As the democrats continue their assault on American capitalism, the Obama administration is now proposing a reduction of tax breaks for charitable giving by affluent Americans, potentially targeting faith based organizations and individuals.
On Tuesday, in what can only be characterized as another implement of Obama’s redistributionism, Timothy Geitner, the administration’s top money man, offered incoherent explanations to Congressional U.S. Budget committee members, on how hacking tax deductions for charitable giving by rich people would, somehow, benefit the poor in America.
America, and the committee, were left with more questions than answers from Geitner as he struggled through a slew of nuanced responses about how reducing incentives for affluent donors is actually not an attempt on the part of Obama to execute a secularist form of socialism.
According to Fox News poll, 50% of American's making $250,000 or more annually, say they would definitely give less to charity if the tax incentive to do so was reduced. That coming after 95% of charitable donors say their primary reason for giving to random charities is for tax reasons.
Ironically, Geitner was appointed to his position as the Secretary of Treasury, confirmed by the narrowest margin (60-34) of any appointee serving in the position since World War II, after being condemned for cheating on taxes himself, while his records of charitable giving have never been made public.
“Charity is just a way to get the economy moving again,” Geitner explained. He went on to describe how Obama’s tax policies are intended to benefit all citizens of America, not just those chosen by the affluent.
Americans give the largest proportions of their incomes to charity than any other nation in the world. Americans gave approximately 296 billion dollars in private donations last year.
Supporting this data, the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins Institute compiled donation data and ranked the private charitable giving of 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Overall, based on giving alone, the U.S. population ranked first, giving 1.85% of its GDP, followed by Israel at 1.34% and Canada at 1.17%. 1
One irony among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets, is that they tend to have lower rates of giving. Nations with life-long welfare systems rank very low on the list including Sweden (18th), France (21st), and Germany (32nd). 1
Obama intends to exploit that philanthropic spirit by burdening our desire to give to charity while assuming jurisdiction over the tax incentive for faith-based charities. This, he plans, will lift his political value in the world, in order that he may gain support and influence over America's resources.
Part 2: Obama’s Crusade Against Affluent Christians
Contributing to the ominous motives for Obama’s attack on charity is the fact that, of the nearly 300 billion dollars given by all private donors in America last year, nearly one half of that came in the form of private transactions from Christians giving through their respective faith-based institutions and churches.
Essentially, the amount of money transacting among the Christian community in America is equivalent to the national GDP of many countries in the world. Data shows that Christians give the highest percentage of their personal income, through the biblical practice of tithing, than any other faith based or religiously classified demographic in the world.
This reality adds to the level of Obama’s insidiousness when analyzing his political motives for changing the landscape of American charitable taxation. Christians possess the largest contingency of affluence, not only in America, but in the world, and, as such, are the biggest threat to Obama’s lust for power, challenging his jurisdiction over as much human and financial resources in America as possible. Most affluent, white Christians tend to vote along conservative, republican lines.
Obama’s rub being if he can’t have their vote, he’ll confiscate their money and use it to buy the votes of an effluent constituency.
By, maintaining a consistent “economy” of tax free contributions within the Christian community, people of faith sovereignly govern over the means, manner and reasons for distributing their financial resources throughout the local communities they serve. As a generality, most evangelical Christian organizations give a larger amount of resources to missionary services, faith based institutions and biblical education, primarily, through which need based services are provided.
It is falsely held by progressives that in order for the needy to receive charity from a church, they must first convert to that church’s religious doctrines, beliefs and behaviors. This is, of course, nonsense propagated by ignorant christaphobic liberals, and completely rails against any true understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the charitable systems employed by the Christian church merely require that the government adheres to the 1st amendment and remain unabridging of any laws restricting the establishment of religion, including the right to implement resources, received through charity, according to its principles. Rich Christians have a right to give their money, in any amount they choose, to any charitable recipient. Their choice to give that money to their church is their right and the government violates the constitution when it hinders that transaction or disincentivizes it.
The fact that this tends to repel liberal society and challenge the evils of socialism says less about the fabled imposition of true Christianity, and more about the moral deficiencies of liberalism.
Faith based, particularly Christian, organizations maintain a healthy community fellowship which calls upon the individuals of its faith to be held to social and behavioral standards defined through biblical prescriptions which are reasonable for maintaining a civil society in general.
Apparently, decency is a direct affront to the liberal mindset. The idea of an affluent, Christian economic community moving in on his crusade makes Obama very uncomfortable. He understands the power Christian charity has in the eyes of underdeveloped societies, as well, and how that threatens his opportunity to be exalted as not only a domestic savior, but an international one too.
The Obama Administration has such a jealousy for keeping the poor dependent on their economic tokens, they will work to hinder charity from any affluent demographic of faith. Subsequently, Obama will maintain a vicious ambition to horde the political reward in fulfilling that dependency.
The main problem Obama has with tax free, Christian based charities is that Christians tend to give exclusively through their churches. And, in doing so, they effectively circumvent the Obama cabal’s control over a very large sum of financial resources that actually go directly to many community improvement efforts which Obama would rather have credit for implementing. Obama’s socialist tendencies, and his lust for power, make it very difficult for him, and his congressional minions, to accept the forfeiture of that control.
Obama is fully aware that a huge majority of the people who stand to be affected by his tax break reductions are those middle Americans who didn’t vote for him. As a matter of fact, estimates show about 90% – 95% of those who will be adversely affected by a charitable giving tax break reduction didn’t vote for Obama.
When Christians are asked what motivates them to give to charity, they cite several substantive reasons related to faith-based responsibility, biblical adherence and a sense of honorable duty to their community. All of which directly confront Obama’s authority and his premeditated desire to become America’s rescuer by implementing a contrived stratagem for the eventual confiscation, and secular redistribution, of America’s money and power.
The American people are the most giving society in human history. Obama intends to exploit that philanthropic spirit by burdening our desire to give to charity while assuming jurisdiction over the tax incentive for faith-based charities. This, he plans, will lift his political value in order that he may gain more power and influence over the greatest human resource in human history. American generosity.
1 “Who Gives The Most” By Elizabeth Eaves, FORBES.COM 12/26/08