Throughout the latter half of the century, America's elected representatives worked at not only fine-tuning the existing socialist programs, but also worked at continually expanding this socialist mentality to new programs.  By the end of the century, the myriad socialistic aspect of all levels of government nationwide became known collectively as the "Nanny State" -- the government intention to care for its citizens as a hired stranger would care for your newborn baby.  Although, unlike the nanny who is sent on her way once the baby grows up, the Nanny State attempts to care for its citizens from cradle to grave. 

How did the American social landscape look before the advent of the Nanny State?  What was the status of the nation's aged and unprivileged prior to the twentieth century and the rise of this socialist movement?  Now, when we compare the status of the aged and underprivileged of the nineteenth century with the status of the aged and underprivileged in the nation today, do we find that America has come a long way in improving the stature of this class of citizens?

Over 100 years ago, American families were more intact and intergenerational.  When the aged reached their senior years (albeit numerically earlier in life) when they could no longer physically work to maintain a living standard, the family members of the aged took care of their senior loved ones.  The care given was not simply subsistence-level handouts, but rather was the love and/or obligation of the younger to care for the older.  Thus, the aged were taken care of by their community of family, and quasi-family. 

Over 100 years ago, American communities, consisting of people who chose to live in proximity to one another, showed true heart-felt compassion toward the aged and underprivileged who were among them.  The people of the community didn't decide to tax citizens and thus force any false compassion of the collective whole into any socialist government programs aimed toward the aged and underprivileged, but rather the community joined together on a volunteer basis and thus showed true compassion to those needing care.  These volunteer groups might have been based in church, but just as likely, they were based in civic organizations not bound to any single church, for example.

As America now enters the twenty-first century, after almost seventy years of socialist government programs, it is now becoming apparent that this generations-long experiment in socialism has demonstrated complete failure.  Whereas twenty years ago the efficacy of the socialist experiment could be equally argued from either side, today there is no question that the envisioned Great Society has never materialized, and never will via socialist government programs.

For example, the stature of the aged and underprivileged is worse today than in the nineteenth century in relative terms.  For example, before the New Deal, where in American history can one find such huge percentages of the aged populations warehoused in dense-packed enclaves, as we see today in nursing homes and other senior "care" facilities?

Today, as never before in American history, Americans consider that the Nanny State, rather than individual citizens, is saddled the responsibility for the care of the nations' people.  It is no longer even debatable that this generations-long experiment in socialism has torn apart the essence of family, from several aspects.  In terms of the intergenerational nature of family, the aged are expected to be jettisoned by the younger in the family, and they even sense that it's their obligation to agree to be set aside and allow themselves to be ignored.  In terms of the underprivileged classes, the government socialist programs monetarily rewarded unwed mothers and penalized intact families.  After generations of these anti-family government incentives and influences, this new way of thinking about the family took hold and became inbred.

Besides aiding in the destruction of the family, the Nanny State also removed all sense of individual compassion from Americans.  One hundred years ago, the compassion that an American citizen felt, was either turned into action, or was left to simmer as on-going guilt.  In contrast, today individual Americans typically don't feel a sense of compassion toward the aged or the underprivileged because that's the major purpose of government--the majority of the Federal budget is now comprised of a multitude of entitlement programs (the largest being Social Security and Medicare).  In the rare instance of an American citizen feeling an overwhelming sense of compassion, this urge may be easily quelled through a monetary contribution to a socialist program or two.

So what is the most significant element that is absent from every current socialist program today?  It's the absence of people who care about helping people who need the care--that personal touch.  This is a well-known fact to any person who has worked as either an employee or otherwise with any government and/or socialist program.  The people who provide the "care" have no compassion for those being "cared for," and the people who need care have no gratitude for the "care" being given--the entire socialist system is a completely de-humanized monstrosity that accomplishes little or nothing in the long term.

Now that the majority in America have recognized the utter failure of socialist government programs, it's time to take action to make corrections.  We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's not that the socialist programs need fine tuning; rather, we know that these programs are a natural failure, and the best we could do is make sure they minimize damage.  Such socialist programs can never improve conditions, it's only a matter of how much damage these programs will impose upon society. 

The expansion of faith-based initiatives, an overused phrase of current events, is the equivalent of placing a bandaid over a wound--it can't hurt, it provides an appearance of making things better, and it certainly does help protect the wound from further damage.  This bandaid is not the ultimate solution, but it could be a means to help America on the way toward an ultimate solution. 

