Bernie Is A One-Percenter Who Is Stingy With Charitable Giving

In a move that will increase pressure on President Trump to comply with the congressional request for his tax returns, Democrat-in-name-only presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has released 10 years of tax returns. The Vermont senator’s tax documents show that the democratic socialist is among the nation’s “one-percenters” and has become a capitalist at least in practice.

CNN reported that Sanders’ taxable income jumped from $240,622 in 2015 to $1,073,333 in 2016 after his unsuccessful challenge to Hillary Clinton’s coronation as the Democratic nominee. Since the 2016 campaign, Sanders and his wife, Jane, have raked in $2.79 million, largely from book deals. Sanders has written a total of five books, three of them since 2016. “Our Revolution” (2016) and “Where We Go from Here” (2018) were best-sellers. Jane Sanders also has an upcoming book for which she was paid $106,000.

“These tax returns show that our family has been fortunate," Sanders said in a statement. "I am very grateful for that, as I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck and I know the stress of economic insecurity. That is why I strive every day to ensure every American has the basic necessities of life, including a livable wage, decent housing, health care, and retirement security. I consider paying more in taxes as my income rose to be both an obligation and an investment in our country.”

Sanders may have come from humble origins but his concern for the poor did not extend far beyond the taxes that he paid. Buzzfeed notes that the Sanders family paid an effective 26 percent tax rate on the   $561,293 that they earned in 2018 but only donated 3.4 percent of their earnings to charity. After earning more than $1 million in 2016, Sanders gave only $10,600 to charity, less than one percent of his income. The charities that Sanders did donate to included senior centers, low-income groups, educational organizations, and political groups that advocate for housing and environmental causes.

Sanders denies that his millionaire status conflicts with his democratic socialist message, telling a reporter last week, “I didn't know that it was a crime to write a good book. My view has always been that we need a progressive tax system, which demands that the wealthiest people in this country finally start sharing their fair share in taxes. If I make a lot of money, you make a lot of money.”

Sanders’ attitude is symptomatic of the view of the Democratic Party that it is okay to make money but that taxes need to be increased to take the money from those who earn it. Sanders doesn’t seem to realize that he could voluntarily transfer an unlimited amount of his wealth to the needy without government compulsion. As the Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Apparently, less than five percent of Sander’s heart is with the downtrodden.

But that’s okay. In a free country, people should have the right to give as much – or as little – to charity as they want. People should be free to spend the fruits of their labor in any way that they choose as long as it isn’t illegal.

Americans have a right to give Bernie millions for his books if they want. They also have the right to pay him for his 1987 folk album, "We Shall Overcome,” for which he reportedly earned $110 in royalties last year, indicating that the market has decided that the senator is a better writer than a singer.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How Tax Reform Could Hurt Charitable Giving

It is almost axiomatic that any government policy, however well-intended, will be subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences. This maxim holds that any action, especially those mandated by government, will have effects that reach beyond its intended purpose. One of the unintended consequences of the new tax reform law may be a detrimental effect on charitable giving.

Like many Americans, I was not fully aware of the effects of tax reform until I did my taxes. One of the most visible changes for individual filers is the increase to the standard deduction. Under the new rules, the standard deduction was almost doubled, increasing from $6,350 to $12,000 for single taxpayers and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly.

In practical terms, this means that I had a pile of receipts that I didn’t need since the standard deduction was worth more than my itemized deductions. In most respects, this is a great thing for taxpayers because it simplifies preparing for and filing your taxes. In most cases, filling out a tax return is going to be as simple as filling out your income and taking the standard deduction.

Nevertheless, it did leave me wondering about how the change would affect charitable giving. Many people give to charities to get the tax deduction. The logical question is if people don’t get a tax benefit from charitable giving when they take the standard deduction, will they continue to give to charity?

Giving to charity to save on your taxes was never really quite as good an idea as many people thought. This is because in the past charitable donations counted as a tax deduction rather than a tax credit. This means that donations only affected the amount you paid in taxes indirectly. A tax deduction reduces the amount of taxable income, which in turn reduces the amount of tax that is owed.

The benefit of a tax deduction depends on a taxpayer’s personal circumstances, but a $1,000 tax deduction for a filer in the old 24 percent tax bracket would reduce the taxes owed by $240. In contrast, a tax credit directly reduces the taxes owed on a dollar-for-dollar basis. If you qualify for a $1,000 tax credit, you would owe $1,000 less in taxes. Because charitable giving was a deduction rather than a credit, givers didn’t get a full refund on their giving at a tax time, but it did help.

The flip side to the argument is that millions of taxpayers were already taking the old, lower standard deduction and they still gave to charity. In the past, taxpayers who didn’t have large deductions such as mortgage interest might well have not had enough deductions to make itemizing practical. The impact of tax reform on charitable giving would most likely affect middle-income donors who had enough deductions to itemize under the old law but not enough under the new tax reform.

