>SNIP
>>
>>The problem with your theory is that government is wasteful and has too high administrative costs. These costs take to big of a chunk of the funding (30% or more) that is targeted for those who need it. Volunteer organizations do not have the overhead (typically 10% or less) that government does (namely, payroll, employment taxes, etc). These organizations are much more able to address the specific needs than any federal gov't can. That is why we send our donations to private organizations instead of more to the gov't. We know who does the better job.
>
>That's not the reason why I give to particular charities. I give to them because I want to assis in the TYPE of work they do.
>Now I have stopped giving to some who do spend too much on "overhead", and one of the biggest overheads is the constant "solicitation" of new/bigger donations. These cost a lot of money, typically involving outside services who also take a cut of the return. That's why, when some organizations says something like "every 93 cents of each dollar you send goes directly to our field work helping real people", it cannot be trusted. They omit to tell you that those 93 cents are AFTER the cut(s) taken by those administering the canvassing!
>I've sent letters to a few telling them to mail me only once per year because that's the only time I will give through solicitation. One listened and did that and two others didn't. Of the three I now give only to that one that did as I asked.
>
>While government - particularly in North America - has proven to be very inefficient, it doesn't have to be like that. I'd much rather see government efficiency addressed rather than write it off as incorrigible.

Well, when that happens, then I might change my mind about how gov't works. We have a joke around here that goes:

How many people does it take to clean up a Superfund site?

41 -- 40 lawyers and 1 contractor with a wheel barrow and a shovel.