Uncle Sam Becomes a Charity Case

Nonprofit Quarterly ran a recent article called "Weird Philanthropy: Donors Give to the National Debt".  The magazine expressed its befuddlement at the spate of donations to the federal government to help reduce the national debt. The amounts are not substantial, averaging $20-30 for the most part with the "occasional six-figure contribution. The notoriously left-leaning Quarterly wondered in its article what sort of "metrics" these donors were using to judge the effectiveness of these donations and argued that the money would just "go into the general fund" anyway.

It's fascinating how liberals say they like bigger government so long as they're hauling down nice fat grants from the fed. When their own donors start giving to Uncle Sam, though, the complaining begins, because even they realize that public philanthropies don't waste money like the government. They're likely thinking, that all that money will just get flushed down the bureaucratic crapper, when it could go to a nonprofit organization where it would actually do some good.

Recently, conservative talk show hosts, pundits and politicians have challenged pro-tax liberals saying, "If you believe the government is the best manager of welfare programs and you believe you are not being taxed enough, you can always give the amount you believe you are being under-taxed directly to the government."


Apparently, some folks are taking them up on the challenge and putting, at least a bit of their money where their mouth is. It would be bad news for nonprofits in general if the trend were to spread, but the lion's share of giving to charity seems to be coming from faith-based and conservative givers. Most of these folks, many of whom give ten percent or more of their income to charities and churches, have a less rosey view of the federal government as an efficient and effective purveyor of charitable programs and funding.

The average ten percent giver is unlikely to jump on the bandwagon on this one. The gifts to Uncle Sam up to this point appear more symbolic than substantial and given the small amounts, these folk apparently don't think they are underpaying their taxes by very much.

So, next time a pro-tax liberal tells you he is under-taxed and that he does give extra to the federal government, ask him, "How much?"

Tom King

If NASA Would Do for Space Travel, What the Military Did for the Internet

Space-X's Falcon/Dragon launch vehicle blasts off
on the way to a successful 2 orbit mission and recovery.

Back in the beginning the Internet started out as an experiment by some academics to find a way to build a durable, communication system the military could use in the event of a major war. They came up with a nifty little plan using existing communications systems, deep redundancies, easy expansion capacity and a financial incentive for the private sector to invest their own money and, voila' - the Internet rose from nothing in less than two decades to rival television, radio and every other form of communication, not by replacing them by government fiat, but by offering those media a new way to promote what they were already doing pretty well.

It's a model for effective government participation in economic development. The feds did try to "improve" the Internet a couple of times, but in every case, their "better" systems were always outdated before they could get them deployed. They were consistently out-innovated by private sector scientists and entrepeneurs working quickly, efficiently and using their own dime.

We just retired the space shuttle after more than 3 decades of service and far more than that if you count the development time. The shuttle systems were so primitive, even by the time they launched the thing the first time that soon, astronauts were taking laptops into orbit with them to supplement the stone-age technology built into the spacecraft. The shuttle flew far longer than it should have and cost lives of astronauts, arguably because NASA lacked the flexibility and systems agility to address problems. The zero-defects approach of the Apollo program soon ossified into a zero-flexibility program that ignored individual innovation and even warnings from its people about problems because the leadership came to focus on mission objectives and began to dismiss anything that got in the way.

The new systems development process became so hidebound that the agency couldn't get a replacement launch system up and running before it had to shut down the shuttle program.

Don't get me wrong.  I think the space program needed the kick start it got from NASA to get rolling. That said, I actually think we're going to do better now that they more or less have to work with the private sector.

Some writer the other day commented on private space travel saying he "...was never a big fan of the private sector." I love when people say that sort of ignorant thing. The guy's a fan of nice clothes, good food, high quality entertainment, stylish cars and the Internet, but not of the "private sector" that makes those things possible. The government has its function in doing big things that are of national interest like interstate highways, space travel and making order out of the potential chaos on the airwaves as the communications industry sprang up. The Internet is a good example of how the government did something right. They kicked off the whole thing and then got out of the way and let the free market run with it. It's a good idea for the space exploration business too.

Space-X, Elon Musk's outfit, took just four years to put together a viable cargo and manned space launch system that costs about half what the government contracted systems cost for a single launch and they are doing cargo launches this year and could do a manned launch in another year if NASA can resist the urge to get in the way. And had NASA refrained from diddling with the process and playing Kingmaker back in the 90s when they first looked at allowing private sector spacecraft development, we'd already have a system that costs half of that rate per launch.