The effect of the change will depend on how Americans view charitable giving. Do they give primarily to reduce their taxable income or do they give because generosity blesses both the giver and the recipient?

Many Americans have religious motives for giving to charity. About 80 percent of Americans identify with some religion per Gallup. Of these, about 70 percent are Christian, Jews and Mormons account for about two percent each and just under one percent are Muslim. All four faiths encourage adherents to give charitably. In particular, the Bible teaches believers to tithe, to give 10 percent of their earnings to support churches and the needy. Americans who take religious commands seriously are likely to keep giving even if it doesn’t change their taxes.

Another unintended consequence of tax reform on charitable giving is that there might be a movement away from government-approved charities to more direct giving. Rather than giving to charities that provide them with a tax-deductible receipt, more people might give directly to those in need. For example, a few years ago a friend wanted to fund a scholarship for a needy black student. He set up the donation through a church in part to reap the benefits of the tax-deductible contribution. Under the new rules, he might do just as well to write a check directly to the recipient.

So far, the effects of tax reform on charitable giving appear to be small, but Americans are still learning about the new law. CBS News reported in June 2018 that total revenue to nonprofits fell 2.4 percent in the first three months compared to 2017 while the total number of donors fell by 6.3 percent.

“We know that the main reason why people give to charity is not the tax incentive,” Steve Taylor, United Way Worldwide senior vice president and counsel for public policy said at the time. “We also know that the tax incentive allows people to give a little bit more than they would have otherwise. What you have is tens of millions of people who will give a little bit less, and that adds up to tens of billions of fewer dollars given to charity.”

We won’t know for several years exactly how changes to the tax law affect charitable giving. When the tax returns are filed and examined this year, new data will be available on how donations in 2018 differed over previous years. However, differences in returns this year may cause taxpayers to make changes in their behavior going forward, but those changes won’t be evident immediately. It will be interesting to watch and I'm sure that it will make a great research topic for some economist.

Originally published on The Resurgent

After Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico Needs Your Help To Survive

Often a story of little consequence can grab the imagination and attention of the nation while a much bigger story passes by without notice. That’s the case right now as the NFL protests block out almost everything else including the admission by the Trump Administration that 21 states were targeted by hackers during last year’s election, the president’s new expanded travel ban and, most sadly, the devastating effect that Hurricane Maria had on the islands of the Caribbean, particularly Puerto Rico.

Maybe it’s hurricane fatigue. Maybe it’s the fact that most of us don’t really think of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as a part of the United States. Maybe it’s just that the NFL is right in our living rooms while the people of Puerto Rico are a thousand miles away in the middle of the Caribbean.

Part of the problem may be the difficulty in reporting news from an island where the power grid has been knocked completely offline and may not be operational for six months. Think about that. An island of 3.6 million people, a territory of the United States, has been effectively moved back 100 years in time.

No electrical power in a tropical climate means no air conditioning and no refrigeration for food. Medical care is difficult without lights and power for medical equipment. The category four storm killed 30 people in the Caribbean, but many more may die in the aftermath of the storm from lack of food, water and medical care.

Without electric power, the island’s manufacturing and tourism sectors of the economy will also crash to a standstill. With factories idle and resorts closed, most of the island’s inhabitants will have no way to support themselves and their families.

The bottom line is that Puerto Rico and the other islands damaged by Hurricane Maria are going to need lots of help for a long time. With FEMA funds almost exhausted by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the burden is going to fall on private charities funded by donations from companies and individuals like you and me.

If you are uncertain about what to donate or what charities are worthy of your donation, the FEMA website publishes guidelines for donations and the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD) has an online form that helps to steer your donation to vetted organizations. NBC’s Chuck Todd has also identified several organizations that are top rated for their work in Puerto Rico.  

FEMA recommends that you donate cash rather than supplies. My experience volunteering at a shelter in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey confirms that money is easier to deal with than supplies. Cash can purchase exactly what is needed at the time while donations of supplies may or may not contain what is needed at the time. (I think back to an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati in which the station donated 3,000 blonde wigs to Guatemalan earthquake victims.) Supplies must be inventoried, sorted, stockpiled and shipped. That takes manpower, time and money.

Donations of supplies that aren’t needed right away incur costs for storage and take up space. Since the affected areas are islands, virtually everything needed to sustain the people who live there for the next six months will have to be brought in on ships or airplanes. It is much more efficient to purchase large quantities of relief supplies that are ready for shipment than to bundle donations together in a piecemeal fashion.

NVOAD also has a contact form for volunteers who would like to go to one of the areas affected by the hurricanes to help personally. With FEMA and other relief organizations stretched thin by three disasters in quick succession, additional volunteers will be badly needed.

Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands will be dependent on outside aid for survival for a very long time. The chain of disasters is taxing the reserves of relief agencies as well as wearing out relief workers. The citizens of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands need your help.

