The “Freedom of Religion” Disguise

It amazes me how some people who call themselves “Christian” can use certain methods to perform  un-Christian acts under the guise of “freedom of religion.”  Surely, you know what I’m talking about.  Yes, the Indiana law on Religious Freedom would be a good guess on your part.  Here is the perfect example of “Christians” using freedom of religion as a pretext for discriminating against a certain group of people who, they say, are not practicing Christianity, or more correctly, are sinning against God’s will.  There is so much wrong with this attitude and this action, that it is difficult to know where to start. 

So, let’s start where they presumably start:  with the assumption that homosexuality is a sin and is prohibited by the Bible.  

Behind this “belief” lie two incredible and unacceptable assumptions:

a.That homosexuality is a behavior that is learned as opposed to it being an ‘orientation’ that is built into the genes, making that orientation something that is intrinsic or imbedded perhaps at conception or during fetal development.  In other words, it is seen by ultra right-wing Christians as a choice made that can be changed or modified, as opposed to being in-born or part of the make-up of the person who is LBGT.  The original assumption of learned behavior misses the point that if God created all things, including mankind and womankind, then the ‘blame’ for homosexuality should be placed squarely upon Him! You can’t proclaim God the Creator of everything, and then disavow part of His creation.  And in stark contrast to those who condemn and malign others using scripture to back their stance, there is that quite startling scripture passage that proclaims that He will redeem his whole creation. 

John 11:37-39: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I shall not turn away; because I have come from heaven , not to do my own will, but to do the will of the one who sent me. Now the will of him who sent me is that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, and that I should raise it up on the last day.”

 

b. That the Bible is right about everything, because the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore must be taken literally, forming the basis of all our beliefs and actions.

Please excuse me if I cringe at this preposterous assumption.  In my estimation, it is the worst of the faults of Christianity to aver something that denies the very essence of what God wills which is a freedom of choice, decision-making and intellectual curiosity  that He himself created.  In other words the insinuation that the Bible is the Word of God implies that God has written every word, or dictated every word written or that one must take everything on faith and not on experience or fact.  Again, if God did not want us to be critical, to be rational, to be inquisitive, to use our intellects, then He would not have created us as He did.  In other words, by claiming infallibility for the Bible as the Word of God, certain Christians have denied the existence of free will,  and the necessity of faith being built upon revelation, not fiction. 

Faith is not the unquestioning acceptance of the improvable or the unfathomable.  That might be better known as acquiescence.  Faith is built, not on the lack of facts or the unbelievable but on God’s actions in nature, history, individual lives; in families, communities and nations.  In other words, faith is not a form of blindness to what we sense and know, it is rather the personal trust and acceptance of the fact that God is alive and active in the people and events that make up our personal history and the history of our world.  That is what the Bible is – a record written by imperfect writers of what God was doing in their lives and in their history.  It is not a story mainly of human activity but of God’s continuing creation and redemption of the human body, mind and spirit in the context of everyday lives.  This is God’s story told from a human perspective, and although imperfect in several respects, its writers try hard to disclose what they perceive God to be doing to lead us to a life built on a love that gives rather than takes; on forgiveness, charity, and mutual responsibility for each other.

And let us be clear:  if the Bible is to be taken literally as the Word of God, then in many books of the Bible, and in many of the stories told, God turns out to be petty  and mean .  But it gets worse – this God of the ancient Hebrew tribes is often portrayed as a vengeful God or as an unjust God or as an unfair God, or as a God who annihilates nations.  So does one take such  passages literally?  I hope not. 

 

What literalists too often do is to quote scripture without context or background, using the scripture passage as the unquestionable Word of God.  But often the context and the background are where the truth lies hidden and unrevealed.  Many of the biblical passages in the Old Testament that are often used as “proof” that homosexuality is contrary to the Word of God, fail to put those passages in the context of the Canaanite religion of Baal and his consort Ashtart.  This nature religion was often a temptation to the sons and daughters of Israel, and was, in both beliefs and practices, excoriated by the leaders of Israel. 

