Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
High Court OKs Ariz. Tax Credit For Religious Schools
St Pete Times Editorial: Diverting taxes to church school
I am appalled that conservative states are deliberately destroying the separation of church and state through the use of underhanded tactics such as this to sidestep their own laws. That they have apparently been doing so for over a decade now. And that the Supremes seem to have now eliminated any possible challenges against them in the foreseeable future.
If the Christians want to create their own "madarassas" in the US, they should have to pay for them out of their own pockets. I think the time has come to eliminate all tax breaks for any sort of religious purpose.
Once this current wave of reactionary control of the Supremes has finally ended, we need to consider a constitutional amendment to specifically demand a permanent separation of church and state. The concessions made in the original Constitution to get the more fundamentally religious states to join the union have created far too many loopholes and inconsistencies in our laws.
Spoiler :
A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that taxpayers have no legal right to challenge a tax break worth millions to donors supporting private religious schools. The 5-4 decision left intact an Arizona tax subsidy that was enacted because the state constitution forbids direct aid to religious schools.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority, said that taxpayers may challenge a direct legislative appropriation for religious schools, but not a tax credit.
Arizona is one of many states that have a state constitution barring direct aid to religious schools, including vouchers. These provisions date back more than a century.
To get around the ban on vouchers, Arizona enacted a law that allows residents to take a tax credit for money given to private school scholarship funds known as "school tuition organizations."
A tax credit is different from a tax deduction. The credit comes directly off the tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis, so a $500 donation to a school tuition organization allows the donor to take $500 off his owed taxes. In contrast, a charitable donation of $500 to a private school would be worth no more than one-third of that amount in tax deductions.
Under the Arizona law, more than $50 million was donated annually to student tuition organizations, which, in turn, directed the money to private schools, at least two-thirds of them religious schools.
A group of taxpayers challenged the tax credit in court, contending that it amounted to an unconstitutional state subsidy for religious schools.
But on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the taxpayers have no legal right to bring such a challenge.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority, said that taxpayers may challenge a direct legislative appropriation for religious schools, but not a tax credit. He conceded that a tax credit and a direct government expenditure "may have similar economic consequences," but he said a tax credit is different because any injury to the disagreeing taxpayer is "speculative," and the money is directed by private individuals, not the state.
Reaction To The Ruling
Civil libertarians reacted to the decision with dismay. Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender, who represented the Arizona taxpayers, says the court's opinion defies reality.
"The state has a budget deficit of a billion dollars, so when $100 million doesn't come into the Treasury, the rest of the state's taxpayers have to make up for that," he says. "The idea that [the tax credit] doesn't affect the rest of the state's taxpayers is just fantasy."
But school choice advocate Timothy Keller, of the Institute for Justice, says that "only looks at one side of the ledger," adding, "It is much more cost effective to educate children in private schools."
Justice Elena Kagan, in a blistering dissent — her first dissent since joining the court — said Monday's decision "devastates" the ability of taxpayers to challenge government actions that favor religion.
In reality, she said, there is no difference between a tax credit and a direct appropriation. "What is a cash grant today can be a tax break tomorrow," and the court's decision, she charged, "offers a road map — more truly, just a one-step instruction — to any government that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge."
Impact On Church-State Separation
Monday's ruling follows a 2007 decision that barred challenges to President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative because it used discretionary funds in the executive branch. Civil libertarians suggested on Monday that the ruling in that case, combined with the Arizona ruling, has the effect of eroding the constitutional separation of church and state.
But Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell says these decisions "probably [do] not change the ultimate outcome of any cases," given the current Supreme Court's more accommodating view of church and state.
Dismissing the challenges on the basis of legal standing, rather than on the merits, he says, "just means [the cases] are going to be resolved at a slightly earlier stage in the litigation."
University of Michigan law professor Douglas Laycock isn't so sure. He argues that the ruling opens another — and more politically appealing — avenue for legislators to support religious schools.
Although the Supreme Court upheld school voucher programs nearly a decade ago, he notes most states have not adopted voucher programs because they cost the state money.
