By Michael Tuosto

When a specific situation challenges my own beliefs about what the role of government is, it fascinates me to no end.  That is exactly what a recent Supreme Court ruling has done and what Adam Liptak writes about it in his New York Times article, entitled “Tax Credit Is Allowed For Religious Tuition”.  On Monday, April 4, the Supreme Court ruled to let stand an Arizona program which provides tax incentives to those wishing to give money to private ‘student tuition organizations.’  In Adam Liptak’s word, “The Arizona program gives taxpayers there a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit of up to $500 for donations to private ‘student tuition organizations.’”  What seems to be the issue that split the Justices along “usual ideological lines” was the fact that, “The organizations are permitted to limit the scholarships they offer to schools of a given religion…”  Now if you had just read the first sentence of Adam’s article, which reads “The Supreme Court on Monday let stand an Arizona program that aids religious schools…” you might not have considered the existence of a very important middle-man in this issue: the individual.

Adam himself explains that the Arizona program simply does not limit where the individual getting the tax credit may give his or her five hundred dollars.  So to say that the Arizona program directly aids religious schools is a mischaracterization of the program.  It is important however, to ask the question, “Does that really matter?”  If the government is trying to promote donations by individuals to organizations that help students receive a private education, can an indifference towards where those individuals give the money be a form of promotion of a religion, if as a result of the indifference organizations which “limit the scholarships they offer to schools of a given religion” are receiving the money?

I believe Justice Kennedy is thinking along the same lines as me when he writes in his opinion that the plantiffs’ point of view “assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands.”  To me, it sounds like he is pointing out that the government is not directly subsidizing religious institutions because the Arizona program is simply allowing individual citizens freedom over five hundred more of their own dollars as long as they are donating to any organization that provides scholarships.  So in a sense, if the Government does not take an active roll in ensuring that the money doesn’t go to a religious institution, that is not the same as directly funding it because the money is first and foremost the individuals’ decision to do with however they would like.  Justice Kagan provides the counter-argument to this in her dissenting opinion saying, “Would it matter to taxpayers offended by the practice whether the reward came in the form of a government stipend or a tax credit?”  Of course this line of reasoning has merit as well, since we citizens are legally obligated to surrender a certain portion of our earnings each year.  These laws are specific and were written by democratically elected officials;  so in a sense, the government is giving you something if it is not taking what is legally its to take.  As such it can be seen as directing funding religious institutions if that is where the individual has decided to place his or her donation.

One might think that an obvious solution to this problem is to simply limit where people may donate the money that they in turn get a tax-credit for, to organizations that don’t limit the scholarships they offer to religious institutions.  This could be true, but the questions that arise from the idea of government giving incentives to individuals for very specific behavior are important.  The government says is wants you to be charitable so higher learning can be extended to the less fortunate, but then limits where and how you may be charitable.  A religious person could in fact see this as a government program aimed at harming religion by intentionally giving a competitive edge to schools with no religious affiliation.

This debate would, of course, become riddled with hypocrisy when brought into the political realm.  One side arguing that such a program as Arizona’s is fine, until of course funding found its way to an Islamic school which is possibly teaching Sharia law.  The other side arguing God knows what.  That is why conversations such as these need to stay in the realm of philosophy, government and its role. My opinion? Get rid of the program altogether.  Cut taxes for everyone and let them keep more of their own money. As a result, they will become more charitable on their own.  Less government, problem solved.