What’s next in the legal revolution to reshape America?

 Bruce DeBoskey writes a nationally syndicated column regarding charitable matters.  I met Bruce at a meeting of the Attorneys for Family-Held Enterprises event and ended up on his newsletter list.

Recently he has been writing more about changing the charitable exemption laws.  I take his writing to indicate the leading edge of this change in America.  He is describing a problem and a solution and lobbying for that solution.  I take him seriously.  He is the kind of person who writes about something he is not merely suggesting, but actually working to lobby for the change he is advocating.  I would expect that this will be seen in the mainstream discourse in short order.  He is seeding into the public consciousness the next step in the transformation of America.  In other words, I think is unwise to dismiss his ideas as “it will never happen.”  I explain later how it could happen.

 Here’s are the problems he identifies.  He points to his desired solutions through questions:

Problem #1

– Too many organizations have 501(c)(3) status that have no genuine “public good.”  Groups saving pot-bellied pigs are questionable and hate groups are even more obvious.

Solution #1

– Create a definition of what is really for the “public good” and eliminate the exemption for those organizations who don’t meet the standard. 

Problem #2

– Churches, synagogues and non-profits do not pay local property taxes but still use services such as roads, police and fire. 

Solution #2

– Eliminate property tax exemption for religious institutions

Problem #3

– Megachurches – make too much money and it’s all tax free. And their leaders, make too much money, too. 

Solution #3

– Mr. DeBoskey is not explicit, but I would guess it would involve taxing income from sales of products and salary limits on clergy. 

 He asks:

• How does society define the “public good” in a way that prioritizes those nonprofit programs needed by our country and whose missions actually advance our shared values?
• Does the cost/benefit of the charity exemption and donation deductibility make good economic and policy sense for 21st century society?

So donation deductibility is also on the table.

 “This reexamination will involve the honest commitment of policy and tax experts, economists, elected officials and the nonprofit sector itself to ensure that the charity “deal” actually works to improve our cities and states, our country and our world in ways that make the most sense for the times in which we live.”

 Now was DeBoskey just musing on matters that concern him, or is he part of the larger campaign to bring about these changes?  Is there something in between the lines in his mind?  I don’t know.  But, I believe that there is a campaign to bring about these changes and I’ll address what I see as between the lines, the consequences of the campaign, how it might play out and what we can do about it.

 Between the lines #1: Ideological purge of charitable status for any organization that is not meeting the “standard” as applied by a bureaucrat all for the public good.  DeBoskey singles out the protection of pot-bellied pigs and hate groups as making a questionable or no contribution to the public good.  But I don’t think anyone is really after the pot-bellied pig protectors.  They are just a convenient showcase since few feel moved by pot-bellied pigs.  And the ‘hate groups’ are something everyone agrees to hate but they cannot be the real target because they are only a tiny fraction of non-profits and getting rid of their exempt status will not increase tax revenue.  The larger goal here is to empower the government with the ability to decide what is in the “public good.”  Today the list may look agreeable to almost all, but the ideological purity test will rapidly shift and expand to exclude a whole range of causes.  The key is to get the discussion and agreement going that we all agree to exclude “them” and later we will find ourselves excluded, originally just from exempt status and then later labelled as “not for the public good.”   

 Between the lines #2:  Shutter the doors on the small churches that cannot afford the real-estate taxes.  Talk about hitting the poor communities whose membership cannot afford the contributions.  The exemption from real estate taxes not only shows that religious worship is the top American priority and that we all are willing to pay for it, but the exemption levels the playing field for new congregations that do not have the coffers of long established houses of prayer.  (Parking space requirements similarly work to harm new congregations while old established congregations sometimes have not a single parking spot.)

 Between the lines #3:  Salary caps for clergy will be pushed just as they are being pushed for publicly traded companies and non-profits.  In the mind of socialists, everything is measured by the public good, as defined by them, and not by the consumers choice.  The mega churches are offering something that people are willing to pay for.  If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.  

Here is how I predict this will play out:

 Expect a trickle, then a steady stream of news articles and new programs about groups that “should not” have exempt status, that do “no public good.”  Stories that show that terrible ideas are getting exemptions, or most of the money is going to administration or the lavish lifestyles of a church leader.  Stories about a church that burned and required a lot of local firefighting resources but since it was exempt for real estate taxes it did not contribute to the cost of that fire-fighting.  Maybe a Congressional investigating committee to hear supporting testimony.

 As urged in the DeBoskey article, the process will be dominated by experts and the public encouraged to defer to those experts.  “Policy” experts, tax experts, economic experts, non-profit experts, all to override the common sense of the average man and woman. 