It’s time to come together to help our fellow Americans on the US islands of the Caribbean. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

How Churches and Individuals Saved The Day During Hurricane Harvey

I had always assumed that FEMA was the primary source of aid for victims of natural disasters such as hurricanes. If my experience in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey is any indication, I was wrong.

After I returned home in the middle of the storm, we were isolated by flooded roads for a couple of days. Once we could leave our neighborhood, we made our way to our church, which was serving as a shelter for storm victims, to offer our help. After another day or so, with several storm victims leaving to go home, the evacuees housed by my church were moved to another church down the road that was an official FEMA center for relief supplies. My family and I spent much of the week following Harvey’s departure volunteering at this FEMA center a few miles from my house.

What we saw changed the way that I viewed relief efforts for natural disasters. It was not the government that offered the most assistance to those in need. It was private volunteers, both local and from around the country, and private donations of supplies that kept the center in business.

The center was staffed entirely by volunteers. There were people who drove or flew in from Oklahoma, Arizona, Kentucky, Iowa, Missouri and California to offer their assistance. These people took time off from work and paid their own way. The only medical professional at the center was a registered nurse from Arizona who paid her own air fare to come and help.

In the first days, the center was staffed mostly by local volunteers. After a few days, we started to see more Red Cross volunteers and help from the outside. Red Cross would bring shipments of prepared meals, cleanup kits for houses and comfort kits for those in need. In the days that I worked there, I never saw a single FEMA representative.

Most helpful were the churches and their members. Local individuals would bring in food, clothing and other donations. Churches from out of state would rent trucks and trailers and fill them to the ceiling with pallets of water, food, clothes, school supplies, toilet paper, tarps, diapers, pet food and cleaning items such as buckets, bleach and mops.

One truck contained several large boxes (about three feet long by two feet wide and two feet high) that were filled to the top with individual candy bars and chewing gum. As a note to potential donors, while this was appreciated, chocolate candy bars are not the most practical emergency ration for Houston in August where temperatures are normally in the high 90s. This advice also applies to Florida.

We would frequently see large military helicopters such as CH-47 Chinooks and UH-60 Blackhawks flying overhead. The center director told us that the government was flying supplies into Houston and then they were distributed out from the city. We received some supplies from FEMA, in particular several boxes of tarps, but the vast majority of relief items came from the charity of local individuals and churches from around the country.

When the center needed items such as diapers and baby formula, it was concerned citizens who brought them. When we gave out so much food that we almost ran out, it was churches who trucked in enough to allow us to restock.

Through the entire ordeal, I was amazed at how responsive people from around the country were to the specific needs of our little FEMA shelter in small town Texas. We put out requests for specific supplies on social media and the next day they arrived.

FEMA requires shelters to have round-the-clock security, but this was also left to volunteers. After some items were stolen, we heightened security at the center. Volunteers, most of whom also worked all day at the shelter or full-time jobs, took guard duty shifts at night. After the initial thefts, guards armed themselves with personal weapons and radios. In the wee hours of one night, a guard discovered a break-in. The perpetrator fled into the darkness when the guard chambered a round in his shotgun.

As volunteers had to return to their normal lives, the center director requested assistance from the national guard in protecting the center’s residents and supplies. As of this writing, two weeks after Harvey, security is still in the hands of volunteers.

Granted, a natural disaster the size of Hurricane Harvey taxed the ability of FEMA to deliver aid. The storm ravaged hundreds of miles of Texas coastline and caused flooding all over Houston, the fourth largest city in the country, before moving on to Beaumont and Louisiana and wreaking havoc there as well. Our area, a small town on the northeast side of Houston, was far from being the area hardest hit by the storm, but there were still many people who had lost everything.

If it was up to the federal government or NGOs like the Red Cross to offer aid, our town would probably still be waiting for help. The destruction simply covered too much ground and affected too many people for even the federal government to effectively render aid to everyone.

In some cases, people were even afraid to be helped by the government. Wes, a volunteer who came from California by himself to help, told of finding a family of illegal immigrants in an area where the water was estimated to have been 25-30 feet deep. They had gone for days without food or fresh water and were afraid to approach government aid workers for help. Without Wes’s compassion, they might have died after surviving the storm.

When massive need for help overwhelmed the system during Harvey, it was the American citizen who stepped up to help. It struck me that this is the way it should be. If Americans, particularly Christians,  offered more charity to each other on a regular basis, there would be no need for the entitlement state.

We can rise to the occasion during an emergency. It’s a pity that we can’t do so every day. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Conservatives, Christians and the poor

When it comes to the poor, conservatives and Republicans have a reputation for being heartless. While this reputation may not be deserved, it is one that must be addressed if Republicans wish to be given the chance to lead a country where the labor rate has fallen to a forty year low and the poverty rate is at a 50 year high.

Even though not all conservatives are Christians, liberals often cite two Biblical passages in support of government programs to aid the poor. In Matthew 25:45, God admonishes religious people who are about to be cast into “eternal punishment” that “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Another common citation is the story of the rich young ruler found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In the story, Jesus told the man to “sell all that you have and give to the poor.”

