When Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns last week, along with a 3rd party summary of his returns dating back to 1990, I thought that would finally put this entire faux-issue to rest. After all, Mitt’s taxes were not only completely within reason, they highlighted his charitable contributions were far in excess of the societal norm:
“The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.”
What was I thinking? My apologies for being so stupid…
No, no, the Left will never be satisfied with any answer, because they do not WISH to be satisfied. And in this case, they spun on a dime from their “Romney didn’t pay his taxes” mantra and immediately started bleating, “Well, Romney probably gave most of their money to the Mormon Church, and that doesn’t really count”.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a taste, from Michelle Malkin’s TWITCHY blog:
I wonder how much of Mitt Romney ‘s charity was to LDS?
I really wish news organizations would quit lumping Romney’s LDS tithe in with his “charity” contributions. Not quite the same thing IMO.
any story that talks about Romney’s charitable contributions as if the Mormon Church were a real charity is misleading its readers
So, since Romney is Mormon, his charity isn’t really charity? And since Mormons ‘must’ donate at least 10%, that doesn’t count, either.
That isn’t an argument; it’s a temper tantrum.
Quick question: Who among us donates to charities that DON”T espouse our values? You won’t see me donate to Planned Parenthood, and I doubt very much that you’ll see any of the Atheist Left donate to a Christian college or a retirement home for Catholic nuns. Also, most churches believe in tithing. The fact that Romney is actually making good on his faith’s stated beliefs should be viewed as a positive, not brushed off or ignored.
This line of so-called reasoning is devoid of any/all logic.
More intolerance from the “tolerant” Left, this time from the despicable rag, The Nation (…and no, I’m not linking them. I refuse. Feel free to look it up, if you so desire):
“As you can see, the majority of the funding goes to the Mormon church. The second-biggest recipient is the Mormon university that Romney attended. Other recipients include Romney’s former business school, and the library of the former president he has an incentive to curry favor with.
In all, it is clear that Romney’s donations are about taking care of his own and advancing his personal interests. Relative to his vast wealth, he has given relatively little to programs that assist those truly in need.”
Let me make sure I follow this: Mormons in general don’t count, because they already receive donations from …other Mormons. And Romney’s alma mater doesn’t count specifically because it’s Mormon.
In that case, what about PBS? NPR? Planned Parenthood? These groups actually receive federal government subsidies, and don’t appear to be in dire need of money. Yet, they regularly put out the call for contributions. I don’t hear anyone on the Left saying that donating to THEM doesn’t count as “charity”.
What about Media Matters for America (MMfA)? They are a non-profit, are explicitly Progressive and actively campaign for the Democrats and other political Liberals. Good luck in finding the Left on record anywhere discounting contributions to them as not being “real” charity.
This is religious intolerance, but ultimately it smacks of being desperate and petty. Those on the Left just had their rear-end handed to them, so they have no recourse but to stomp their collective feet & cry “unfair”.
Hidden in all of this is a bigger topic of Charity-vs.-Taxation as the superior way to support those in need. Friend of the blog, Dapper Dan, had a blog post the other day which quoted Alexis de Tocqueville from back in 1835:
“Individual alms-giving established valuable ties between the rich and the poor. The deed itself involves the giver in the fate of the one whose poverty he has undertaken to alleviate. The latter, supported by aid which he had no right to demand and which he may have had no hope of getting, feels inspired by gratitude. A moral tie is established between those two classes whose interests and passions so often conspire to separate them from each other, and although divided by circumstance they are willingly reconciled.
This is not the case with legal charity. The latter allows the alms to persist, but removes its morality. The law strips the man of wealth of a part of his surplus without consulting him and he sees the poor man only as a greedy stranger invited by the legislator to share his wealth. The poor man, on the other hand, feels no gratitude for a benefit which no one can refuse him and which could not satisfy him in any case.”
That should be the crucial aspect to remember in this whole discussion. When we, the rich and the poor alike, are allowed to keep our own money, we can direct it where we wish. When the government confiscates it, regardless of where it is directed, it is no longer charity: it’s theft. And theft doesn’t inspire gratitude in either the “giver” or the recipient.
Romney’s charity should be an inspiration to us all to do more for the institutions we love. Not that long ago, it would have been. But now, in Obama’s America, it is used as a point of derision and ridicule, at least among an annoyingly vocal minority.
Just another reason, in a very long list, that President Empty Chair has to go. Now.