Here’s the background:  the historian(s) of Deuteronomy attempted to emphasize the central truth that Israel’s solidarity and vitality, actual existence, depended on a fierce and exclusive loyalty to Yahweh (remember the Law: ‘thou shalt have no other gods but me’).  They were trying to warn the followers of Yahweh that when they weakened their covenant with their God by following other gods they weakened the nation which then became like prey to their enemies in the region.  In that ancient period of the melting pot culture of the Fertile Crescent, Israel would have been lost had it not been for their loyalty to their own religion and destiny under Yahweh.

Not only did this religion of the powerful forces of fertility exist in the land of Canaan, but it was prevalent in other forms throughout the Fertile Crescent region, including Babylonia where the Tammuz cult dramatized the relations between the god Tammuz and the goddess Ishtar.  Likewise, in Egypt the Isis cult was based on the worship of the fertility god Osiris and the female counterpart Isis.  The cults not only shared similarities but probably even borrowed beliefs and practices from each other out of their common concern for the all-important relationship of man to nature.  Some of that commonality is portrayed in ancient tablets like those found on the coast of northern Syria at Ras Shamra in 1929 (near the ancient site of the Canaanite city of Ugarit). One of the “commonalities” included sexual rituals involving both female and male prostitutes.  In Baalism, sex was elevated to the realm of the divine.  The gods were seen as fertile and sexual in nature and were worshipped in sexual or erotic rites.  The purpose of their religious beliefs and practices was to preserve and enhance the fertility upon which men and women were dependent for their survival.

And here’s a key to understanding this religion:  they believed that the sexual union of the God Baal and his consort, Ashstart, actually influenced the fertility that was needed.  It was believed that human pairs in the temple could, by imitating the actions of Baal and Ashtart, actually bring forth the divine fertilizing power from such a union.  This kind of magic, known as sympathetic or initiative magic rests on an assumption that when men imitate the action of gods, there is a power released to bring that action about (much like the “rainmaker” who, by pouring water from a tree thereby induces the fertility gods to end a drought). 

“There must be no sacred prostitute among the daughters of Israel, and no sacred prostitute among the sons of Israel.”  This passage from verse 18 of chapter 23 of Deuteronomy is at the heart of the context and experience of Baalism and of the attempt of Israel’s religious leaders to keep the sons and daughters of Israel from straying into the ritual abominations (in their eyes) of that religion.  This is the context for the harsh words about homosexuality in the Old Testament.  A case can be made that it was not homosexuality per se that was being vilified, but rather, it was the religious rituals and beliefs involving sacred prostitutes that might draw vulnerable young people away from the religion and service of their Yahweh, the God of Israel.

 
It is important to note that the ancient Israelites, having come into the land of Canaan from Egypt as a nomadic people, were somewhat unfamiliar with the ways of agriculture.  It is not totally surprising then that they turned to the gods of the land for help.  In fact, it was a tendency for the two faiths to coalesce in popular worship.  We know from archeological finds that in the outlying rural regions of Israel, Israelite homes had figurines of the goddess of fertility, Ashtart.  Not only that, but Israeli parents began naming their children after Baal, one of the more famous of those being Gideon, who was actually named Jerub-baal.  Even Saul and David, kings of Israel, had children who were given names derived from Baal.  This fusion of religions at the level of the individuals and families of the Canaanites and Israelites went on from almost the moment that the tribes of Israel set foot in the land of Canaan.  And it was this syncretism that the leaders of the people, some known as “judges” others as prophets, and some as kings or priests, came to recognize the threat to the very existence of their religion and to their “nation.”  In fact, in II Kings, chapters 22 & 23, we find King Josiah destroying houses of male prostitutes that had been established within the Temple of Yahweh.  Time and again, the more discerning leaders of Israel echoed the words of Joshua at Shechem: “Choose this day whom you will serve.”  There could be no compromise.  In every sphere of Israel’s life,  a compromise or capitulation or accommodation with a nature religion meant the breaking of the covenant with Yahweh as His servants, His people, His nation.   While Baal religion taught men to control gods, Israel’s faith stressed serving God in gratitude for his benevolence and in response to the task which he lays upon his people.  In all things, his will is sovereign.” (much of the background cited came from Understanding the Old Testament by Anderson)
 
