We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

We are a rich country — rich enough that women like Cathy, the very young pregnant woman I saw last week working at Burger King, shouldn’t have to choose between keeping her child and holding on to essentials.  With a booming economy — the 4% growth that we enjoyed under President Trump in his first term and the “peace dividend” of a Trump world with no ongoing wars — there was more than enough wealth for private charities to care for young women like Cathy as they carried their children and afterward.

Now that the growth rate has dropped below 2% over the past three and a half years and the Biden-Harris administration has appropriated $200 billion to Ukraine (as of early 2024), there is less wealth circulating and less available to the many charities that support new moms.  Under President Trump, charitable giving overall was increasing at a rate of over 5%.  Under Biden and Harris, giving increased at only 1.9% (2023 figure).

There are persons who are truly in need in America, and conservatives are far more likely to provide aid for these truly needy citizens.  According to the Philanthropy Roundtable, conservatives are 30% more likely to engage in charitable giving overall, more likely to volunteer, and three times more likely to be “heavy givers” (those giving over $5,000 per year).

Those who are able to give possess a remarkable opportunity.  As Flannery O’Connor once said, “never overlook the opportunity to perform a charitable action.”  She meant that charity is, quite literally, an opportunity.  An act of charity confirms the goodness of the giver and supplies the needs of the object of charity.  And unlike government support, which relies on seizing property from some to inefficiently transfer funds to others, private charity is a voluntary action that confirms the goodness of the donor.  And unlike government programs, it also affords the opportunity for the donor to judge the effectiveness of the charitable institution and adjust his giving accordingly.

Kamala Harris’s tax plans would be a disaster for private giving and for young women like Cathy.  Under Harris’s tax increases and several entirely new taxes, even modestly affluent Americans would find themselves paying tens of thousands of dollars in additional taxes, and they would be less able to give to charity.

Millions of Americans plan to leave some or all of their estates to charities, but those estates will be much lower if Harris is elected and manages to institute higher tax rates (personal and corporate), a wealth tax, a 25% tax on unrealized gains, financial transaction fees, and several lesser tax increases.

There are currently 745 billionaires in America, more than any other country — a fact we as a nation should be proud of — but Harris is not proud of wealth creation.  She ceaselessly demagogues the “greedy billionaires” who are “not paying their fair share.”  If she has her way, there will be a lot fewer billionaires, because it will be difficult to accumulate wealth on a tax-deferred basis.  And with fewer billionaires and less wealth across the board, there will be less charitable giving.  The money will have gone to government, where it will be wasted on Green New Deals and Infrastructure Spending Bills that have little to do with global warming or infrastructure but a lot to do with politics.

Where does this leave Cathy?  There are some excellent charities available to help young women like her, but they are in competition with government-funded Planned Parenthood, which, it seems, would rather abort her child than protect and nurture it.  The future for women like Cathy — and her child — depends on a society that has the means to support nurturing over killing.

At $6.2 trillion (2023 figure), the federal budget is vast beyond comprehension, and state budgets add another $3 trillion.  Other than national defense and domestic security, I have not benefited at all from this spending.  Neither has Cathy benefited.  Left in the hands of individuals, the money spent by government would render our country wealthy enough to fund a thousand charities that would care for all those in need.

This is the conservative vision of a compassionate country, and it is far more effective, caring, and efficient than 10,000 government agencies that consume in expenses the money they are supposed to provide to relief — or than the hundreds of billions that go overseas in military assistance and foreign aid.  Do we really need 600 “American Spaces” (which used to be called “American Centers”) in 140 countries around the world, funded by the State Department from a budget of $1.2 billion for “international information” programs?

Milton Friedman believed that it would be more efficient to take the money that government spends on poverty and simply distribute it in the form of monthly checks, and he was right.  But a better solution is for government not to collect that money to begin with.

Meanwhile, Cathy is nearing the moment when she must decide whether to sign the paper giving up her baby — forever and irrevocably, and with no chance of ever seeing her child.  I hope she decides to keep her child, but I would not blame her for thinking it best to give it up.  Life has not been fair to those like Cathy.  She is working but has no way of earning more than the minimum wage she receives at this time.

Wouldn’t it be better, with all the waste in our government spending, to reduce taxes so that individuals could retain their earnings and so that those who are generous and concerned could more easily provide for the Cathys of this world?

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

<p><em>Image via <a href=Pixabay.

” captext=”Pixabay” src=”https://freeread.causeaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4ktolu4yn28zj0mwmvzj_640.jpg”>

Image via Pixabay.