You should be more interested in doing the Lord’s work than in always criticizing those who are trying to help the less fortunate,” begins an email I received from a reader, in response to a recent column. “Who do you think really cares more for our fellow citizens?” continues the reader, “Senator Landrieu or the Governor?” And there it was. Staring me down, like the truth, in this namby-pamby, I’m-OKyou’re-OK, wishy-washy, pacifist-like society that we have become. Apparently, I don’t “care” enough about the less fortunate, as if that’s all that is needed in order to help. “Caring” may start us down the road to helping others, but we should hardly remain there. After all, we all know the road to you-know-where is well paved with good intentions.

So does it really matter who “cares” the most about the less fortunate. If those who “care” the most really aren’t helping at all? Consider this is the 50th year of Lyndon Johnson’s unconditional war on poverty. Yet after $15 trillion dollars in spending, the poverty rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1964. We are now spending close to $1 trillion per year on government assistance, yet 46 million Americans still live below the poverty line. Is there any question that intentions simply aren’t enough?

Or what about how much the Obama administration cared about making sure that you could keep your healthcare plan, if you liked it? But now, four million Americans (so far) have now lost their healthcare plan. Again, intentions simply aren’t enough.

The Congressional Budget Office just reported that because of the Affordable Care Act, almost two million people would quit their jobs by 2017, figuring they can end up ahead by taking government benefits instead. Again, intentions, especially unintended ones, simply aren’t enough.

Or how about the intentions of Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package to save our economy? Well, five years later and despite the good intentions, our labor market remains in horrible condition, the economy grew at less than 2 percent last year, and it is estimated that the stimulus package destroyed roughly one million private sector jobs – all while the workforce participation rate today is at a 36-year low.

Do you care enough about people earning a “living wage,” rather than a “minimum” wage? Well, I hope you care as much about finding at least 500,000 Americans each a job also, because that’s how many jobs will be lost by hiking the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2016 – and that’s according to the Congressional Budget Office. Again, intentions simply aren’t enough.

Yet, intentions are powerful beginnings. They are the starting point for every dream. They provide a spark to ignite a purpose, launch a plan, and to direct the mind. But if intentions are all that are needed to be successful, or to stop smoking or to lose weight, then maybe achieving those goals are in fact easier done than said.

One only needs to look around to see what decades of politicians’ good intentions have done to our nation, and our communities. As explained by economist Thomas Sowell, “If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences.”

So while the reader who wrote to me valued “caring” or one’s intentions as the litmus test of whether to support a government program or policy, history abundantly proves that “caring” alone is inadequate to achieve genuine assistance, or a leg up, for those truly in need.

The correct answer, I think, to the reader who wrote to me, is that all of our elected leaders, whether Landrieu or Jindal or the President of the United States, should be held accountable, not by how much they care, but by how much good they do in terms of meeting their original intentions. After all, in the words of Pablo Picasso, “What one does is what counts. Not what one had the intention of doing.”