Though we live in prosperous times, many Americans, especially children, still face the reality of poverty. President Bush's ideas for Charitable Choice attempt to give a helping hand to those who are on the front lines battling the epidemic of poverty. Charitable Choice, which first began as a part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill, is simply guarantees that private organizations helping the community cannot be excluded from federal funding simply because they have a religious affiliation. Federal dollars may be used by these organizations for community building programs but not to specifically preach a belief. Many of President Bush's critics during the campaign claimed that the Compassionate Conservatism was a feel-good catch phrase that had little corresponding legislation. The commitment to expanding Charitable Choice programs is a concrete testament to that philosophy in practice.
Republicans are not alone in their support for Charitable Choice. Last year, Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman formed the bipartisan Congressional Empowerment Caucus (CEC) to improve the relationship between the federal government and faith-based organizations. The CEC recognizes the important work that these organizations do in combating the ills of poverty. Private faith-based organizations are, in many cases, the only groups that have been able to make a dent in the problems of our nation's most beleaguered communities. Through their hard work and dedication, they are able to work with specific communities and address their specific needs that the cumbersome bureaucracy of federal programs has repeatedly failed to fulfill.
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which is led by John DiIulio, a Democrat, will look to work hand in hand with groups like the CEC to unleash the power of faith-based groups. President Bush has laid out logical steps for this office, working with five federal departments, to get rid of the government's hindrance of these faith-based groups. For example, 70 percent of all tax filers do not file itemized tax returns. Consequently, they cannot deduct charitable gifts. The Bush plan allows for these deductions. This is not a tax break for the rich; the rich already file itemized returns. In the same vein, Bush also supports letting older Americans withdraw money from their IRA's and donate it to charity without penalty. The government should not make it harder for average Americans to satisfy their natural desire to give. These simple steps allow working-class families to set aside a bit of their income and give it back to their own community.
Corporations have done remarkably well due to the robust economy. But it is harder for nonprofit groups whose chief concern is not the bottom line to thrive in the same manner. By raising the amount of charitable donations that corporations can deduct from 10 to 15 percent of their taxable income, they will have a better incentive to put money back into communities. The other major reform is to create a Compassion Capital Fund. This fund would create a program that matches privately donated dollars with federal dollars. This would encourage private giving and increase federal funding.
Opponents of Charitable Choice find any relationship between faith-based organizations and the government to be a violation of the separation of church and state. They fail to realize the very reason that the First Amendment was included was to protect the right to express religious views, not to hinder religion. Senator Lieberman says to these critics, "The First Amendment freedom they are standing up for was originally recognized as a blessing from God ... In fact, the Framers held these rights sacrosanct precisely because they were endowed to us by our Creator."
Is our society more afraid of using federal dollars to rehabilitate a drug addict through a faith-based program or of having him go untreated? Faith has been an integral part of our nation from its inception. The only role of the government in matters of religion is to ensure that the rights of both the believer and nonbeliever are equally protected.
Yes, there are certain problems that must be addressed before the program is pushed through. Senator Lieberman uses a Philadelphia Hare Krishna drug rehabilitation center as an example of potential obstacle. If Charitable Choice is expanded, a group like this would have a right to apply for funding, and many people have reservations about this. If we truly believe in new options, then we should embrace this. The government should not endorse a faith; it should endorse results. Though I personally feel comfortable funding a Christian drug rehabilitation center, other people may not. But the Constitution protects all these organizations equally. Therefore, we should not give or deny funding to an organization based on its methods of healing as long as they do not violate the laws of the United States or teach intolerance of nonbelievers. We must hold these groups accountable. The government should fund programs based on proven results, not on the methods they use, as long as they are within reason. The government must also provide a secular choice for those who prefer it. Charitable Choice is simply an additional tool to combat poverty; it is not a replacement.
Millions of Americans dedicate their lives to creating a better place for our children. The yeomen's work they do for little recognition and little pay is critical to our future as a nation. Often these men and women work through religious organizations; sometimes they do not. The government should not create barriers for the citizens to answer their calling, but rather it should lend a helping hand. They do great work in prisons, in halfway houses, in day care centers, and in after school programs. Through their compassionate work, these heroes help those who have fallen by the wayside get a second chance and ensure that children in the grips of poverty get a first chance.