They have a point.

Even though there is no indication that Jesus intended for that specific instruction to be applied to anyone other than the one individual to whom it was addressed, there is ample evidence in the Bible that God wants people to help the poor.

Jesus said in Matthew 26 that the poor will always be with us. No amount of private funding or government aid can eliminate poverty, but if Christians were fulfilling God’s commandment to help the poor there would be much less need for a government “war on poverty.” According to Pew’s Religion and the Public Life survey, there are an estimated 246 million Christians in the United States while the Social Security Administration notes that the median income of Americans is $44,321. This means that if each Christian tithed 10 percent of their income, there would be almost $1.1 trillion available to churches and charities.

Helping the poor should not be limited to writing checks. Much of the benefit derived from both the recipient and the giver is in the human contact that results from the act of giving. When people help others, they feel better about themselves. When the Bible commands Christians to put their faith into action, it does not offer a buyout option.

Two groups that offer Christians, or anyone else for that matter, a chance to help the poor are located in West Georgia. The Rapha Clinic, a medical clinic with several locations in West Georgia and Eastern Alabama, serves the uninsured free of charge with a staff of volunteer doctors and nurses.

In nearby Villa Rica, volunteers from the First United Methodist Church make hundreds of sack lunches for the town’s underprivileged children. The church took on the task of providing the children with food during the summer break when they would not get free meals at school. During a ten week period last year, the volunteers prepared and delivered more than 10,000 sack lunches according to the Times-Georgian. The ministry hopes to double that number this year and expand into even more areas of the county. As the group expanded, it was given a formal name, the “By HIS Hands Summer Lunch Ministry.”

Throughout America and the world, Christians like Sue Brockman, who was instrumental in founding the Rapha Clinic, and Derek Porter, the pastor of the Villa Rica First Methodist Church who started the summer lunch ministry, are helping the poor and sick. In fact, Christians have been helping the poor since the days of Christ. Some Christian charities are small, centering on a single town or county. Others are now large groups with a presence in many countries. The Red Cross was founded by a Christian businessman after witnessing the destruction of the Napoleonic wars. The Salvation Army was founded by a Christian evangelist and remains explicitly Christian, as does CARE, which stands for Christian Action Research and Education. Many hospitals and colleges were founded by Christians of various denominations.

Just because Christians have a rich history of charitable and humanitarian endeavors doesn’t mean that the rest of us should rest on our laurels (halos?). One of the big rationales for the growth of the welfare state has always been that churches and private charities have not done enough to help the poor. The New Deal began the displacement of private and religious charities by the federal government. This process was continued by the Great Society of the 1960s.

This liberal policy of government enforced charity runs afoul of several aspects of Biblical teaching. The most obvious is the admonition in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that everyone “must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” Congress and the IRS compel us to give, however reluctantly, and could not care less whether we are cheerful or not as we submit our tax returns.

Second, the Bible clearly values honest work. People who are legitimately in need should be helped, but those who are capable of working should support themselves and their families. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” Charity should not go to people who could be working to support themselves. Many government programs actually encourage people not to work because they lose their benefits if they do.

Jesus, in Luke 16:1-2, commanded Christians to be good stewards of their resources. A good steward is not wasteful. Government often is. Fraud and waste in government programs are common, although no one can be sure of the exact extent. The universal nature of many government programs such as Social Security and Medicare means that precious resources are spent on the wealthy, who could provide for themselves, rather than the truly needy. Even in the best case, government “charity” funds flow through a huge bureaucracy with an expensive overhead which takes a large percentage before the first dollar reaches the poor.

Government programs also ignore the Bible’s warnings against incurring debt. Proverbs 22:7 warns that “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” Psalm 37:21 says, “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” Paul writes in Romans 13:8, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another….” and admonishes “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings” (1 Corinthians 7:23). What, then, would God think about borrowing 40 cents on the dollar and confiscating money from workers trying to feed their families to pay for a wasteful and inefficient system that encourages the poor not to work?

Finally, there are the unintended consequences of government programs. According to Census data, more than 30 percent of children today live in single-parent families, a three-fold increase from the 1960s when the Great Society declared war on poverty. Factors in the increase include government entitlements, birth control, the declining marriage rate, and others. Given the strong link between poverty and broken families, it seems likely that many government programs perpetuate poverty by discouraging marriage.

If conservatives hope to be successful in scaling back government entitlement programs, then conservatives and Christians must become even more willing to step up and give sacrificially to help the poor and sick. Even if government entitlements go away, the poor will remain.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Answering the religious left

The religious left, while still small, has grown somewhat over the last decade. While often perceived as hostile to religion, particularly Christianity, Democrats are somewhat tolerant of religious leftists. As an example, black voters are both heavily religious and heavily Democratic.

The signature issues of the religious left are war, the environment, and poverty. As the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq winds down and concerns about global warming abate, the major point of contention between the religious right and left concerns how to address poverty.

