Category: government

Bill Gates vs. Elon Musk

Bill Gates and Elon Musk are both massively wealthy innovators.  They have also become divisive figures to large swaths of the population. 

Mr. Musk, of course, riled the left by heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which had as its goal to cut government spending and help our country be more fiscally responsible. 

Mr. Gates is known for his charitable giving through his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  While many conservatives take issue with some of the left-wing causes that Gates contributes to, most people would praise much of the giving that deals with feeding children in third world nations.  In May, he announced that he would donate almost all of his fortune, nearly $200 billion, by 2045.

Conflict arose after Gates announcement when he took a shot at Musk.  Gates accused Elon of “killing the world’s poorest children” with his proposed cuts in USAID programs.  While Mr. Gates is right that we should help the poor, there are some big problems with his criticism of Elon. 

First, while Gates might have good intentions wanting to help people through USAID, it is a very unwise use of our money.  The United States Government does not have the money to spend.  It would be one thing if the government had a large budget surplus.  Unfortunately, the government is operating on an estimated budget deficit of $1.83 trillion!  It is not a good idea to spend money that you do not have.

Second, and more importantly, there is the issue of freedom.  One of the main differences between conservatives and leftists is what we do about disagreement.  Conservatives say, “I disagree, so I’ll do what I want and you do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.”  Leftists say, “I disagree, so the government should force you to do what I say.”  In short, conservatives believe in freedom.  Leftists do not. 

This criticism by Gates denies the American people of their freedom.  If we cut USAID, it does not deny the people the ability to help people through foreign aid.  Any person who wants to donate money to the causes that Gates supports can do it the same way he does, through private donations.  There are, in fact, many good reasons for a person to prefer individual charitable donations to going through the government.  If we have learned anything from DOGE, it is that government is wrought with waste and fraud, and highly inefficient. 

There is a recent TikTok that went viral by a woman named Jen Hamilton, where she makes a similar argument.  She even tries to make the case that the Bible backs her position.  In the video, she is responding to a comment that said, “Whoa.  Be careful there.  I am happily MAGA and absolutely love Jesus.  We are exhausted from liberal nonsense.”  Hamilton opens her Bible and reads from Matthew 25:31-45, which culminates in Jesus explaining, “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.”  As she reads the passage, she overlays on the screen headlines that say things like, “Millions of Low-Income Households Would Lose Food Aid Under Proposed House Republican SNAP Cuts,” “Trump’s new spending bill includes reducing federal funding for SNAP food program by nearly $300 billion,” and “Exploring the potential impact of Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big budget bill.”  Then she says, “I don’t know.  Sounds pretty liberal.”

This woman and Gates make the same mistake.  They equate care for the needy with government spending.  What she forgets is that the Bible also advocates for free will.  The Bible is very clear about this.  2 Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”  When you push for government spending to fund your pet causes, you are using compulsion through taxes to pay for what you think is best.  Government spending does not even count towards what the Bible says to do, because it is not by choice.  You are basically saying, “I care about this cause, so you should be forced to pay for it.”  That is not caring.  It is controlling.

When it comes to the giving that the Bible actually calls for, conservatives dominate the left. Statistics show that while conservatives earn 6% less income, they give 30% more to charity.  The fact that Elon wants to save money for taxpayers is the opposite of greedy.  It actually helps people, and respects their freedom to choose where to give their charitable dollars.  Those charitable dollars are far more likely to be spent wisely when not being filtered through government bureaucracies. 

Bill Gates has the right to give his fortune to whatever causes he chooses to.  Some of those causes are probably great.  Likewise, you should have the right to give to whatever causes you choose to.  Here lies the big difference.  While conservatives would love it if Bill Gates gave to causes of our choosing, we respect his free will.  Conservatives think that freedom must be protected, even if people choose to use their money differently than we want.  It is their money, not ours, and not the government’s.  Elon Musk respects this fact, and should be praised for his work at DOGE, not attacked.

Ay Caramba!  What Happened to The Simpsons?

As an 80s kid, The Simpsons has to be in my top ten TV shows of all time.  We grew up with Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie getting into all sorts of crazy situations.  Who can forget when Bart cut off the head of the Jebediah Springfield statue, or when Bart was being bullied at school by Nelson, and Homer advised him to hit him in the family jewels?  What about when Homer became “Dancing Homer,” the mascot for the Springfield Isotopes baseball team?  Just a few weeks ago, my sister was sitting at the top row of stadium bleachers and was freaked out that she might fall, and I said, “Isn’t that how Maude Flanders died?”  (I was right.  It was.  Check it out here.) 

Many of you probably do not remember that The Simpsons was very controversial and edgy when it started, way back in 1989.  Before that, cartoons were played on Saturday and Sunday mornings, or after school on weekdays.  They had innocent, fun, playful stories, and were geared towards kids.  Then came along a dysfunctional cartoon family with a foul-mouthed, troublemaking son on the airwaves during prime-time television.  Some families at my church would not allow their kids to be exposed to such a show.  Despite the controversy that surrounded The Simpsons, the show was a massive success.  It was too funny not to be.

