This week's Tim Magazine contains a cover story "The End of Poverty," an excerpt from Jeffrey D. Sach's book of the same title. It's a very liberal take on ending poverty, he advocates working more through the UN, giving more to governments, etc. I've actually written about this before in this space. Of course, he makes some good points, but all in all I think the last few sentences sum up his goal - redistribution of wealth:

The final myth I will debunk here is that politicians are punished by their constituents for supporting actions to help the poor. There is plenty of experience to show that the broad public will accept such measures, especially if they see that the rich within their own societies are asked to meet their fare share of the burden. Great social forces are the mere accumulation of individual actions. Let the future say of our generation that we sent forth mighty currents of hope, and that we worked together to heal the world.

I'll quote Dick Cheney here in response to a monologue by John Edwards in one of the VP debates, "That's great rhetoric Senator, unfortunatley it's just not true." First, I don't believe consituents chastise their politicians for supporting actions to help the poor, it's that the actions never help the poor! All they do is provide bigger beauracracies and larger salaries for more politicians and businessmen. Second, the rich do more than their fare share for our society, as Al Sharpton found out when he ran his mouth off to John Stossel. The text can be found at the following link: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/010287.php

Yet the problems remain. I seek to focus on empowerment of the African people rather than just handouts, and Sach's argues for that in some places as well. It's also interesting to note that I was given a commentary from the Chicago Tribune on Africa, specifially Kenya, and the problems they have had post-independence. In Kenya, as in many African nations, corruption is the norm. The author quotes a study that conluded "roughly 80 cents on every dollar borrowed by African countries flowed back to the West as capital flight in the same year." The corrupt rulers have used our aid to inflate their bank accounts and then flee into exile when the world catches on. Again we see the benefit of private donations over governmental support. One helps the people, the other helps the ruling class. One of the conclusions the author makes is that even through the troubles the Africans faced with colonial rule, maybe they were better off then. You won't read that in any textbooks.

That being said, why should the West continue to aid the Africans. Why should we seek to end the poverty around the world. Well, first, I agree with Sachs that it's not the people's fault that their rulers are corrupt. Their societies do not allow them a voice, they are but sheep without a shepherd. Second, I do agree that it is the duty of the rich to help the poor. My difference with many is that it can't be done through government assitance and higher taxes, it has to be done through personal and private charitable donations. Visitations to view the hardships also help as I found out this summer. Finally, for us as believers, we know that God calls us to help the poor, to "go and do likewise," and that pure religion is helping the widows and orphans. We should do well to heed that advice of the New Testament above some of the other issues we get hogtied into, but that's for another day.