The Charitable Deduction

Over the past year, Obama's charitable deduction proposal has been a topic of contention for those in the non-profit sector. The charitable deduction was proposed as a means to alleviate the current deficit and provide funding for programs which would improve the current unemployment rate. Currently, the top income bracket is given a tax break of 35% on charitable donations. The charitable deduction would take this 35% down to 28%, a 7% decrease. This video, posted by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, clearly and simply explains what this could mean for donors, and how it could potentially effect their willingness to give. However, I would like to note that there is a visible bias in the information presented and this does not necessarily reflect my personal point of view.

The question for most of us is, whether or not this 7% cut will effect charitable giving. In an article by NPR from February 2011, they outline two ways of looking at the current charitable giving tax break: "To some, it's a subsidy for giving. To others, it's a much-needed incentive for people to give to nonprofits that provide services that the government either can't or won't." Depending on your side of the coin, you may see the charitable deduction proposal as having a more or less detrimental impact. Is the tax benefit a reward for generosity? Or rather a necessity to compensate for areas where the government is lacking service? If you support the latter, this 7% cut is comparable to school budget cuts or other areas where the government has cut funding in order to finance areas they deem more immediately necessary in this economic downturn.

However, before we all start to panic about this 7% cut, there is historical evidence to support the fact that a decrease in tax breaks for the wealthy will not significantly effect charitable giving. In the 1980's, President Reagan presented a similar deduction which resulted in minimal, if any, changes in charitable giving.

Ultimately, your decision on which side you take weighs on which issues you deem more immediately important. Should we work on our national fiscal situation now so we can solve the problems of the world tomorrow? Or are there greater, worldwide issues that cannot wait for us to climb out of our economical crisis? This moral quandary is one for you to decide.

For more specific information and detailed studies on tax breaks and their effect on charitable giving visit: http://philanthropy.com/article/Tax-PolicyGiving-A/129165/

National Public Radio: What Will the Future Hold?

Following the controversial resignation of CEO Vivian Schiller, National Public Radio has announced Gary E. Knell as their new President and CEO. Knell is the former CEO of the nonprofit organization behind the children's television program, Sesame Street. Upon first glance this may seem an unlikely choice, however, Knell seems to be a fitting choice for the direction of NPR.


Knell has been employed by Sesame Workshop since 1989, and has sat at the head of the organization as CEO since 2000. Under his leadership the organization has continued to thrive and grow, holding on to a top seat in the children's television industry, despite the major influx of new programming. He has proven to be a strong leader in developing funds, a skill that NPR will surely appreciate in the wake of recent political backlash against the news source.


Over the past year, NPR has faced controversial press surrounding the topic of their political bias. Some have accused the partially federal-funded news source of displaying a liberal bias, a position which is highly unsettling to the Republican Party. Recent events have served as evidence for this opinion and thus fueled Republican House representatives attempts to end federal-funding for the organization. Although this was unsuccessful, Republicans are attempting to create a plan which would wean NPR off federal funding by 2014.


For those unaware of the events which have led to this polarization against NPR, it is based on a few widely publicized incidents. The first incident was the termination of news analyst Juan Williams after he made a statement on Fox News Channel, where he served as a paid contributor, that the sight of travelers dressed in traditional Muslim garb on airplanes made him nervous. The second incident was the consequence of a sting by political activist James O'Keefe where a top fund raiser for NPR was caught on tape making negative comments about conservatives and the tea party as well as questioning the value of federal funding for NPR. This tape quickly became highly visible, although editing of the original footage contributed to the power and effect of what O'Keefe intended the public to see. As a consequence of these two events, Vivian Schiller was asked to resign by NPR's board. Although the board admittedly regretted the decision, they felt it was necessary to start a clean slate for the organization if there was to be hope for their continued growth and success.


This story is yet again another example of the polarization of the current political infrastructure and the need to find a middle ground. As NPR takes steps forward with their new CEO they must be careful to keep a watchful eye on their representation. However, the news source must also remain true to their original goals and mission: "to work in partnership with member stations to create a more informed public - one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures," and should not attempt to over-compensate in favor of conservatives in order to recover from these negative events. There will always be two sides to every story, and that is what makes news valuable and interesting.