Because the contribution of medicine to lifespan and quality is dwarfed by cheap, easy and well understood tech like sanitation. Because education of similar quality can be delivered for half the cost (D.C. voucher programme cost a quarter) Because if you were aiming to help the most people possible with your money you sure as hell wouldn't be spending your money in any of the members of the OECD, never mind the USA.

The government is not a charity. The programs that have the outward appearance of charity in reality operate for the benefit of the employees.

Can you provide some proof of that last statement? I highly doubt that's the case.

(And even if it was true, how do you know that's not true of the charities, too?)

My views come from years of working in government and politics, following current events, and reading inside accounts of how the political system works. Probably the best book on getting an understanding of how government works in practice is "Government's End" by Jonathan Rauch. If you want a more entertaining view, watch a few episodes of "Yes, Minister", which was based on the diaries of British cabinet minister Richard Crossman. Or simply take the time to learn in depth the politics and policy of one particular area, such as education. For example, the other day I was talking to a mayoral candidate in Boston. He explained that the biggest factor blocking all of the major reforms he would like to do were the teacher unions, and that they are extremely powerful because they vote as a block in a way that promotes their own interests.

The difference between government charity and private charity is that the workers in government charities form voting blocks that can redirect government tax payer dollars to fund their pay. Private charities must convince donors to voluntarily donate money.

I want to elaborate on your last sentence. With private charities I have much more direct influence on how my income is used. If a charity I am donating to no longer serves purposes with which I agree I am free to stop donating. Try to stop paying the government for programs which you don't support or strongly object to.

If a charity is deemed unsuccessful people will stop funding it and it will go out of business.

And perversely, if a government program under-performs it get more resources such that it's gotten to the point where some of the worst performing schools in America spend the most money per student.

Hopefully Arne Duncan will extend the precedent he set in Chicago by closing schools which consistently under-perform.

I really think the school voucher program where parents can decide where to send their kids will be the best. Heck, you could get on a professor and a assistant to open a one room school house and teach 15 kids. The parents make sure they like the curriculum and that's that. Imagine rapid innovation that could take place if we removed the regulations/certifications and allowed parents to choose.

If the employees didn't benefit, they would stop working there. It is axiomatic.