The War on Charity
Michael Laprarie
Feb 2009
There are lots of reasons to be upset by President Obama's massive tax hike
proposals for families earning more than $250,000 a year, not the least of which
is the plan to reduce the tax credit given for itemized deductions, including
charitable contributions. From The Washington Times:
"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as
the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more
study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.
Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible
to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall
result is clear - less philanthropic giving.
"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've
behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result
of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of
giving."
Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr.
Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of
the difference.
"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and
charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.
He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help
charities, too. (emphasis added)
Well, there you have it. If you can find a better example of a naked private
sector power grab by the Federal government, I'd like to see it. To be fair, the
article implies that both Democrats and Republicans are skeptical about reducing
tax deductions for charitable contributions. But just the idea of choking off
private sector contributions in exchange for government handouts allows us to
clearly see the big government ambitions of the Obama administration.
Charities have already been hit hard by the recession. So why would the
government want to damage their fundraising ability even further? Because when
private charities are forced to start taking money from the government, guess
who will eventually assume ultimate control over them? Guess who will start
dictating how the money is spent, who the charities can hire, and what the
charities' ultimate mission will be?
It's no coincidence that the Obama administration has also proposed an end to
the so-called "conscience rule" enacted by the Bush administration, that gives
health care providers the freedom to refuse to perform medical procedures that
violate their personal moral beliefs. Notice how nicely the refusal to allow
decisions of conscience will tie into the government's new plans to pay doctors
"for results rather than procedures." And once the government's refusal to allow
decisions of conscience has been sufficiently widened in scope, any charity
accepting government funds will be completely at their mercy.
I think it's about time that I scolded my Christian friends who voted for Obama
because they thought that his plans to greatly expand government benefits to the
poor were more "Christian" than the conservative ideal of private charity. Is
this what you voted for, private charity being squeezed out in favor of bigger
government handouts? Doctors being forced to perform procedures or withhold
treatments at the government's whim?
Reacting to the proposed end of the "conscience rule," The Anchoress writes:
If we are going to be a nation that supports the "freedom to choose," then it
seems to me that has to go both ways. Professional health workers should be
"free to choose" whether or not they will participate in what they find to be
morally objectionable.
Freedom that is only one-sided i.e., "she is free to have a late term,
partial-birth abortion and you are not free to refuse her request" or "she is
free to demand this contraception and you are not free to refuse to fill that
prescription," is not really freedom.
It is enslavement. Dress it up any way you want. If the government is forcing
you to do what your conscience tells you not to, under threats to your freedom,
your purse or your livelihood, then you are not free.
Of course the clues for Barack Obama's super-sized single-payer socialist
utopian vision of government were there all along. Those of us who made an
effort to learn about the people like William Ayres who taught and mentored
Barack Obama, shaped his worldview, and ultimately trusted him to one day carry
their mantle upon his shoulders -- we already knew what to expect after the
luster of "hope and change" had worn off. And now, barely a month into the era
of Obama, other people seem to be catching on as well.
Hopefully a significant number of Americans will soon understand that in order
for an uber nanny state to be created, war must be declared on personal freedom.
Right now it's a very cleverly planned stealth war, thinly veiled as
benevolence, promoted by calls for "responsibility" and the denunciation of
"greed," and camouflaged by the promise of superfluous, shallow "freedoms" like
"reproductive choice" and unfettered access to X-rated entertainment. But never
the less it is a war, and its eventual success or failure depends entirely upon
whether we choose to surrender, or to fight back.
Taxing Charity to Fund the Big Government Obama Healthcare Plan
March 2009
Mary Kate Cary
There's been a huge debate lately about the size and scope of government. The
lines between the two sides are most clearly drawn around the Obama
administration's proposal to fund about half of the $634 billion reserve fund
for health care reform by reducing the itemized deductions that taxpayers in
higher brackets can take for things like donations to charity. Dan Politi writes
a great analysis of the fund at slate.com.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy also has a comprehensive article which illustrates
the deduction reduction with this example: if you make more than $250,000 a
year, and you were to give a charity a gift of $100,000, you would save $28,000
on your taxes under the Obama proposal, rather than the $35,000 you save now.
Experts at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy estimate it could cause
giving to drop by several billion dollars a year.
Statistics show that many charities derive a majority of their donations from a
small proportion of their donors who are major givers. And those same major
givers—those who make more than $100,000 a year—already pay more than 60 percent
of total U.S. income taxes. Basically the same people who give the most money to
charities also pay most of the taxes in this country, which are now going to go
up. Bad news when you combine it with the worst economy in decades. As if it
wasn't already difficult enough to raise money for charity.
True, most people are motivated to give to charity out of altruism, not tax
concerns. But if you want to solve a problem in America, chances are there is an
organization solving it somewhere—and it's not the government. In December of
each year, do you know anyone with a little extra cash who sends a check to the
Treasury Department as an additional year-end gift? There's a reason no one does
that.
People who give money to charities know that a donation to the right
organization is a very efficient use of their money—because a good charity can
accomplish its goals at far less cost than the government can. The largest
single share of charitable donations goes to religious congregations, which in
turn are a source of hunger-relief programs such as food pantries and soup
kitchens; pregnancy-related resources to help teen mothers; and volunteers for
tutoring and helping the elderly. Often these programs rely on free manpower
from church members as well, in order to keep costs down. And a good non-profit
involved in "social justice" type programs often helps families get on their
feet so that they no longer need government intervention in the first place.
Really, there's something bigger than a reserve fund at stake here: shifting our
funding priorities from the private sector to the public sector. Do we want to
encourage fewer donations to charity in favor of higher taxes to fund more
government programs? That's really what this is all about.
Do government bureaucrats know best, or do private citizens? The Obama
administration is clearly sending a message, not only to charities but to those
who support them—not just Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, but church members and
neighborhood giving circles like the one I joined. Just give us more of your tax
money, they seem to be saying, and we'll make all the decisions. We know what's
best for you.
There's an arrogance to it that really rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Including me.
