Obama: Charity begins with government
posted at 8:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Slublog
If you need a chuckle, just imagine the incandescent outrage on the left if George W. Bush had proposed this. Clearly, Obama hates charity:
The White House is expecting to collect an additional $291 billion over the next decade by reducing the write-off for families earning over $250,000 despite the fact Congress roundly rejected such a measure last year. While the administration is portraying this as a populist move, experts have said the end result will be a significant blow to charities and non-profits already reeling in the midst of the recession.“It’s frankly surprising to see this proposal come back this year, it was very controversial last year,” said Tom Riley, vice president for communications at the Philanthropy Roundtable. “This of all times isn’t the time to take actions that would discourage charitable giving. The need for non-profits hasn’t been higher for a generation.”
Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center said the rule change would make it about 10 percent more expensive for individuals affected to donate to charity. He estimated that would correspond to a $10 billion drop in donations out of the $300 billion Americans give annually.
Americans are extremely generous people, and those in higher income brackets tend to make larger donations. Obama’s budget would punish the wealthy for being generous, which would harm not-for-profit organizations dependent upon those dollars.
I once worked for a not-for-profit healthcare organization that relied upon such donations to survive and provide services to clients. Grants provided some of the funds, but members of the community played a very large role in allowing the organization to continue its work. Most who gave did so because they believed in our mission, but I’m sure the ability to write off donations helped. I would go so far as to say without those donations, the organization would not survive.
Obama’s budget proposal balances the budget on the backs of such not-for-profits. As I said above, just imagine the reaction if the GOP had proposed this as a budget-cutting strategy. This should, and will, be shot down by Congress. The fact that Obama included it in his budget shows his preference for “charity” via government. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s not entirely encouraging.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
“Send your money to us. We’ll decide how it will be spent”- Cordially, The Animal Farm Pigs
Fletch54 on February 2, 2010 at 8:03 AM
Why doesn’t he just announce a plan for everyone to send every penny earned over $250,000 directly to the White House to his attention?
ctmom on February 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM
Government is a jealous “god”, tolerating no equals.
steveegg on February 2, 2010 at 8:06 AM
That’s the 2013 plan.
steveegg on February 2, 2010 at 8:07 AM
Obama wants all charity to ultimately come from the government. Starve them for money, and they slowly go broke.
The same thing for the “SERVE” Act they passed in a mauldin tribute to Teddy. Channel “volunteers” into government corps:
Veterans’ Corps
Education Corps
Healthy Futures Corps
Clean Energy Corps
Opportunity Corps
and starve the non-profits of unpaid volunteers.
And give citizens the idea that they owe service to the state, and not just on MLK or 9/11 “Days of Service.”
Wethal on February 2, 2010 at 8:07 AM
Fletch54 you need to understand to Herr Obambi it’s the Government money and we should just be happy with what they allow us to keep.
cmptrnerd on February 2, 2010 at 8:09 AM
The rodent saw his shadow. Six more weeks of “global warming.”
Wethal on February 2, 2010 at 8:11 AM
I would like to give Obama an IQ test, for all the talk of his brilliance, his actions point to a dangerous level of stupidity.
Daveyardbird on February 2, 2010 at 8:11 AM
Yeah, that was outrageously presumptuous of me. Perhaps I’ll be visited by Obama’s truth squad now to beat that message home.
Fletch54 on February 2, 2010 at 8:12 AM
If all charity comes from government, only government chosen organizations will receive funds. Consequently, all programming, arts, aid to the poor, etc. will be designed to receive those funds. The NEA is a prime example of that. Look for more Stalinized art, and “diversity”-enhanced arts. Forget the classics.
Sloan Morganstern on February 2, 2010 at 8:12 AM
Tell me why charity donations are tax deductible again. Personally, I don’t want the government approving (or disapproving) what I do with my own money.
sweeper on February 2, 2010 at 8:12 AM
Marxists hate competition.
OldEnglish on February 2, 2010 at 8:13 AM
The Marxist in chief continues the attack on success, individualism and Christians. Haven’t they also removed the write-off for educational expenses? His “vision” for America is a third world debacle.
indypat on February 2, 2010 at 8:14 AM
It really is telling as an indicator of their true beliefs.
And there are a lot of fools out there who conflate society and government and agree with them, on the premise that welfare is necessarily charity and that government is so big, it must necessarily be better at identifying those in need and serving them.
It’s sick.
johnmackeygreene on February 2, 2010 at 8:14 AM
when will the rich folk stand up and say ENOUGH!
cmsinaz on February 2, 2010 at 8:16 AM
Daveyardbird on February 2, 2010 at 8:11 AM
It’s called Communism.
flytier on February 2, 2010 at 8:16 AM
As he told Joe The Plumber, “spread the wealth around”.
kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 8:17 AM
Reminds me of an old joke that circulated every tax season:
The new simple 1040
Line 1. How much did you make?
Line 2. Send it in
Ann on February 2, 2010 at 8:17 AM
Was it Ramirez who drew the cartoon with Obama responding to every question with the answer “government”?
Barry thinks bigger and more intrusive government is the answer to everything. That Ramirez cartoon nicely captures the essence of Barry’s failed presidency.
AZCoyote on February 2, 2010 at 8:17 AM
How ironic that an ad for the charity “Help Haiti Today”/World Vision appears just below this story.
Buy Danish on February 2, 2010 at 8:18 AM
This man’s agenda
stenwin77 on February 2, 2010 at 8:19 AM
Sorry,
This man’s agenda MUST BE STOPPED !!!
Helllllooooo – GOP, where are you?
stenwin77 on February 2, 2010 at 8:20 AM
Liberals spend an awful lot of time badmouthing rich people for being greedy. Liberals also spend a lot of time trying to get their hands on other people’s money.
backwoods conservative on February 2, 2010 at 8:20 AM
Government is the Left’s religion (along with earth-worship based Global Warming).
Of course, he wants government to be the only Answer, the source of all charity. After all shouldn’t the state and it’s leader ultimately be worshipped?
Bow people, bow down to the Blessed Leader.
PappyD61 on February 2, 2010 at 8:22 AM
[channeling BHO] People that try to “write off” money from the taxes are fat cat racist rednecks.
/s
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 2, 2010 at 8:22 AM
Mugging the Good Sumaritan
I donate every year to education, esp. girl’s education.
I mentioned the left’s hostility to me and my actions to a fundraising person at a girl’s prep school when discussing donations. She said that none of this mattered since people who wanted to give would just do so regardless of the tax consequences.
I’m tempted to give the name of the school and the amount I give but I would probably get banned here and start trouble there.
IlikedAUH2O on February 2, 2010 at 8:23 AM
i wonder how many folks have contributed to w’s/clinton’s haiti fund since they are essentially working this for dear leader…
cmsinaz on February 2, 2010 at 8:23 AM
Gary Varvel: National Debt Cry
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 2, 2010 at 8:24 AM
Rush discussed this yesterday. He said they won’t, at least not publically, because that will only increase the size of the target on their backs by making them look even more “greedy”.
ladyingray on February 2, 2010 at 8:25 AM
NYTimes Sunday Magazine used to have (still does? haven’t read it in years) a column by Richard (Roger) Cohen called “The Ethicist”, where he’d answer letter writers’ questions. One time someone wrote in about private charity. Mr. Cohen replied, in essence, that private charity was bad because charity was the responsibility of the government.
This is how these people think. They do believe that government is the answer to every problem.
rbj on February 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM
This makes me livid, words cannot express my anger.
OmahaConservative on February 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM
good point…they are stuck between a rock and a hard place by dear leader’s antics…
cmsinaz on February 2, 2010 at 8:30 AM
The bedrock for American philanthropy has always been at the community level. The filthy lying coward in the White House and his administration want to replace that with handouts and reliance on DC.
highhopes on February 2, 2010 at 8:33 AM
No, it doesn’t balance the budget. If it did, I might be ok with this, but he’s going to do this and raise a bunch of other taxes and still run several trillion in deficit spending.
trubble on February 2, 2010 at 8:33 AM
Most of the savings really were increasing taxes in one way or another.
At this stage in the economy, I can’t see much flack for this, however. Obviously, it’s either raise some taxes somewhere or increase the deficit and spending substantially.
We could do that, I suppose, if we shut down the wars. I can’t see that happening.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM
Has this presidency reached the “imperial” level yet?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM
Clearly, our betters believe that if you have money to waste on food and clothing for the poor, you should at least pony up a few bucks to help pay for their own flights to and from Washington (or Copenhagen, etc…).
Vote these people out!
ROCnPhilly on February 2, 2010 at 8:35 AM
Those who believe that have no understanding of the word, charity.
A handout is not charity – it’s a subsidy.
OldEnglish on February 2, 2010 at 8:35 AM
What Barack The Magnificent does not understand is that the more he taxes the wealthy, the more jobs and non-profits will go away, therefore causing the American people to suffer more. Or maybe he just doesn’t care.
kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 8:35 AM
it appears he wants everyone on the gov’t dole and depend upon him for everything in their life…
cmsinaz on February 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM
Sounds like a Bolshevik plot to me.
But he’s not an ideologue./
Talon on February 2, 2010 at 8:38 AM
It’s about time the rich started paying their fair share. Most charities are just greedy capitalist Republicans trying to make themselves feel good, when the government can do a much better job at spreading the wealth to the needy.
Rovin on February 2, 2010 at 8:38 AM
Where’s that Nobel Prize money you said you were going to give to charity? What charity?
mixplix on February 2, 2010 at 8:39 AM
Dictator
Tyrant
ted c on February 2, 2010 at 8:40 AM
cmsinaz on February 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM
Barack was raised to admire Marxism. This molded him into the Far Left Idealogue we see today that tries to masquerade as a Moderate.
kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 8:40 AM
Obama as Dr. Evil.
Mojave Mark on February 2, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Populist: It’s the 21st Century Communist.
cntrlfrk on February 2, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Without dropping a political F-bomb, it’s also a bit fascist. One of the first moves of the Nazis on coming to power was to take over private charities and how their money was distributed, the goal being to make sure recipients were dependent on the state. Goldberg has a good discussion of this in Liberal Fascism. It’s another sign of the Statist.
irishspy on February 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM
ugh
cmsinaz on February 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Ooooh, and maybe we can raise revenues by having the government go into the unicorn-farming business!!! Yay for stupid hippy worldviews!
venividivici on February 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Through the eyes of a Senior Citizen…
My charitable contributions have been based upon an increase over my previous years income.
If my COLA is 5%, my contribution is 5%.. My “stimulus” giveaways (bribes) went to charity – the local homeless missions, and Wounded Warriors.. They need it more than I do, and I’m not indebted to a politician.
Nowadays, Seniors are under an ever increasing strain on their budgets – the threat of decreased medicare coverage, and the increased of cost of living, that this administration denies is happening.
I want to be charitable, but this administration makes it increasingly difficult.
franksalterego on February 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Only a liberal would miss such an “obvious” false dilemma.
ROCnPhilly on February 2, 2010 at 8:44 AM
Remember: Obama is not a Bolshevik.
kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 8:44 AM
What bothers me is the $250,000 mark. That actually hits a lot of middle-class families. Granted, that group on the coastal states probably doesn’t have as many assets as people might think. After they handle mortgage and, usually, private schools? Those folks shop at Kohls, too.
I don’t have a problem with the higher levels giving up their tax breaks. They don’t even seem to mind, at least according to the interviews I read.
But this goes fairly deep.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Well, we do have to raise tax revenue to keep going. CA’s horrible problems are due, in large part, to the bottom falling out of the tax base. CA relied upon a lot of business tax. No profits? No taxes.
Tax revenues are obviously way down. And, we are still funding 2 wars. That’s expensive.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 8:47 AM
The rich are not paying their fair share because it would be fair if everyone paid 10%. 40% of the population do not pay income taxes, is this fair? Is it fair that a person works two jobs, studies, and finally makes a success of himself and someone who doesn’t work or want to work, won’t educate himself and considers himself not lucky and on the dole?
mixplix on February 2, 2010 at 8:48 AM
They’re probably going to start “voting with their feet” and seeking alternative living locations. Yes, I know there’s an “exit tax”, but at some point paying that is a better choice than being stuck with Obama and Co.’s tax regime, depending on your life expectancy. I’d rather pay a 10-year long “exit tax”, which I think is what it is now, than pay the tax rates which will be necessary to pay off all this public debt for 30 years.
venividivici on February 2, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Dead on!
Until we neuter Congress’ ability to tax people, we will continually waste our hard earned money.
rightside on February 2, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Yeah, because that’s exactly what populists hate most about the rich–all that damn money they donate to charity.
Fabozz on February 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM
The government wants to encourage people to donate to NFP’s. And that is the whole problem with the tax code as it is. Government writes all these rules to either incourage or discourage behaviors.
Personally, I think all cash contributions to NFP’s should be deductable on a dollar for dollar basis, no floors or ceilings or percentages.
