"; if(is_file("header.php")) include "header.php"; else include "../header.php"; ?>

Conclusions of deficiency Jeffrey Sachs' passionate call to end world poverty is a much needed one. He sets towering goals in relationship to the solemn problem of poverty. However, I believe Sachs' solution for attaining those goals raises some questions. The summary answer professor Sachs suggests is big governments need to do more, give more, and act more. More specifically, he calls on `Washington' to step up efforts in terminating world-wide poverty. While governments have a moral responsibility to the world's poor, Sachs seemingly dismisses where much humanitarian progress is made; through grass-roots, organizations developing the infrastructure necessary to improve quality of life. These are the ones on the front lines equipping, educating, and fighting for the world's poor. In short, people love, governments do not - nor can they. While governments do have a role in addressing world poverty, the real question is, "How should governments best address the poverty issue?" Since more funds are annually given to address poverty through charitable contributions than via tax dollars, and are managed with greater efficiency through those humanitarian organizations, the answer to how governments should contribute to the fight against poverty is not an easy one. Should governments get bigger and more bureaucratic? Should they empower the organizations already making a difference? Should they join together making one, huge world-wide organization to address the issue? Unfortunately, Sachs ops for the latter with a `top down' solution. He proposes the development of a goliath governmental project by suggesting the U.N. secretary general personally run the overall plan, coordinating the actions of thousands of officials in six U.N. agencies, U.N. country teams, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Yikes! That's a recipe for bureaucracy on steroids. With that said, governments do have a role - and that's to empower citizens to stay involved in the solution. How? By providing further tax incentives to those who contribute to ending poverty. Part of that answer means decreasing the tax burden in order to allow people to give more. It's reasonable to suggest Sachs' appeal would best be served if directed towards the hearts and minds of motivated individuals - asking them to continue giving generously and responsibly to humanitarian organizations. Additionally, I'd wished Sachs would have challenged those organizations to collaborate, team-up, and utilize synergistic benefits.