Favorite

Guest Commentary 

It's downright un-American to support charities with tax revenues

The federal government is behaving like a bunch of children in an elementary school class who are learning about the legislative process by putting together a make-believe budget. Unfortunately, there is no adult around to interrupt them and explain that in the real world, people can't spend twice as much as they take in, and that quadrupling the debt over the next 10 years will lead to very bad things.

At least Tucson's politicians made the effort and balanced the budget. They did it with spending cuts and a collection of new taxes and tax increases that were disparate enough to not raise anyone's ire. Those ranged from a new tax on hotel-room stays to an increase in the environmental (trash) fee—a fee that both Nina Trasoff and Karin Uhlich condemned when they ran for the offices they now hold. Both Trasoff and Uhlich are up for re-election this fall. I doubt they have anti-trash-fee planks in their current platforms.

It is disappointing that the City Council did not adjust spending down to match revenues without increasing the tax burden. I would like to see both spending and taxation reduced, so I started poking around in past budgets to see what we could throw out.

I found a category under which the city of Tucson steals our prerogative in regards to how we help our fellow Tucsonans. It makes charitable contributions for us with tax money. It's called "Human Services," and it supports outside agencies that help people like the homeless.

I know of two organizations that provide direct services to the homeless. They are the Primavera Foundation and the Gospel Rescue Mission. Both do good works, and contribute to the betterment of our city. In 2008, Primavera received in excess of $364,000 from the city of Tucson. I could find no payments made to Gospel Rescue Mission.

I called Danny Hansen, associate executive director of the Gospel Rescue Mission, and asked if they received financial support from the city. He said that the Gospel Rescue Mission takes no government money. Apparently, it affects the "focus on the work we are called to do." He added that the money always has strings attached; though those strings might seem harmless at the time, they often change with new administrations.

Gee, do you think that governments might want to leverage their "donations" into more power, control or vote-buying? Who would have thought?!

One might counter, "Yeah, well how about corporate donations? Don't they want to control, too?" Probably not; most are too busy building missiles, rainwater cisterns, homes or whatever. They are usually motivated by the "good corporate citizen" ethic, public relations or both. Besides, it's much easier to say, "Go pound sand!" to a corporation than it is to the guys who can change the rules (write laws) and who command the guys in the ninja suits (SWAT teams).

As I said, both organizations do good work. They do, however, have different approaches to the problem. While they both offer contingent services, education and job-training, the Gospel Rescue Mission offers transformation to a new life through faith in Christ.

Now, if you do not believe in the value of that religious stuff, you should not be compelled to support it. Of course, if you think that the secular approach does not address the root causes and is urinating into the wind, to a degree, you should not be compelled to support that, either.

I'd like to think that, at this point, Americans are nodding, while totalitarians are furrowing their eyebrows.

Look at it this way: If there is an interest among the people to support the work of an organization, people will support it directly. If there is little support among the people, and the government represents the people, how can the government justify funding that organization?

The difference between free-choice support and tax-money support is force. Charity, when freely given, benefits both the donor and the recipient. When money is taken involuntarily—ultimately by force, if necessary—and given to an outside agency, the relationship between government and the citizenry is changed. It also inhibits character development by relieving people of adult responsibilities.

It is un-American for a government to point a gun at a citizen and tell him which charities he likes.

More by Jonathan Hoffman

  • Guest Commentary

    Is TUSD fighting for failure?
    • Oct 10, 2013
  • Guest Commentary

    Steve Kozachik and Ethan Orr — victims of the D-Ray?
    • Jul 4, 2013
  • Guest Commentary

    Mark Kelly buys an AR-15, so what?
    • Mar 28, 2013
  • More »

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

People who saved…

Readers also liked…

  • Taking Liberties

    In Ward 3, a third-party candidate offers 'a little more straight talk.'
    • Oct 25, 2001
  • Guest Commentary

    Shouldn't property rights trump the war on drugs?
    • Oct 18, 2007

Facebook Recommendations

Latest in Guest Commentary

  • Guest column

    The push is on to "take back" public lands
    • Nov 6, 2014
  • Guest Commentary

    Councilperson Kozachik feels that we're better people than what the protests in Murrieta and Oracle demonstrated
    • Aug 7, 2014
  • More »

Most Commented On

Facebook Activity

Tucson Weekly on Facebook

© 2014 Tucson Weekly | 3725 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation