Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.
Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to please their new federal paymaster. Faith-based organizations may find federal funding diminishes their private support as people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations assume they ``gave at the (tax) office'' and will thus reduce their levels of private giving. Thus, religious organizations will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since ``he who pays the piper calls the tune'' federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of ``faith-based'' programs.
Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in ``faith-based" programs receiving funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious income from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs!
H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear ``reasonable'' during the program's first few years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life.
Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will overshadow government charities that remain independent of federal funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government's stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead, government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember that there are only three institutions of higher education today that do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal regulations.
We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since the Great Society, many organizations which once were devoted to helping the poor have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to expanding federal control over the American people.
Federally-funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less effective than their counterparts because federal funding changes the incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
Accepting federal funds will corrupt religious institutions in a fundamental manner. Religious institutions provide charity services because they are commanded to by their faith. However, when religious organizations accept federal funding promoting the faith may take a back seat to fulfilling the secular goals of politicians and bureaucrats.
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.
Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds (and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment. Critics of this legislation are also correct to point out that this bill violates the first amendment by forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to subsidize secular organizations.
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is ``Not Yours to Give.''
Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people. As Marvin Olaksy, the ``godfather of compassionate conservatism,'' and others have amply documented, before they were crowded out by federal programs, private charities did an exemplary job at providing necessary assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material needs of those in poverty but helped break many of the bad habits, such as alcoholism, taught them ``marketable'' skills or otherwise engaged them in productive activity, and helped them move up the economic ladder.
Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically support them if they were brought before the House as a stand alone bill. I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to social services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all, individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies may support organizations more effective at complying with federal regulations or acquiring political influence than actually serving the needy.
Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal money to religious organizations, including the Reverend Pat Robinson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker, Founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal (CURE), Father Robert Sirico, President of the Action Institute for Religious Liberty, Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute, and Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig Von Misses Institute. Even Marvin Olaksy, the above-referenced ``godfather of compassionate conservatism,'' has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over charity to the American people through large tax cuts and tax credits.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
As you requested.
I am split on this, I admit, but in the end, I must come down on the side of keeping the gubmit tenticles out of my church. God wants His people to give cheerfully, not the gubmit. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that this is the first step in dictating to the church what to say and do. The answer is still to lower taxes and let me spend the money as God leads.
Ron Paul has hit the nail on the head! He has got every angle covered. And he is 100% right in my book.
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. -- The LORD Jesus Christ
My own pastor, a good Calvinist teaching elder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (yes, we do joke amongst ourselves that "OPC" stands for "Only Perfect Church"), is not, I would say, an extremely political man. He preaches on the evil of Abortion, the evil of Tyranny, the evil of religious persecution, the virtues of home- and private-schooling, and the folly of trusting in the Messiah State -- all pretty standard Orthodox Presbyterian themes, when "politics" comes up, that is.
But rarely does he address any specific individual political "program" from the pulpit. Generally, he sees his duty as being the presentation of the undiluted Word of God (including those "thou shalt not steal" parts) to the congregation, and let the Word speak for itself.
But he's broken his normal regimen in regard to Bush's "Faith Based Socialism" initiative -- THIS, he has denounced from the pulpit itself. And, bear in mind -- this is a guy who likes Bush pretty well, at least in a "best we could hope for" kinda sense.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
We need more men like Ron Paul in Congress.
Thanks for the flag.
L
".....this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations." Bless you Ron Paul. This is a serious mistake by the Bush Administration. Can you imagine this program in the hands of the Left? Think about it.
I know Bush means well, but I have to agree, in the wrong hands this is a recipe for disaster.
FYI
BTTT
Bump. Thanks for posting this.
There is no finer Congressman than Ron Paul.
Mr. Paul has a very good point. The only problem is that money is already given to secular charities/organizations from the Feds.
5.56mm
Hey, Texas: I'll trade you two Georgia senators for this Texas Congressman. 'Course, since I still own a house in Texas I couldn't send Max and Zell out there, either.
MAN, this guy is sharp.
Can't complain about my congressman too much - Jack Kingston but I'd gladly have Paul as my Senator (governor, ...)
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is ``Not Yours to Give.''
As C-Span scans the Chambers.
My opinion is that I am totally against any kind of government aid to schools, or churches. My Father spoke to me about how bad this was when I was just a little girl . And he was correct.
Any help given by government causes an obligation to that government. Then the government can move in and say what is to be taught, preached or learned by those that attend. Whether it be schools or churches.
Small Government and like Rush Limbaugh said yesterday..... " ANY Federal or governmental interference either by dem OR rep. government is wrong. ONLY small government is what our forefathers intended."....It is NOT an exact quote but by golly it is very close.
Does James Dobson support the faith based tentacles? I would think he does........it wouldn't surprise me.
Open sesame.
I generally agree with Ron Paul. I don't on this one.
Marvin Olasky wrote a pretty good book titled "The Tragedy of American Compassion" about the history of charity and faith based initiatives in America. Before reading that book, I was of a mindset where I would probably be arguing the same side of the argument as you (and Paul). I recommend reading this book. It may not change your mind, but it will give you an enhanced understanding that this is not moving us into uncharted waters, but rather moving us back to waters that were common back in the earliest days of our country (albeit, more at the state and local levels and not the federal. And the old way is, again, the better way).
Here is my perspective in a nutshell. The government has decided that it is going to be involved in what I would call social services. As always, when the government did it, it was inefficient and ineffective. So the paradigm has moved towards the government providing funding for private organizations to attempt to fill the roles. This is, in my opinion, not optimal, but a step in the right direction.
However, the status quo is that not all private organizations are allowed to compete to get the funding for providing these services. Another way of phrasing it is that not all private organizations are allowed to bid on this work. A specific type of organization right now is forbidden to bid for this work; the specific type of organization prevented is religious. I look at this initiative, and I see a form of discrimination being removed.
