Liberals like to think they have a monopoly on charity because they support government programs like overseas aid.

But Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament and one of Great Britain’s rising conservative political stars, explains that liberals focus on the “elevation of motive over outcome.” That can lead to feel-good programs that fail in real life.

In fact, as Heritage Foundation expert James Roberts explains, government antipoverty programs don’t work and can even be counterproductive. Economic freedom is a proven alternative that can lift impoverished nations from poverty.

Moreover, Roberts points out that private charities are more effective with their overseas aid than are similar government programs:

 [O]ver the past half-century, the U.S. has donated over $1 trillion in official development assistance (ODA) to developing countries. The need for ongoing ODA is now openly questioned by such groups as the Center for Global Development, especially given that the annual private financial flows that are fueling the economic growth of the developing world now dwarf ODA.

According to the Hudson Institute’s Index of Global Philanthropy, billions of American dollars from faith-based and other charitable, academic, and humanitarian groups go to the needy overseas every year and have far better results than government [official development assistance]. It is through support for programs like these, which generate real improvements in peoples’ lives, that conservatives can demonstrate their compassion and care for those in need.

How else do you think conservatives can help the poor?

Comments (13)

Desiree - January 30, 2013

I believe that giving someone skills to care for themselves in the future is a great concept. But one must also set a frame work of the time you will invest in doing this and then if the individual does not show an ability to provide for themself (aside from unforseen health or catastrophic issues) then the assistance should be cut off. This is why our welfare system is so broken – no accountability. We need to offer a hand up and not a hand out.

Henry A. Miranda, Jr., Ph. D. - January 30, 2013

Most collectively-oriented methods of “helping” the poor in foreign countries crash on the shoals of corrupt officials of the respective recipient government; but….few are aware of this. Should we not publicize whatever data are available to publicize these practices on a widespread basis?

N. Dorris - January 30, 2013

Personally I believe economic freedom speaks for itself, but other than that I’d just say look more into private charities instead of relying on government ones.

William Stewart - January 30, 2013

“Aid to Foreign Countries”

We give Billions of dollars to Middle-East countries for Aid that we buy oil from in the Billions of dollars…
We give billions to Countries like India and China, who we are in direct competition with, for jobs and material. We give to countries like Egypt that spend it on military goods and turn their backs on us and our Constitutional ideals and would rather send their Muslim ideals to us in the form of Sharia Law.

1. Foreign Aid Act –

~ All monies of Aid are to be withdrawn until further notice.

~ Money as Aid shall be considered as bribery, to a State or foreign country in return of favors or Loyalties.

~ The United States shall reconsider what Nations we would consider lending Aid to and assign a system of rating and what form of Aid would be acceptable to contribute to such Nations.
Types of Aid to be considered; Food or Processed food, Machinery for industry or extraction of ore, food machinery, Agricultural machinery for production of food or grain and seed in production of food or grain.
a. To such Nations that only have good faith and equity to our beliefs in a free society.

b. To such Nations that have a true need or incapable of buying or importing food for their healthy subsistence.

c. To such Nations that do not have the capabilities for heavy or agricultural machinery, for the improvement of agricultural subsistence.

d. To such Nations that are trying to improve their lot, but without the capability for their improvement or the Nation of concern does not have the basic materials to grow a economy, such as fuel for the making of Steel or iron ore or any raw materials.

e. Not to such Nations we are in direct competition with or have an imbalance of trade.

f. Not to such Nations that have a distinct anti-bias to the United States or its people for any reason.

g. Not to such Nations that seek to destroy us or have a Religious view to rule over or do away with Christianity or Christian bias as to our Constitution or ideals of our Peoples as a whole.

“Articles of Reformation”

Article 2- extended version
Of Jan., 01, 2012

“States Affordable Medicaid Insurance Plan”

A. This Article replaces the previous Medicaid operation and the (Obamacare) “Affordable Medical Insurance Act” and repeals the aforementioned Act.

B. This Article separates Medicaid Plan from the National Medicare Retirement Medical Program as a separate entity. (See Separate Paper for Medicare Program)

C Each State will have their own Medicaid Plan, as set up by Congress with a General outline of its operation and the States responsibility. States will not be overseen or interfered with by Washington’s Departments or Agencies. States authority is Supreme and how it operates to the demand of its People is foremost.

D. This is an Aid Program, as with State Aid for the Poor and indigent. This plan will serve those in need of some form of primary care at a low cost and separate those with regular Medical Healthcare Plans and reduce cost for the overall Healthcare system as we know it today. Hospitals will no longer be padding charges for Health Care plans or HMO’s to make up for Medicaid Patients and lost income.

This Program is for U.S. Citizens and legal transient Farm workers (Green Card holders), supported by the agriculture community, without any formal Health Insurance.