A passage frequently cited by religious leftists is Matthew 25:40, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’” The theme of charity occurs throughout the Bible. Religious conservatives don’t dispute Jesus’ command to help the poor. The question is how best to do so.

Religious leftists advocate government anti-poverty programs. These programs are notoriously expensive, inefficient and prone to fraud. According to the Cato Institute, the state and federal governments spend more than $1 trillion annually on anti-poverty programs. This translates to $20,610 for every poor person in America, yet the poverty rate is still almost unchanged from 1964 when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. As Ronald Reagan put it, “Some years ago the federal government declared war on poverty - and poverty won.”

The left is also fond of pointing to Matthew 22:21 where Jesus tells the Pharisees to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's….” Often the second part of the verse, “and unto God the things that are God's” is not quoted. Christians should pay taxes, but they are also commanded to support their local churches and charities. Ironically, statistics from the book “Who really cares?” by Arthur Brooks show that although liberals tend to earn more than conservatives, they give less in terms of money, time and even blood.

The fallacy with unquestioningly rendering to Caesar is that we do not (at least not yet) live under an authoritarian regime. As participants in a republican democracy, it is our duty to make sure that our tax money is spent wisely. In fact the Bible commands it. Since voters are responsible for their government in a republic, they must ensure that the government is a good steward of tax money.

According to Jesus in Luke 16:1-2, a good steward is not wasteful. A good steward works diligently for his money (Proverbs 28:20, Colossians 3:23-24). A good steward invests wisely and diversifies (Ecclesiastes 11:2). Good stewards provide for their own families (1 Timothy 5:8). Even though a good steward pays taxes (Romans 13:6-7), that does not alleviate the responsibility of personally helping the poor and doing so cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:6-8, Acts 20:35).

Government-enforced charity runs afoul of Biblical doctrines in several areas. First and most obvious, the Bible calls for voluntary and cheerful giving. This is not consistent with mandates and taxes that are enforced by the government at the point of a gun.

Second, the Bible clearly values honest work. People who are legitimately in need should be helped, but those who are capable of working should support themselves and their families. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” Charity should not go to people who could be working to support themselves. Many government programs actually encourage people not to work because they lose their benefits if they do.

Third, government is wasteful. No one seriously doubts that much of the money that the government confiscates to help the needy is wasted. The waste is two-fold. First, the money flows through bureaucracies at both the state and federal levels. These bureaucracies have high overhead due to expensive buildings and pay and benefits for employees that are substantially higher than their private sector counterparts according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Second, fraud is rampant in government entitlement programs. Untold billions of dollars are lost to fraud every year. Bureaucratic caseworkers with scant contact with their charges are often unable to tell when they are being duped. As entitlement programs grow, the propensity for fraud becomes more likely due to the sheer numbers of people involved.

Finally, government programs ignore the Bible’s warnings against incurring debt. Proverbs 22:7 warns that “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” Psalm 37:21 says, “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” Paul writes in Romans 13:8, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another….” and admonishes “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings” (1 Corinthians 7:23).
What, then, would God think about borrowing 40 cents on the dollar and confiscating money from workers trying to feed their families to pay for a wasteful and inefficient system that encourages the poor not to work? It is hard to imagine that he would be pleased.

The religious left also lacks Biblical support for two other prominent issues. First, with respect to abortion, it is clear from numerous Bible passages such as Matthew 19:14 that Jesus loved little children. In Matthew 18:6, Jesus said that it would be better for a person to have a “great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” than to cause a child to sin. How much worse would it be to physically harm a child than to cause one to sin?

The Old Testament was even more specific saying, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood” (Deuteronomy 27:25). In Exodus 21:22-23, there was something akin to a personhood law: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life…. ” Jeremiah 1:5 indicates that a baby in the womb is already a person known to God.

The Bible is also clear on same-sex marriage. Most people are familiar with the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. There are also hints that homosexuality was one of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom (from which we get the word “sodomy”) and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Christians are not bound by Old Testament law (Galatians 5:18). Neither is the United States a theocracy (nor should it be). Old Testament laws do provide clues to right and wrong however.

Less commonly known is the New Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality. In Romans 1:24-27, homosexuality is described as God’s judgment on people who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator….” In 1 Timothy 1:9-11, homosexuals are listed with other sinners including the sexually immoral, slave traders, liars and perjurers. Jude 7 confirms that homosexuality was one of the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Nowhere does God command Christians to hate homosexuals, but it is clear that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful act that should not be encouraged. Especially when the welfare of children and God’s prohibition against leading children astray (Matthew 18:6) are considered, it becomes clear that same-sex marriage should not be considered for societal as well as religious reasons. The New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, offers compelling evidence that children of same-sex couples do not fare nearly as well as children of traditional families.

