A Worthy Cause Doesn't Obligate Donation

Recently, a hub-bub arose from a report that Betsy DeVos supported Trump budget cuts that included ending $18 million for the Special Olympics, whose mission is:

...to provide year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes and the community.A worthy cause indeed.  However, does its worthiness obligate us to contribute tax dollars to its mission?  The question is worth consideration given the amount of money it attracts in donations from individuals, corporations and a variety fund-raising events.  In DeVos' defense of the cuts, she said they take in over $100 million annually.  I've found other sources that say the same.  With that in mind, as well as the need to cut federal spending, is such a group beyond consideration for cuts of any kind?

Well, so many respond in the negative.  Certainly those who run Special Olympics are unhappy.  Celebs and politicians have raised a stink as well.  Some present the notion as "going after people with disabilities".  That might hold some water if there was no money flowing in at the rate it does without tax dollars, but as things stand, it's rather nonsensical.  Cuts do not mean that donations are affected, that people must stop or reduce their participation as regards supporting the organization. 

In any case, in today's paper, I read that Trump has backed off on these cuts.  I don't think he should based on the money they take in each year.  I also don't think that simply because a cause is worthy it means the federal government needs to involve itself at all.  Charity is something for which each of us as individuals is responsible, not the government.  Look again at the mission statement.  Are we to expect that the federal government has some sort of obligation to make certain that all who wish to compete gets to do so?  How so?  On what basis is this true?  On what basis is this logically possible?  There is no right to such things, except the right to strive to avail one's self.  Should others wish to help with their personal contributions, that's beautiful and I encourage the encouragement of others to help out. 

But the federal government is tapped out.  This particular cut is part of a cut in funding of the Department of Education.  I believe Trump is looking for cuts in any and every department, and in this case, DeVos is tasked with cuts related to her department.  Is there any recipient of tax dollars that sees itself as unworthy of continued funding?  I doubt it.  So the decision has to be made on the giving side of the equation, and this particular cut makes sense given the sizable amount of money Special Olympics receives from charitable giving. 

Some wish to insist on simply raising spending rather than redirecting money from one area to another of greater need.  At some point, cuts and redirecting must be done.  We can't just keep increasing the spending.  And worthiness can't be dictated solely, or even primarily, by the recipient.  Once all arguments for attracting money are made, the source of the money gets to decide where best to spread it around.  Special Olympics is a most worthy cause, but they're doing great without federal funds.  Everyone can always use more money.  That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to more.  This is especially true when the source of some of that "more" instead really needs to cut back its spending.

But here's a thought:  Let's cut off Planned Parenthood.  Those who compete in Special Olympics events are people with the types of disabilities supporters of Planned Parenthood use to justify abortion.  Instead of giving them the estimated $500 million per year, divert $18 mil to Special Olympics...hell, make it an even $20 mil...and use the rest to help pay down the national debt.  Planned Parenthood is definitely NOT a worthy cause.