This shall be a short term Plan for the Petitioners with a max term of 24 months (2 years). This is not an Entitlement program, and may be rescinded to each or any Petitioner the State sees fit to dismiss.

E. The State Medicaid System will be flexible and operates under States Authority and Sovereignty, as each state has there own set of problems and geographical situations. Some Cities or smaller States may have no or very little need for this system, since they have low or very low unemployment and some form Medical Insurance Plans.
A Few States may opt for a singular State Limited Insurance card supported thru a regular Insurance co. or company’s co-op.
Some group of States may opt for a dual or a tri-State system, due to low population, like North Dakota/Montana or N. Dakota/S. Dakota/ Montana to support each other in overall operation. But these States would have an overall agreement as agreed upon by the States Senates.

F. Some States may want to alter their Medicaid System to allow Doctor’s offices or small Clinics as part of the system and accept State Medicaid to their Clinics system.
Some Doctors have taken upon themselves to charge a monthly fee to Patients with an unlimited office or Clinic visits. Some States may allow this, acting as an Insurance co., under the auspices of the State Medicaid System. A Doctors Clinic or Office could subcontract with the State as an upgraded “Premium Medicaid Card”.

1. To operate under same rules and charges as “Basic Medicaid Card”, but Doctors offices would collect for the Card fees plus premium fee and the Basic $5.00 co-pay, or could be included in the card fee. The Basic Fee for the State Medicaid Card would then be paid by the Doctors office or Clinic under contract.

2. This Premium Card would also be acceptable at the State Clinics around the State, as a backup visit or Emergency visit.

“The Petitioners Responsibility”
1. Each Petitioner shall have a State Medicaid Card or a Tri-State card if States wish to go that route. The Card would identify the Petitioner and number or ID for documentation and Medical files. There would be no family cards, one card per Petitioner, no matter what age.

2. There shall be a yearly charge of $100.00 (up to States) and paid all at once or quarterly or bi-monthly at Clinics in there area or City Hall or however the States wish to set it up. Do Not Bill.

3. A visit to a Clinic or Emergency Clinic by a Petitioner would have a Medicaid Card co-pay of $5.00 per visit and an Emergency Visit would be $50.00 co-pay.

4. A Medicare Patient may visit a State Medicaid Clinic, if they so wish, but all charges and rules would be under the Medicare Program. Charges would then be charged to the Medicare Program. If a State Medicaid Petitioner turns 65 and is eligible for Medicare, they would be transferred over to the Medicare Program without interruption and under the same rules as above.

“States Medicaid Medical Plan”
– Operations;

1- No expensive new buildings, use and rent existing property in the areas the Petitioners reside. Over time people move, area changes and dynamics change on needs of Petitioners. Use Peoples money with just prudence and keep it simple and enough variety to cover all aspects of the Medical profession. A good standard of operation would be the Kaiser Medical HMO Clinics. Low cost with very good high performance for a variety of procedures with minimal paperwork and documentation. A small portion of the clinic would be for low or medium intensity Emergency Room or Rooms. If the Emergency is above the capabilities of the Clinics Emergency room, patient shall be stabilized and transported to the best Hospital for the situation and straight to the O.R. for that condition.

2- Personal to each Clinic.
Some Medical help, Nurses of various types, would be under contract and some non-professional help would be hourly. Doctors and specialized Professionals would be partly paid and some would donate their time.

3- Operational data, documentation and charges that should be set and total operational function shall be operated by a Insurance co-op in each state and a contract for such service should be short term and minimal cost to the State.

4- Monies – It is the States Responsibility, not that of the Federal Governments and not their duty. States shall have the start up Funds, supported by church groups, companies in the State and private citizen donations and State Aid Agencies and by the Petitioners of the service via the Medicaid card payments and co-pay.

States should stay alert to the changing makeup of your citizenship and in the future, as jobs become available less service will be needed for the poor and possibly more long term Medical for people who have a part time jobs or fulltime jobs with no benefits, those working and with no Insurance would need a different or altered system, but each State would have different situations and the needs would drive flexibility in the system.

“Those who change their plan drastically will be overdrawn; those who are overdrawn are over budget and doomed to fail.”


1. Upgraded Premium Card – Medicaid – B ( or Gold Card )

2. For those off of State Aid and Basic Medicaid, back to work at a part-time job or full-time job and without an Insurance Plan at their place of work.

3. This plan would operate much like Medicare, but with lower life time max benefit limits, lower pay-outs maximums, for Hospitals and Part-B payments. It would have lower deductible, to be inline with low to lower middle class Participants.

4. This would be in all respects be a full insurance plan and the people in the plan would be “Participants” and not “Petitioners” as with the Petitioners of the State Aid “Medicaid Basic Plan”.

5. Participants would be under same rules and regulations as all other Medicaid applicants, with a $5.00 co-pay. They would be acceptable at State Medicaid Clinics or Contracted Doctors Clinics or as regular Insurance Participant at Hospitals and regular doctors’ offices, if accepted.

