The Serve America Act -- government in competition with charities

The reason behind the tax law allowing a deduction for charitable giving was probably to encourage people who could afford it to make charitable donations. That way the donated funds could be spent on projects to promote the general good and maybe do things that people might otherwise be tempted to ask the government to do.

However, it wasn't too long ago that we learned that part of Mr. Obama's plan for change would reduce the donation deductibility for people who made over a certain amount of money.

Part of Mr. Obama's presidential campaign was based on resentment of the wealthy, and it's possible that this denial of charitable deductions was an effort to punish the rich. But in any event, the effect will be to punish the charities. See The Obama Budget and Charitable Tax Deductions and A Deduction from Charity.

Another possible motive was to weaken private charities and concentrate funds and power in the federal government. Evidence supporting this theory comes to us by way of yesterday's White House press release telling us that Mr. Obama was to have signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. We have to go outside the government websites to find the cost of this program, and in an article friendly to the program at Boston.com we find out it's $5.7 billion. Here's more from that article:

The law dedicates $5.7 billion over five years to encourage volunteerism, including providing $500 summer scholarships to middle school and high school students and granting $1,000 educational stipends to older volunteers, who could pass the cash on to their children, grandchildren, or another young person.

Further, the law vastly expands AmeriCorps, putting the 16-year-old domestic volunteer program on track to increase from its current level of 75,000 volunteers to 250,000. Those volunteers - who receive a living allowance of about $12,000 for 10 to 12 months of work - would staff programs for poor people, veterans, the environment, healthcare, and education.

As the old joke goes, before long we're talking about real money.

Not everyone is as exited about the project as Boston.com, and Reason.com gives it the ground 'n pound.

It's not clear whether or to what extent ACORN will qualify for some of these funds, but one thing is almost certain. When the summary says that it "Authorizes Nonprofit Capacity Building grants to provide organizational development assistance to small and mid-size nonprofit organizations," you can be sure that there will be a plethora of new organizations springing up with mission statements which fit the funding requirements to a "T."

And there's one more confusing objective in the summary.  The act "Introduces responsible and balanced competition to the RSVP program." Is there a problem with the RSVP program we haven't been told about? One of the RSVP objectives is "Helping community organizations operate more efficiently." So maybe they aren't pulling their weight in the community organizing department. Hey, maybe ACORN could do that!

Generally, competition is a good thing for the consumer, but to pit government volunteer programs against each other, presumably for taxpayer money, raises the question of whether the government is trying too hard to consolidate power.

Oh well, a majority of voters wanted hope and change, so maybe this is the change they've been waiting for. After all, John McCain voted for it and would likely have signed it had he become president, so there's really no escape.

Comments

[ospurt]

As a regional/national level volunteer staff member for a non-profit that specilizes in college campus based community service, I've been following this issue for years. Since Bush the Elder pushed "a thousand points of light," and Bush the Younger enacted support for faith based charities, I have felt an undercurrent from the liberal "Community Organizer" crowd to co-opt existing non-profit and volunteer networks, under the guise of helping. Though I feel the ultimate goal is to supplant the leadership and founding principles of these organizations to control them and make them mesh with their modern values.

As you have noted, and as some are starting to discover, when you have the government fund initiatives it only follows that some non-profits and organizations become more equal than others. Now take these "more equal" charities and give them the ability to pay volunteers with monies siphoned from donations that aren't being made to "less equal" non-profits because of tax disincentives and you have a problem.

Basically, they are taking an individually guided, principles based charity and service framework, rooted in social duty, moral calling, and self sacrifice and supplanted it with centralized control which guides people by manipulating feelings, ego and guilt which has the values of transfer of wealth, equal outcomes, and social engineering as their primary goals.

Also, nevermind that this co-opting of service as individual's choice to a Government mandate seems to have stalled in the last couple of years. There is a report linked through Drudge today that says teen volunteer rates have been DECLINING though the number of programs to coerce or mandate service as a part of a general High School diploma have been INCREASING.

No wonder they need more bribe money.

[Geo]

OK, now I'm REALLY depressed.

Thanks for the input, Ospurt.