What is the alternative to the federal government being the nanny state by taking care of those in need? Charities, of course, which often support those unable to take care of themselves.
Therefore, one of the agendas of the Obama Administration is to target charities so that there is no alternative to government support. And they are pursuing this in their usual serpentine way; Obama is claiming that he doesn’t want to completely eliminate tax deductions for charities, but, by golly, if Republicans think they can afford to derail higher tax rates and simply close loopholes, why, then, charities will be hit.
Today, churches, museums and other nonprofits are going to Washington D.D. to protect the tax deduction they so desperately depend on. They know how serious the Obama Administration is about taking them out; Steve Taylor, senior vice president at United Way Worldwide, said, “Over the last three years, I’ve never been more worried than I am now, partly because Congress is under enormous pressure to find new sources of revenue.” Sure, Congress.
This could prove deadly for recipients from charities; if deductions are cut, there could be a 36% cut in giving from charities, as well as the charities losing $7 billion a year. Obama has said, “There’s been a lot of talk that we can raise $800 billion or $1 trillion in revenues just by cutting loopholes. But … the only way to do that would be if you completely eliminated, for example, charitable deductions.”
There are actually 8 loopholes and deductions larger than the charitable deduction. Yet, Obama suggests charities will be the ones under the budget knife.
Very subtle, very clever. Obama is holding charities hostage unless Republicans cave on taxes. Why should he care? Liberals don’t give as much to charities as conservatives anyway; they’d rather rob the wealthy and give it to the nanny state to distribute.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.