Throughout this Christmas season this year, I grew nostalgic for Christmases past and the "magic" I felt as a youngster. I had eagerly awaited Santa Claus year after year, even after my classmates grew cynical about a magical old elf who gave gifts to good boys and girls.
Why was I so gullible or so trusting? As a science geek (my preferred career was "scientist"), I quickly abandoned the idea of flying reindeer. But I just couldn't give up on a mysterious mythical figure who provided abundant toys and candies to children everywhere (my everywhere was limited to people and places I knew — American white protestant families). My discovery of time zones helped keep me in the Santa camp a little longer, reasoning that Santa could make it to all houses in one night because time zones gave him more time.
Long after my rational, science-centered brain questioned the whole "Jolly Old Elf" myth, my disbelief in Santa could not overcome another, stronger disbelief — the thought that my parents could provide the presents and goodies that awaited us every Christmas morning. I knew nothing about family income, but I knew my parents struggled to pay the bills and keep five children fed and clothed. A large garden provided food year-around, and kitchen shelves were lined with jars of canned vegetable soup, green beans, tomatoes and other treasured sustenance from that garden. Our clothing included hand-me-downs and dresses sewn by our mother for my two sisters. "We can't afford it" was often the reply when the children asked for treats or trips or other off-budget luxuries. So I was certain, beyond any smidgen of doubt, that my parents could not come up with the hundreds of dollars in gifts and candy piled every Christmas morning in the living room.
It was easier for me to believe in a mythical elf who came into our living room once a year (coming down the chimney was an early victim of my doubts). I tried to figure it out with concepts I found more plausible than either Santa Claus or my parents having enough money to fill the house with Christmas joy: (1) Some generous soul in the community would load up a tractor-trailer and drop off the requested toys at every house; or (2) the toys and candy would miraculously appear in our living room, a gift from God.
Ultimately, I had to accept the unbelievable, that my parents could buy expensive gifts because they loved us enough to make us happy. When I took a sociology course in college, I discovered that our family had been living beneath the poverty line throughout my childhood. Thus, I found that made my parents' sacrifice and their love for their children were even greater than I had realized.
Saturday, December 30, 2017
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
Charities will suffer in 2018
I've written my usual tax-deductible checks to nonprofits in the past couple of weeks, knowing that 2017 may be the last year that nonprofit charities will see a year-end windfall from taxpayers hoping to do some good while reducing their own tax liability.
The recently passed Republican tax bill raises the standard deduction to a level ($12,200 for single filers and $24,400 for joint filers) that will be higher than the vast majority of taxpayer/donors will have in itemized deductions. (A family with an annual income of $100,000 would need charitable deductions of nearly 25 percent of gross incomes to make it worthwhile to deduct.) Thus, few taxpayers will submit itemized deductions.
Advocates of the tax bill think that's a good thing: Taxes will be simpler for most people. Identifying and documenting every charitable donation we make over a year is challenging. The church provides us an itemized list, but other donations to favorite charities or memorial gifts to churches and other charities can be harder to track down. So, yes, tax preparation will be somewhat simpler for 2018.
For charities, however, the simplification of the tax bill will bring a great cost. Without the incentive of a tax deduction, many small donors (giving $25 or $100 or even $1,000 to a charity) will decide not to bother. For nonprofits (a field that employed me the past eight years), small donations are lifeblood. Without those small donations, nonprofit budgets will be decimated. All the good things that nonprofits do in the community will be jeopardized. Nonprofits struggle as it is to attract enough revenue in donations, grants or other resources just to continue their work. Take away tax deductible charitable donations, and many nonprofits will shrink or close up shop.
And that would be a death blow to the moral fiber of communities as poverty, homelessness and hunger swamp society without the dike of charitable donations.
The recently passed Republican tax bill raises the standard deduction to a level ($12,200 for single filers and $24,400 for joint filers) that will be higher than the vast majority of taxpayer/donors will have in itemized deductions. (A family with an annual income of $100,000 would need charitable deductions of nearly 25 percent of gross incomes to make it worthwhile to deduct.) Thus, few taxpayers will submit itemized deductions.
