The great majority of cash to chairities, such as international relief type agencies, is waste. No free thinker can doubt this. Think "Oil for Food", then realize what most charities do with your cash.
Second, there comes a point when reasonable people have to ask why the appeal for charity after a crisis when we spend $1 trillion per year of American tax dollars on welfare? Surely, we can use t=soem of theat money to pre-plan for natural disasters, don;t you think?
Giving to charity will rise if the rape and pillage of American taxpayers stops. In addition to $1 trillion plus of welfare spent domestically, count the billions and billions of dollars given to foreign nations. This "humanitarian assistance" does not buy food and medicine. It either (1) funds terrorists who kill Americans, or (2) lines the pockets of dictators and cronies.
Here is a reasonable approach: Have the UN take cash (with proper oversight and auditing) stockpile food, clothes, personal care items, medicine, etc. and position these items so they can reach most areas of the globe. When a disaster strikes, the supplies of items (not cash) gets to the area.
There is zero accountability for cash donations. Yes, local charities like those that help the mentally ill and such, can have a higher degree of direct need with smaller waste. However, any charity that serves the international community and receives cash contributions will see the great majority of this money evaporated before any good is done for the victims.
If I could take a crate of food to Thailand and some clothes and water, I would do it. Will I give one cent to any charity? No. Not until the United States stops its annual $1 trillion dollar welfare giveaway while failing to have a program in place to deal with natural disasters by using commodities, not actual cash dollars.
I see your point. I have two of my own: if the US were going to prepare for natural disasters, it would be our own, not necessarily international disasters. Secondly, I see no reason to punish tragedy-stricken victims just because I don't like the fact that some of my taxes go to welfare and the like. I'm willing to share, particularly with people who are innocent victims of a terrible diaster.
Thirdly, I hardly think you can use the Oil-for-Food scandal to cast a pall over ALL charities. That's like saying: "Joe Schmo cheated on his high school final exam, therefore, all the students probably cheated. Since I beleive this, I'll just punish all the students, rather than just the one I know is guilty." I think the logic is faulty.
Attacks on the Boy Scouts and the increase in anti-gun laws caused me to divert almost a thousand dollars a year from charitable contributions to direct support for organizations which share and can help protect my values.
If Arnold wants to help survivors of this disaster, I propose that he shut down the gun registry in Kalifornia and divert the money saved anywhere he chooses. Until that happens, I will continue to use my resources to protect my own survival.