It has been reported that a record 46.2 million people now live in poverty, gas prices hit an all-time annual average $3.60 a gallon, food stamp enrollment is at 47.7 million (with an annual cost of over $74 billion) for the first time in U.S. history, and a record 88.9 million Americans are no longer in the labor force.
It is no wonder that charities, already buckling under the economic weight of the last four years, face tough sledding ahead as they struggle to secure financial gifts from donors with dwindling resources.
With so many Americans hurting financially, one might think the Obama administration would be inclined to support, not thwart, the work charities perform.
That has not been the case. Under Barack Obama, IRS audits for tax-exempt organizations have jumped 79% over what they were under President George W. Bush!
The IRS's motivation isn't money. After all, audits of tax-exempt groups don't yield big revenues, if any.
The report at the link below states that for the president's opponent's, the increase in charity audit rates is further evidence of a politically-driven White House that leverages power to achieve its ends.
Last month, for example, the Obama administration raised ire and eyebrows when it assembled a group of charitable officials at the White House and pressured them to support President Obama's proposed tax hikes. That's rignt, support the tax hikes or else.
The report further says that whatever the White House's motivation for zeroing in on tax-exempt organizations, boosting IRS audit rates of charities by 79% at a time when they are already struggling to secure scarce resources to serve their missions seems, at minimum, a gross misallocation of time, energy, and taxpayer dollars. At worst, it is further evidence of a White House determined to flex its political muscle to keep organizations dependent and fearful.
It’s as if the Obama administration views charities as competition to increased government handouts and wanting citizens to be more dependant on government than charitable organizations.
Comments