July 24, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
While a conservative commentator has accused President Obama of declaring “war on philanthropy,” Peter Golio, a California fund-raising consultant, offers a robust defense of the president.
In a wide-ranging response to an essay by David Billet, associate editor of Commentary, Mr. Golio agrees with Mr. Billet that nonprofit efforts are crucial to America. But on his blog, L.A. Philanthropy Watch, he argues that Mr. Billet is off the mark with his attack on the Obama administration’s plan to reduce the charitable deduction for wealthy Americans.
“The language, tone, and focus of Billet’s essay reveal a greater concern with tax policy as it affects Americans in the top tax brackets, than for the strength and vibrancy of ‘American nonprofits’ or ‘American philanthropy,’” says Mr. Golio.
Mr. Golio writes that the president’s tax proposal, which is supposed to help pay for changes in the health-care system, has merit.
While the reduction is likely to reduce charitable giving — though to what degree is open for debate — he writes, it “is a reasonable and measured initiative to fund health-care reform –- regardless of opponents’ objections that it indicates hostility to philanthropy or the nonprofit sector.”
As part of the debate, two professors at the University of California at Davis have published a study that says tax incentives had little or no effect on donations to charities in the fields of health, human services, or public and social benefit. But they did influence giving to organizations devoted to animals, arts and culture, education, and the environment, as well as to private foundations.
What do you think? Do you support Mr. Billet or Mr. Golio? What would you add to their arguments?