6. Participants shall have deductions taken from their paychecks to pay for their plan, as with Medicare, and would be rated at 3% of gross pay. The Employer of such a Participant would also pay 3%, in support of their Employee.

7. Those Participants with “Family Plans” would be rated at 5% of gross pay and under the same rules as the singular Plan. Employers would pay a 3% charge.

8. This is an optional Plan, as with all of the States Medicaid Card Plans. If a Petitioner or Participant seeks Medical support or aid from the State/’s, they will automatically be instituted into the System, it would no longer be an option. They would be put into one of the three plans above that fits their situation or station in the society.

Eileen Cohen - January 30, 2013

We are the party of hand ups, not hand outs. We teach men to fish instead of giving them fish…..SO, why not encourage each state GOP to establish a searchable database on their websites comprised of Republican business folks willing to act as mentors to individuals trying to start their own businesses (teach a man to fish). Cost = almost nothing. Benefit = bragging rights and real hands up. AND….encourage those RBizMs (republican business mentors) to consider the uber popular liberal cause of Microlending to their mentees.

E.G…..Jose Garcia wants to start a lawn service and needs help, guidance, and a little $4,000 loan for his first big tractor purchase… steps the awesome business mentor, gives advice, a tiny loan, and lifts another person out of the lower class into the middle! How awesome would that be to skirt around the Small Biz Admin!! And get the job done fast!

Humberto G Acevedo - January 31, 2013

As important as border security is the enforcement of the overextended visas that might account for half of the indocumented 20 million once you account for the children of ilegals a account to 25% of the babies born every year for the last 10-20years.
The Cuban issue should be address, we are going to be receiving 200,000 to 500,000 expelled cubans that no other country will accept, but we take them in with all kinds of benefits that no other immigran gets.
“Anchor babies” is an issue that it is not even mention in the immigration discussions but if you watch the CNN outfront anchored by Erin Burnett; the Chinese have a multimillion business of importing to the USA pregnant women to have their babies born here and they guarantied they will get the baby an american passport that later will warrant their entrance to the States, this pattern is followed by all illegals from every corner of the world.
Some people whom they benefit from the theory that illegals are attracted to this country because they want to work. I refute than in more than half the attraction is the benefits of schooling, medical services, no federal taxes and once they have anchor babies welfare/medicaid spport them indefinetely.

Cynthia - January 31, 2013

deport them; give them a twinkie, some butter, 64 oz of coke, trans-fat potato chips, and salt! Oh, I forgot, those items were banned from the United States, then how come illegals aren’t banned.

Arlin R. Johnson, Jr. - January 31, 2013

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a social help program that provides a model the Federal government could study and use to help those who are in need of aid. A visit to Welfare Square in Salt Lake City would provide worth while education. We should always remember, ” God helps those who do all they can to help themselves”.

John Hazeltine - January 31, 2013

In the context of the US, the word poor is loaded with relativity, subjectivity and emotion. One of the crucial legs of economic advancement is education that allows each child to fully utilize his or her native ability. Maximizing productivity of emerging human capital will not be served by the status quo in state education. Free market forces applied to education of children will work wonders. Some progress is being made. The Foundation should never let up on free market advocacy in this dimension of society.

Bonnie A Lock - January 31, 2013

It is obvious to me why I belong to this wonderful organization – just look at the brilliant and practical suggestions that have been made on this page.

I started a list of various charitable organizations – small and large – who quietly do so much for the daily life of people in our community of about 67,000. What could happen if Heritage arranged a web site where people could send in a brief description of these activities in their community? If the list was publicized and available to our politicians, do you think there is any chance that it could make a difference? It certainly would be an example of how the government isn’t very necessary in many cases.

Lorraine Smith - January 31, 2013

I agree wholeheartedly with William Stewart. What he said was well thought out and very logical. The American people have always been generous with no ulterior motives and I’m sure they will continue to do so. I love this country USA and have donated with as much as I can afford for as long as I can remember. God Bless America.

Sandy Elliot - January 31, 2013

From our Rotary Club monthly magazine, October 2012 issue, Frank Bures writes “Hit the Mark — Successful projects start with the right questions”. Our members are hard-working individuals with deliberative expectations for projects we tackle. No nonsense methods waste -0- resources — time or money — there isn’t enough of either. Our international organization has plenty of “needs”. You might take a look at Bures’ suggestions: The Rotarian pg. 23 Oct/2012 –

Holly Chapo - January 31, 2013

Find their talenst and abilities and “teach them how to fish.” Local community organizations and churches/synagogues have always been far more effective than government. Schools can offer after school programs and outreach. Poor families need to brought into the fold of the community and encouraged to be part of the community. Anything other than government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *