Or jerk.

Either one.

Thank you for your comment.

The point I was making is that federal dollars have already been sent to Haiti, and will continue to be sent to Haiti in the future. That is money that will be taken from the American taxpayer. It is money that will be funneled and filtered through endless bureaucracy before it even finds its way to that beleaguered island. Once it arrives, it will have little or no chance of being properly accounted for. A government donation, on behalf of the American people, is a terrible waste.

The implication of what I said is that people who wish to donate and want their money to have the maximum impact should always do so through private charity. Federal aid in terms of shoveling more taxpayer dollars over there will do next to nothing.

When I originally wrote, “If people are genuinely interested in donating to Haitian relief efforts, and they are still on a first-name basis with their brains, why on earth would they send their contributions through the United States federal government?” it was written as a hypothetical. I was not trying to say that people will contribute directly to the government, although it is understandable how one could walk away with that inference. I was saying that the federal government sending taxpayer dollars over to Haiti on behalf of its citizenry is incredible more inefficient than through private means.

I am most appreciative in you pointing out the incoherence in what I was attempting to say in that sentence.
Without question, it could have been crafted better.

However, my central point remains.

Rush Limbaugh did not say what he was accused of saying. And government contributions to disaster relief is a monumental waste of resources – that is, if getting the job done efficiently is the goal.