However, there is no getting around the fact that there are biblical quotes that do condemn the practice of homosexual relations.  They are not numerous, but they do exist:

Leviticus 18:22 -– “You must not lie with a man as with a woman.  This is a hateful thing.”
Leviticus 20:14 – “The man who lies with a man in the way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they must die; their blood shall be upon their own heads.” 

But, what is the context for this clearly articulated commandment or judgment?   One must not miss the contextual words of 18: 26-30:
    “But you must keep my laws and customs, you must not do any of these hateful things…For all these things were done by the people who inhabited this land before you, and the land became unclean.   Keep to my rules; do not observe the hateful practices that were observed before you came, then you will not be made unclean by them.  I am Yahweh your God.”
Even here, where homosexuality is roundly condemned, it is not in the context of the behaviors alone or the supposed inappropriateness of the nature of homosexuality, but in that same context of the conflict between the religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites and of the Israelites.  It is condemned because it was a part of Baalism’s religious practices, and thus could command the indulgence of Israelis, and bring about “uncleanness” or separation from their own religious practices, breaking the covenant with the one God, Yahweh.  It is, once again, the conflict between religious practices and beliefs that is at issue, not necessarily the behaviors or nature of homosexuality.  

In the New Testament it is Paul who condemns sodomites and sex perversion in I Tim. 1:10 (as does Jude in chapter 7.) 

I Tim 1:10 – “for those who are immoral with women or with boys and with men…”  The context being the goodness of the Law and the fact that laws are written not for the good but for the bad.  But the larger context is contained in the earlier introductory verses for Paul is here warning against some people who are false doctors of the Law, spreading interpretations that are not furthering the designs of the old religion or the tenets of the Christian faith.  Once again, we are confronted with conflict between religious beliefs and practices.  It is rarely, if ever, that the condemnation is of people for who they are, it is always condemnation of behaviors, of practices, of actions that belie the faith, the calling, the mission of the people of God, whether Yahwist  or Christian.  It is still in the New Testament a condemnation of behaviors associated with non-believers or idolaters who worship false gods and of interpreters who present false teaching.  That is a distinction that is not often made by those literalists who condemn homosexuals and homosexuality.

Finally, nowhere in the New Testament does a writer put same-sex denunciations into the mouth of Jesus.  New Testament writers are much more concerned with Jesus’ origin, his nature, his mission, and his life, death and resurrection.   The groups Jesus does condemn are mainly the religious leaders of his day, who were most likely the same type of literalists, who, in his time, believed in the letter of the Law of Moses, rather than proclaiming the love of God for his people and the forgiveness of God in their actions toward others.  The Sadducees and the Pharisees came in for some harsh words for their hypocrisy and their rigidity that often treated people as secondary to observances of the “jot and tittle” of the Law.  Just one quote put in Jesus’ mouth will illustrate the point.

Luke 11: 37-46:  “He had just finished speaking when a Pharisee invited him to dine at his home.  He went in and sat at the table.  The Pharisee saw this and was surprised that he had not first washed before the meal.  But the Lord said to him, ‘Oh, you Pharisees!  You clean the outside of cup and plate, while inside yourselves you are filled with extortion and wickedness.  Fools! Did not he who made the outside, make the inside too?  Instead, give alms from what you have and then everything will be clean for you.  But alas for you Pharisees!  You who pay the tithe of mint and rue and all sorts of garden herbs and overlook justice and the love of God!  These you should have practiced, without leaving the others undone.  Alas for you Pharisees who like taking the seats of honor in the synagogues and being greeted obsequiously in the market squares!  Alas for you, for you are like the unmarked tombs that men walk on without knowing it!  A lawyer (scribe) then spoke up.  ‘Master,’ he said. ‘when you speak like this, you insult us too.’  ‘Alas for you lawyers also, he replied, ‘because you load on men burdens that are unendurable, burdens that you yourselves do not move a finger to lift’.”

