But this concept is based upon a serious logical fallacy: The fallcy holds that minimum wage increases, social security, socialized health care, socialized education, and welfare are "charitable". In other words, as a civilized nation, these programs are a way of fulfilling our responsibility to give to those less fortunate--it's the "right thing to do." As a civilized society, we're also a charitable society, so say the supporters of such programs. And they are partly right.

The problem is in the definition of charity, and what it means to be "charitable". The word "Charity" means a generous action or work based on a benevolent feeling toward those in need or helpless. The key phrase being "benevolent feeling". Unless the act or work is based on a heart felt, voluntary desire, then the act cannont be considered charitable.

This brings us back to the programs listed above. Each one of these programs is funded by tax money. By definition, a tax is a burdensome charge demanded by the government. In other words, we don't give the government our tax dollars out of the kindness of our hearts. We give the government our tax dollars because we will be thrown in jail if we refuse to. There is no "benevolent feeling" in taxation. And there is definitley not a voluntary desire to pay taxes.

No matter how tax money is spent, it is acquired by force of law, and therefore its uses can never be considered charitable. Regardless of how much the free-spenders in both parties argue for increased entitlements, they are never arguing for something that is charitable.

It's very easy to for one to say, "I support the poor", when he is using someone else's money for that support. It's very easy to say, "Let's help the disabled", when all he has to do is raise taxes and use other people's money to do it. Arguing from emotion is a lot easier, when you can only back up your argument using someone else's resources. Donations through taxation are not charity, they are robbery--no matter where the tax money comes from. Perhaps Colonel Davy Crockett said it best in the House of Representatives:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. We have not the semblace of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Crockett nailed the point. Charity is a voluntary act of kindness that only an individual can carry out. The intentions of welfare and other entitlements are meaningless when put to the question (not to mention, they don't work). Let's face it, entitlement programs may sound like "the right thing to do", but they're really nothing more than cheap gimmicks to buy votes. It is only people that can help people. The government cannot possibly solve the fiscal woes of the unfortunate. But it can allow individuals to accomplish the task. Individuals can voluntarily contribute to any charities they choose. The problem is, after the government finishes fleecing individual incomes through taxation, most individuals don't have enough to give to charity.

Influential citizens are far more able to affect a bad situation than the government. Take your pick, Bono, Bill Gates, The Bush/Clinton Katrina Fund. There are more than enough people willing to give to charity. Government restraints, however, unintentionally prevent them from doing so. It's time for us as a people to stop throwing our responsibilities on the government. It's our job to help our neighbors, that's what charity is all about--man helping his fellow man. Political parties do not help the unfortunate. Only people do.