The big political news story this week has been the decision made by the Komen foundation to stop funding Planned Parenthood and then their turn around to decide to continue sending money there. I suspect my take on the entire matter is very different from anyone else. I will state that I have never sent them money and I don’t believe I have ever done anything that would have sent money to them as in either buying pink items or supporting someone in one of their walks. All in all they are an organization that is really not one I pay attention to. It really had nothing to do with their organization and more with how I decided I would donate money to organizations.
However, I was really angry when I heard that they were giving grants to Planned Parenthood. It had nothing to do with my feelings on Planned Parenthood. It had nothing to do with my feelings on the Komen Foundation. What ticked me off is that I felt they had betrayed many who had supported them with their dollars. I have always thought that the money donated to Komen was used for breast cancer research. This is what has me mad. If I give money to a nonprofit organization unless it makes it very clear that the funds will be going to other nonprofits, I expect donations to be used by that organization and not given to other nonprofit organizations. The bottom line is that if I wanted to give to Planned Parenthood, I would give to Planned Parenthood. If I give to Komen, I am giving them the donation to use to support their organization. Sadly, I am now of the opinion that if Komen has so much money that they don’t need so they can give it to other nonprofits then they definitely don’t need my money. Don’t worry, I get enough mail with donation requests from much needier nonprofits. I am not turning my back on all nonprofits. Just those that are so large that they forget that they got that way through donations from those of us who noticed the change in our bank accounts.
I just read this post and I was shocked by this part of the article. I know it has been pledge time for the local PBS station so this really ticks me off. First of all, it seems like it is always pledge time on PBS. Second of all, they made a point of trying to keep it about local programming. While I think they do a good job of it, the big picture part of it ticks me off, especially because I do have a general understanding of accounting and the fact that unless when you make a donation you make it restricted, the money can be used for anything. There is more in the post about it, but it was a quote from another source, so I will use just this bit.
From www.sweetness-light.com Local Stations Are Canceling PBS Contracts
Who knew that local PBS affiliates even had to pay dues? This is the first we are hearing about it.
Yep, now that you realize that your tax dollars are supporting the liberal NPR and PBS, you can know realize that your pledge dollars do as well. Wow! I really don’t know what to think. Here we are asked to donate our hard earned money to support our local public television station, and now it appears that a large portion of their budget actually ends up being paid as “dues” to the national part of PBS. Sorry, after hearing this, I will no longer consider watching the channel or supporting it in any way. I thought the money was supposed to go in the other direction, as in our tax dollars are sent to the local PBS channels to support local programming.
I would really like it if someone can make me feel better by explaining this in terms that basically say there are no dues to the parent organization.
Can someone please explain the thinking behind this? It has been years since I actually did accounting and granted I tend to understand numbers, but this just doesn’t make sense.
Speaking at a prime-time news conference, the president said the change in tax policy would be realistic and fairer to lower-earning families that make charitable gifts but get a smaller tax deduction.
If I read that correctly, he thinks that people who don’t give as much should get a bigger donation than people who give a larger amount of their income in donations. Just taking it from a personal point of view, my mother donates a lot more than I do because she has more income than I do. If she gives more than she should get more of a benefit than I do. But, it sounds like he thinks it would be fairer if I get the same benefit she gets for giving less. Oh, nonprofits are going to love this because while the small donations help, but there is a reason why they have people who only work on major gifts.
As Obama plans to save money by letting Congress initiate a provision in a bill that would generate income by having Veterans use their private insurance to pay for service related injuries, there is a bill that on the house floor, HR 1388, that is all about service for youth and seniors. I read through the bill and I got somewhat confused because I can’t tell if this is just changing Americorps type programs or really introducing mandatory volunteer service. I suspect it is a little of both because at the end of the bill a committee is created to review volunteerism in the United States. I would suggest searching on HR 1388 to read the bill yourself. Although it appears that most of the bill is changing language in previous bills.
The one thing that bothers me in the bill is that it says it will pay $500 or $1000 for 100 hours of service. That seems very good pay for “volunteering.” And, a lot more than what Americorps or Vista volunteers get per hour for their year long commitment of service.
This is the link to the first article I wrote back in November about Mandatory Volunteer Service.
By the way, Obama, I volunteer, I donate, I work for nonprofit agencies, why do you think I need to do more? Or is it you want to feel that I work for you not that you work for us. Yep, in case you didn’t know it you got over 300 million bosses. We are your bosses, you are not ours!
I do volunteer work, and I also have worked in several nonprofit agencies, some are local and some are internationally known. In addition, as I mentioned in my first post I have a degree that makes me a trained bureaucrat. I also donate to nonprofits that I want MY money to support. In some cases, I don’t even deduct my donations on my tax return. In other words, I feel like I walk the walk to go along with my talk.
Lately, I have been wondering why a term that was really big in the 90s is never heard. It is privatization. The idea behind privatization is that the government cannot be good at all things and that it can be more expensive for the government to do it so if they contract the work out to experts in that area. I saw it first hand where state agencies would pay a per diem to agencies who would provide therapeutic care to children rather than just house them in the juvenile system. It can also be seen with charter schools that provide education to high risk children. It seems like this is an idea we need to bring up again. Why does it seem like the government wants to do everything when it isn’t mean to do everything. We have a lot of nonprofits that can provide the services that are needed in the communities that they know best. Rather than having a bureaucrat in DC deciding what is best for my community, I want someone who lives in my community to decide. It is also easier for me to let those in my community know my preferences. Finally, I can donate to the nonprofits that provide the services and I can volunteer at these nonprofits. Instead, DC seems to think that they can support these nonprofits better than I can. I wonder when they will come to my town to deliver meals to senior citizens or to work at a food bank. I mean really volunteer not just take advantage of the situation for a photo op.
I hope that as this economy continues to worry us, you will remember that your local nonprofit agencies are probably struggling more than you realize. Give one a call and ask them how you can help them, whether it is just writing a check or volunteering for a few hours each week or month.