Surprisingly, The Simpsons remained funny for about 25 years, and even more surprisingly, it is still running today.  It is impossible to keep a show funny forever, and The Simpsons did eventually lose its edge.  The big laughs became chuckles, and then the chuckles started getting fewer and farther apart.  It is rare that I watch anymore, but last Sunday I decided to flip over to The Simpsons.  I was very disappointed.  Unfortunately, it was not because it wasn’t funny.  I expected that.  What I did not expect to see was leftist, anti-religion, anti-charity, big government propaganda.

The episode, titled “Write Off This Episode,” starts with Marge and Lisa starting a charity to help the homeless.  Then, Marge gets sucked into fundraising and “raising awareness” instead of actually helping anybody.  The problem comes at the end of the episode, when the charity is holding a ritzy gala to celebrate the opening of their giant, glamourous, new headquarters.  When Marge sees her folly, she opens up the center to the homeless to come in and eat.  The rich donors are upset, and the villainous Mr. Burns stands up and gives this speech:

Enough of this do-goodery.  Open your eyes, rich people.  We’re not here to help the less fortunate.  We’re here to bask in our fortunateness.  If we really wanted to make a difference, we’d do the one thing we spent our lives avoiding… paying our taxes!  Then, one organization, the government, could tackle all of society’s ills.  Instead of leaving it to 1.5 million separate, ego-driven, micro-bureaucracies called charities, including, get a load of this scam, religions.  But no one here wants the rational way.  We all want the United Way, because that’s the American way.

 

Ay caramba!  Not only was it irrational and not true, but it was unfunny.  Look.  It is OK to make fun of charities and religions. (Or, most religions.  Some may chop off your head.)  Most Christians have a sense of humor.  However, it has to be funny!  The Simpsons, in fact, have done it since the beginning.  One of the most familiar characters is the goody-two-shoes, hyper-religious, next-door-neighbor, Ned Flanders, and he is funny.  There have been many episodes based around church, or Reverend Lovejoy, that are hilarious.  This episode, on the other hand, was not even intended to be funny.  It was just a setup for a government propaganda speech based on a dangerous, flawed premise.

As someone who started and ran a charity to help addicts, I know something about this.  While there are some bad charities and some bad churches, there are some major problems with the message that The Simpsons was clunkily shoving down our throats.  Here are three big ones:

  1. Efficiency – Government is HIGHLY wasteful, inefficient and ineffective.  Bureaucracy is defined by Investopedia as “a complex organization that has multilayered systems and processes.  The systems and processes that are put in place effectively make decision-making slow.  They are designed to maintain uniformity and control within the organization.” The government is slow, and to get anything done, you have to cut through red tape like you were hacking your way through the jungle with a machete.  It is expensive to do this.  Good charities, on the other hand, often only spend 20% or less of their donations on administrative costs, meaning that 80% or more of what you donate is used towards the cause.
  2. Choice – Taxes are coerced, so when the people see how inefficient the government is at solving problems, they cannot withhold their funding.  The government has little reason to be efficient because they can take your money either way.  Since taxes are mandatory and people cannot choose whether to give, the bureaucrats in charge of programs actually have an incentive to make problems worse, so that they can say that they need more funding.  Conversely, charitable giving is voluntary, and people can choose which charities they give to.  This is a massive difference.  As I said, there are some bad charities and some bad churches, but you are not forced to give anything to them!  This makes the charities accountable to their donors and forces them to show results.  If they do not show results, they will lose donors.  If you are looking into donating to a charity, there are watchdog organizations, like Charity Navigator, where you can find out what percentage of their donations are actually used for the cause.
  3. Proximity to the problems – The government, especially the federal government, is far from most of the problems in our country.  This leads to impersonal, cookie-cutter solutions to problems that only work for very few of the people who need assistance.  Churches are, without a doubt, the best, most effective organizations to deal with societal problems.  Contrary to Mr. Burns’ assertion, they are not generally as bureaucratic.  Most have boards of deacons or church elders to run things by, while other churches just have pastors with broad decision-making authority.  After that, the people involved are the members of the church, who live in the affected communities and often know the people who need help.  They are close to the problems and can deal with them in a much more personal way. 

These three things just scratch the surface as to why charities and churches are far superior to the government when it comes to helping people.  When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled through America in 1831, he was impressed by how Americans gathered together in charitable associations to help each other and thought that this was one of the big reasons why the young country was so successful.  He noted, “I have often seen Americans make large and genuine sacrifices to the public good, and I have noted on countless occasions that, when necessary, they almost never fail to lend one another a helping hand.”  He was correct.  If you want to make a difference and help people, give to charities and get involved at your church.  If you want to waste your money, give it to the government.  Actually, you have to.  D’oh!