Advocates of the tax bill think that's a good thing: Taxes will be simpler for most people. Identifying and documenting every charitable donation we make over a year is challenging. The church provides us an itemized list, but other donations to favorite charities or memorial gifts to churches and other charities can be harder to track down. So, yes, tax preparation will be somewhat simpler for 2018.
For charities, however, the simplification of the tax bill will bring a great cost. Without the incentive of a tax deduction, many small donors (giving $25 or $100 or even $1,000 to a charity) will decide not to bother. For nonprofits (a field that employed me the past eight years), small donations are lifeblood. Without those small donations, nonprofit budgets will be decimated. All the good things that nonprofits do in the community will be jeopardized. Nonprofits struggle as it is to attract enough revenue in donations, grants or other resources just to continue their work. Take away tax deductible charitable donations, and many nonprofits will shrink or close up shop.
And that would be a death blow to the moral fiber of communities as poverty, homelessness and hunger swamp society without the dike of charitable donations.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
For 26 years, a family gathers together
Our family has just returned from an annual trip to Charleston, S.C., trips we have been making for 26 years. The tradition began when my brother moved to Charleston and invited us — our parents and siblings and their families — to celebrate Christmas and the completion of repairs on his historic house, which had been clobbered by Hurricane Hugo.
The first trip was a long haul down Interstate 95, a grand dinner at our brother's renovated house, and a long return trip back home. All of us were enchanted by Charleston, though many of its most magnificent homes, churches and vistas were screened by scaffolding as the years-long process of recovery from Hugo went forward. Despite the long road trips, all of us were eager to continue the new tradition, which evolved into an annual late-December weekend (not just one day) in charming Charleston with dinner at a private club.
The cast has changed. Our own children, who were 12, 15 and 19 that first time, now have children of their own, ages 8 to 12. Similarly, my siblings' children have grown up, married, divorced, and produced children of their own. The annual dinner now requires seating for 25 or more.
Charleston has its charms, but the primary attraction of this December weekend lies in the fact that we see some of these nieces and nephews and their children only in Charleston. During a Friday night conversation with a half dozen of our entourage, I had to remind myself that I was talking to my eldest niece and not to her mother, who died six years ago. The voice, expressions and laugh were all the same, and I felt both a longing to see my sister-in-law again and the comfort that her personality and spirit remains.
Our parents died in 2006 after a decade of decline. My sister-in-law died in 2011, and her husband died unexpectedly a year later. Then my younger sister died shortly after a cancer diagnosis in 2013. With each death, the Charleston weekend had been more difficult but also more important. We know how ephemeral our lives are and how uncertain next year might be.
Soon after returning from Charleston on Sunday, my wife happened across a digital photo album of pictures taken during our 2010 Charleston weekend. Seeing my brother, his wife and my sister enjoying the family again made me gasp. The photos of our grandchildren as toddlers and preschoolers evoked almost as much emotion. But I was so glad to see the pictures of so many smiling faces and conversations.
This is our family, and neither death nor distance can change that.
The first trip was a long haul down Interstate 95, a grand dinner at our brother's renovated house, and a long return trip back home. All of us were enchanted by Charleston, though many of its most magnificent homes, churches and vistas were screened by scaffolding as the years-long process of recovery from Hugo went forward. Despite the long road trips, all of us were eager to continue the new tradition, which evolved into an annual late-December weekend (not just one day) in charming Charleston with dinner at a private club.
The cast has changed. Our own children, who were 12, 15 and 19 that first time, now have children of their own, ages 8 to 12. Similarly, my siblings' children have grown up, married, divorced, and produced children of their own. The annual dinner now requires seating for 25 or more.
Charleston has its charms, but the primary attraction of this December weekend lies in the fact that we see some of these nieces and nephews and their children only in Charleston. During a Friday night conversation with a half dozen of our entourage, I had to remind myself that I was talking to my eldest niece and not to her mother, who died six years ago. The voice, expressions and laugh were all the same, and I felt both a longing to see my sister-in-law again and the comfort that her personality and spirit remains.
