Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say...I'm beginning to wonder.Why would it raise our taxes in other areas if the need for government-funded entitlement programs was reduced? Politicians are not exactly fond of raising taxes just for kicks...
We are most certainly talking past each other, my friend. I'm not talking about turning Homeland Security into some kind of 501C3 that can accept charitable contributions, I'm talking about The Church of the Radical Day Islams setting up a 501C3 that allowed charitable funding into it....so that, with your plan, we'd be funding the terrorists who are making war against us.I agree; I think that, if anything, it would need to be limited to traditional social programs, rather than public services like Homeland Security. I would agree that those would still need to be paid for with taxes.
You said: "I think it's far more likely that congressmen will vote to fund charities that benefit them personally or politically, rather than people choosing of their own volition to donate to such organizations." What would Congressmen be voting for with your plan?I really have no idea what you're talking about, since the idea I suggested was about individuals funding the charities THEY wanted to fund.
Kandahar, this is a subject I can't really raise much passion about since I think it's so far-fetched. Respectfully, I think I'm going to step away from it as I think I've said about all I've got on the subject.