Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Jul. 02, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Obama continues to drift right

Now he embraces the president's 'faith-based' charities

In what would appear to be an attempt to woo religious voters generally expected to vote Republican, Democratic presidential nominee-apparent Sen. Barack Obama visited a church food bank in Zanesville, Ohio, on Tuesday and called for expanding President Bush's program that steers federal tax money to religious groups.

The Democrat said he also supports letting such groups hire and fire based on faith.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • Sen. Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. And he supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith only in the non-taxypayer-funded portions of their activities, a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press.

    For a Democrat to resist promising to spend more tax money would, of course, be like a day without sunshine. So saying social service spending -- now higher than at any time in history -- has been shortchanged under President Bush, Sen. Obama also proposed a $500 million per year summer-school program for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for that by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

    If we may be pardoned for not being idiots, that means this program to eliminate summer vacations and initiate year-round schooling for these already overstressed poor kids will cost $1.5 billion almost immediately, to be funded with higher taxes.

    On the subject of diverting more tax dollars to religious charities, the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, quite properly criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

    Of course religious organizations should -- must -- be free to consider faith when hiring, though most will voluntarily waive any "religious test" when deciding who deserves their charitable help. To rule that a pastor hiring an assistant for some charitable endeavor cannot hire from among his or her own flock, must consider or at least pretend to give equal consideration to someone directly opposed to his beliefs -- Baptists forced to hire Satanists or Voodoo practitioners, whatever -- is absurd.

    Furthermore, money is fungible. Claiming there can be "tax-funded" and "non-tax-funded" portions of such an enterprise is a mere accounting trick.

    The counter-argument is made that no one accepting tax money should be allowed to enforce a religious test for employment.

    That premise is equally valid. But there is no real conflict here; the problem is that neither Mr. Bush nor (now, if his current "shift to the right" is to be viewed as anything but cynical "positioning") Sen. Obama has grasped the obvious solution.

    Charity is best handled by private churches and other non-governmental organizations, whose independence of action should not be compromised by sending them tax money.

    The Constitution grants the government no role in charitable endeavors, where its intrusion only weakens the churches and other private institutions best suited to do such work, the same way a government library loaning out free DVDs will sap the strength and threaten the survival of the non-tax-subsidized video store next door.

    President Bush's program to steer tax dollars to religious organizations is misguided.

    Sen. Obama's move to embrace it may well be part of a cynical "shift to the right" designed to disguise the kind of enormous growth in tax-funded government which he and his Democratic legions really have in mind. If he's not just posing, though, he's wrong.



    Leave Your Comment 35 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    dennis1944 wrote on July 03, 2008 11:23 AM: Almost as bad as Clinton and Obama tearing at each others throats during the primaries, when they weren't telling lies to the public.


    They Have to Lie wrote on July 03, 2008 06:26 AM: Unfortunately, in this country, you have to lie to get elected.

    That's just the way it is.


    Brooke wrote on July 02, 2008 06:24 PM: Linked to this article through www.polijam.com Site contains great links to news items. Obama's drift to the right just proves that he is willing to do or say whatever will get him elected. Doesn't he have any principles? The only thing I need to consider when deciding who to vote for is his past voting record. And he certainly was not drifting to the right before.


    Cornell M. Clark, M.D. wrote on July 02, 2008 05:03 PM: I am Republican, and have never voted for a Democratic presidential nominee.

    I have always disagreed with the faith based inititiative of the Bush administration, for the reasons discussed in your editorial.

    Let me state this emphatically, that even though I am a George Bush Jr. supporter, I disagree with this legislation, or the continuation of it by either party.

    Cornell M. Clark, M.D.
    Agape Wilderness Medicine


    tim wrote on July 02, 2008 04:44 PM: i agree with jen,pick the lesser of two evils.


    Jen wrote on July 02, 2008 04:36 PM: They will both say anything to get elected. They are both first and foremost, politicians. It's funny to listen to the arguements though :):) I personally think you have to choose the issue that's most important to you, decide who has the best thoughts on the subject, and go with that candidate. I don't think there has ever been a president both parties were happy with anyway... Good luck all!! and happy fighting!!


    tim wrote on July 02, 2008 04:29 PM: oblama is kissing up to real church goers to make up for rev.wright.like trying to wash his hands of twenty yrs. of america bashing.please explain sucking up to bush supporters.or are you saying mainstream americans? if i recall that's a little over half the u.s.how can you possibly say that's not a liberal comment?


    Shannon wrote on July 02, 2008 03:29 PM: dennis1944:

    My point, dennis, is that McCain is willing to suck up to Bush and his supporters after what Bush/Rove did to him in 2000. The fact that McCain would do that shows that he will "kiss anybodys a** to get another vote." How can you possibly make this into a liberal/conservative thing?


    dennis1944 wrote on July 02, 2008 03:15 PM: Like I said, The end justifies the means. Particularly in the case of liberals. I would venture to guess that anyone who supported Bush would probably support McCain. To many the question is; "Who is the lesser of two evils?"


    Shannon wrote on July 02, 2008 03:05 PM: dennis1944:

    You mean like McCain is kissing Bush's tush in order to get his supporters?


    Read All Comments