I've received my fair share of letters, notes and, more recently, e-mail from Fuelner, apprising me of the organization's accomplishments, thanking me for my help, and asking for a generous donation. I regularly receive the organization's "Member Briefing" even though although I am not an official member.

I've been so taken with Heritage that I've tracked it over the years: charting its extraordinary growth ("The Heritage Foundation Soars" - June2001 http://www.zcommunications.org/the-heritage-foundation-soars-by-b ill-berkowitz); marking its major anniversaries ("The Heritage Foundation's 35 Years" - July 2008 http://zcommunications.org/the-heritage-foundation-s-35-years-by- bill-berkowitz); and covering its response to assorted events like Hurricane Katrina ("Heritage Foundation Capitalizes on Katrina" - September 2005 -- http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=85); BP's catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year ("From the Hall of Fame of Hypocrisy, The Heritage Foundation Forgets Its Role in the BP Gulf Catastrophe" - July 2010 --http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-berkowitz/29989/from-the -hall-of-fame-of-hypocrisy-the-heritage-foundation-forgets-its-ro le-in-the-bp-gulf-catastrop); and, more recently, its plans to take down health care reform ("Locking and Loading: Heritage Foundation Gearing Up to Shoot Down 'Obamacare'" - October 2010 -- http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/11821).

Over the years, the think tank's ideological maneuverings have angered, perturbed, upset, annoyed, enraged, and exasperated me.

Did I ever think that the ideologues at Heritage really cared about the poor? Never. Did I ever think it would someday stand up for the interests of working people? Nope.

Scrooge-ified

But it wasn't until I read Fuelner's recent opinion piece in the Washington Times that I thought my head would explode.

Headlined "A hand up, not a handout: Human compassion can heal hearts in ways government checks can't,'" Fuelner starts by writing:

"Whose job is it to help those in need? Some say it's the government's. That's certainly the view of Ebenezer Scrooge. When asked to contribute to the poor, he responds: 'Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses? Are they still in operation?' Substitute 'welfare checks' and 'food stamps,' and you find the same attitude prevails today: Let Uncle Sam handle the problem."

Since I've never noted that Fuelner had a sense of humor, I knew straight away that this wasn't his attempt to emulate the wickedly funny Andy Borowitz or the good folks at The Onion. Nor was he offering up a Swiftian solution.

As Wikipedia points out, Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" "has been viewed as an indictment of nineteenth century industrial capitalism." So Fuelner wants to paint Ebenezer Scrooge as a big government guy? Au contraire my friends (Yikes, I sound like John McCain!): Before his Christmas Eve transformational encounters, it is likely Scrooge would have been lobbying against extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and for tax cuts for the wealthy. He might have embraced Grover Norquist's dictum: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

If anything, Scrooge was the consummate conservative businessman: he, along with his equally single-minded business partner, the late Jacob Marley, were committed to putting company first and everything else (including family) be damned. He certainly ridiculed, abused, and underpaid his long-time clerk Bob Cratchit.

Ebenezer Scrooge received four visitors in his bed chamber that remarkable Christmas Eve. The first was the ghost of Marley, who warned him that it was not to late to amend his ways. Marley was followed by visits from three extraordinary spirits, the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.

By daybreak, Scrooge was transformed from sour and stingy to a kind, compassionate and generous man.

Fuelner's main thesis here is as old as the needy; religious institutions and individual philanthropists are better equipped to better handle the needs of the poor than the government. That notion was the basis of George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative - an initiative that to this day has not shown that it has been able to serve the needs of the poor and homeless any better than the government.

Fuelner quotes Mary Kay Baker, the director of the Interfaith Hospitality Network (IHN) in Grand Rapids, Mich., who tells him that, "We cannot break dangerous patterns of behavior and cycles of poverty unless we get personally involved. They need cheerleaders who listen to them and give them encouragement."

No one doubts either the sincerity of Mary Kay Baker -- and the hundreds of thousands of people like her across the country -- nor the value of her work.  But the work of individuals and charities cannot possibly meet the needs of the least amongst us.

Charity can be a potent partner but even the most generous contributions cannot fully address the complexity of factors and needs: lack of education and job training, chronic unemployment, housing, chronic disease, mental illness and substance use disorders that are the underpinnings of structural poverty in America.  At a minimum, government must organize and insure the basic social safety net.  Charities and non-profits can be powerful partners in this effort but do not have the infrastructure or reach to insure access and equity on a regional, state, or national level.

Case in Point, a recent NPR story on the success of Denver's "Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness": Significant strides have been made at the five year point to link people to treatment and social support services, jobs/job retraining and quality permanent housing through a public-private partnership led by the Denver United Way agency.  The success in Denver was the result of a partnership among non-profit charitable organizations, individuals, businesses, and the government. Private charitable donations provide one third of the funding for the Denver Plan to End Homelessness, the remaining two thirds is from Government.

At a minimum, government must organize and insure the basic social safety net.  Charities and non-profits can be powerful partners in this effort but do not have the infrastructure or reach to insure access and equity on a regional, state, or national level.

Over the years Ed Fuelner's Heritage Foundation has fulminated about how providing people with unemployment checks discourages them from working; how paying a living wage hurts business; how food stamps encourages indolence. This is standard Fuelner.

In the midst of some of the worst economic conditions in more than fifty years, does he really think the government has done too much to help folks that are hurting? Does he really believe that charities could muster up the resources to help 9/11 responders? Can charity provide the education and job retraining necessary to create a workforce capable of creating and competing in the 21st century?

Two days ago, I received an email from The Heritage Foundation asking me for a donation to combat Obamacare.  If health care reform is overturned (doubtful) or parts of it un-or under-funded (more likely), can we count on Ed Fuelner and friends to pick up the slack. Will The Heritage Foundation pop for health care for the uninsured? My friends, that's not even a rhetorical question.

Move over a pre-ghostly visited Ebenezer Scrooge, here comes Ed Fuelner.