Ironically, I believe that the more they cut NASA's budget, the faster we're going to have privately owned and funded moon bases, Mars missions, asteroid harvesting and collision protection programs. It'll actually be nice to have the capability to send some roughnecks into space to redirect an asteroid should one decide to take aim at us someday. The movie "Armageddon" while reassuring, was total fantasy. Right now, if we saw an asteroid coming there wouldn't be anything we could do about it with the hardware we have.

The Book of Revelation describes a large object falling from the sky and crashing to Earth in the sea at the end of time. I 'spect Bruce and the boys ain't gonna make it to space in time to do anything about it. Thank you NASA (and I'm being sarcastic here) for dragging your feet and helping insure that the apocalypse arrives right on time!

Tom King

How Does Track Palin's Wedding Make Sarah a Hypocrite?

Britta Hanson & Track Palin (center)

Apparently Iraq war veteran Track Palin and his high school sweetheart got ahead of themselves according to the media and the couple may have been expecting when they got married. Of course, the press is gleefully calling it a shotgun wedding and the nastier bloggers are calling Palin a hypocrite because she opposes unfettered sex education and schools handing out condoms. Sarah, they chortle, promotes abstinence and yet has two kids that apparently didn't abstain.

You know, so what that? Palin has two grandchildren out of the deal. She seems happy about it.  Her kids are taking responsibility for their mistakes. How is that bad? Protecting our kids from the consequences of their actions is what got us a generation of irresponsible kids in the first place.

The president, on the other hand, said he doesn't want to punish his girls with a baby if they make a similar mistake. Since when is a child a punishment, especially when the family is happy to have the child and the mom's willingly take responsibility for the life they have created? I think Palin's kids are admirable.

I mean either it's just sex and therefore innocuous or it's not - libs can't have it both ways. I'm pretty sure the kids knew what they needed to do to prevent a pregnancy. I've never heard Palin come out against contraceptives as is being reported. She has come out against schools providing contraceptives to kids and describing, perverse sexual practices to minors. Sarah Palin believes it should be the responsibility of families, not the government to teach our kids about sex.

In the heat of youthful passion, Sarah's kids apparently chose to take a risk. Then, they both took responsibility when they lost the bet. That's not hypocricy. That's character!  We all make mistakes. It's what we do afterward that shows who you are.

I advocate abstinence too. I think having sex is an intense and life-changing experience. I've only slept with one woman in my life and we've been together 37 years and been absolutely faithful to our vows. We trust each other completely and much of that is because we chose to treat sex as a sacred act between life partners. I think that's a valuable lesson to teach our children. People who see sex as some form of recreation do not understand why anyone would want to believe that sex should hold such a special place.  That's where the disconnect is between the two sides of the debate over sex education.

If you believe sex is a sacred thing between men and women, then it's very important for you to teach your children about that within the family circle. We want our kids to know that if they decide to engage in that act, they'd better be prepared to make a lifelong committment and take responsibility for the consequences. If you allow public opinion to lower the bar on sex for your family, you find yourself intractably at odds with your own beliefs.  I would rather have a president who is consistent in her beliefs and teaches her children that life is a sacred thing and that you must be responsible when you create life.  I'm less comfortable with one that teaches that an unborn child is something that should be prevented or killed if it's going to spoil your kid's youthful partying.

I don't buy that sex is no big deal and obviously Mrs. Palin and her family do not. I say God bless 'em. Track and his high school sweetheart were obviously committed to one another. He'd been off to war and they got ahead of themselves. It's not all that hard to understand. Can nobody be sympathetic with how they could get carried away by passion? That happens a lot in war time and for crying out loud they were planning to get married anyway - been dating forever. It's amazing how unforgiving and nasty liberals can be if the "sinner" is a Christian. No Christian claims to be perfect. Quite the contrary. Every weekend, we sit in church and listen to pastors tell us we're all sinners and that we must depend on Christ entirely for our salvation.

Because we aim at a higher standard doesn't make us hypocrites. It makes us idealists. Let me repeat. It's not so much that we make mistakes, it's what we do afterward to make it right that reveals our character.

Have the Palin kids had their troubles - yep!  Kids do that, especially preacher's kids and the children of celebrities. I think it has something to do with being in the glare of the spotlight that's on your parents. In the Bible, Solomon advises parents to, "Train up a child in the way that he shall go and when he is old he will not depart from it."  Solomon never promised that, no matter how thoroughly you trained up your children, they wouldn't gallop over Fool's Hill sometime during their teens. Teens do that. It's how they figure out who they are and why they were born. Let the parent who is sinless cast the first stone. And, if you're not a parent, you're still a child, so put down the rocks!

I wish Track and Britta all the blessings in the world. They are a lovely couple with a supportive, close-knit family. Wouldn't it be nice if every young couple had that starting out?


Tom King