Members of the religious left are free to vote for whoever they choose and upon whatever basis they choose. If they believe that their political views are aligned with their religious views, however, they should seek to learn what Jesus and the Bible say about the issues at hand.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/answering-the-religious-left

Romney is more charitable than most, tax returns show

When Mitt Romney released his tax returns earlier this week, most of the attention was on the tax rate that he paid on his income. Romney paid less than 15 percent of his income in taxes due to the fact that his money comes from capital gains and dividends rather than from a salary, but he still pays a higher rate than most Americans.

The real surprise in Romney’s tax return is that the Republican presidential candidate is more charitable than most Americans. The Wall Street Journal states that Romney gave 13.8 percent of his income to charity in 2010 and more than 19 percent in 2011. This means that Mitt Romney is giving more to private charities than he is giving to the federal government.

In dollars, Mitt and his wife, Ann, earned $21.7 million in 2010 and $21 million in 2011 according to an analysis by CNN. They paid $3 million in taxes in 2010 and $3.2 million in 2011. They donated $2.9 million to charity in 2010 and $4 million in 2011 according to the WSJ figures.

In comparison, the Journal notes that Barack and Michelle Obama gave 13.6 percent of their income to charity in 2010. This was a marked increase from previous years. Between 2005 and 2009, the Obamas gave between 4.6 and 6.2 percent to charity. Before Obama became a national political figure, the rate was much lower, between 0.4 and 1.4 percent.

In another incident last week, Romney put his wallet where his mouth was. On January 14, ABC News reported that an unemployed woman asked Romney for money while he was meeting voters in South Carolina. Romney pulled out his wallet and gave the woman “a wad of cash,” later estimated to be about $50-60. Romney also introduced the woman to Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina, and the state treasurer, Curtis Loftis. Loftis reportedly gave the woman $150 to pay her light bill. The woman, Ruth Williams, told ABC that God directed her to Romney’s campaign bus and told her to follow it. She has reportedly been volunteering for the Romney campaign since meeting the candidate.

The Washington Post reported that the Romney’s action was not filmed, but was witnessed by an ABC News print reporter who later interviewed Williams. The Post writes, “There was no indication that Romney’s cash gift was calculated or anything more than a spontaneous reaction to one woman’s story of personal struggles.”

Contrast this with President Obama’s reaction when Henrietta Hughes asked him for help at a rally in February 2011 being filmed by Fox News. Hughes was unemployed and living in a car and asked for help finding a house. On live television, Obama responded, "We're going to do everything we can to help you, but there are a lot of people like you."

Hughes did get a house. A local NBC affiliate reported that a couple who owned a vacant rental house had donated its use to Hughes and her family “for as long as she needs it.” The house belonged to Nicholas and Chene Thompson. Nick Thompson is a state representative. They are Republicans. There is no evidence that Obama or his staff ever followed up with Hughes.

These figures may be surprising, but they are not atypical. The 2006 book, “Who Really Cares,” examined giving trends in America. Its author, Arthur Brooks, found that on average conservatives gave more to charity even though liberals typically earned more. This may be partly due to the fact that conservatives tend to be more religious and both Christianity and Judaism encourage charity (Proverbs 14:21, 2 Corinthians 9:6-7).

The difference between Obama and Romney underscores the different philosophies of liberals and conservatives. Where liberals believe that it is the role of government to help people like Ruth Williams and Henrietta Hughes, conservatives see it as their personal responsibility. The liberal philosophy is one of waiting on the government for help while conservatism empowers individuals. Obama made vague promises that help was on the way while Romney and Chene Thompson actually worked to make a difference. Conservatives like Mitt Romney believe that charity, like the economy, is better left in the hands of individuals than delegated to government bureaucrats.

It is obvious that many, if not most, conservatives do not deserve their reputation as heartless moneygrubbers. After all, is it really giving when it doesn’t come out of your own wallet?

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

The Bible and taxes

In recent years, a recurring theme among progressives and liberals is that Christians have a duty to pay taxes and not resist tax increases because of Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 22:21 to “render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's” when asked by the Pharisees if Jews should pay tribute or taxes to the Roman government. According to this line of reasoning, modern Americans should happily pay ever-increasing taxes because Jesus said that the Roman coins belonged to Caesar.

Progressives also point out that Jesus, on numerous occasions instructed his followers to help the poor. His instruction to the rich, young ruler in Matthew 19:21 was to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. In Luke 6:20, he said that the poor were blessed and would inherit the kingdom of God. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus equates helping the poor with aiding Jesus himself. In one famous passage, Jesus says that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24).

There is no dispute that Christians are instructed to help the poor (Luke 12:33, 2 Corinthians 8:7). The question then is how best to help the poor. Is it more efficient to send more tax money to the government which can then make transfer payments to the poor or is it better to donate to private charities?

Government social programs are notoriously inefficient and costly. The big three entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, now make up forty-one percent of the federal budget according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. This percentage will go higher in coming years as more Baby Boomers retire. Social Security is scheduled to be bankrupt by 2036 and Medicare by 2024 according the Trustee’s Report. As the trust funds are depleted, even more tax money will be needed to meet obligations to retirees.

