The 'gift horse's' mouth

By Cletus Bianchi

Bad manners just irritate me and I believe it is very poor form for anyone receiving a gift to complain that it is not enough.

The world has been humbled recently by three dramatic catastrophes. Call them acts of God, Mother Nature’s vengeance, or just plain bad luck, but the tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the Kashmir earthquake are all brutal reminders that we do not control this planet, we just get to borrow some time and space.

There are several very predictable consequences of these events. One is media coverage from every possible camera angle, including the gripping human tragedies. Another is the rapid outpouring of aid to the stricken areas. Finally, there are the complaints.

Having an official, whether from the United Nations or the local government, complain that the United States government is not doing or giving enough seems to be the norm in the aftermath of these catastrophes. Do a quick Google and you’ll find numerous websites complaining that the U.S. gives a smaller percentage of its gross domestic income to foreign aid than 20 other countries.

You have to read quite a bit further in the reports to see that the actual dollar amounts are well into the billions.

Next, you’ll find complaints that U.S. aid is tied to incentives to use American companies or products for rebuilding or that that it is tied to loans or that it is tied to military or security agreements.

Do me a favor and read that copy of your Constitution you keep on the nightstand. I couldn’t find the article or clause that indicates the federal government should give aid. So, if it’s not there, then it must be a law, right?

No, it actually comes from the kindness and generosity of those fortunate enough to live in this prosperous country. Or, from a foreign policy strategy.

The Federal Emergency Management Association’s mission statement is "to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and help individuals and communities recover from natural and man-made disasters…by encouraging individuals, governmental entities, and public and private groups at all levels to become informed of the risks they face, to make decisions that keep people, property, and institutions out of harm’s way, and to possess the capability and knowledge needed to act when disasters occur."

You can judge for yourself how Louisiana and FEMA got along, but you can see it is not the golden parachute some might demand.

The President can only offer small amounts of money initially, call it discretionary, and then must go to Congress for more. It takes time, but it makes sense. Inevitably, more – lots more — aid flows to the victims of these tragedies.

Meanwhile, the private sector more than doubles the federal aid through various national and religious relief organizations.

In my opinion, that’s how it should be anyway. It’s really your money and if you don’t want to send it across the planet, that should be your choice. If you do, there are many avenues for you to direct your aid. Or perhaps you prefer to just give locally. Or maybe not at all. In any case, it is your choice.

Our tax laws make these donations deductible (most countries do not) in recognition of our generosity and how powerful a resource that can be. It takes a real cynic to criticize a donation just because the donor receives some financial incentive. I also get irritated when the same folks that complain about federal deficits decry the ‘limited’ distribution of aid.

If you want to mention that aid is limited because of military spending, you will note that is covered in the Constitution.

I suppose it mostly boils down to a moral decision for individuals. We feel that giving in time of need is the right thing to do, even if that means giving to some that might be considered enemies. I am reminded of a line from the movie "Starman" where the visiting alien is asked what intrigues him most about humans. He noted that it seemed when things were at their worst, we were at our best.

I believe, and accept, that life is a balance of risk and reward. I also believe that most healthy and intelligent individuals make choices, whether conscious or not, on where and how to live, and thereby accept the consequences of their decisions.

If you choose to live in a city, you risk traffic, pollution, and crime in exchange for more income and more conveniences. If you choose to live on a coastline, you risk hurricanes, tidal waves and mosquitoes in exchange for income, beaches, and fishing. If you choose to live on a fault line, you risk earthquakes in exchange for income, etcetera, etcetera.

You’ll note that I list income first and in most instances, I believe that is the case. I’m not implying that is a ‘bad’ thing; it is just necessity and it influences the lifestyle we are willing to enjoy.

Some folks choose to live in economically depressed areas to be closer to family. Alternatively, others choose higher incomes that draw them continents away from their family.

Some leave school early while others rack up huge debts to achieve multiple degrees, but in both cases, the choice is usually income-driven.

And there’s no denying that some people have chosen to accept their situation based on the income of public assistance.

Poor choices at an early age land thousands of people in prison every year or at least in a situation where they may not be able to compete for better jobs.

I believe that all people are capable of making intelligent decisions and improving their lot in life. If you argue some do not have the educational opportunities, I could list folks that never went to any school and still made a comfortable life for their families. It also doesn’t take a college degree to create and manage a Fortune 500 company.

You could also argue that in Third World countries, the same opportunities do not exist. You might even blame that on U.S. policy and I could go along with that in many cases. However, everyone cannot immigrate to America and I don’t believe we can solve everyone’s problems, whether caused by geographic locale or poor governance. I doubt anyone, anywhere would want us to suddenly stop the aid.

Weather and geology are only slightly predictable factors on this planet, so it is really not surprising that some form of natural disaster is going to occur somewhere, sometime. However, I don’t think I’d be too willing to point fingers of blame if I had to look up to watch a barge pass on a river or if my building must meet certain Richter scale requirements.

I doubt we’ll ever stop giving. I don’t mind if the aid is conditional…little in life comes free. And that whole income thing, well, that’s what funds governments and donations alike.

In my experience, only little children and rude adults look the gift horse in the mouth.

(click here to read archived columns by Cletus Bianchi)