen victim to the tax collector's writ. As social programs continue to expand, eleemosynary dollars will continue to shrink. led by sneers of many like Ogden Nash, who rhymed: -- - They take the paper and they read the headlines. So they've heard of unemployment and they've heard of the breadlines. And they philanthropically cure them all By getting up a costume charity ball One must view these developments with mixed emotions. Presently, even the meanest miser is required to do his part to alleviate the pain of his fellows. On the other hand, even the most - generous after paying the taxes and confronting the inflation both occasioned by n. human needs left otherwise unattended. Voluntary donations, when made, were much praised. Victor Hugo wrote, As the purse is emptied the heart is filled. Beecher penned, stepping stone toward heaven. Even L. Frank Baums Scarecrow was pleased to accept a degree in philanthropy in lieu of the circulatory organ hed been promised by the Wizard Henry Ward Every charitable act is a - 3. It is greatly easier to tax people than to persuade them, so government, with its rampant social spending is hard put to feed his family and do what he'd like to do for his favorite charity as well. coercive power, moved to fill the void the voluntary sector could not, or would not, occupy. By the United States mid-centur- acknowledged its adherence to the Welfare State, cradle-to-grav- e 10 THIS Thus, the prognosis for private charitable endeavors such as the United Way is not a y, - so-call- ed i.e., one that provided security to all citizens, financed BUUPID6 PADCE LOOK hopeful one. In fact, within our lifetimes they may become anachronisms. CRIPR.ID& tmm--, I 0AX 00 ARCTIC COUP- PRGNC SIZJPMS - W 100 FLASH F LOOPS AUP FIRST mwww , mr ftu THiMkr rrs a QH& OF 5(5(0? r-i-r 147 Hk Nixon by Parker Neilson The Nixon apologists, including the former President himself, are out again as a result of the Frost interviews. Frankly, I did not watch the first twoepisodes.What Nixon would say was so predictable - so transparent. But I do find it revealing that those whose theme has been that it is time to put Watergate behind us are now the ones determined to reopen the sores. O CL CC 111 o o For example, Robert E. Baskin, writing in the Dallas Morning News, claims that only Nixon haters - who he implies invented Watergate of whole cloth - could refuse to accept the former President's "explanations in the first Frost interview at face value. Baskin also advances two rather curious arguments: first, that Watergate was the crime of subordinates and that the former President was guilty only of an omission in not cracking down" and, second, that his refusal to destroy the ultimately incriminating tapes, which were always in his possession, proves his good intentions. The tapes themselves stand as unimpeachable rebuttal to the first point. Their revelations of his illegal and immoral conduct is corroborated, moreover, by Nixons entire political career, running from Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, through the "Checkers" episode, right to the White House. These events stand as mute evidence that Nixon not only could, but as a standard practice did engage in immoral operations like Watergate. That is all the more outrageous coming from a man who said of his own critics engaged only in peaceful dissent that "there is no cause that justifies - lawlessness." It is, in fact, amazing that a Watergate was needed to expose the man and it taxes credibility now to deny that he was in complicity on Watergate from the begining. As for the second point, Baskin and those of his persuasion cither do not recall or arc incapable of logic. Nixon did retain the tapes which wrere his ultimate undoing - other than a crucial 18 minute segment but he really had no choice. The existence of the tapes, if Mr. Baskin will recall, was disclosed in the surprise testimony of Alexander Butterfield, who promptly became unemployable and the Pariah of government for his deed. The tapes were thus the subject of sworn testimony before Nixon had any reason to destroy them, and to do so at that time would have been the ultimate in obstruction of justice. - Obstruction of justice is a unique crime which Baskin, Nixon & Co. either cannot or will not understand. The mere inquiry into whether it might be possible to interfere with the processes of justice constitutes an obstruction of justice in some circumstances. Surely the record is conclusive that Nixon did that and much, much more. Nixon sold his integrity early in the Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas campaigns. He sold the honor of the Nation with his Viet Nam atrocities, and the Bill of Rights with his mass arrests of those who dared to protest. He who declared in 1952 that he was opposed to pensions in any form as they make - - now loafs on his loafing more attractive than working pension at San Clemente and forfeits any semblance of decency in these interviews by demanding upwards of $1 million for discussions he owes the American public. Has the man no honor at all? It is amazing that the electorate could be so seduced. 1, for one, will not contribute to his coffers by viewing such a sorry spectacle. |