Some people believe government should take the lead on funding programs and services — that's a fair position, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But it raises a real question: should that support always be mandatory through taxes, or should people also have the freedom to choose where their money goes?
You already have that choice today. The IRS has never once stopped anyone from donating extra or skipping a deduction they were legally entitled to. If you trust government to spend your money well, you can support that system fully, right now, no law required.
But if you'd rather see your dollar go straight to someone who needs it, a local charity working hands-on with people can do that — and they answer to you personally if it doesn't work. When people give their own money directly, they pay attention. They ask questions. They expect results. That kind of accountability is powerful, and it's a lot harder to get from a budget line item.
I'm not saying every charity is perfect — you have to be smart and make sure they're legitimate. But the same is true of government programs. The real question isn't which side sounds more generous. It's where you actually get the best results for the people you're trying to help.
I trust you to decide who gets better results with your dollar — government or a charity that has to answer to you directly. That's not an attack on anyone's generosity. It's respect for your judgment.