Our parents died in 2006 after a decade of decline. My sister-in-law died in 2011, and her husband died unexpectedly a year later. Then my younger sister died shortly after a cancer diagnosis in 2013. With each death, the Charleston weekend had been more difficult but also more important. We know how ephemeral our lives are and how uncertain next year might be.
Soon after returning from Charleston on Sunday, my wife happened across a digital photo album of pictures taken during our 2010 Charleston weekend. Seeing my brother, his wife and my sister enjoying the family again made me gasp. The photos of our grandchildren as toddlers and preschoolers evoked almost as much emotion. But I was so glad to see the pictures of so many smiling faces and conversations.
This is our family, and neither death nor distance can change that.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Sanctuary Cities follow familiar strategy
Does the "Sanctuary Cities" strategy sound familiar? It should. It's little different from the "nullification and obstruction" strategies adopted by recalcitrant Southern states to oppose the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision declaring racial segregation in education unconstitutional.
Both strategies were hatched to subvert federal laws. Fifty years ago, the despised law required school assignments to be made without regard to race. In the 21st century, the despised law allows federal agents to deport persons who are in this country illegally. Sanctuary cities, such as San Francisco, have declared that their law enforcement and criminal justice officials will not cooperate with federal authorities. They will not turn over illegal aliens to federal authorities or detain them until federal agents can take custody.
Cities are essentially telling the federal government "you don't have authority over us." But that claim of state sovereignty was fought over and settled 150 years ago. Federal law takes precedent over state laws.
Fifty years ago, some Southern states sought to avoid integrating their schools by withdrawing state funds from public schools and providing those funds to private, racially segregated schools. That tactic and other efforts to avoid integrating schools (such as "freedom of choice," allowing students or their parents to choose which school they would attend) succeeded for a while but ultimately were defeated by federal courts.
When some local governments sought to fight illegal immigration by establishing their own arrest and removal policies, immigrant advocates argued that border security and immigration enforcement are federal issues. Now, they argue that cities should be able to stop the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws within cities' jurisdictions.
The Sanctuary Cities movement may be headed for a showdown, but it need not be as violent as the showdown over school desegregation. The federal government can withhold federal funds from uncooperative cities and may even be able to arrest city officials if they violate federal law. Make no mistake: federal law takes precedent over local and state laws.
Both strategies were hatched to subvert federal laws. Fifty years ago, the despised law required school assignments to be made without regard to race. In the 21st century, the despised law allows federal agents to deport persons who are in this country illegally. Sanctuary cities, such as San Francisco, have declared that their law enforcement and criminal justice officials will not cooperate with federal authorities. They will not turn over illegal aliens to federal authorities or detain them until federal agents can take custody.
Cities are essentially telling the federal government "you don't have authority over us." But that claim of state sovereignty was fought over and settled 150 years ago. Federal law takes precedent over state laws.
Fifty years ago, some Southern states sought to avoid integrating their schools by withdrawing state funds from public schools and providing those funds to private, racially segregated schools. That tactic and other efforts to avoid integrating schools (such as "freedom of choice," allowing students or their parents to choose which school they would attend) succeeded for a while but ultimately were defeated by federal courts.
When some local governments sought to fight illegal immigration by establishing their own arrest and removal policies, immigrant advocates argued that border security and immigration enforcement are federal issues. Now, they argue that cities should be able to stop the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws within cities' jurisdictions.
The Sanctuary Cities movement may be headed for a showdown, but it need not be as violent as the showdown over school desegregation. The federal government can withhold federal funds from uncooperative cities and may even be able to arrest city officials if they violate federal law. Make no mistake: federal law takes precedent over local and state laws.
Saturday, December 2, 2017
Impeaching Trump will not be easy
With Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI in the special prosecutor's probe of Russian influence in the 2016 election and with new anger aimed at men who fondle and sexually harass women, one has to wonder whether President Trump's administration might truly be endangered.
