Tag Archives: Welfare State

Obama budget proposal likely to decrease charitable giving by billions

Story here from Newsbusters.

Excerpt:

On the April 16 broadcast of Fox Business Network’s “Varney & Co.,” Rick Dunham, CEO of fundraising consultant Dunham & Company, weighed in on the new budget proposal that would scale back charitable deductions for families making over $250,000.

“Do you think you’re going to take a really big hit in terms of lower donations to charities? How big a hit?” host Stuart Varney asked.

“Well the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University did a study last year to look at the impact of the rise in the marginal tax rate and the capping of charitable deductions at 28-percent and they believe that it’ll be about almost a $4 billion hit based on 2006 dollars,” Dunham said. “So we’re probably looking at about a $5 billion hit.”

“That’s a sizable chunk of money,” Varney said. “There has been some talk that the administration wants to control charitable giving, and direct where your charitable gifts should go, therefore do it through the government and not through private charities. You think there’s anything to that?”

Dunham didn’t reject the idea out of hand. “I think all the actions kind of lead that direction. Part of the challenge charities are facing right now is they’re coming off of two years of a decline in giving to charities,” Dunham stated, citing the approximate $12 billion decrease in charitable giving the last two years.

“The government has always encouraged it through the tax incentive. And I think that’s been a huge part of giving in America – that the government has stood behind private philanthropy by saying ‘we want you to invest in charitable institutions for the good they do to our society.’ And I think that’s what they’re beginning to undermine.”

This is similar to what happened in Europe. As the secular leftists welfare states grew, people paid more and more in taxes. People had no money after the high taxes to give to charity, because they had “already given” to state. It was the state’s job to take care of people, not private charities. People became very selfish and hedonistic, and religious practice and charitable giving declined.

The problem with this for Christians is that the state never uses tax money to achieve Christian goals. With a Christian charity, the goal is usually to give the person with money, but also to help the person up and out of their current situation. Christians aren’t trying to give a man a fish, they want to teach him how to fish. It also helps to feel a little humble when someone is helping you.

Salvo Mag reviews Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny

Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” is my favorite book on the vision of American government.

Here’s a review from Salvo, a Christian magazine.

Excerpt.

In “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto”, Mark Levin identifies and analyzes two divergent, mutually exclusive philosophies of governance. Tracing the threads of each through American history, Levin discusses America’s founding, the Constitution, federalism, the free market, environmentalism, immigration, and the rise of the welfare state and shows how the conservative principles upon which America was founded have fostered opportunity, prosperity, and strength, and have preserved freedom.

Established on belief in divine providence and natural law, conservative principles recognize “a harmony of interests” and “rules of cooperation” that foster “ordered liberty” and a social contract, which brings about what Levin calls the civil society. In the civil society, the individual is recognized as “a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience.” Though civil society recognizes and sanctions a transcendent, objective moral order, which the citizen has a duty to respect, it acknowledges man’s imperfection and anticipates flawed observance.

In stark contrast to the civil society stands modern liberalism, which Levin says would be more accurately described as statism because it effectively abandons faith in divine providence for faith in the supremacy of the state. Consider this distinction concerning the origin of unalienable rights: “The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees . . . that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights.” But statism replaces the recognition of unalienable rights as rights inherent to an individual because he is a human being created by God, with the perception that it is the state that is the grantor of rights.

Having dismissed divine providence, it follows that statism would abandon natural law as the objective basis for civil law and replace it with relativism, where truth is, in theory, a matter of opinion, but in effect, it becomes whatever those in power say it is. The combined shift works to change the understanding of a right as something inherent to an individual, which the state is obligated to respect, to pseudo-rights or benefits the state bestows (or promises to bestow), usually in return for popular support. Consider the “right” to health care or affordable housing.

Highly recommended read, in case you missed it. Sold well over a million copies.