Efficiency

Regardless of the views one holds regarding which entity would be "better" for determining how charitable funds should be allocated...let's look at it from an efficiency point of view.

I don't have numbers, spreadsheets, reports or articles to back up my viewpoint, but my gut instinct says that a 3rd party Charity is going to be more efficient with its money then the government is.

Why?

Because the government, by its very definition, likes beaurocracy. It has a somewhat dramatic chain of command which it follows to get something done. The different programs and agencies are under the control of yet another person (or entity), which will undergo a leadership change every 4 to 8 years.

On the other hand, 3rd party charities, I would guess, would be more efficient with their money, because they know its strictly voluntary. No so with the government, who's going to be budgeted some money every year...and money shows up according to the law.

So if we were going to get the most "bang for our buck", wouldn't it be wise to use a 3rd party? Call me paranoid, but I'd rather choose who to give my charitable money to, then the government. They tend to support causes that I don't like, and then an election later, they will support some causes that someone else doesn't like. We, as a society, can easily agree on infrastructure, defense/federal law enforcement, public parks/monuments and such.

~Jeordam