Thus, we return to the present evangelical and doctrinaire fervor disguised to condemn and ex-communicate, as it were, those who are homosexual in sexual orientation. The literal quotation of books of the Bible is akin to an exclusionary attitude and action which is out of step with the overwhelmingly predominant messages of those books. God acts in history to call all of His people to become participants in His love, grace and power, and to bring that loving and inclusive spirit to all peoples.  A rigid literal quotation or reading of the biblical books is neither appropriate nor edifying.  Christianity is not a religion of a Book; it is a religion of the Spirit of God active in history; in the lives of men and women (no matter what their sexual orientation might be!).  Many evangelical literalists find other interpretations of Christianity uncomfortable because, like the Pharisees and scribes, they like everything to be rigid, uniform, and unequivocal as they find written in the Word of God, the Bible.   But Christianity is not a set of rules or a system of belief wrapped up in a Book.  It is an unfinished story of Creation and Redemption, playing out in individual lives and in the history of nations and groups.  It is a story of the faithfulness of God to his creation and of His invitation to all to join Him in His mission: to bring all people into a harmony, fulfillment and peace that transcends what we now know.  His Realm (or Kingdom) is available right now where one lives and breathes, but no one can be excluded or condemned or ignored because that is not our business, no matter what scripture is quoted as false proof.  It is God’s realm that we enter and our task is to absorb His grace so that we can be dedicated devotees of His mission.  When churches, denominations, pastors, priests and ministers and individual Christians forget whose realm it is, whose Mission it is, whose Creation and Redemption it is, and whose Spirit reigns, that is when the religion itself and its adherents become contributors to the human problem in all its ramifications, and less a part of God’s solution and Mission. 

 
I end today’s posting with an apology to those who expected something more political, and can only plead that this exegesis of passages and exposition of religious philosophy is important in a time when Right-wing fanatics are using biblical verses to condemn people and attempting to use their political power to put their interpretation of Christianity into the political and social realm of our religion-neutral democracy.  The political consequences of their brand of religiosity is an attack upon not only our basic democratic principles, but an attack as well on the inclusionary mission of their Creator. We must be wary of both their political and religious philosophy because they are so intertwined that the one not only affects the other, it infects both with the poisonous substance of exclusion, discrimination and condemnation.  So, above all, let us realize that the Fight with the Right is on both the religious and the political fronts!  To allow their interpretation of either government or religion to prevail in our times is an invitation to disaster and destruction of democratic and religious/moral values of justice, equality, inclusion, interdependence and mutual responsibility for each other.

"TAX DAY - where does all that money go?"

It was TAX DAY when I wrote this. I kept hearing that appellation for some reason” “It’s TAX DAY!" Maybe people are paying attention! But are they really? I’m just not sure. So let’s take a closer look. 

1)  What is your income tax rate? Do you know? 

Our own federal rate is around 16% of our Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) or 20% of taxable income. Another 4% of our state Adjusted Gross Income (5.5% of taxable income) goes directly to the state of NY. But, it doesn’t stop there, for we do own a home, and our real estate taxes represent another 10% of our state AGI. Then, there is that pesky state tax on purchases – in our county it’s at 8.75%. So although we don’t add it up most every year, it probably eats up about another 1-2% of our state AGI, depending on amount purchased each year. 

So there you are: before we know it, almost 40% of our Adjusted Goss Income is on its way to the federal and state governments! This still leaves out certain hidden taxes like about 46% federal excise tax on gasoline, the 7.5% tax on domestic flights or the hidden taxes on car rentals and hotel rooms. Then, of course, the government forces some fairly hefty hidden “sin” taxes on things they consider unhealthy for us like liquor, beer and cigarettes. The taxes on these range from 40%-45% (although not a great problem for those who don’t smoke and don’t drink beer, and just buy wine every so often!).

