Vanishing Volunteerism; J.L. Payne

The organization was protesting about a funding problem. The Planned Parenthood Fed eration of America has been receiving about $20 million yearly from the federal government to carry out birth control programs abroad. Re cent regulations of the Reagan Administration (concerning abortion funding) led to a cutoff of money for foreign programs. Hence the Metro ad. But unlike the usual appeals of private or ganizations, it doesn't ask the public for a dime. "White House extremists have targeted Planned Parenthood's international program for destruction," it continues. "Congress can stop them. Call your representatives now. Tell them: if the extremists win, the whole world loses. Help us fight back. " Planned Parenthood may, in fact, be a fine organization doing an important job. That isn't the issue. The question is whether, as its own Annual Report claims, it is a "voluntary" agency. Inspection of its finances shows that it gets nearly 40 per cent of its funding from fed James L. Payne is a political scientist and visiting scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University. He is writing a Q.ook about Con gress and the budget entitled The Culture of Spending, to be published next year by the Cato Institute.

eral, state, and local governments. Its interna tional program, as just noted, is dependent on the whim of government regulation. Even its fundraising orientation has shifted. When it comes time to "fight back," it does not seek voluntary donations, but organizes a political campaign to force taxpayers to fund its pro grams. How does this loss of independence come about? "We were approached by the govern ment, " one embarrassed PPFA staffer told me. Looking around at other organizations, it seems this is the typical pattern. In their eagerness to do good, politicians and administrators seek out healthy, appealing voluntary activities and tum them into government "programs." Take, for example, the ACTION agency. This governmental unit administers "The Do mestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973." In what sense, one wonders, are we talking about "voluntary" action? A government agency, funded by tax money, is administering an Act of Congress, a law backed by the enforcement powers of the United States Government.

Well, you say, at least the workers in the program are volunteers in the sense that they don't get paid. Guess again. The "volunteers" in most of the programs are paid a wage, po litely called a "stipend," which typically runs to $2.20 per hour (tax free), along with other benefits. Just how far we have strayed from the ideals of voluntarism was sharply demonstrated a few years ago when Senator Jesse Helms' Agricul tural Subcommittee on Nutrition held hearings on "Private Sector Initiatives to Feed America's Poor." The Senator called the hearing "to gather information on efforts being made by the private sector ... in addressing the food needs of the poor." But it turned out that the overwhelming majority of the wit nesses urged continuation and expansion of the federal government's food programs. One even called on Congress to "legislate an end to hunger"! Not Private at All As they described their own "private sector initiatives," it became clear that many were not private at all. Like the Planned Parenthood pro grams, they were extensions of government.

For example, one minister from North Carolina explained the many governmental ties in his church's programs: they depended on the county welfare office to certify the needy, they equipped their kitchen with a grant from the North Carolina Division of Aging, they ob tained a $580,000 loan from the Farmers Home Administration and another, for $2.5 million, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and so on. Rather than being apologetic about taxpayer funding of his organization, the minister took credit for expanding governmental dependency. Near his city, he said, is "a rural, mountainous area where many people live below the poverty level. These people are poor, but they are also proud. Many iqf them would rather die of mal nutrition than to accept the Government dole. Thus assistance must come to them in an acVirtues and Values 183 ceptable form, one which honors their dignity and their personhood. The church is an ideal conduit for assistance. . . ."

Thus we see the "private sector" reducing itself to a front for government funding. Some would say that such "public-private partnerships" are healthy, a creative adaptation to the welfare needs of the 1980s. But this view overlooks the distinctive character of truly pri vate action. In private, voluntary groups, no one uses force to make anyone do anything. People join up and give money because they believe in the aims of the organization, because they have been persuaded to help. For idealists seeking to reduce the role of force in human affairs, voluntary organizations are the key to a brighter future with less coercion. Government, by definition, involves the de ployment of force. Government funds are col lected not voluntarily but through coercion or the threat of coercion. It may be necessary to do things this way, at least under certain cir cumstances, but coercion can't be considered a high-minded approach, nor the wave of a desir able future. Government is a tainted realm of things "belonging to Caesar." Impoverished North Carolina hill folk understand this, and that is why they are chary of government wel fare.

The leaders of private organizations need to face this awkward truth. At first glance, gov ernment can look like any other donor when it is offering funds. But one has to ask how it gets the money, and whether a "voluntary" organi zation ought to be a part of that system. 0 IDEAS ON LIBERTY L iberty, individualism, voluntarism, personal independence, and in dividual responsibility can only be made to work by a people who have developed virtues which will buttress these ideas and practices. For people in general to concur in practices by which each man receives the fruits of his labor, they need to have a set of values in keeping with these practices. These values must exist in intricate interrelation, not in careless disarray. CLARENCE B. CARSON 184 The World Bank vs. the World's Poor by James Bovard T he World Bank is helping Third World governments cripple their economies, maul their environments, and oppress their people. From Benin to Zaire, the bank has spurred the nationalization of Third WorId economies and increased political and bureau cratic control over the lives of many of the world's poorest people.