What would be the characteristics of the ultimate solution?

• Americans with compassion and a desire to help the aged and the underprivileged.
• Americans willing to share their monetary resources.
• Americans motivated to share their personal time to be a caring human being for those who need such caring.
• A system for providing all of the above efficiently such that the care will be where the care is needed most.
• A system whereby the cared-for feel grateful for the care, which is provided with human compassion.
• And ultimately, a system which moves those who need the care into positions of being able to provide care to others--in other words, a successful system! 

So, what's the conclusion?  That what America needs is more faith-based, or even otherwise non-faith-based volunteer charities that provide care for the aged and underprivileged, and less government programs.  The question is this:  How does the money currently used for government programs get to these non-government programs? 

The concept of the federal government collecting taxes from the citizens and then the government distributing these funds to non-government programs is a very poor concept indeed.  There is no need to demonstrate this fact in this writing, as every talking head in the American media is pointing out the problems inherent with government deciding which non-government programs to fund.

What might be an objective for America to work toward in moving the programs of socialism toward care provided by non-government organizations? 

Although every portion of the federal tax code is criticized by someone, one of the least criticized concepts in the tax code is the idea that a citizen can reduce his/her tax burden by making charitable contributions to appropriate non-government entities.  This charitable tax deduction is a means to redirect the citizen's money from the government behemoth to a non-government entity of the citizen's choice.

Isn't it simply obvious that an expansion of this concept for monetary shift from government to non-government charity is the means to the end? 

When the individual taxpayer makes the choice as to where his/her money will go in order to aid the aged and underprivileged, there is no argument about whether government may be supporting certain religions over others, or supporting atheistic causes over religious causes, etc.  Rather, the individual taxpayer made the choice of which charity to fund--how ideal!

Where is the obvious public discussion concerning the concept of emphasizing charitable giving by the citizen?  There should be a debate about how many years in the future is a reasonable target year to see the demise of all socialist government programs, in favor of non-government (many religious) programs to care for the aged and underprivileged.  The debate should include the question of how much of a tax credit should the taxpayer receive for the charitable donation.  Should we go to a one-to-one tax credit (each dollar to charity subtracts one dollar from the tax bill) with a uniform limit per taxpayer, or a percentage limit based on the taxpayer income?

See how easy it would be to shift billions of tax dollars from the federal government directly to non-government organizations?  Of course there would have to be many government-dictated parameters to the system, such as the legitimacy of the charity organization, and they would have to be non-profit, and they would have to serve the "needy" based on a government definition.  And certainly, the system would end up with charities advertising their services to the public in an attempt to convince citizens to direct their donations toward the best advertiser.  Let's face it, no system is perfect!

However, the benefits to such a non-government system would greatly outweigh the detriments.  This system whereby each citizen decides on his/her own which charities to support, and which not to support is the American ideal of freedom to choose.  And we could trust individual freedom to correctly ascertain the most efficient and effective means to provide care to the aged and the underprivileged.

There would never be a shortage of charitable giving in this system because the elected representatives could frequently adjust the limits of the tax credits for the charitable giving.  If the public perceived that there was too little care available for the number of those needing care, the elected representatives could "open the floodgates" to the charitable organizations, and it wouldn't cost the citizens anything; rather, the elected representatives would have to decide how to reduce discretionary government spending in order to get along with less revenue (because the citizens would be giving the money to charities, and taking credits on their tax form, and thus providing less taxes to the government).

In Summary

The twentieth century has demonstrated that government agencies cannot efficiently or effectively provide care to those who need care.

All of history has shown, and current events continue to show, that religious, community-based, volunteer organizations, and other non-government entities can be both efficient and effective in providing care to those who need care, and can simultaneously encourage integrity in family and other values held by the providing organization.

Currently, money is being removed from American citizens and used by government in inefficient and ineffective government agencies. 

A logical end objective is to reach a state wherein the citizens direct their money, by their own choice, to efficient and effective non-government entities which can provide the care to those who need it, with the system and the "rules of the game" set by elected representatives.

Once the American public can come to the point of recognizing the facts of this situation, we'll have a chance to move forward. 

How can we transition from our current system of government-provided "care" to the desired system of non-government-provided real care?  This is where considerable debate will be required, but there are many different ways to transition, and the sooner we get started with this debate, the sooner we'll be able to truly offer care to those who need it.