Shrink Government and Help the Poor?

There is an article in the NY Times about Republican Congressional candidate Tim Scott who is likely to become the first black Republican elected to Congress from the Deep South in over one hundred years. While that is somewhat interesting, I am more interested in his overall philosophy.

Tim Scott seems to be of the class of Republicans that want to help those less fortunate but don't think the government should do it. Here is a quote from the article that really got me thinking:

"If you really believe in something and that the government shouldn’t do it, you better be busy," he said.

First, let me say that I can understand the feeling that the government isn't always the best at providing services. While this feeling is exaggerated, there are good reasons to feel this way. I might agree that local non-profits, if adequately funded, could provide better services for those in need than government social service agencies.

What I don't understand though about these conservatives that are actually compassionate is how they can stand being in a party where a significant portion believe that government should be doing less not because local community groups need to do more but because they want to keep their own money and not help the undeserving poor.

These conservatives that do want the poor to be helped need to understand, and I am surprised that they do not, that when they work together with other conservatives to shrink the size of government, there will be nothing close to sufficient money to help those in need. They are joining a party to shrink government without considering what happens to the people that need support.

It would make more sense to me if these people joined with Democrats, who also largely feel the desire to help the poor, and try to influence the party to raise the same amount of money but give more to local groups and less to big unresponsive government agencies.