> [...]
> That is something that no government could ever accomplish.
I think there is an inconsistency in your argument. You've just suggested a mode of action by government, not something government cannot do.
As to the particular mechanism, however, it is unlikely to work. The basic idea...
> We would have charities all over the place competing for this money, competition would produce far better results than the abysmal record of the state/federal social services.
...is fundamentally flawed. The theoretical efficiency of competitive markets is intimately tied to the assumption that both the benefits and costs are known to and born by the participants in the decision making processes, aligning rational self-interest with efficient decision making. In the charities competing for money from givers to provide services to those in need, the features which make markets theoretically efficient do not apply.
> All we ever see from the media is bad news. We never see lives being turned around from welfare or other social services.
That's because bad news is good for selling media (the perception that the world is a dangerous place and you need to keep consuming the media source from which you got that impression to know where the next imminent danger is very useful to holding an audience, independently of any connection it has to real circumstances), not because lives aren't turned around by welfare and other social services.