Can generous gifts be better spent?

When Bill Gates announces yet another multi-million grant to help starving children in Africa, his heart is most definitely in the right place. You simply can't argue with someone who uses their enormous riches to help those in most desperate need.

But over and over, I hear the same refrain - "we have children here in America in desperate need as well so why not spend those dollars at home first before saving the rest of the world?" And yes, there is an argument for that sentiment.

It's just inappropriate in polite circles to question why someone would spend their money on a cause thousands of miles away when surely there are unmet needs literally within miles of where these generous wealthy reside. Those making these donations will probably not hear these concerns but, rest assured, these words are spoken over and over again.

Now comes Bob Barker of The Price is Right fame to make yet another million dollar donation to help another college establish an animal rights program within their law school. And once again, Barker has all of the right in the world to funnel his wealth where he sees fit. Since he has championed animal rights for his entire career, it comes are no surprise. Yet the voices are heard again and they wonder if another millionaire has misplaced priorities.

You can't fault Barker nor Gates nor the others for their compassion. I believe it is both genuine and sincere. Yet despite the importance of their respective causes, it is worth asking if their generosity could not have a greater impact if placed elsewhere.

Animal rights activists will surely voice strong objection to this argument. And that is their right. But until all of the issues of fairness and poverty are addressed here first, it seems their priorities can be called into question.

The average man on the street hears of these massive donations and I guarantee you, the response is virtually unanimous. They clearly call into question the need to help animals or distant lands when the needs remain so great right here at home. I'm sure there is an answer in their minds and, since it's their money, you have to accept their position. But that doesn't mean we can't support their motives but question their priorities.

Every time I see these television commercials talking about adopting a starving child, I always wonder why the children cannot be in West Virginia or Idaho or even Missouri. Do we simply ignore our problems to highlight the fact that others may have it a lot rougher than here? And if so, do we do a disservice to those truly in need just around the corner.

Animal rights has its place and global assistance has its place as well. But somewhere, there is a child in this country who could benefit from this generosity. I wonder how they feel when they hear of such announcements?