Government semantics support religious education tax expenditures

As humans, we are a covenant species that rely on written words to justify our belief in an ideology and legal system.  If someone wrote it down, most will not question it, but some will challenge it.

The problem arises, when the practice of these words and ideals lead to self-serving acts.  Rules and laws both limit flexibility and decrease risks against lawsuits, which applies to education.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Kathleen M. Winn; won by a 5-4 vote against taxpayers suing Arizona School Tuition Organizations (STOs) supported by education tax credits.  Taxpayers believed STOs violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, by redirecting tax expenditures to religious private schools.

Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas believe taxpayers opposing any state education tax credit expenditure, as unlawfully subsidizing religion; lacked standing under Article III.

Justice Kagan dissenting with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor said the “State sponsorship of religion sometimes harms individual only (but this 'only' is no small matter) in their capacity as contributing members of our national community.”

James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments of 1785, as a Separationists on the “great barrier” of religion; applies in this new form of tax credit “extraction.”

With the establishment of purity and efficacy of any Religion, Madison asks “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.  What have been its fruits?  More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

This fear by our Founders of any religion in public life with government tax support, was the “persecution” or hostility of others, outside that favored government supported belief system.

Justice Kagan states “(t)he same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for whenever the legislature used its taxing-and-spending power to channel tax dollars to religious activities...whether the funding is provided via cash grant or tax expenditure...Taxpayers pick up the cost of the subsidy in either form...So taxpayers have an interest in preventing the use of either mechanism infringe religious neutrality.”

Arizona STOs exist in Georgia as Student Scholarship Organization (SSO) tax credits.  If one replaces the words of “state tax expenditure” with a “subsidy,” “redirected tax revenue,” or “tax credit” through a government program for religious organizations; its all the same old ideal to “saddle all taxpayers with the cost,” Justice Kagan states.

The education tax credit is a war of semantics, like tomato potato.  A donor has to donate to a nonprofit to get their own state income taxes owed from the State Treasury, which the donor paid out from their pay cheque.  Getting something in return for a selfless act of helping others is what I call a Vice-Virtue Law.

Justice Kagan states the tax credit “neither forces any given taxpayer to pay for the subsidy” out of pocket, but does “deny the Plaintiff's claim of injury; the majority betrays Madison's vision.”

This case does not allow taxpayers to sue, if they disagree with how the government spends their taxes.  In any society, there will always be taxpayers angry on how their taxes are spent from:  abortion, bailouts, sex education, war, any issue; but what about their day in court to petition their grievance?

The DaimlerChrysler Corp v. Cuno case states if  “taxpayers object to the spending of tax money in violation of the Establishment Clause (whether through tax credits or appropriations).”  The only way to solve the issue is by “an injunction against the spending...redress (their) injury, regardless of whether lawmakers would dispose of the savings in a way that would benefit the taxpayer-plaintiffs personally.”

Justice Kennedy believes when plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial powers, it must assert more than “generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.”  If judicial power was expanded to all questions under the Constitution, then every subject would be up for decision; even if the plaintiffs' injury was “in a personal or individual way.”

Justice Kennedy rejects the general assertion that individuals paying taxes has a “continuing, legally cognizable interest in ensuring that those funds are not used by the Government in a way that violates the Constitution.”

In short, if you disagree with how government uses your taxes as incentives for approved behavior or favoritism.  You cannot sue because they were elected to make decisions, even decisions some disagree with.  The problem is, our representatives sometimes do not represent “our interests,” and our only job as taxpayers is to vote them out of office.

Justice Kagan gives examples on how these tax credits work:

“Suppose a state desires to reward Jews — by, say, $500 per year — for their religious devotion...Should the nature of taxpayers' concern vary if the state allows Jews to claim the aid on their tax returns, in lieu of receiving an annual stipend?  Or assume a state wishes to subsidize the ownership of crucifixes.  It could purchase the religious symbols in bulk and distribute them to all takers.  Or it could mail a reimbursement check to any individual who buys her own and submits a receipt for the purchase.  Or it could authorize that person to claim a tax credit equal to the price she paid.  Now, really — do taxpayers have less reason to complain if the state selects the last of these three options?  The Court today says they do, but that is wrong.”