In part government social programs are so costly because they are universal. Rather than be a safety net for the poor, the government forces all retirees into Medicare and Social Security. This means that even the wealthy are required to accept government benefits, whether they need or want them or not.

Government programs are also costly because they are administered by bureaucracies filled with civil service workers. Where most charities rely heavily on volunteers, government workers that administer social programs often have salary and benefit packages that are valued at more than six figures annually. In effect, the government is taking a cut of the tax money before it is distributed to the poor. This expensive overhead adds significantly to the cost of government programs.

Finally, bureaucracies and rigid rules breed fraud. As the government tries to sign up as many people as possible to collect benefits, it becomes increasingly difficult to weed out those who are gaming the system. Caseworkers have less time to examine their clients, most of whom they do not know personally. With private charities, local volunteers get to know the need on a personal basis and can determine who needs aid and who does not. For bureaucrats, charity is a job; for volunteers, it is a passion.

A clue as to what Jesus would do with respect to entitlements in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 where the Apostle Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” Paul doesn’t say that those who cannot work should not be fed. He does say that people who can work but choose not to, those who are gaming the system, should not live off the sweat of others. The book of Proverbs, especially in chapter 24, extols the virtues of work and is critical of the “hater of work.”

Even while the Bible encourages people to give to charity, it also teaches people to be smart with their money (Proverbs 6:6-8, 21:5, Luke 14:28-30) . The Bible also stresses that the accumulation of wealth should not be an end in itself (Psalms 15:5, Titus 1:7). Money and material wealth should not be accumulated dishonestly (Exodus 20:15, Titus 2:9-10).

Not only is it expensive and inefficient to filter funds to help the poor through government bureaucracies, it is counter to God’s instruction to believers in Proverbs 3:9-10 in which the people are told to give the first part of their income to God. Part of this money would be used to maintain the house of worship and part of it would be used to help the poor. When people give large portions of their income to the government, it naturally discourages them from giving a percentage of the remainder to charity because they need money to support their own families as well. Nevertheless, taxes and government social programs do no relieve believers of the duty to give to charity (James 2:15-16).

There are more benefits to charitable giving than tax deductions. There are studies that link altruism to mental and physical health benefits. Givers tend to be happier than those who are not so generous. Research shows that giving stimulates the same pleasure centers of the brain as eating and sex, resulting in a joyful feeling. When government programs and taxes take the place of charities, taxpayers are cheated out of the benefits of voluntary giving.

According to the Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University’s report “Georgia Gives 2008,” more than 77 percent of Georgia households give to charity. Individuals accounted for 83 percent of Georgia’s charitable giving which is comparable to national averages. Eighty percent of respondents indicate that they would give more if they were more financially secure. It can be reasonably assumed that if individuals had a lower tax burden, they would give more money to charity.

The progressive argument also fails to make a distinction between the Roman Empire and American democracy. Where Jews and Christians in Jesus’ day had no say in how Rome used their taxes or at what rate they were taxed, believers today have the right and duty to see that their taxes are not wasted.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-bible-and-taxes

Churches offer help to tornado victims

Shattered house in Bartow County, Ga.

When super cell thunderstorms and tornadoes barreled across the south on April 27, it left a swath of damage across Alabama and Georgia that will take years to repair.  Local churches have stepped in to minister to the people affected by the storms and who lost homes, possessions and loved ones. 

A Disaster Relief team from Peachtree Community Church in Villa Rica traveled to Adairsville, Ga. on May 9 to assist local residents.  The group first traveled to NorthPointe Church in Adairsville which has become a central location for relief efforts in the area.  The church is home to a local food bank and has built upon that ministry to bring in more food to displaced residents.  The church is also accepting clothing donations and has essentially set up on clothing store in the church gym that is free to those in need.  Other household items and toys for children are also available.

NorthPointe had received shipments of food from the Atlanta Community Food Bank and the Peachtree volunteers were tasked with visiting the hardest hit areas of Bartow County to find residents in need of food boxes and hygiene kits.  Many of the homes visited by the Peachtree team were along Cedar Creek Road, Crowe Springs Road, and Spring Place Road in Bartow County near Cartersville. 

Residents reported that the storm that hit around 9:30 p.m. on April 27 caused most of the damage.  Lasting only a few minutes, estimates ranged from five seconds to a minute and a half, the tornado snapped trees and wrecked buildings, but did not take any lives in Bartow County.  One survivor said, “They tell you a tornado sounds like a freight train.  What they don’t tell is that it sounds like a freight train about two feet above your head.”  Another described it as sounding like a “band of demons.”

