![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Where Can I Make It Better?
Several days ago now, a devastating tsunami, the result of an underground earthquake rolled ashore on more than 9 nations, both island chains and two continents. It is a catastrophe that is unheard of in our lifetime. Once our attention waivers, as it will inevitably will, over 100,000 will be dead from either the event or from the aftermath of it. The aftermath includes disease, poverty, transporting aid to those in need, and just the hardship of going on without those they had days before.
The world now looks to help, but the difficulty comes down to how to help. Suddenly the enormity of it all becomes its own problem. There seems to be a universal want to help, but a lack of a true leader, and leadership to point the way, and to make us say, "Yeah, that's what we need to be doing now." Sometimes we just want to know where we can do the most good.
By some strange manner of luck, the manager at Chipotle today gave me my meal for free today, so I decided to take the money I was going to put on my debit card, and use the easy to used link on Amazon.com to donate it to the Red Cross to their relief effort. It's just a good way to give, in a small way to what will be a multi-billion dollar disaster. I see that they have already generated almost 2 million in donations.
This is what Americans do. They give when they can, but sometimes we have to be jogged for it a bit.
Now, I like many Americans don't have much of a savings. I don't have a lot that I could give to charity, let alone deal with a catastrophic event in my own life. I have credit card debit, and a meager 401(k) that I hope will take care of me in my old age, because I don't expect Social Security to be there for me. Charitable giving is measured in the low tens of dollars, and doesn't make a dent on my tax forms at the end of the year.
I'm with the majority of Americans who gives little, and our country knows it.
One reason for the tax cuts the Republicans have been touting for the last few years is they hoped that Americans would invest, save and give more charitable, lessening the burden on government for social programs like unemployment programs and Social Security. The hope that the money returned to the taxpayers would be used wisely and was somewhat lost as the message of "keep our economy moving by spending" resonated stronger in the economic slowdown of the last few years. Of course the constant pressures of new cars, new televisions, and new Xboxes truly are apart of the American consumer psyche.
Our government doesn't tax citizens with an eye on social responsibility for the world, for better or worse, relying on its citizens to be charitable. This translates to the people's need to save and provide for their own retirement as well. There are some social programs, but they are bare-bones, and seem to be designed to be safety nets, not replacements. This is different in more giving countries like France, Sweden and Norway that have socialized medicine and pensions that workers pay in through higher taxation.
On Monday UN Undersecretary-General Jan Egeland called the US and other western nations "stingy" with relief funds, stating that there would be more available for the effort if taxes were raised. Of course, this was met with scorn and ridicule by many, but truly, it's just another way of governing. With Mr. Egeland coming from Norway, it's not a surprising response. It's the capitalist way vs. socialist, and some may say, libertarian vs. the nanny-state, where the government controls more of where money and resources go.
In the US, it once was that communities and organizations took care of the impoverished. Often these were faith-based groups, churches and the groups surrounding them, like the Salvation Army but groups like the Red Cross also sprung up from this culture. Social institutions were more common, more active in working together to pool money for needed things. This wasn't just for disasters or for the poor, but for parks and libraries and war efforts. As we moved into the 20th century though, either due to the more mobile populations, or the insular lives we lead, these communities are finding less and less support, and we find ourselves relying on government, or individual donors far more often.
Of course some churches have changed entirely, looking only to gain a bigger, more impressive building to attract better parishioners than to actually serve the needy.
What's missing are the great leaders, not just the great philanthropists of the past, your Carnegies, Vanderbilts and Rockerfellers. Sure, there are those who give, Bill Gates and his wife, private citizens, have given enormous sums of money, and they've done it internationally where many give strictly to US interests. Still they and many other wealthy Americans do it rather quietly. Few of them truly stand out on stage an inspire and lead Americans, or the world to greater action.
20 years ago we thought there might be a grand new age of social activism lead by artists trying to feed the hungry with events like Live Aid, today the release of the DVD of the event just brings a light nostalgic yawn, with barley a thought of the underlying charity effort.
The closest thing to this world leader doesn't reside in Washington, or even in the US, but at the Vatican. Still, the Pope's voice has been in decline, and I don't mean due to age, especially in the western world for many years.
There is no great leader in this time who inspires, who motivates, who pushes us to great heights. The steps we take seem mealy to get us just to the next day, not to truly further us as a people. Our own president, for example, is a polarizing figure. While he promotes the idea of charitable giving, it's rarely beyond the realm of promoting faith-based organizations, and his attempts at battling AIDS have only been looking at the disease safely in Africa, away from the controversy at home. This is hardly taking a stand.
