STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
- R. 644 – Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015
(Rep. Reed, R-New York, and seven cosponsors)
The Administration supports measures that enhance non-profits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and other charitable organizations in their many roles, including providing a safety net for those most in need, creating jobs that serve communities, encouraging environmental conservation and protection of land for current and future generations, and incubating innovative solutions to some of the Nation’s toughest challenges. The President’s Budget includes a number of proposals that would enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many individuals.
However, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 644, which would permanently extend three current provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain donations and add another similar provision without offsetting the cost. House Republicans are making clear their priorities by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent without offsets when key tax credit improvements benefiting 16 million working families with children are scheduled to expire. They are also seeking to impose a double standard by adding to the deficit to continue and create tax breaks that primarily benefit higher-income individuals, after insisting on offsetting the cost of measures that help middle-class and working Americans, such as the extension of emergency unemployment benefits. If this same, unprecedented approach of making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the other traditional tax extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013.
The Administration wants to work with the Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen America’s charitable sector. However, H.R. 644 represents the wrong approach.
If the President were presented with H.R. 644, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
* * * * * * *