Will it be wise for a faith based organization to bid for this work, for this funding? I can see the arguments against it. Should it be the government's role to make that decision for the faith based organizations, and to make the decision "no" in all cases? Or should government not be able to discriminate against organizations merely because they are faith based?
In my view, in a perfect world, the government should treat faith based organizations no differently than it treats any other form of organization. To treat them differently, in my opinion, violates the first amendment which states that that no laws shall be passed regarding an establishment of religion.
I've read some Olasky. He is opposed to the grants. That's why he's not front and center now.
Check this out: Baptist home wins lawsuit in firing of lesbian, but case could affect faith-based initiative
I think you are misstating Olasky's position. He is not against federal grants to faith based organizations. As a matter of fact, he is a proponent of them.
He has objections to this bill, however. His objections are not over the philosophy, but rather the particular implementation.
"(Charitable choice) has run into problems because essentially, in response to lots of criticism of the left, the director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives — John DiIulio — moved left, or began assuaging those concerns," Olasky said. "He did so in a way that has raised great concerns among many conservative Christians."Olasky further goes on to say that his support comes back fully if the implementation was done by vouchers, where the individual seeking a service from an organization could choose which one, taking the decision out of the hands of the government as to which groups would get which dollars.Olasky said the real problem is that DiIulio chose to structure the program around discretionary government grants, whereby government officials would choose which religious groups get funding and which would not.
Even worse, to be eligible, a religious group would have to strictly segment the religious part of its program from the non-religious part of its program.
"That seems to me to open the door to discrimination, and perhaps particular discrimination against evangelical groups," Olasky said. [source]
I disagree with Olasky because I fail to see the difference. There never will be a system approved by Congress where there are no restrictions placed on who can get the vouchers; to me there is no real difference between lawmakers deciding which groups get funding directly and lawmakes deciding which groups are eligible to get vouchers.
And once there is not that difference, then it all boils down to this comment by Olasky:
"That seems to me to open the door to discrimination, and perhaps particular discrimination against evangelical groups,"Mr. Olasky, the status quo right now discriminates against these groups. It discriminates against all faith-based groups.
Is it a perfect solution? Hell no. And again, would it be wise for any particular group to take the money, knowing that eventually there will be strings? Perhaps not, but it should not be the government's role to make that decision for groups.
Apologies for a broken link above. The correct one to get to Olasky's comments is here.
Olasky noted, however, that [he] support[s] the overall idea of government working closer with faith-based groups.
Bump
My comments on vouchers to "Torie" on the other thread may be helpful.
I must depart. Regards,
You guys will like this. Ron Paul Bump
Why not knock off ALL the crap in this area?
QUESTION: If the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) were implemented, wouldn't charitable giving -- now tax deductible --be hurt?
ANSWER: In the first place, most folks who tithe to their church and contribute to the thousands of private charities for which this country is justly noted -- and proud -- do not do so for the minuscule tax benefits such donations bring. They do so because, in the case of the tithe, the Bible upon which their church is based declares God's portion of their wealth to be 10%. (How revealing that government now demands somewhere between 2 and 5 times God's portion!) And they do so, in the case of private charity, because they have been persuaded that the need being met is legitimate and real and aiding others makes them feel that their contribution can make a difference in the lives of those in need.
For those disposed to give more weight to purely economic factors, under the NRST YOU PAY NO TAX UNTIL YOU SPEND – REPEAT – SPEND YOUR MONEY. You would make your contributions to charities and other worthy causes with BEFORE TAX DOUGH! It SHOULD be a no-brainer that the NRST would be BENEFICIAL for legitimate charitable organizations – NOT hurt them!
We must deal with the proposition that a significant portion of the IRS Code exists for the purpose of attempting to engineer society. It allows those who sit at the levers of power and write, revise, massage and manipulate this Byzantine code to endeavor to select the winners and losers among the various entrants in terms of who does and who does not receive a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) exemption.
Some highly knowledgeable cynics maintain that the system exists more to allow control than it does to encourage any certain activity. It's safe to say that once a prudent "tax exempt" organization becomes "hooked" (or believes that it has) on the narcotic of "tax exempt" contributions, it will be loathe to become so controversial or say or do anything too threatening to some cherished status quo as to jeopardize its favored status.
The statistics tell another story: Historically, during periods of economic difficulty (when American families have fewer disposable resources) their contributions to their churches and private charitable organizations, though they may fall slightly, have not experienced a concomitant reduction. It bears witness to the fact that Americans are among the most charitable people in the world -- with or without a tax deduction.
The National Retail Sales Tax holds the prospect of so liberating and augmenting the American economy that the loss of IRS "tax exemptions” will come to be seen as absolutely inconsequential and will not even be missed -- by givers or recipients!
Dick Bachert
(6/14/93)
Revised 7-23-01
Addendum: We need more men like Ron Paul to disestablish Congress.
Right you are. Thanks for the flag.
President Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" proposal is merely a call for expanding existing programs.
I first became aware of its existence in the late 70s when I met a woman who worked for the local Catholic Charities. In a nutshell, she told me that the monies raised in the annual "Charity Drive" were mostly used for overhead purposes. The bulk of the funds spent came from government sources.
To give you an idea of current involvement the following is from an article in the April 12, 2001, GQ, page 49, by P.J. O'Rourke:
Salvation Army -- 18% of its funding from govt.
Lutheran Services -- 39% of its funding from govt.
Catholic Charities -- 62% of its funding from govt.
Re: Post 30 My sincere apologies.
The source for the percentage of government funding was an article in the April 12, 2001 ROLLING STONE magazine, not GQ. The title of the article was "Washington Diary", by P.J. O'Rourke, page 49.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |