The other day, I was thinking that this blog needs more itemized deduction commentary. So! Obama's budget funds health care, in part, by limiting the tax deductions for charitable contributions made by the top 1.2 percent of taxpayers. Not eliminating the deduction, mind you. Limiting it. Before Obama's law, a dollar sent by a multimillionaire to his church or alma mater would knock 35 cents of his tax bill. Under Obamas's plan, it will save him 28 cents. (The deduction for the average taxpayer -- 10-15 cents depending on their bracket -- will not change.) It's as Huey Long, or maybe Will Rogers, said: When socialism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a small reduction on the marginal tax offset the wealthy can receive from charitable giving. The attacks on the plan have been predictable enough. This "raises the cost of charitable giving," says David Brooks. "It punishes civic activism." The defenses have argued the opposite: Nah uh! CBPP and others have earnestly run the numbers and explained that contributions would decline "only by an estimated 1.3 percent" and this would only affect "1.2 percent of U.S. households." Italics theirs. And it's probably all true. But go back to Brooks' original point: This doesn't "raise the cost of charitable giving." It lessens the tax break that can be claimed in its aftermath. This doesn't "punish civic activism." It slightly reduces the degree to which the federal government subsidizes it. Does Brooks really want to hang the vibrancy of America's charitable culture on government tax policy rather than deeply rooted values or the lived experiences of Churchgoing Compassion Exurbanite Man or something? That's a level of esteem for the wise central planner that eludes even me. Wherever you come down, this is not an argument over the worth of charitable giving. It is an argument over whether the rich should be able to save 35 cents rather than 28 cents on their taxes for every dollar they give to charity, or whether we should have universal health care. You may prioritize the tax break. But it's a question of whether the government subsidy is good, not whether charity is good. Also: You know who else you should read on this? Mark Schmit. Smart cookie, that one.