Pilgrim Congregational Church has an exceptional music program, especially during Christmas. I write this as the brass, organ, drums and the choir practice.

While Ramona rehearses, I study Pilgrim’s bulletin board and see over a dozen appeals for support. Intermountain Children’s Home, Heifer International, Habitat for Humanity, and Central Asian Institute suggest the range of opportunities for contributing.

Their appeals offer a compelling lesson in the relentless logic of economics; when we can’t meet every demand we must make choices. It is intellectual cowardice to deny this reality and irresponsible to ignore it.

In charity as elsewhere, we must allocate scarce resources among competing ends. The temptation is to avoid wrestling with the choice, for evaluating these alternatives is tough work. The obvious and easy out is to transfer responsibility to others, often to government. Let’s consider data and follow the logic.

One response is to rely on government to transfer wealth to good causes. We again learned in the aftermath of Katrina what political scientists have known for decades, such aid is usually inefficient and ineffective. And no society has found a way to institutionalize compassion via governmental agencies.

Reliance on government also tends to corrupt both givers and recipients. Further, when the federal government supports a cause, however meritorious, private support declines. Even this isn’t the biggest problem. The logic inherent to political allocation and bureaucratic management is.

There is no “free money” from the government. Why? Simply because public funds are public knowledge and folks employ politics competing for allocations. And wealth and political influence normally go together for politicians heed the rich and well organized. Links between wealth and government transfers are compellingly obvious in America’s domestic income transfer programs, especially those involving agriculture. All are justified as supporting small farms. They rarely do. (Data reporting farm subsidies are available from the Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org.) Here’s a personal example.

Decades ago when we ran 500 ewes, three percent of the woolgrowers received three quarters of Wool Incentive Program funds. When Ramona and I wrote U.S. Senator Melcher objecting to the program, he responded: “In my years in the Senate, yours is only the second complaint I’ve received from the beneficiary of a federal program. I assure you, however, that when a majority of recipients from Montana object, I’ll vote to eliminate the Program.” His staff surely had fun writing this letter.

Back now to the Pilgrim bulletin board. I believe all of the organizations featured there have merit. None suffer a surfeit of funds. Given the problems inherent to federal funding, what can I recommend? Ideally, private giving is the superior alternative, but we know many will free ride, only a few will give a “fair share.”

A new book by Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University, “Who Really Cares”, addresses this problem. Prof. Brooks claims to be a “liberal” mugged by data. His findings indicate that classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians are personally far more generous than “progressives”. One reviewer noted; “And the sad fact is liberals assume the government should or will take care of those less fortunate. Even though (only) about 25 cents out of every dollar going to welfare actually is getting to the recipients.” Another observed: ” … conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes…..”

The working poor give a higher proportion of their income to charity than the well off. As income goes up, peoples’ propensity to give goes down. Why do the less well off give a higher proportion of their relatively modest income than do the wealthy? I have no idea, and I find it regrettable, but the data are clear. This is a cultural phenomenon involving values and beliefs about social responsibility, and only cultural forces can fix it.

Tweaking the tax code to reward donations can change behavior. This may be the most effective reward for giving but it’s morally less satisfying than an increased sense of generosity. I prefer a cultural shift but have no idea of how to effect this change. Awareness is but a first step to improvement. I hope Brook’s new book moves modern liberals toward personal generosity and conservatives toward their ideal.