A report released just days before the tidal waves showed that the US was not making good on a promise to fund the United Nations Millennium Declaration, a pact of 188 countries to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The goal was for the developed countries of the world, including the US, France and Britain, to give 0.7 percent of their countries incomes to the development aid of impoverished countries by 2015.
By this point, the US is already far behind the target, near the bottom of all the countries giving, and this isn't just our government giving, although the amount that President Bush wanted in his budget for the last two year for foreign aid had been cut further by Congress, but this is national spending, by all US citizens.
President Bush has been raising a pledge to give US aid to the Tsunami-affected countries, first starting at $15million, and on Wednesday announcing $35 million, but there's only so much in funds the US can provide with soaring deficits and a continuing, expensive war in Iraq still to be paid for. Still, at this point, the US pledge is the largest, with Australia's pledge of $10 million coming second.
Government, at least the US government isn't good at responding to these sorts of circumstances. The President and Congress budgets for US disasters, but not so much for international aid, unless it's politically expedient to do so. Money is set aside for Israel, and Egypt and other player to try to keep them in line, but where do you try to stash money for a tidal wave, or earthquake or drought that may or may not come?
Governments are rarely philanthropic entities. They may work to give grants, at taxpayer expense to fund higher education, but it's in hopes that the beneficiary will become a high-bracket taxpayer. When singer Bono comes around to ask for forgiveness of third-world debt, industrialized nations listen and nod, but rarely take action Paying money out to foreign countries with out the political return is suspect to governments, and fuels the debate in illegal immigration in this country today.
With this, does Bush feel pressured into giving? Is there an increased feeling that he must try to make good with the world community? Here is an opportunity to take a leading stand and make good on a promise, but it will be hard to get past what Congress will allow. Could the president actually convince them and the American Public that this is a worthy place and time to be charitable, and not to be the insular, isolationist Americans have become the last several years?
The American social consciousness has closed it self off as Americans have closed them selves off from their communities. It's a hard sell to convince them, even in the face of such a huge tragedy to give up money when it doesn't directly affect them, that's why there's pictures of little Juanita starving that one passes up on Tivo every night. The problem is, there isn't the man or woman out there that can actually convince us that there's something more important than ourselves anymore, at least not in public service.
It takes Mother Nature, but she lacks direction, and really, she's a bad mother sometimes.
The world now looks to help, but the difficulty comes down to how to help. Suddenly the enormity of it all becomes its own problem. There seems to be a universal want to help, but a lack of a true leader, and leadership to point the way, and to make us say, "Yeah, that's what we need to be doing now." Sometimes we just want to know where we can do the most good.
By some strange manner of luck, the manager at Chipotle today gave me my meal for free today, so I decided to take the money I was going to put on my debit card, and use the easy to used link on Amazon.com to donate it to the Red Cross to their relief effort. It's just a good way to give, in a small way to what will be a multi-billion dollar disaster. I see that they have already generated almost 2 million in donations.
This is what Americans do. They give when they can, but sometimes we have to be jogged for it a bit.
Now, I like many Americans don't have much of a savings. I don't have a lot that I could give to charity, let alone deal with a catastrophic event in my own life. I have credit card debit, and a meager 401(k) that I hope will take care of me in my old age, because I don't expect Social Security to be there for me. Charitable giving is measured in the low tens of dollars, and doesn't make a dent on my tax forms at the end of the year.
I'm with the majority of Americans who gives little, and our country knows it.
One reason for the tax cuts the Republicans have been touting for the last few years is they hoped that Americans would invest, save and give more charitable, lessening the burden on government for social programs like unemployment programs and Social Security. The hope that the money returned to the taxpayers would be used wisely and was somewhat lost as the message of "keep our economy moving by spending" resonated stronger in the economic slowdown of the last few years. Of course the constant pressures of new cars, new televisions, and new Xboxes truly are apart of the American consumer psyche.
Our government doesn't tax citizens with an eye on social responsibility for the world, for better or worse, relying on its citizens to be charitable. This translates to the people's need to save and provide for their own retirement as well. There are some social programs, but they are bare-bones, and seem to be designed to be safety nets, not replacements. This is different in more giving countries like France, Sweden and Norway that have socialized medicine and pensions that workers pay in through higher taxation.
