DADvocate

Among the myriad of disastrous proposals in Howdy Doodie's Obama's budget is a decrease in the deduction for charitable giving.

the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

Will people give as much to charity if deductions are less? If they don't, what will happen to charities? Does Obama want private charities to fail so the government can step end and further the march of socialism?

Lowering deductions for charitable giving was probably no big deal for Obama because, as we know, liberals don't give as much to charities anyway. But it could be a real big deal for the rest of us, especially the lower you go on the socio-economic ladder. The Salvation Army, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Catholic Social Services, Volunteers of America and numerous other charities provide cheap or free services more effectively and more efficiently that government ever has or ever will.

Many zoos, libraries and museums depend heavily on charitable contributions. Ever stay at a Ronald McDonald House while an ailing child was in the hospital? I have. Many charitable organizations even help out federal agencies. Friends of the Smokies raises funds and promotes responsible care of the Smokey Mountains National Park.

During a typical day, it is difficult for almost anyone not to have some contact with a charitable organization. Don't forget all the religious groups and churches that provided relief for Hurricane Katrina victims.

Will lowered deductions hurt charities? No one can tell for sure but it's a given lowered deductions won't help! Any threat to these agencies is unacceptable and unwise.

Of course, there are still the other possibilities. Maybe Obama wants to create as many failures in the private sector in general so the government can step in and take over and spread socialism. Or, he might simply be grossly naive and have such a poor grasp of basic economics that he has no clue how economics work. I'll go with all of the above.