Taking From the Suffering

Taking from Charity, giving to themselves. One can’t expect Statists to understand the art and sacrifice of giving. They only understand taking, for themselves and those that support them. For the 2010 budget Obama tried to reduce the deduction for charitable giving. It didn’t pass, but isn’t off the table for those that see any income as rightfully theirs, even if they didn’t earn it.

After that failure, the test to take money from charitable organizations was tried in California, and was stopped; but that resulted in a shakedown, which is just as good for them. Gets them the money they want while they try and fashion other legislation to shake down charity and philanthropic organizations. The Bill they tried passing (and what Federal Statist legislators are taking a serious look at), would require these kinds of organizations to publish the race, gender and sexual orientation of leaders, trustees, board members, and most others involved in a charitable endeavor.

What is at stake here for Statists (primarily Democrats) is about $300 billion a year given in charity they can’t get to. It’s not good enough the money is going to help people dying of cancer, or AIDS, or suffering from epilepsy, or Downs Syndrome. Pick your cause or disease, and what you want to give to help these people; the Statists want a portion of the money, and the rest to be directed by them to the groups they say should get the remainder (their constituents).

The nearly passed California legislation (the American Petri dish of bad political ideas) would have required the money not confiscated by the government to be directed toward minorities, low income communities, and whatever targeted group Statists want to further their own ends. There was a paper, “Criteria for Philanthropy at It’s Best”, published by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. It wants philanthropic organizations have 25% of their donations be spent on “advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity, and justice in our society.” I think spending that 25% on people actually suffering is much better. They also want to spend "at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups". The lie here, exposed by The Philanthropic Collaborative, is that "two out of every three dollars of all health grants made by foundations benefit low-income and minority communities." Statists want 75% of money donated to charity to be spent by them, not going to where the donors giving the money want it to go.

Statists will take money from the suffering to meet their own ends.

Statists (Democrats) don’t believe these institutions of help should have the freedom to decide which suffering people they want to reach out to and comfort. CongressDaily (February 2010): "Senate aides are quietly exploring ways to tax the massive wealth tucked away in charitable foundations, which backers say could serve the twin goals of raising revenue for an estate tax solution and triggering overdue reforms in the nonprofit sector."

The shakedown part of this was that in lieu of passing the legislation, were nine of the largest philanthropic organizations in California promised to give $30 million to “minority led, community base groups”. Like any black mail, the blackmailer, Statists, will be back to get more; that strategy may be even more effective than legislation.

Statists (Democrats) are willing to steal 75% of donated money, and regulate people that give to the suffering, to further their own socio-economic, political agenda.

Who do you want your charity money to go to, a millionaire politician and his overpaid staff and bureaucrats, or the little girl or boy suffering from cancer?