EliTheBean on February 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM
Umm…excuse me Mr. Govt….Charity starts with the individual person..not the Govt….SO take your communist donkeys back to the fields.
hawkman on February 2, 2010 at 8:54 AM
While it is not a charity issue, I find that ObaMao’s education initiative–Race to the Top–a thinly veiled effort to impose even more affirmative action based on race.
The wording is so contrary to the progressives’ contempt for competition. Surely the administration’s wordsmiths can find another way to encourage achievement and educational excellence.
As far as the topic is concerned, the ObaMao plan to discourage individual charity is all of a piece with his Statist attitude. He simply believes in government-imposed extortion for his own pet projects.
onlineanalyst on February 2, 2010 at 8:55 AM
Hmmm, let’s see. War is a legitimate function of the state, so while expensive, it’s at least justifiable in the abstract. All that other crap money gets spent on by the state is less justifiable and is typically rationalized by some vague appeal to “general welfare” or “investment”. Which spending should be cut first, the spending on things ONLY the state can do, like wage war, or spending on a bunch of crap that sounds good but isn’t REALLY the state’s responsibility?
If the state stuck to ONLY waging war and maintaining the criminal justice system, our tax rates would be minimal. And I’d be willing to bet that 99% of life would go on basically as it does.
venividivici on February 2, 2010 at 8:55 AM
I think the wealthy will continue to contribute to charity, although some may lower the amount to offset the tax benefit loss.
But that would be at the lower levels of income, anyway.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Anna, please stop. California’s problems were caused mainly because its residents wanted the local, state and federal governments to provide increasing benefits to residents (legal and otherwise), but didn’t want to pay for them. The only way to save CA is to let it fail and then try to rebuild without anyone dying in the process. Raising taxes will drive even more people and businesses out of the area.
ROCnPhilly on February 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Charity: obama’s definition of taking your money to pay for sh!t he wants.
Word meanings.
ted c on February 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Abstract justifications may satisfy the soul, but it still drives up the deficit in reality.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Oops.
Anna = Ann
aside: Hey aren’t you in another state now?
ROCnPhilly on February 2, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Oh, we’re in agreement. My comment was simply about the situation CA is in, due to falling tax revenues. It wasn’t a comment on how CA GOT to that spot. That’s a whole nuther discussion.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Well, wars also have a start and end point, so they don’t create “structural” deficits, unlike these other BS forms of spending which exist in perpetuity.
venividivici on February 2, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Did he step outside the Oval Office for a quick smoke break?
onlineanalyst on February 2, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Yep, brand new Texas resident. No income tax. :)
I don’t know a lot about the politics here yet. Fun to listen to the debates the other night. There was some flakey (to me) candidate recommending ending property taxes entirely and introducing a consumer tax. I laughed. She did admit it “might” end up as high as 15%. Might? Count on it.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Yes his goal is to try something like that but I expect the current class of conservatives will burn Washington down between his ears before submitting to that.
chemman on February 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM
To quote Alito,
Sotto voce, inaudible…
“That’s not true… not true.”
I deduct my charitable contributions for my taxes, and that money comes right off the top of my adjusted income. I save the top marginal rate on each dollar, which is a heck of a lot more than 10%.
Haiku Guy on February 2, 2010 at 9:06 AM
“Consumer tax”. I heard idea this from my township recently. Can’t raise property or we’d go after them with pitchforks. Here, we can’t make budget on cuts because the only thing left to cut is township employee wages and benefits and we can’t do that because, for some reason, they are unionized. So everyone in suffers except the union employees.
ROCnPhilly on February 2, 2010 at 9:08 AM
Obama wants to restruture American society so that people have no place to turn but the Federal Government. This is about power.
Charities give people an alternative to government handouts, and thus keep a certain number of people out of government dependency. This is unacceptable to Obama. Charity must be eliminated so these people will have no place else to go.
Haiku Guy on February 2, 2010 at 9:09 AM
Not to mention those mean people in the electorate that passed a bill requiring a 2/3rds majority to raise taxes. This law alone has caused California’s government to spend 20 billion with no ability to raise taxes to pay for our social entitlements—especially when those rich teachers and public employee’s unions are screaming to pay their fair share. With over thirty years of democrats controlling the statehouse, you’d think they’d get a clue on how to throw this stupid law out. And Bush liberating two nations living in tyranny was just plain selfish.