Articles of impeachment have reportedly been discussed in the House of Representatives. Potential charges include obstruction of justice by firing FBI Director Comey in order to slow down or stop the Russia probe, false statements presented to the American public, either in interviews or tweets; racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other legislation; and bringing disrepute upon the presidency by multiple alleged incidents of sexual harassment of women.
Congress is far from an impeachment indictment, which is a rare event in the history of the Republic, and should be. However, the special prosecutor is gathering charges and testimony that could readily present an impeachment that easily could match the seriousness of the charges against Richard Nixon and exceed the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton. Impeachment still seems unlikely, but it is not impossible, perhaps not even improbable.
The House of Representatives, which must vote to impeach the president, is standing solidly with the president on a string of controversial bills, regardless of public opinion. Passing an impeachment bill in the overwhelmingly Republican House has little chance as the Trump administration nears its first birthday. However, more indictments of top Trump aides and more details of cooperation with Russians in disrupting the 2016 election in Trump's favor could force all but the truest believers to vote to impeach.
The odds in a Senate trial, where Republicans have a 52-48 majority, might seem more hazardous for Trump, but the Senate is properly reluctant to remove an elected official from office, and a verdict of guilty to "high crimes and misdemeanors" seems unlikely.
Making the Senate's vote more difficult is the apparent willingness of die-hard Trump supporters of stick with their man regardless of what he says or does. This Trump base does not believe anything they read in the "mainstream media" — if they read anything at all from traditional news media — and blindly accept Trump's claim that any negative reporting about him is "fake news." They won't be moved, even if the House and Senate vote unanimously to impeach and remove the president from office, even if Vladimir Putin admits that he called the shots in Trump's election and helped him win.
This unyielding Trump base is believed to account for about 20 percent of voters, far from a majority but still a lot of angry people. It helps to remember that even after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency and was caught on tape trying to obstruct justice, millions of Americans continued to support him, bought his books and held him in highest esteem.
Impeaching Trump may be possible, but it is not likely without a landslide of new facts in the criminal probe. A better, more likely way of removing Trump will come in 2020.
Articles of impeachment have reportedly been discussed in the House of Representatives. Potential charges include obstruction of justice by firing FBI Director Comey in order to slow down or stop the Russia probe, false statements presented to the American public, either in interviews or tweets; racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other legislation; and bringing disrepute upon the presidency by multiple alleged incidents of sexual harassment of women.
Congress is far from an impeachment indictment, which is a rare event in the history of the Republic, and should be. However, the special prosecutor is gathering charges and testimony that could readily present an impeachment that easily could match the seriousness of the charges against Richard Nixon and exceed the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton. Impeachment still seems unlikely, but it is not impossible, perhaps not even improbable.
The House of Representatives, which must vote to impeach the president, is standing solidly with the president on a string of controversial bills, regardless of public opinion. Passing an impeachment bill in the overwhelmingly Republican House has little chance as the Trump administration nears its first birthday. However, more indictments of top Trump aides and more details of cooperation with Russians in disrupting the 2016 election in Trump's favor could force all but the truest believers to vote to impeach.
The odds in a Senate trial, where Republicans have a 52-48 majority, might seem more hazardous for Trump, but the Senate is properly reluctant to remove an elected official from office, and a verdict of guilty to "high crimes and misdemeanors" seems unlikely.
Making the Senate's vote more difficult is the apparent willingness of die-hard Trump supporters of stick with their man regardless of what he says or does. This Trump base does not believe anything they read in the "mainstream media" — if they read anything at all from traditional news media — and blindly accept Trump's claim that any negative reporting about him is "fake news." They won't be moved, even if the House and Senate vote unanimously to impeach and remove the president from office, even if Vladimir Putin admits that he called the shots in Trump's election and helped him win.
This unyielding Trump base is believed to account for about 20 percent of voters, far from a majority but still a lot of angry people. It helps to remember that even after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency and was caught on tape trying to obstruct justice, millions of Americans continued to support him, bought his books and held him in highest esteem.
Impeaching Trump may be possible, but it is not likely without a landslide of new facts in the criminal probe. A better, more likely way of removing Trump will come in 2020.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