"It is mostly Republicans who support these aid-to-religion programs, and Republicans don't want to raise taxes to pay for vouchers," Laycock says. "But if they can do it through a tax credit, they can support religious schools and claim it's a tax cut all at the same time."
School choice advocate Keller may not agree with that characterization, but he does agree that Monday's ruling will "embolden" other states to take similar action.
Indeed, he says, eight states are actively considering similar laws. Six, in addition to Arizona, have already adopted them.
St Pete Times Editorial: Diverting taxes to church school
Spoiler :
By Robyn Blumner, Times Columnist
James Madison would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that his magnificent thesis on why the government should never be allowed to direct financial support to religious education was twisted to undermine future such claims.
In a 5-4 ruling Monday, conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court barred taxpayers from challenging an Arizona tax credit scheme designed to divert public money from state coffers to religious schools. The ruling effectively eliminates taxpayer standing in federal court to challenge even the most blatant and discriminatory government support of religion, when it's done through the targeted use of the tax code.
I can almost see Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — who are religion-by-the-sword types at heart — dancing a little jig as they slam shut the courthouse door to church-state litigants, while opening the public fisc to religion.
The only bright spot was a vigorous dissent, that was part history lesson, delivered by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by her other three liberal-wing colleagues. Her discussion of Madison decimated Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority ruling that claimed the founding father's writings support his view: that the Constitution only limits government's direct expenditures for religion, and not the use of targeted tax benefits that accomplish the same goal.
The case of Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization vs. Winn challenged an Arizona private school tuition program that gives taxpayers a dollar-for-dollar state income tax credit of up to $1,000 per couple when they direct donations to privately run "student tuition organizations." Those organizations then use the diverted tax money to fund scholarships often exclusively at religiously affiliated schools. One such STO says its program goal is "to further Christian education ... for the benefit of Christian school students and their families."
Since its inception in 1997 more than $350 million in tax money has been diverted from the public treasury, with one STO urging donations with this come-on: "imagine giving (to charity) with someone else's money. ... Stop imagining, thanks to Arizona tax laws you can!"
What makes James Madison relevant is that Arizona's program is similar to one proposed in Virginia in the 18th century that Madison — who is known as the architect of the Constitution's religion clauses — forcefully denounced. Madison's famous Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments railed against a proposed tax levy to aid teachers of Christian religion.
Kennedy claims that Madison's Remonstrance was only concerned with government extracting and spending money for religious activities in violation of a taxpayer's conscience. But as Kagan points out, the Virginia proposal looked more like the Arizona model: Taxpayers were to direct their payments to Christian societies of their choosing. Conscientious objectors could opt out of subsidizing religion entirely and have their funds directed to a proposed common school fund for the support of general education.
Even with this accommodation to nonbelievers and allowing each taxpayer to choose according to his religious conviction, Madison called the scheme "a dangerous abuse of power," and a form of compulsory religious contribution. It never passed.
"(T)he Virginia Assessment is just like the Arizona tax credit," Kagan writes. "Although both funnel tax funds to religious organizations (and so saddle all taxpayers with the cost), neither forces any given taxpayer to pay for the subsidy out of her pocket."
But because of this feature, Kagan continues, the court's majority says that taxpayers have no injury and therefore no standing to sue — even as Madison saw great harm.
The consequence of the court's ruling, as Kagan suggests, is that it gives legislatures a "road map" to insulate the financing of religion from court challenge. She offers extreme examples, such as a state choosing to reward Jews for their piety to the tune of $500 per year, to be claimed on their tax returns in lieu of an annual stipend. Or a state subsidizing the ownership of crucifixes by authorizing a tax credit equal to the price paid.
Does it really matter how this kind of support is structured? Of course not. But that truism will have to wait for a more intellectually honest court — one that actually values Madison's vision.
If the Christians want to create their own "madarassas" in the US, they should have to pay for them out of their own pockets. I think the time has come to eliminate all tax breaks for any sort of religious purpose.
Once this current wave of reactionary control of the Supremes has finally ended, we need to consider a constitutional amendment to specifically demand a permanent separation of church and state. The concessions made in the original Constitution to get the more fundamentally religious states to join the union have created far too many loopholes and inconsistencies in our laws.