Rovin on February 2, 2010 at 9:09 AM
Having done his best to kill Faith and Hope, he’s now going after Charity.
PaddyJ on February 2, 2010 at 9:10 AM
Everyday it seems that we witness another “Cloward & Piven” type action on the part of this administration.
Scary? I dunno.
When was the last time that a professor came up with an idea that actually worked in the real world?
It seems to me that the cat is largely out of the bag. It turns out that Obama isn’t nearly as good a liar as he thinks he is. Sure he’s got the balls to lie to your face, but he doesn’t have the finesse to pull it off.
Dorvillian on February 2, 2010 at 9:10 AM
+1
My thoughts exactly.
ROCnPhilly on February 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Somebody already calculated how much money that would raise, assuming that those people actually paid a 100% tax, and it was something like $200 billion. A drop in the bucket.
rockmom on February 2, 2010 at 9:13 AM
/thread winner
rockmom on February 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Nah, he smokes inside. Rules and laws are only for the little people, besides, it’s cold outside.
OmahaConservative on February 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Perry is recommending this in Texas. I really, really disagree.
Bad idea.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 9:18 AM
Pee Wee’s Big Adventure
bluegrass on February 2, 2010 at 9:18 AM
That’s exactly what’s happening in CA. Forget your state taxes. The cities are desperate now to keep basic services going, so they are raising all kinds of “fees” and charging back to consumers at an “unprecedented” rate.
It’s going to end up being where you get charged if you have a fire. Mark my words. It’ll end up in courts determining the cause of a fire, over the bill.
Broken system. In CA, unlike Texas (I think), the lion’s share of the problem goes to govt worker unions, benefits and pension plans.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 9:21 AM
Just a small story. In CA, my friends and I started a camping trip for families. Site were less than 20 bucks a night. You paid a parking fee, minimal, and a lot of families got together for a week camp-out at the beach. Our kids grew up looking forward to this annual campout.
This year? The site alone cost nearly 300 bucks, nevermind the parking.
That’s the type of “fee” collection I’m talking about.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 9:23 AM
So, you help take down California with leftist stances and moonbat dribble, retreat and move to Texas when the SHTF there from decades of liberal tax and spend policies at work and now you think ti’s a BAD idea that Perry supports legislative restrictions on raising taxes. Welcome to Texas. Now get the hell out.
Fletch54 on February 2, 2010 at 9:24 AM
Hmmmm.
1. Liberals think Conservatives are evil,
Conservatives think Liberals are crazy.
one of us is right.
2. The negative impact on food banks is going to be a slaughter. I hate to think of how many people are going to go hungry because of this idiotic nonsense.
memomachine on February 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Never attribute to stupidity that which is more likely pure malevolence.
Yoop on February 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Just work the numbers and the strategy will reveal itself.
A wealthy family wants to donate $100,000 of their earnings to cancer research and deduct it from income. The Obama rule is to tax the $100,000 at 39.5% and only give a 28% credit on the deduction. So the donor shells out $100,000 to charity AND owes $11,500 more in tax on income that it already gave away. Many donors will say “forget it” and will just keep the taxable income. THAT’S what Obama wants. The family makes no deductible contribution, it has $100,000 more in taxable income – and the feds pick up $39,500 more tax revenue. This is the depraved Obama math. He has probably determined that charity money is just wasted anyway; his chairmanship over the $160 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge proved the point.
Mark30339 on February 2, 2010 at 9:29 AM
When you are the President of the United States and you feel compelled to publicly announce how you and your missus have given $15,000 of their “personal monies” to the Haiti crisis, vs. just doing it and shutting up about it, OR giving maybe, just a bit more….ahem, didn’t someone get a cool mil, for absolutely nothing? well then, I think you have some odd priorities regarding charity. I bet that 15k wasn’t even their money.
anniekc on February 2, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Imperious Basterds…
;)
Shepherd Lover on February 2, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Give Owe-bama credit for consistency with his philosophy of charity in his personal giving:
2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%
Oh, and that includes donations to Rev. Wright’s church. (HT to David Freddoso at NRO’s The Corner)
Puddleglum on February 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM
Obama thinks that charities do work that rightly belongs to government nannies.
Dhuka on February 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM
BTW, any news on exactly what charity Owe-bama has decided to donate his Nobel prize monies?
Puddleglum on February 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM
You for Perry and his 3/4 majority suggestion?
Having watch CA, I can say without hesitation: HORRIBLE idea.
AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »