Turnstile

by Patricia Colianne

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

He was talking about self-sacrifice, about helping those less fortunate and about working toward a collective good.

Now, 40 years later, with a national mentality that tends toward excess and personal gain, the United States has elected a president who has, in effect, said, "Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you."

President George W. Bush is proposing to repeal the estate tax - or what he calls the death tax.

Estate taxes are calculated based on a person's net worth at death. Individuals are not taxed at or below $675,000, and that amount will rise to $1 million by 2006. Amounts greater than $675,000, under current law, are taxed at rates from 37 percent and to 55 percent for estates worth more than $3 million.

Bush and others who support the plan to repeal the estate tax contend that it discourages savings and investment. That's a tough point to sell considering fewer than 48,000 Americans per year, which accounts for 2 percent of annual deaths, pay the tax, according to a Feb. 14 New York Times article. The article said 4,000 people who die leaving $5 million or more account for almost half the tax's annual revenue.

The estate tax clearly is not affecting the saving habits of many Americans, though one could imagine the tax does concern a significant number of people who contributed heavily to Bush's campaign.

But then again, maybe not all affluent individuals feel the same way.

More than 200 Americans affected by the estate tax placed a signed advertisement in the form of a petition on the OP-ED page of yesterday's Times. The petition urged Congress to maintain the estate tax - not repeal it.

These wealthy, socially conscious taxpayers, led by William H. Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft Corp. owner, argue that "repealing the estate tax would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet."

They're right, and their sentiments are heartening in a country in which a me-first mind-set reigns and the poor continuously are pushed to the curb.

Repealing the estate tax would not only assault those less fortunate by denying the government billions in revenue for Social Security, Medicaid, Head Start, Americorps, and other important social welfare programs. The petition also points out that public and private charities would suffer because wealthy donors typically make contributions to reduce the size of their estates. A repeal would destroy that incentive.

One of the strongest arguments against the estate tax is the one that invokes the plight of family farms and small businesses. Responsible Wealth, the group that sponsored the Times advertisement, is in favor of fixing the estate tax so it does not penalize farmers and small-business owners. The organization's Web site (http://responsiblewealth.org) points out that under current law, farm couples can exempt up to $2.6 million from estate taxes. Though farmers pay only about 1 percent of estate tax revenue, Congress should pursue a revision that would further raise the exemption for farmers and small businesses.

But, as Warren E. Buffet, who ranks fourth on the Forbes magazine list of the wealthiest Americans, told the Times, repealing the estate tax goes beyond fiscal logistics. The tax does not promote economic growth; instead it fosters a nation in which success is "based on heredity rather than merit." Buffet did not sign the petition because he did not feel its sentiments opposing an estate tax repeal were strong enough.

The estate tax is a small but crucial clause in the U.S. tax system that helps prevent the rise of a plutocracy, or rule by the rich. Without it, opportunities for upward mobility are limited even more, and the American dream is one step closer to extinction.

Wealthy opponents of an estate tax repeal have spoken. Their voices are a reassuring note in a chorus of self-serving political maneuvers.

Colianne, a Post copy editor and editorial writer, thinks she has found her idealistic side. If you would like to bolster her faith in humanity, send her an e-mail at pc341597.

Missions may face changes

by Jeremy Reynalds

(U-WIRE) ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (U. New Mexico) — The holy war has begun.

On a recent edition of the CBS program Face the Nation, Stephen Goldsmith, picked by President Bush to head the new office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, sounded the official call to arms.

He said, "If you are homeless and you don't want to be mixed up with a religious organization, you should have an option. Government should never force you through the front door of a religious organization. If, however, you have a choice of a faith-based organization and you, the individual, choose to go there and you have to pray before your lunch meal, you should be required to pray."

I unequivocally agree with Goldsmith's comments. Let me use the faith-based ministry for homeless and abused women and homeless families that I direct here in Albuquerque as an example. It is entirely privately funded. As such, we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to require attendance at religious services for those staying at the shelter, while recognizing that homeless people have that same right not to stay if they do not wish to attend church services.

However, that requirement to attend church services would have to end if my organization began accepting government funds. The changed lives that result from the mandatory religious education component of our "faith-based" program — so much admired by the government and its ostensible reason for wanting to cooperate with ministries such as ours — would have to cease being a requirement and instead have to become an option.

I already can hear some of you saying, "Well, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? You would still be able to preach the gospel and if the homeless don't want to hear, well, that's their prerogative, isn't it?"

True, in part, but I wonder if you still would use the same argument when dealing with, say, a secular rehabilitation program where therapy classes are both mandatory and expected. In fact, required attendance at such sessions is considered to be an integral part of the overall rehabilitation process. Individuals who elect not to attend such classes would not be granted a whole lot of sympathy.

Well, operators of "faith-based ministries" consider mandatory attendance at Bible classes to be just as important and much more effective than secular therapy sessions. So, if you just cannot stand the thought of some poor soul being required to attend a Bible study, why don't you think it in terms of the scenario I've described above?

If ministries are indeed really "faith-based," it is impossible for them not to share their faith or "proselytize," as the federal government and others so cutely put it.

For once I agree with the ever-acerbic Barry Lynn, executive director of the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Appearing on the same 60 Minutes program as Goldsmith, Lynn commented, "The big problem is, it is impossible, literally impossible, to separate your religious activities from your secular activities in these programs ... You can't just turn off religion when the spigot opens and there's a federal dollar coming out, and then go back to being religious when it's a private dollar. That is not how these faith-based organizations, in fact, work."

True, Mr. Lynn, very true. With that in mind, I have no doubt that, sooner or later, those organizations that decide to accept federal dollars will capitulate to the ever-present government restrictions and cease preaching the gospel in any meaningful way. Those that don't will end up getting embroiled in costly and painful lawsuits.

In part, I am convinced of that because of the amount of anger I see in the commentary and e-mail I read from some non-faith-based homeless advocacy groups. A number of homeless activists appear that they will stop at nothing to cause trouble for faith-based organizations.

One of the more articulate responses read, "So already (as a non-Christian) as things stand, I have fewer choices, they (Christians) have more. And if GW (President Bush) & Goldsmith get their way, that existing inequality will certainly increase, unless there are very tight controls on proselytizing on the services that receive government funds."

With the battle now in full swing, it looks like the "holy war" is about to get decidedly unholy.