Should the Government Fund the Special Olympics?

No.

That's my short answer.

Now for my long answer.

The most recent political weapon aimed across the aisle in Washington (that's all it really is, after all--another way to perpetuate the binary party system we've created here in the U.S.) is the Special Olympics.  At first Trump's administration was going to cut funding for the beloved sporting event, but then Trump came through for virtue-signalers everywhere by overriding the decision and assuring that funding would continue.  Democrats had a field day, of course, with the funding cut, despite the fact that they support the "right" to abort children in the womb who have special needs.

Trump's reassurance led to widespread jubilation as warm-blooded folks from both red and blue states united in celebration of the humanity of his decision, but it seems no one has stopped to ask a simple question.  Why, my friends, does the federal government of the United States fund the Special Olympics in the first place?

Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "What does this guy have against the Special Olympics?"

Nothing.  I have nothing against the Special Olympics.  It is a wonderful event that celebrates and empowers those with special needs.  That does not, however, mean that the federal government has the duty to allocate taxpayers' dollars towards it.

Pay close attention to this next sentence.  It's gonna be a good one.

Worthy causes do not justify government expenditures.

Allow me to repeat (copy and paste) that.

Worthy causes do not justify government expenditures.

This next sentence is going to be pretty good, too.

Conversely, opposing the allocation of government funds towards a cause does not mean that you are opposed to that cause.

That was pretty good, but I'll only say that once.

Let me explain what I mean.  There are plenty of things I support that I don't want the government to fund.  Take cats, for example.  I am a cat lover.  It would be ideal for all cats to be fed and housed, but that doesn't mean I think that the government should fund my pet project (pun gleefully intended).

I also support the Christian religion, education, music, and literature, but I don't want the government to fund any of that stuff either.  

Government funding, especially at the federal level, is sloppy and inefficient, not to mention liable to corruption.  Private, decentralized, personally-motivated philanthropy has consistently proven to be much more effective than redistribution by bureaucracy.

Moreover, it is unethical to force people to pay for causes to which they are morally opposed.  Who gets to choose what causes are worthy and what causes are not?  Why are my cats any less worthy of a handout than your dogs?  How about we keep Uncle Sam out of this and donate to our own causes as we see fit?    

If we are going to continue to be the Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave, we simply must get past this notion that it's the governments job to do everything.  That's not how free societies work.  That's how Socialistic societies work.

We also have to refute this idea that you're a cold, heartless, greedy Stoic if you don't want to support a cause by means of tax revenues.  Why is it greedy to want the freedom to distribute your money as you see fit?  Meanwhile, those donating little or nothing to charitable causes can feel good about themselves because they voted for a candidate who promised to redistribute the wealth of those who actually pay taxes.

I suppose it's too late (I'm an idealist, but I'm also a cynic).  The fact that we're arguing about which causes are worthy of government support suggests that we're past the point of no return--when discussing government spending, we presuppose that the state should support every cause that is deemed to be worthy.  We've bought the lie that it is compassionate for elitists in D.C. to take money from hardworking Americans and redistribute it to whomever they choose.

Is the Special Olympics a worthy cause?  If you think so, go donate now.