Posted on 06/14/2004 7:56:10 AM PDT by Liz
It seems axiomatic in Congress that whenever a bill comes along that both parties agree must be passed, it becomes a magnet for every piece of pork, every political cause, every lobbyist giveaway.
The latest example is an urgently needed measure to end a $5 billion annual subsidy for American exporters that has put the nation in violation of international trade practices. Over the last few months, even as Europe began imposing billions in retaliatory tariffs on American industries, lawmakers have contrived to turn this relatively simple vehicle into a $100 billion gravy train.
More than 100 amendments throw everyone from Nascar entrepreneurs to dog-track owners and tobacco growers a piece of the action, even though they have nothing to do with the trade issue at hand. And now, just as House action is approaching, Republican leaders have added an outrageous sop for political-minded church leaders.
Under the proposal, churches that venture too zealously into politics would be allowed three "unintentional violations" of the law governing nonprofit organizations without risking immediate loss of their tax-exempt status. Wouldn't we all love such tax-code mercies?
This transparent bridge across the church-state divide comes as hustings-tempted clergy are already being openly enlisted by White House campaigners as "friendly congregations" for the November elections. The House proposal mocks honest clergy as much as the tax code.
Law with all this pork should be vetoed. Even if expected not to hold be upheld.
If Bush has any integrity with respect to the budget and Constitution, he will veto the bill and return it to its sponsors with the advice that it will continue to be vetoed until it deals with only one issue and that is the removal of the illegal subsidy (illegal by world trade regs as well as the U. S. Constitution...the latter being a much shredded and insignificant document...)
Bush if you do not veto this bill,add a big tax cut in it.
It was passed and signed in the 90's.
Sorry, the Supremes have ruled on this, it's not constitutional according to them.
I agree with you but a bunch of Senators, like KKK Bird sued and won.
Under the proposal, churches that venture too zealously into politics would be allowed three "unintentional violations" of the law governing nonprofit organizations without risking immediate loss of their tax-exempt status.
Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem has somewhere in the neighborhood of 11,000 “unitentional violations” in this area.
I’m still waiting for the NY Times to call for the immediate loss of their tax-exempt status.
Funny, I've never seen the Times take this position when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton make campaign speeches in church.
Fredoom of speech? only if you pay for it.
Which is why this is, under the current conditions, the right thing to do. Churches that dont toe the DNC line should not be made to sit on the sidelines.
If Bush passes it, it will become HIS...
Yeah, that is odd (snicker).
I suggest you not hold your breath............
While I agree that the three strikes is inappropriate in a bill to end subsidies, the Slimes should have been just as outraged at all the pork, but only reacted and gave print space when it favored one of the only thing standing in the way of their agenda, religion.
There isn't anything "honest" about the church maintaining silence regarding politicians who support the killing of the unborn.
Silence signifies approval. Clergy who fail to castigate the killing of unborn babies are just as guilty as elected individuals who support (and promote) this heinous practice.
Naw, the Slime never get it right, because they demand (and you are allowing them) to be able to pick and choose. If one single standard is consistently applied the Slime would always support that which is pro-communist and anti-American, it's in their blood.
I think the "silence" in this case extends only to the naming of specific politicians and the denial of the sacraments to those particular people.
The silence has been coerced on the church and in no way represents approval. But it has caused the Church to reduce emphasis, I think. Among the reasons that I am not a church-goer, is that the church too often teaches what is right but fails to hold those who do wrong accountable.
I am just reading Dumas' Celebrated Crimes, which among others details some of the crimes of the Church, various Popes, and the French Monarchy in the name of Catholicism. Rather than live in their times, I would prefer the "silence" of today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.