Now I know that not everyone has the same situation as far as income or tax liability is concerned, but, have you ever looked to see what percent of your income is actually given over to government for them to decide how it should be used? Once that money goes in you have nothing more to say about it; it gets used according to appropriations made by legislators in budget bills, and approved by the President or Governor. Department Heads in various departments of government then get to spend it in conformance with those appropriations, although they have some leeway in how to expend it, such as timely use of travel funds, for instance. Unfortunately, that’s too simplified; it’s much more complicated.

2) What happens to all that tax money?

In terms of process, your tax money goes to the IRS (and to the state’s Tax Department). Then it goes to the U.S. (or state) Treasury (much more on the process is available at https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/federal-budget-process).

Presumably, the very first thing that happens is that checks get sent out for Social Security and tax refunds, but that’s not necessarily the way it works. Don’t forget, because of the Tax Code, there are some very strange things that happen to our tax money. Some of it never gets to where we thought it ought to go. But more on that in a moment.

The U.S. Treasury divides all spending into three groups: mandatory spending and discretionary spending and interest on debt. Interest on debt, which is much smaller than the other two categories, is the interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by the government for assets it owns. 
 Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget that goes through the annual appropriations process each year. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on discretionary programs. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
Mandatory spending is largely made up of earned-benefit or entitlement programs, and the spending for those programs is determined by eligibility rules rather than the appropriations process. Congress periodically reviews the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people, and therefore change the amount spent on the program. Mandatory spending makes up nearly two-thirds of the total federal budget. The largest mandatory program is Social Security, which comprises more than a third of mandatory spending and around 23 percent of the total federal budget. I’m sure you know that in a rare display of bi-partisanship, the Congress just approved, and the President signed, a bill to fix the rate for doctor services at a higher level under Medicare.

On BillMoyers.com, Moyers reminds us: 
 “Given how much taxpayers collectively contribute to our nation’s revenue stream, it goes without saying that we should be able to influence how the government spends that money. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. The federal government doesn’t make it easy to find out where your tax money goes.
That’s why the National Priorities Project (NPP) has done the work for you.”

Across the United States, the average taxpayer paid $11,715 in 2013 federal income taxes. The military received the largest share of that sum, $3,174, followed by health care, which received $2,662 for programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Meanwhile, only $238 went to education programs, and just $15.84 and $6.56 went to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and National Forest System, respectively.”

However, there is something more happening than just this tidy allocation of funds. There is something known as “extraction” taking place, and too many Americans are oblivious to that process. They know nothing about it. They don’t know for instance, that the movie industry gets special treatment in the Tax Code. They are unaware that GE Corporation and several others like Grumman are getting special breaks (unknown to most of us) in order to pay little in taxes. And then there are corporations like big oil companies who are fortunate enough to get billions of dollars of our tax money as subsidies (something like “welfare” or “entitlements” for the poor and the disabled). Congress indubitably complains loudly about the latter, but is quite mute about the former.

The government gives away our tax money out of the Treasury system to subsidize certain industries that are already making huge profits on the world market. Why? Because those rich corporations control the majority of members in the Congress to the extent that they can influence legislation and regulations and procedures so that Congress protects their extraction of our money from the U.S. Treasury before it is allocated toward other benefits and services in appropriation bills. Because it is done within the Tax System, a control mechanism - like budget hearings before Congress - does not exist. There is little or no oversight; it is just extracted from our tax money and given over to these mega-corporations. Let’s take a further look. 

3) Tax Breaks are Breaking the System (most of what follows is attributable to BillMoyers.com)

The federal tax code includes hundreds of tax breaks (called tax expenditures within the federal government) supposedly meant to encourage activities that lawmakers deem beneficial to society. From the perspective of the government, tax breaks are no different from any other kind of government spending. However, what it comes down to is the fact that very wealthy individuals and corporations pay less in taxes and receive subsidies as well. In both cases, the U.S. Treasury has less money, and a government activity – whether subsidies for home buying, repairs to an interstate highway, or tuition support to college students – receives less funding.
Ten of the largest tax breaks that together totaled more than $750 billion in tax savings in 2013 overwhelmingly benefited the top 1 percent of households, with 17 percent of the benefits going to those top earners. That’s in part because tax deductions — one important type of tax break — are far more likely to benefit the wealthy than middle- and low-income folks, because deductions only offer savings to taxpayers who itemize deductions. Only 16 percent of households making between $25,000 and $30,000 itemize tax deductions, while nearly 100 percent of those making over $200,000 itemize.

"In 2013, the cost of tax breaks was equal to the entire U.S. discretionary budget. However, the discretionary budget is subject to an annual appropriations process, where Congress debates the proposed spending. Tax breaks, on the other hand, remain on the books until lawmakers modify them. As a result, over a trillion dollars a year in lost revenue – more than 1.6 times the 2013 budget deficit – goes largely unnoticed. Take a look at this visual:

“Tax breaks deserve just as much oversight and public attention as the rest of the federal budget. Every dollar the government spends on a tax break is a dollar it can’t spend elsewhere – whether on early-childhood education, environmental protection, or infrastructure improvements. Yet few Americans are aware of how much spending occurs through the tax code or who benefits.

The cost of corporate tax breaks has trended upward in recent decades, totaling nearly $176 billion in fiscal 2013. In other words, the overall U.S. corporate tax bill was $176 billion lower than it would have been without the special deductions, credits, and exclusions written into our tax code. To put that in perspective, that’s about $1,328 per U.S. household,” meaning that you and I are picking up the cost of the loss of the revenue experienced from corporate tax breaks not going into discretionary programs that serve our citizens.  “The largest corporate tax break allows multinational corporations to defer paying taxes on offshore profits, costing the government $65 billion in 2013 alone. That comes out to $494 per household.
“Tax breaks for individual taxpayers exceeded $1 trillion in fiscal 2013, but all individuals do not benefit equally. Major tax breaks that totaled more than $770 billion in tax savings in 2013 are tilted heavily in favor of the top income earners. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 17 percent of the benefits from major tax breaks go to the top 1 percent of households. In fact, the Tax Policy Center estimated that 4,000 taxpayers in the top 1 percent owed no income tax at all in 2013, thanks in large part to tax breaks that helped them reduce their tax liability down to zero.”
Moyers presents the following Ten Tax Breaks as examples of what happened to your tax dollars in 2013: Total $770 Billion (details available at: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxbreaks/2014/visualization/ )

CONCLUSION: Tax day is an opportunity to draw attention to some of the central budget policy choices facing our nation. How should our tax dollars be spent? Who should pay more or less in taxes? Is Congress listening to what Americans think are top spending priorities?

In February 2014, Representative David Camp (R-MI), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, released the “Tax Reform Act of 2014,” an over 900-page plan to overhaul the tax code. His counterpart, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has called for reform of the “dysfunctional, rotting mess of a carcass that we call the tax code.”

However, as we approach 2016, it’s unlikely that Congress will pass comprehensive tax reform. Instead we may see less sweeping changes, perhaps enacted as part of the budget. Sixty-seven percent of Americans want a budget that closes corporate tax loopholes and limits tax breaks for the wealthy. Here’s how the 2014 budget proposals stacked up:

 The year 2015 is fairly young with just one quarter gone. What tax code legislation exists right now? “The only path to tax reform in 2015 would require a GOP Congress and Obama to call a truce on irresolvable issues such as spending and immigration and decide to do one big thing for the next two years. And that could be business tax reform.” (Howard Gleckman – taxpolicycenter.org). He admits the odds are very long against such an event taking place.

The Daily News Journal tells us that some proposals exist:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, the first candidate to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, listed tax reform as a priority for the country.

"Moving towards a simple flat tax would treat all Americans more fairly and end the massive time and costs wasted in dealing with the IRS; we should let taxes become so simple that they could be filled out on a postcard. Ultimately, with a Republican president, we should abolish the IRS and end its abuse of power and violation of Americans' constitutional rights," Cruz said in a press release. Not exactly helpful, but after all -- it’s Ted Cruz!

“President Barack Obama, however, also has called for reforms in the federal tax code. In his State of the Union address in January, Obama listed several proposals he said would benefit middle-class taxpayers but cost wealthy taxpayers and financial services companies.

The president's proposals could raise $320 billion over 10 years, according to White House estimates. The president hoped to use that money to give $175 billion in tax breaks to middle-class taxpayers and to fund his $60 billion proposal to make community college free for two years.  Among the proposals was a series of tax breaks for individuals, including:

• A tax credit of up to $500 for two-earner filers. Unlike deductions, which reduce your taxable income, tax credits reduce taxes dollar for dollar. The credit would be available in full for two-earner families with incomes up to $120,000, with partial credits available to those with incomes up to $210,000.
• Expand the earned-income tax credit for workers without qualifying children, increase the income level at which the credit phases out and make it available to workers 21 and older.
• Increase the child care tax credit to $3,000, and make the maximum credit available to most families with incomes up to $120,000.
• Make the American Opportunity Tax Credit permanent and give college students a tax credit of up to $2,500 a year for five years. Part-time students would be eligible for a $1,250 AOTC.
• Simplify the student loan interest tax deduction.

 Observers, however, noted that the president's proposal had little chance in the Republican-controlled Congress.”

These proposals are worthy of consideration because they address some needs of the middle and lower income groups. However, they also add to or amend the Tax Code in favor of the little guy rather than correcting the code that continues to favor wealthy individuals and corporations.

Neither side seems willing to face the real issue: reform the current Code and prevent rich people and businesses from extracting our tax money for their aggrandizement, which turns out to be the largest welfare fraud ever perpetrated on the American people!

But, let’s be fair. As an editorial in the Detroit News reminds us: there’s something wrong as well with “the fact that nearly half of wage earners pay no federal income taxes. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent of earners pay 68 percent of all income taxes, and are the repeated target of the desire to raise more revenue.” If they are the investment class, “the more the government takes from them, the less they have to invest, and they will fail to put “their money to work creating jobs and economic development.” I would say that this leaves out their greed and avarice, but nonetheless, there is some truth here with which reformers must deal.

“Corporate taxes in the United States are the highest in the industrial world. And they are so complicated and include so many carve-outs, exemptions and deductions that it is nearly impossible to avoid running afoul of tax law, even with the help of competent accountants. But most businesses don’t pay corporate taxes — most owners of small businesses are taxed at the individual income tax rate and face the same disincentives to use their earnings to create more jobs.

“America needs a simpler…and fairer tax code, one that encourages savings and investment and fosters economic growth and job creation. It shouldn’t be impossible for lawmakers and the president to do what their predecessors did three decades ago and give taxpayers a meaningful overhaul of the tax code.”

So what legislation exists in 2015 as far as Tax Code reform legislation is concerned? Not very much, although proposals, tainted by political ideology and rhetoric abound. A comprehensive tax reform plan of over 900 pages that was released on February 26, 2014 from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), is still available even though the Chairman has retired. The “The Tax Reform Act of 2014” (the “Act”) seeks to simplify the tax code and lower rates for individuals and corporations while raising the same level of revenue. For a comprehensive summary look at its proposals, go to:

http://www.whiteandwilliams.com/resources-alerts-Comprehensive-Tax-Reform-Plan-Proposed-By-The-GOP-President-Releases-Federal-Budget-Proposals-For-2015.html

You have the opportunity to influence this process by communicating with your legislators about what you believe should be done. Are certain tax breaks important to you? Do you believe some tax breaks should be eliminated from the tax code? This is your opportunity to influence Washington. Take Action.
As primary investors in our nation, we should all speak up with our own opinions on these questions. Making our priorities clear to lawmakers in Congress is a key part of making tax day something we can be proud of, even as we groan about filling out all those IRS forms!