We Can't Rely on the Kindness of Billionaires

Former labor secretary Robert Reich estimates that only 10 percent of the contributions that qualified for charitable deductions in 2006 were "directed at the poor." The percentage of philanthropic giving that went toward disaster relief, services for the disadvantaged and alleviating poverty has dropped about 12 percent from 2005 to 2006, after the surge prompted by Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, according to the Giving USA Foundation.

While we should applaud donors' goodwill, as Clinton does, those who write about giving must also ask some difficult questions. What becomes of a society that relies on the benevolence of a wealthy few to address its most pressing social problems? Is success in the marketplace, as measured in dollars, proof positive (as Carnegie believed) that the wealthy and their advisers are better suited than the rest of us, including elected representatives, to solve our problems?

My greatest fear is that the growth of private philanthropy may be both symptom and cause of our weakening faith in democratic government. In "Giving," Clinton recounts the failures of the federal government to confront global warming, then segues into praise for the private individuals, foundations and companies that are tackling the problem. But the fact that governments have failed in the past should not lead us to flee the public sphere for the private, as Clinton appears to be doing. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to raise private money for public purposes, but we cannot let such efforts distract us from pressuring government to do its best to save the environment, adequately fund our public parks, schools and universities, and provide medical care and support for the weakest among us.

dnasaw@gc.cuny.edu

David Nasaw is a history professor at the City University of New York's Graduate Center.

His most recent book is "Andrew Carnegie."