Pundits are fond of talking about the disconnect between the GOP and the American electorate. Conservatives are out of step, so the wisdom goes. They need to drop the frightening Pentecostalism of Sarah Palin and the bellicosity of John McCain. Republicans must consider dismantling the whole trickle-down apparatus and turning their direct attention to the neglected segment of the population for whom “the promise of America,” as Barack Obama likes to call it, remains unfulfilled.
True, voters may not be in sync with Republican leaders. But if the current political climate is any indication, they could end up feeling mightily betrayed by Democratic ones.
Since November’s supposed referendum on Republican ideology, a string of Democratic figures has been sullied by impropriety and entitlement while other members of the party are making an airtight case for the timeliness and resiliency of conservatism. On matters of foreign policy, social policy, and economics, Democratic leadership is largely indistinguishable from the Republican variety.
Click here to read the rest of this COMMENTARY Web Exclusive.
How can the government become the one universal sugar daddy if people insist on giving voluntary donations to charities of their choice? The only kind of voluntarism these guys respect is “I volunteer to do my government’s bidding”.
Do rich liberals actually give money to charity? I thought there was a study last year that showed liberals give very little to charity, whereas conservatives give quite freely. I guess one could make the case that this is really just a tax on conservatives.
Perhaps Peter Orszag should have a conversation with Bill Gates about the loss in charitable contributions. One would think that philanthropist Bill Gates probably wouldn’t like his answer, although I think that Microsoft found Bill Gates would probably be ambivalent.
Of course Bill Gates can afford it, he’s already completed the bulk of his donations (to his own tax exempt foundation). Gates isn’t impacted by the proposed change.
And, doesn’t everyone set up their own tax-exempt foundation?
Oh, and Clara Miller of the Nonprofit Finance Fund (whatever that is–never heard of it) must be a plant from the Obama administration–she refers to the charitable deduction as a “loophole”. Talk about getting your soundbite wrong, this woman concedes an argument that hasn’t been made.
Of course this makes complete sense relative to Obama’s overall agenda. By limiting charitable deductions he gets more money in the government coffers that can be directed to politically favorable charities. Charities dependent on government patronage rather than private donations can better be kept in line.
Sure, you want to starve government. We want to starve churches and conservative think tanks. Both of them crowd out private sector investment, right? If government is going to grow, something has to give if we want to maintain the vitality of our free market system.
More good news: Obama, by almost two to one, is winning hearts and minds with his new budget. New Gallup:
“PRINCETON, NJ — Americans’ first reactions to President Barack Obama’s new 10-year budget plan are more positive than negative, although a sizable group of Americans say they haven’t been following news about the plan and have not yet formed an opinion. The weekend Gallup Poll finds 44% of Americans saying their reaction to the new plan is positive and 26% saying it’s negative, with the rest having no opinion.”
If Americans were dumb enough to elect him, we may be dumb enough to ignore his dangerous plans now.
William – his approval ratings are below 60%. No one is buying him – the DOW is below 6900. He couldn’t manage a successful economy anywhere. I am going to have to re-direct some of my giving. I will still give to my church and the United Way (although I will direct my donations), but some of the community groups who always received a few dimes even though they weren’t very friendly to my ideals – you know the ones everyone donates too just because, to be nice guy – will have to do without.
Obama doesn’t care about adverse consequences to his actions. This makes every bit as much sense as increasing the capital gains tax rate, even though it has been proven that increases always DECREASE the yield. The only consequences he cares about is inciting class warfare and increasing everyone’s misery to the point that they will come to him begging for relief. At that point, he’ll have achieved his perpetual goal of turning the US into the USSR.
Every dime of Bill Gates’ money belongs to Bill Gates until he chooses to give it to someone else. The same principle holds true for the overwhelmingly larger group with much less.
But, then, expecting a so-called liberal to understand a matter of principle is a losing battle, especially if the principle is one of an individual’s right to their own property. To such a person, everything belongs to the government, including your every asset, effort, and waking moment. How else to explain how such people can believe that reducing taxes is equivalent to transferring wealth to them?
Underneath the thin skin of every Robin Hood is a totalitarian.
Obama is going to drive the savings rate way up in this country on the part of the rich while more poor people are added back onto the welfare rolls. Hello 1970′s!
Yesterday, I received a telephone call from the Tennessee Democratic Committee. The caller started by telling me that they had suceeded in electing Barack Obama and bringing the beginning of change, but there was lots of work still to be done and it would take electing more Democrats in order to continue the changes that must take place. He then asked me if I would contribute to the cause. I very politely told him that, as my taxes would be increasing by a significant amount in the very near future, thanks to the Democrats now in charge, he could contact the IRS for a donation to be taken directly from my tax dollars. He seemed to be speechless, so I wished him a nice day and ended the call.
Lynn,
Brilliant! Bravo.
The continued assault on the successful is just gaining steam. Of course, every press release, even the budget contains some verbiage blaming everything on Bush too. So I think the idea is wreck the economy even worse than they’ve already done and somehow blame it on Bush, then nationalize everything. I saw an editorial today that talked about “the past 30 years of failed, Reagan-esque government philosophy”. If that were the case, where did the wealth and jobs that are now being eliminated come from?
Let’s face it, history has shown repeatedly that socialism doesn’t work and capitalism does. Let’s get back to when it was considered good to be successful and when people felt better about earning something than they did about having stuff handed out by the government.
This is really an attemopt to raise money – taxes for the government. And it looks easy. But the fairness argument is wrong. Under current law in most cases someone can donate 100% of income from an activity to charity – and people do this to avoid confluicts. Obama himself – or his wife – might want to do this.
Now if fairness is the concern – that a rich person benefits more from the tax deduction than someone less rich – then the remedy is to use a multiplier. Say add 25% to the amount given to charity if your Adjusted gross income is below $150,000 or so and deduct the higher amount on Schecule A.
But in reality this is just a tax increae that *looks* like it is easy to do. Better to raise the tax rate a fraction of a percent.
The economy makes it so hard to make these choices.