Why Does Obama Want to Limit Charitable Deductions?

During the Tea Party debate, Wolf Blitzer presented to Ron Paul, a hypothetical situation in which an able man chooses to not buy health insurance and then gets very ill. Paul said “that’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks…” Blitzer replied, “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” Paul responded, “No,” and then described how when he was a doctor in the early 60’s before Medicaid, the churches took care of people and that the hospital he worked at never turned anybody away. The full response can be viewed:

[youtube b4Am2bWQRNw nolink]

To me, that means that if you go uninsured and take those chances, then you’re on charity, and it’s going to be basic – it’s going to get you breathing again, get the bullet out of you, get you stitched up, remove the malignant tumor, whatever. However, forget about cradle-to-grave, premium healthcare. Forget about living in hospitals for days and weeks. Forget about emergency room visits for sniffles and aches. You don’t get that, it’s not a right. To those who question the compassion here, Paul fielded some questions the following day, making the point that while no system can achieve perfection, a free market system is most compassionate system there is. History sustains him.

The status quo, on the other hand, is acting like health care is somewhat of a right and the uninsured get similar coverage and treatment as the insured. You can’t turn anybody away for a sniffle. You can’t send them home without a mountain of paperwork. You have to cover your butt or get sued by somebody that does not even have insurance and ought to be begging instead of demanding.

Now, with these things in mind, consider that we have Obama pushing to limit charitable contributions to non-profit organizations.

Some of these non-profits are feeding or providing health care assistance to those in need. Now, let’s try to make sense of this.

So, on one hand we have these needs in society – the needs of the uninsured, the downtrodden, disaster victims, etc. We also have people willing to volunteer time and effort and willing to donate money to assist those in need. Until now we’ve had a government willing to give a tax break to those willing to donate money. So, those in need are able to get it, while only costing the government the tax on the donations. This is getting help to those in need for a small percentage of the actual cost of delivering the service. Does this not make sense? Does this not encourage us to be compassionate toward our fellow man? Is this not a great way for the government to support delivering essential services to those in need at a minimal cost? Does this not also, effectively, allow the rich to voluntarily tax themselves and redistribute their wealth, so that even liberals should love it? :)

So, why does Obama want to curtail this? Doing so will certainly reduce funding to charities and reduce their ability to deliver essential services. One logical conclusion is that he does not want non-profits delivering these services. He wants to put them out of business. He wants the government delivering these services, whereby the government can more easily make the rules about how the services are delivered, who gets the services, whom they hire to deliver them, what wages and benefits they pay, whose palms they grease along the way, etc.

So, put soup kitchens, churches, and other charitable organizations out of business and strengthen the argument that government is needed to supply the services. Can there be any doubt that this is by design?