As is characteristic of tornadoes, there were areas of severe damage interspersed between areas of almost total normalcy.  Some areas were so devastated that they looked like a set of Gone with the Wind after the Union Army had slashed and burned its way through the plantations of antebellum Georgia, complete with flattened houses and shattered trees.  The cyclonic winds were evident in the way that trees were often toppled in the same direction like a gigantic crop circle.  In some cases, trees remained standing but leaned in what had been the downwind direction.  Other trees stood upright but were devoid of limbs.

The houses in the area had varying degrees of damage.  Many sported blue tarps where shingles were missing or trees had been dropped through the roof.  Others were missing porches.  One disabled veteran pointed out where his detached garage had been picked up and dropped against the side of his house.

All too often the houses were damaged beyond repair.  Some had already been bulldozed or demolished by heavy equipment.  In others, little remained standing to demolish.  In one home, a pastor’s family had survived the night in an interior room, one of the few rooms left standing in the house.  The roof had been picked up and deposited in the in-ground swimming pool.  A family friend explained that the family had held on to each other even as their shoes were pulled from their feet by the winds. 

A Peachtree team member pointed out where a friend lived on the next street.  The friend’s child had hid in the bath tub clutching a Bible.  The mother and father joined her there.  A tree fell across the tub just missing them, followed by the roof collapsing on top of them.  All survived but there is only bulldozed red Georgia clay where their house once stood.

The author loading his truck with food boxes. (Candace Raines)

A few miles away, a family is living in a camper trailer in front of their house.  They point to the one-story house and say that until the night of the storms it was a two-story house.  The nine members of the family, including two small children, hid in an interior closet on the first floor of the turn-of-the-century farmhouse as the storms approached.  When they came out, they looked up a staircase next to the closet and realized that the top of their house was gone, along with the front porch.  The patriarch of the family joked that he was going to move lounge chairs to the second floor and use it as a sun deck. 

Just down the street stands a stone chimney on a hill.  It is all that remains of the house that stood there until two weeks ago.  The family, which now lives in an RV, rode out the storm in the basement under the chimney while the house collapsed above them.  They were trapped in the basement a short time until rescuers arrived.

Another man describes how lucky he was that “we only lost half of our house.”  His son, an EMT/firefighter who lived several miles away was so worried about his parents that, when the roads were blocked two miles from the house, ran through the woods in the middle of the night as a second line of storms hit to check on them.  The father, speaking with obvious pride, says that his son pulled four people from the wreckage of their homes that night. 

No lives were lost in Bartow County that night.  A common thread among the survivors is thankfulness.  They are grateful for their lives and for the assistance that their fellow Georgians have offered.  One man tells us that since a media event staged by national groups like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and United Way in the early days after the disaster, those groups have been noticeably absent.  He says that most of the assistance has come from local churches and ministries. 

This may be a result of the fact that the United Way and Salvation Army are set up with the Federal Emergency Management Agency at the Clarence Brown Conference Center in Cartersville.  The Salvation Army is providing meals and clothing and the United Way is providing funds in cooperation with FEMA.  Many residents are probably not aware of this assistance since several told us that, although they have electricity, they have not had cable or phone service since the storms.  People in need of assistance from this shelter should call the conference center at 770-606-5763 or visit in person at the intersection of I-75 and Ga. Hwy. 20 West.  This is at exit 290 on I-75.  The street address is 5450 State Route 20 in Cartersville.  Those in need can also contact the Bartow County chapter of United Way at 770-386-1677.

Likewise the Red Cross has also been involved in the area.  The Northwest Georgia Red Cross says that they have been very involved in the past weeks, but are now scaling back their efforts since many of their clients say their needs have been met.  The Red Cross did not set up a shelter in this case, but did provide over 3,000 meals through mobile feeding, health services, and is now beginning to focus on case work in cooperation with FEMA. 

While in Bartow County, the Peachtree team members delivered boxes of food that were sent to NorthPointe church by the Atlanta Community Food Bank.  They also helped to clear debris when needed by homeowners and often just lent a sympathetic ear to the tornado victims.  The inspiration for the journey and work was the love of God and compassion for their fellow Georgians.

The following day, other members of Peachtree met at the church in Villa Rica to sort items that had been donated for the relief work.  A second trip is scheduled for Wednesday, May 11, to Spalding County to assist in the tornado-damaged areas around Griffin.  A multi-day trip to Tuscaloosa, Ala. is being planned for sometime around the end of May. 

If you would like to donate or assist in tornado relief efforts, you can contact Peachtree Community Church at 770-459-1717 or you can visit the Peachtree Disaster Relief page on Facebook.  In the Bartow County area, people needing or offering help can also contact NorthPointe Church at 770-387-8135. 

As FEMA and insurance companies step in, NorthPointe will be turning over much of the relief work to local charities.  One of these is Lighthouse Ministries of Cartersville.  They can be reached at 404-368-5850 or by email at ministryoflight2011@gmail.com.

Slide show of pictures from the relief trip to Bartow County:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/bartow-county-tornado-damage-may-9-2011-picture

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/churches-offer-help-to-tornado-victims#ixzz1LyZq3ZAn">