Arrogance, to which we are all subject, relates to moral failing, not to ideology.

Of course, since churches do relatively little for the poor, contributions to them would almost certainly have their value diminished.

It is debatable as to whether or not Reich makes any sense. But it is also clear that by modern standards, the caricture of a conservative technocrat would be one who mouths "Jesus" but effectively consider as mornoic the writings of the Old Testament prophets regarding justice and the poor.

In all the idiotic nonsense of quasi-blackmail groups such as the Institute on Religion and Democracy, the thing they will never lift up is a sense of what Christian community would look like -- only instead naming those they don't consider Christian -- naming those they wish to exlude. Thus, cariciature of moronic behavior might be Robert Reich to some and the demonic IRD (donations are tax deductible) to others.

People would like to believe that all moronic behavior can be assessed via logic, but greatly its identity is associated with moral values.

I'm really not seeing what makes Reich's argument count as "moronic". Tax revenues are rather desperately behind expenditures, and that does color the ways that we think about policy -- it certainly makes discussions of national health care a lot trickier -- and a not-crazy place to look to close a bit of that gap might be to tighten the rules on charitable giving. And it's not like there some apriori principle that of course charitable giving should be tax-deductible; it's a bit of social engineering with the tax code, like so many of our tax loopholes, and it's eminently revisable if we think that the cost of this particular bit of engineering outweigh the benefits.

Maybe at the end of the day it's not a policy we want to pursue, but "moronic" seems an entirely unwarranted label here.

(Btw, do the good folks at the Free Exchange use this to argue against plans for radical tax simplification -- which would have the same effect on the cost of charitable giving? I rather suspect not.)

I'll give you taking away exemption from the IRD if you give me taking it away from the NCC which, similarly, has not lifted up what it means to be a Christian community lately (ask the Antiochian Orthodox Church) and routinely lambastes others who are not "Christian" a la Bob Edgar's style (http://www.ncccusa.org/news/04irdstatement.html).

Seth,

I think a case can be made for doing away with all charitable deductions.

It is divisive enough when we have to accept (fund) expenditures for things we don't approve of, be it Iraq or Medicare. Deductions just take matters a further step.

I'm not a fan of Bob Edgar's style and I have no (intentional) involvement with the NCC.

Joel wrote:

churches do relatively little for the poor

Of course, the amount of caring for the poor varies widely from church to church, and the key word in your statement is "relatively." Churches do a lot more for the poor than museums and orchestras, but less than homeless shelters and soup kitchens (although many of the latter are either run directly by churches or supported by church attendees).

I think churches mostly gave up caring for the poor as the government stepped in over the course of the 20th century. I had hoped President Bush's faith-based initiatives would be a step towards reversing that trend. Community-based groups are far, far more effective and efficient in helping the poor than the federal government.

1.) 40 billion sounds like chump change to me, compared to the whole federal budget.

2.) I think the case can be made that the marginal benefit of each deductible charity dollar is at least an order of magnitude more effective than the marginal benefit of the government-coffer dollar.