Americans Are Not Stingy

To the Editor:

As someone who devoted a professional lifetime to fund raising for needy social-service organizations, I must take issue with Pablo Eisenberg’s article “Americans Generous? Not Really” (January 24).

He uses suspect logic to challenge the widely accepted and statistically proven fact that the United States is the most charitable nation in the world.

First, his criticism of Americans’ unwillingness to shoulder more of a tax burden to fund social-service programs doesn’t belong in a debate over charitable giving.

As Arthur C. Brooks states in his excellent book Who Really Cares, “charity encompasses all acts as long as they involve a personal voluntary sacrifice.” Paying government-mandated taxes hardly qualifies as a gift by that definition, especially when a failure to “give” ultimately lands you in jail.

It is equally misleading to talk about generosity within the context of taxation. Webster’s dictionary defines the term as “willingness to give or share,” which serves as a much higher and more specific level of commitment than simply supporting the elected representatives who levy such taxes.

Mr. Eisenberg also goes to great lengths to question the motivation behind individual gifts, asserting that a multitude of self-interests — including tax breaks, direct financial reward, and ego gratification — trump concerns for those in need. His math, unfortunately, doesn’t add up.

Even if we accept that 10 to 30 percent of Americans may make gifts partially out of a desire to receive a tax deduction or some other financial incentive, that means more than two out of every three people in this country donate for other reasons. Their primary motivation: a desire to help others less fortunate.

Then there’s his statement that the percentage of income going to charity hasn’t moved above 2 percent over the past few decades, despite sharp upward gains among the wealthiest Americans. When you consider that the U.S. population grew by more than 30 million people in the last decade alone — much of that in lower-income households already struggling to make ends meet — maintaining that percentage is no small accomplishment.

I also challenge Mr. Eisenberg’s attempts to discount the perceived value of charitable gifts. For example, why does he suggest that charitable giving to a hospital does not count as charity, when much of such an institution’s operating deficit comes from indigent care — medical treatments that are largely funded by charitable giving?

His cynicism begs a number of other questions, which his article failed to address. Among them:

• Why would affluent individuals leave a bequest to charity just to save on taxes, when doing so always leaves less money for their heirs?

• If wealthy Americans have largely turned their backs on social-service organizations, as he suggests, how does one explain Joan Kroc’s $1.5-billion gift to the Salvation Army? Or, what about the huge gifts from Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose purpose centers on providing better health care to poor and needy people around the world?

  Similarly, why is an individual’s gift to a private foundation considered a lesser form of charity when that contribution must be distributed at a minimum of 5 percent annually to charitable causes?

• Is the tremendous volume of money that thrift stores generate for organizations like the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries not counted as charitable giving just because a very small part of the items donated “are not in any condition to be used by others”? Is the employment of handicapped people and substance abusers to repair unusable items not “serving needy people”?

• If thrift-store operations generated no economic benefit to the organizations that run them or the people they serve, those operations would cease to exist. Also, let’s not forget the benefit to the buyers (typically from low-income households) who are able to realize substantial savings from their purchases.

Mr. Eisenberg further diminishes his credibility when he claims that fund raisers, thirsty for large grants and other major gifts, are increasingly willing to accommodate donors “at whatever cost.”

He cites naming rights as an example of such accommodation. This comment represents a backhanded swipe at the professional integrity and bottom-line accountability that every fund raiser must have to his or her organization — and to donors themselves. To suggest that they’ve abandoned those principles by putting a donor’s name on a building is irresponsible, if not insulting.

I will give the cynical professor credit for at least getting one thing right. Americans in 2006 did give $295-billion to charitable and religious organizations throughout the country and overseas.

My final question to him: What country gave more?

Claude Grizzard
Tucker, Ga.

Mr. Grizzard is the retired chairman of the Grizzard Communications Group, which serves many nonprofit organizations.

To the Editor:

In his article, Pablo Eisenberg raises important issues about the respective roles of government and private funders in supporting our national program priorities, especially human and infrastructure needs.

The real measure of generosity, he notes, is the public’s willingness to underwrite such efforts with tax dollars. For this challenging task, we require political and civic leaders with the courage and steadfastness to change our current attitudes and political direction. From where will such leadership come?

The governor of Massachusetts in his recent campaign appeared to endorse this view that the state had an obligation to provide for community and societal benefits. One year after his election, however, he seems to have decided that only casinos can be the revenue source for remedying broken homes, schools, streets, health-care systems, and communities.

Unfortunately, he is supported in this approach by fellow Democrats, unions, business and civic leaders, and politicians. There is little opposition from organized advocacy groups.

And so it is in many other parts of the country. It is sad that this kind of revenue from profitable private ventures, privatization, and tax-supported investments, as well as charitable donations, is the best mechanism that our political leaders have the courage to propose within their perceived framework of political survival. These leaders today believe that only by promoting the self-interest of business and profit can we support the public good and community interests.

This is an indicator of how dominant the influence of money has become in public policy and politics. How else can we explain the incredible inaction of our political leaders in the face of our disastrous subprime-mortgage crisis, which is stealing more from Americans today than almost anything resulting from the Enron, Worldcom, and other “bubble” crises.

None of them have provided any investigative, regulatory, or enforcement responses to this outrageous scandal, nor have they proposed a serious course of action to tackle the problem.

Our political leadership, with the tacit support of both our big-money interests and civic groups, has chosen to starve our public sector and rely on private funders. They are contributing to a breakdown of democracy, its system of checks and balances, and an active citizenry.

As a country, we seem to be losing the habit of debate, advocacy, citizen activism, and, above all, courageous leadership. Our values, our democracy, and our politicians have been highjacked in broad daylight, and with the consent of the governed. What is our remedy for that?

Scott Harshbarger
Boston

Mr. Harshbarger is a former attorney general of Massachusetts and former president of Common Cause.

To the Editor:

I take issue with Mr. Eisenberg’s assertion that mega-giving is a direct result of the desire to get a tax deduction. I have been a major-gift solicitor for several decades and this issue has been thoroughly studied by people more experienced than I, and while tax benefits are a factor in a major-gift decision, they are far from the donor’s primary motivation.

As The Chronicle’s list of the 50 most-generous donors demonstrates, what motivates major donors is a deep belief in the organization’s mission, an often lifelong personal involvement, and an abiding desire to share a school, hospital, or symphony’s life-changing benefits with others.

Second, Mr. Eisenberg laments the fact that such major gifts do not go to human-service organizations and thus to the most needy. I would remind him that over a third of the nearly $300-billion given to charities in 2006 went to religious groups, much of which is then re-channeled to the needy.

In addition, the United Way of America, another redistribution point, was the charity that received the largest share of philanthropic dollars in the United States in both 2004 and 2005.

Finally, I would agree with Mr. Eisenberg that government spending on human and infrastructure needs has been deficient, but that has more to do with the give and take of the political process and not with the philanthropic generosity of the American people, which I believe is alive and well.

Kevin Flattery
Consultant
Kansas City, Missouri

To the Editor:

Reading Pablo Eisenberg’s articles leads one to believe that his job of choice would be that of United States Czar of Philanthropy.

His most recent article, “Americans Generous? Not Really,” is as insulting as it is unwarranted. American philanthropists at all giving levels are national treasures. The glory that is American philanthropy lies precisely in its passionate individualism and concomitant freedom of an astounding array of choices.

Mr. Eisenberg is at liberty to donate where, when, to whom, for what, and how much he prefers. He is not at liberty to dictate to others what they may wish to do — however fervent his desire.

Ashley March
Director of Foundation Relations
Cato Institute
Washington