The 1923 Frothingham v. Mellon case, argues plaintiffs have an interest in the government treasury on federal expenditures.  Justice Kennedy reject this argument that “effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of funds...(was) remote, fluctuating and uncertain...(and the taxpayer) interest in the moneys of the Treasury...(was) shared with millions of others.”

Justice Kagan states taxpayers cannot show their injury, because each taxpayer’s “interest in the moneys of the Treasury . . . is comparatively minute and indeterminable.”

The complexity and size of all government budgets are hard to determine even by experts; many just make predictions.  “(T)he Court's fiction that a taxpayer's '.00000000001 penny' is somehow involved in an ordinary appropriation of public funds for religious activity...(is) an unlawful expenditure causes an individual 'any measurable economic harm.'”

You cannot prove individual harm without proof; even from a group of individual's collective actions from their grand words and ideals, like tax credits.  Remember these are judges, and by their perspective they seek prove by evidence.

Justice Scalia believes, taxpayers cannot challenge a federal or state expenditure that “allegedly violate the Constitution.”  The key word is “allegedly,” since there is no evidence of taxpayer harm.

Justice Kennedy believes “taxpayers standing rest on unjustifiable economic and political speculation,” even when government resources show “its budget does not necessarily suffer.”  Many government expenditures “spur economic activity, which in turn increases government revenues.”

To assume any tax expenditure depletes the state government's coffers means the Court must speculate if “elected officials will increase a taxpayer-plaintiff's tax bill to make up a deficit.”  Justice Kennedy believes taxpayers hope “legislators will pass along the supposed increased revenue in the form of tax reductions...(is) pure speculation.”

Justice Kennedy believes Arizona's $50M educational tax credits, the first state to start STO nonprofits in 1997; exists because the State's principal mission is to “make up a significant portion of the state budget” to educate students.  STOs “might relieve the burden placed on Arizona's public schools.”  The key words are “might relieve the burden” on public schools.

The 1983 Mueller v. Allen case states “By educating a substantial number of students (private) schools relieve public schools of a correspondingly great burden—to the benefit of all taxpayers”

Has private schools relieved this burden on public schools, since this 1983 case?  How can a State, like Georgia “make up” a state budget to educate, if the State has austerity cuts and less tax revenues?

When it comes to Georgia's SSOs and education, Americans want education to be a bipartisan issue; where we all agree to help all children, but that bipartisanship only exists in movies.  If self-interest, power, influence, ideology, and money is involved in any issue; education will be as partisan as immigration, same-sex bonding, drug use, and financial reform.

There will always be issues we take a side on, to control human behavior.  Few can control behavior, ask any law enforcer, manager or parent.  What about incentives, instead of control?

 Picking any side is divisive, costs money, and has you voting against your own long term best interest.  Education is no different.  Reforming any human organization no matter public or private, takes debate and getting rid of upper management and representatives, which spent too long in their jobs.

 Oh, did I mention the cost?  Many public policy decisions depend on citizens funding their words and ideals by taxes, but we all do not agree on how to spend those taxes.

As a covenant species, we rely on words and ideals to have a CIVIL-ization of selfless humans.  Liberty restrictions are applied by laws for the Common Good for all, should also apply for those that create new rules in the board game of life.  Any community is not just full of like-minded individuals with the same goals, but those that hold opposing perspectives that reflect diversity.

Why then do societies look down on self-serving actions, and praise selfless acts?  Because being selfless serves all and it’s a harder choice, than being selfish with Vice-Virtue Laws.

We are all interdependent on others, even on solving issues of education.

In part two, I will cover more examples of cases that use government tax expenditures, to support religion, nonprofits and private schools.