Henke gets it almost right [1], but ignores the obvious:
The New York Times Editorial Board [2]…
Philanthropic contributions in the United States – about $300 billion in 2006 – probably exceed those of any other country.
By contrast, America’s tax take is nearly the lowest in the industrial world.
Let me save you the trouble. They don’t appear to see a connection between lower tax rates and higher private giving. Instead, the New York Times editorial argues that the government should assert State control over philanthropy, even if that means reducing the level of charitable giving.
The most obvious example of what works to increase charity giving is Ronald Reagan.Apparently, they didn’t learn anything from Reagan, despite their denials. If they did they’d have noted charity giving going up in massive amounts under Reagan. Might that be due to lower taxation, by way of ‘supply side”?
If so, the liberals will never admit it. Nor, alas will a lot of others.
The basics apply here…the government taking my money and spending it on someone else… even someone who arguably needs it, does not constitute ‘Charity’. Then again, the left isn’t about charity, and actually helping people. They’re about government power. If there’s anything that exposes this clearly, it’s this business.
Why Henke would miss the obvious reference, I’m not sure, but if forced to guess, it may have something to do with his oft stated yet inexplicable lack of respect for supply side thinking…
As for the reason the Times is leaning left here, explain to me where they have not, of late, done so.