Some years back, a cousin of my wife had car trouble and had asked us for monetary help in getting a rental until the car was fixed. Rather than fork over the money, I instead offered the use of my car, which I wasn’t using while I was on business trips.

Why did I alter the deal? Did I not trust my relatives? Was I worried that I wouldn’t get the money back, plus interest? Perhaps those questions were in the back of my mind, but my main intent was to tailor the help to the need. The immediate need wasn’t a general subsidy, but rather transportation. If I had given him money, the temptation would be there to exchange my charity for something completely unintended. I’m not a limitless source of funds. If my money is spent for one thing, it can’t be spent for another.

So while I can appreciate somebody’s ability to donate a million dollars to the Red Cross (a good example of using non-governmental organizations rather than governments to achieve a charitable goal by the way), I find that our President’s direct appeal for cash disturbing. Granted, I may not know what is exactly needed over there, but if I really wanted to help those victims of tsunamis, or victims of any calamity, shouldn’t I at least do a little research to see what should be bought? Some of the patrons of the areas went back to sunbathing even as more people are being rescued today. Are they getting money just because they were “victims”?

What this appeal accomplishes is to insulate the recipients from the donors. When this happens, the recipients are no longer accountable to the donors. Sure, the Red Cross will get its thanks from the nations in need, and Sandra Bullock will get her press, but will she go back and make sure that her funds were well spent? Did she check to see how the caretakers of the September 11th fund spent her first million dollar donation? Should we be more worried about throwing money after a cause, or that we actually accomplish the difference we wish to achieve? Granted, the Red Cross has a much superior sustained record than the September 11 fund managers, but when we are asked to give blindly, we are being asked to give carte blanche to strange people in faraway nations, most likely without the same values and prudence that we employ.

Tailoring the help to meet the need provides a capital reminder that in the past, we found it in the goodness of our heart to give without asking for it back at some later time. Just because we don’t want a donation back doesn’t mean that there is no expectation. There is an expectation that at some other time, when we are in need, and the recipient is able to deliver, that the favor is returned. Nationally speaking, the USA may not need financial help any time soon (in the face of rising debt ceilings, this may not be a secure assumption), but it could use cooperation from some of these countries in fighting those that wish to harm us. Individually speaking in my case, the car would be a capital thorn in my relative’s side to provide his own transportation; a 15-year-old Topaz is not a vehicle for showboating.

It is natural and good to expect suitable results from the assets and services that we donate. Providing help with large amounts of fungible aid can only open the door to results that are not expected by the donor. If the UN Oil-for-Food program in Iraq actually traded oil for food, it would have been harder to buy arms with skimmed fruits and vegetables than it was to bank the cash. To avoid these kinds of abuses, we should provide what is needed, not what can be easily exchanged for what is not needed.