Is 'Charity' Only Possible Through Government Mandate?

When did we as a society decide that compassion and benevolence are only possible through government mandates? Maybe it comes down to the Philosophy 101 question "are people inherently good or evil?". I and many conservatives tend to be optimists, but Pelosi knows you are inherently evil. One thing I can guarantee to you is that government is inherently wasteful.
Here's an idea: take that $1-2 trillion that was going to be used on Obamacare and give it back to the people! Incentivize charitable donations, reward people with tax breaks for helping the less fortunate, make charity more affordable for doctors through malpractice reform. This increased tax burden isn't going to help anyone.
Government needs to get out of the way and let us help ourselves and one another. I'm of the opinion that there are enough good people out there that the poor would be taken care of if the government would STOP TAXING the people and LET THEM help others. This idea that the government can function as a charitable organization is flawed. Most of the money will get lost to fraud and waste before it ever reaches the people who need it.
This Obamalosi plan is the complete opposite of what we need. The proposed plan will simply increase the tax burden on people, making it even harder to help others. It's like we're throwing up our hands and admitting that society as a whole is incapable of philanthropy of its own volition. We need the government to force us to help others through taxes and government programs. I'm not prepared to admit that society would stand idly if people were in need of assistance and society had the means to help them. I don't think that's the case at all. I think a bloated government has the peoples' hands tied. As a whole, Americans are barely able to take care of themselves. They're overburdened to the point that helping others is simply not an option for many people.
All I'm saying is this: if government would step back, scale down, and let Americans keep more of their earnings, I think Americans would take care of each other and there would be no need for the government middle man. AND I'm not blaming all of this on Obama (though he is making it worse). The people weren't all of the sudden overburdened by taxes when Obama became President. They've been that way for a long time (and it's only getting worse).
Welfare programs give people a false sense of gratification. They think their money is being used for the good of their fellow man when in all honesty, their money would go a lot further if the government would LET THEM give their money directly to charitable foundations, charity hospitals, or the family down the street that is having a hard time making ends meet. I just don't see why the government middle man is a necessity.
Even if a taxpayer went from contributing $10,000 (through taxes) to contributing $2,000 (directly to the people who need it), the people who need help would still get more out of the deal...and we'd have the added benefit of everyone having more money. That money could be spent (improving the economy), saved (improving the lending situation), or used to create jobs (improving lives and reducing the need for governmental charity). It's just so clear to me, I have a hard time understanding how anyone couldn't see the benefits. I'm not blaming everything on Obama. I'm not blaming everything on Clinton. I'm not blaming everything on Carter. I'm not even blaming everything on the trifecta as a whole! This is a long-standing issue--a fundamental error in political philosophy--that has been building on itself for decades, but Obama is pouring gasoline on the brush fire! -Palm Tree Doc (http://palmtreedoc.blogspot.com)