On Monday UN Undersecretary-General Jan Egeland called the US and other western nations "stingy" with relief funds, stating that there would be more available for the effort if taxes were raised. Of course, this was met with scorn and ridicule by many, but truly, it's just another way of governing. With Mr. Egeland coming from Norway, it's not a surprising response. It's the capitalist way vs. socialist, and some may say, libertarian vs. the nanny-state, where the government controls more of where money and resources go.
In the US, it once was that communities and organizations took care of the impoverished. Often these were faith-based groups, churches and the groups surrounding them, like the Salvation Army but groups like the Red Cross also sprung up from this culture. Social institutions were more common, more active in working together to pool money for needed things. This wasn't just for disasters or for the poor, but for parks and libraries and war efforts. As we moved into the 20th century though, either due to the more mobile populations, or the insular lives we lead, these communities are finding less and less support, and we find ourselves relying on government, or individual donors far more often.
Of course some churches have changed entirely, looking only to gain a bigger, more impressive building to attract better parishioners than to actually serve the needy.
What's missing are the great leaders, not just the great philanthropists of the past, your Carnegies, Vanderbilts and Rockerfellers. Sure, there are those who give, Bill Gates and his wife, private citizens, have given enormous sums of money, and they've done it internationally where many give strictly to US interests. Still they and many other wealthy Americans do it rather quietly. Few of them truly stand out on stage an inspire and lead Americans, or the world to greater action.
20 years ago we thought there might be a grand new age of social activism lead by artists trying to feed the hungry with events like Live Aid, today the release of the DVD of the event just brings a light nostalgic yawn, with barley a thought of the underlying charity effort.
The closest thing to this world leader doesn't reside in Washington, or even in the US, but at the Vatican. Still, the Pope's voice has been in decline, and I don't mean due to age, especially in the western world for many years.
There is no great leader in this time who inspires, who motivates, who pushes us to great heights. The steps we take seem mealy to get us just to the next day, not to truly further us as a people. Our own president, for example, is a polarizing figure. While he promotes the idea of charitable giving, it's rarely beyond the realm of promoting faith-based organizations, and his attempts at battling AIDS have only been looking at the disease safely in Africa, away from the controversy at home. This is hardly taking a stand.
A report released just days before the tidal waves showed that the US was not making good on a promise to fund the United Nations Millennium Declaration, a pact of 188 countries to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The goal was for the developed countries of the world, including the US, France and Britain, to give 0.7 percent of their countries incomes to the development aid of impoverished countries by 2015.
By this point, the US is already far behind the target, near the bottom of all the countries giving, and this isn't just our government giving, although the amount that President Bush wanted in his budget for the last two year for foreign aid had been cut further by Congress, but this is national spending, by all US citizens.
President Bush has been raising a pledge to give US aid to the Tsunami-affected countries, first starting at $15million, and on Wednesday announcing $35 million, but there's only so much in funds the US can provide with soaring deficits and a continuing, expensive war in Iraq still to be paid for. Still, at this point, the US pledge is the largest, with Australia's pledge of $10 million coming second.
Government, at least the US government isn't good at responding to these sorts of circumstances. The President and Congress budgets for US disasters, but not so much for international aid, unless it's politically expedient to do so. Money is set aside for Israel, and Egypt and other player to try to keep them in line, but where do you try to stash money for a tidal wave, or earthquake or drought that may or may not come?
Governments are rarely philanthropic entities. They may work to give grants, at taxpayer expense to fund higher education, but it's in hopes that the beneficiary will become a high-bracket taxpayer. When singer Bono comes around to ask for forgiveness of third-world debt, industrialized nations listen and nod, but rarely take action Paying money out to foreign countries with out the political return is suspect to governments, and fuels the debate in illegal immigration in this country today.
With this, does Bush feel pressured into giving? Is there an increased feeling that he must try to make good with the world community? Here is an opportunity to take a leading stand and make good on a promise, but it will be hard to get past what Congress will allow. Could the president actually convince them and the American Public that this is a worthy place and time to be charitable, and not to be the insular, isolationist Americans have become the last several years?
The American social consciousness has closed it self off as Americans have closed them selves off from their communities. It's a hard sell to convince them, even in the face of such a huge tragedy to give up money when it doesn't directly affect them, that's why there's pictures of little Juanita starving that one passes up on Tivo every night. The problem is, there isn't the man or woman out there that can actually convince us that there's something more important than ourselves anymore, at least not in public service.
It takes Mother Nature, but she lacks direction, and really, she's a bad mother sometimes.
no subject
No matter, it's a tax that has a purpose for the citizens of the country, not for people in the reset of the world in an humanitarian giveaway.
Thanks for reading!