Opinion: Philanthropy Can’t Replace Government Safety Net

Contrary to arguments advanced by some conservative leaders, history shows charities and churches do not provide for the needy more capably or efficiently than government programs, particularly in periods of financial distress, a Los Angeles Times columnist argues.

Business and financial writer Michael Hiltzik cites research showing that from the Great Depression of the 1930s to the Great Recession of the late 2000s, charitable giving has declined in bad times, whereas government social programs expanded to meet rising need. He also notes that less than a third of total giving goes to programs serving the needy, and the proportion is significantly lower for the wealthiest donors.

The notion that charities and churches can better alleviate economic pain “hasn’t been true since the industrial revolution transformed the U.S. from an agrarian to an urban nation,” Mr. Hiltzik writes. “To suggest that such organizations can effectively supplant government social programs is worse than a mere fantasy—it’s a cynical and dangerous fantasy that serves only as a talking point to cut those programs.”