Law Students

Me v. Dennis Prager

A few days ago, I was listening on my ipod to his show on spending during Christmas time. One caller said that Americans are too selfish, and Prager responded by pointing out that Americans give more to charity then any other nation. In trying to further his point, he (oddly in my view) also mentioned that a good portion of our taxes go to what could be determined to be charitable things. Click here and find the hour entitled ?Ultimate Issues Hour: In Defense of Shopping? and go to 19:29 to listen to the call that elicited my call today.

So I called him while I was driving to meet my wife for lunch. I wanted to challenge him on conflating taxes and charity. The call got off to a rocky start because he didn't say my name, merely 'Let's go to San Jose in the Bay Area. Wait, is San Jose considered part of the Bay Area?' He often asks rhetorical questions, and because he didn't say my name, I wasn't sure he was talking to me.

Once we finally got started, before I could get the words out my mouth regarding my challenge of his definition of charity, he immediately disagreed of my summation of the call I linked above, but after kind of rambling for a bit, he does finally agree that yes, in his mind, taxes can in fact be charity.

He also ignored my analogy of someone stealing his stereo from his house and subsequently giving it to charity (though the connection wasn't great and he may not have heard it all the way). My point was that a thief giving ill gotten goods to charity doesn't make the previous owner of the property charitable. I wish he would have addressed that point.

Near the end of the call, I made the point that if taxes absolve our charitable obligations, how can he argue for lower taxes because that would be arguing for lower charitable contributions. At that point he flipped the switch on me (at 17:27), so you couldn't hear me anymore. After, he flipped the switch, he eventually said ?there is no comparison between private charity and government handouts.? That's my point! Why are you making that comparison then? He seemed to say that without realizing he was repudiating his entire premise in doing so.

There was a lot more that I wanted to say, but apparently I got cut off by the commercial. Even though Prager and I don't see eye to eye on this particular issue, (in fact I don't think he was at his 'clarifying' best) I agree with him that it was a ?fascinating discussion.?

Listen to the exchange here, go to December 21, Open Lines hour, and go to 14:17. The call goes until 18:12.

Full post as published by SoapBox Law on December 22, 2007 (boomark / email).