Monday, November 09, 2009

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth...

I figured the WSJ article "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It" had to be a parody or farce... but it isn't.

The author's argument is that those with money 'owe' it to the recipients (to no surprise, including organizations such as that which employ the author). He argues that charitable organizations should be forced to give away more of their resources on an annual basis, that donors are being stingy (this one alone amazes me, the claim that people donating money are stingy), that the process of doling out money should be changed to make it easier for those asking for money to ask for money, that money be given on a long term basis and to organizations which the author deems worthy.

But the fatal flaw in the author's arguments is that the money isn't his and thus it isn't up to him or other would-be recipients of charity to dictate the terms of that charity. Whether an individual giving away his or her own money or a foundation giving away money in accordance to its charter, those who have the money have the right to dictate the terms by which they give it away. If someone wants to give their money to help cause X or cause Y, it isn't for this schmuck to tell them no, they have to give it to somebody else because he deems them more worthy. If a foundation wants to give away money on an annual basis, in part because doing so allows them to monitor that it is being used in accordance with the foundation's mission, that is their prerogative.

If organizations such as that which employ the author don't like the terms by which they're being offered money, they're free to turn it down and look elsewhere for funding.... and not b***h that they're not being given enough of someone else's money.