 And, the current non-profits will have a voice too, but they are actually not reliable.  They have a vested interest in creating a test they will mostly pass, but that will be a barrier to entry to new non-profits in the future.  There is a false perception that non-profits are more civic minded than the regular citizen.  In some cultures, the concept of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) is on par with the government and given equal status to implement policy and objectives.  They become the means to reshape society in the image of the agenda without the obstacles faced by government.  But non-profits are run by humans with an agenda that is often, but not always, reflected in the name of the organization.  We can’t defer our responsibilities to them either.   

 In response to the call to regulate non-profits and eliminate exemptions,

the non-profits will divide into three groups:

  Those that think this is fantastic because they are confident they will survive the ideological purges.  Those that will fight it.  And those who will pretend it does not require their involvement and let others fight against it.

 First, those that fight it will first say it is outrageous and the “public good” standard should not be made more exact.   Then they will form a coalition to fight it, perhaps calling themselves the US Chamber of Non-Profits or the American Non-Profit Alliance.  Advocates of the non-profit changes will lay the groundwork by attacking the coalition as supporters of terrorists and extremists.  The coalition will then decide that to receive more public support they need to tone down their position to sound more reasonable and will start to offer compromise solutions.  They will agree to the elimination of exemptions for the “fringe” – after all they are not the fringe.  Soon after they will be writing position letters to the US Treasury stating that the problem is great and a solution is needed but the proposal is too extreme and should be merely tweaked to address some issues.  They might even have “discussions” seeking compromise with the change proponents and may even come to agreement on who they are willing to eliminate because all sides agree that “those” organizations are offensive and not for the “public good.”  And the members of the coalition will be told that this is the only way to go, that they must compromise because it’s the only way to have any influence on the process.  And then once the regulations are approved, the coalition will not challenge it in court since they helped craft it.  The people who didn’t wake up in time will now be stuck and they won’t have the financial resources to challenge it in court because the coalition will not back them.  And then everyone will discover that the limited list they had agreed on is being expanded.

 This my friends is how freedom is lost.  Voluntarily.  This is the playbook on issue after issue.  Oppose, set up a phony dialectic, then compromise to look more supportable, then lose outright.  This is how programs and agencies became part of everyday life in America, and how the revolutionary objectives will now be rolled out and become reality, G-d forbid, in America.  And subsequent administrations that promise to restore freedom will at most only chip away at the infrastructure but never actually dismantle the infrastructure.     

 The solution is to stick to the truth.  America supports religion.  America was founded by religion.  The idea that we have G-d given inalienable rights is a religious idea.  And we are willing to pay for the government services needed to keep that priority first.  When I am driving on a Sunday and I see police officer directing traffic at a church, I don’t complain “why am I paying for that?”  I don’t need similar city services because an Orthodox Jewish synagogue by definition cannot make a traffic jam on Shabbos.  But, rather than complaining, I am grateful to live in America.

 And we specifically do not want to define the public good.  We don’t want to have the discussion that DeBoseky calls for.  That some groups that I do not agree with receive tax breaks and their donors receive deductions is the price of my liberty.

 We already know where this discussion is going.  They will not be asking me or you to vet which groups are for the public good.  I would guess that they will look, as an example, to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which maintains a list of who they have decided are “hate” groups and “extremist” groups.  Using the term “extremist” implies that there is the agreed upon center.  But that is not agreed upon.  The SPLC has positioned itself as the “authority” on which groups are good and bad and their work is now relied on by media, banks, social media and even government authorities.  Whether you agree with their ratings, they have an agenda and a worldview and clear operational objectives and those are reflected in their “ratings.” 

 Let’s dig deeper: If someone or something is for the “public good” there must be those who are “not for the public good.”  Something “not for the public good” quickly becomes a danger to the public good and under the socialist principles afoot today, must be eliminated, “for the public good.”   Don’t fantasize that you can agree to the distinction and emerge unscathed.

 Our shared values in America are already established.  We encourage charitable donations to non-profits and facilitate that by allowing a charitable deduction.  We put religion first by exempting houses of worship and the homes of clergy from real estate taxation.  That’s already long established.  The shared value is also that we don’t give the government the power to decide which is a good use of our charitable money.

 The laws don’t suddenly change.  National priorities don’t suddenly change.  They shift through concerted campaigns that sway public outrage at a “problem” or “crisis” and then focus public demand for the “solution.”  All these changes are voluntary, usually because you voluntarily chose not to pay attention.  So read the leading indicators and know what is at stake.  And take action to refocus America on the source of liberties and the price we have to pay to have them.

 As to the problems and solutions DeBoskey highlights, the real solution is not to agree to the discussion in the first place. 

 Sincerely,
 
E. David Smith, Esq.