Over on The Nonprofiteer, I grapple with the justification for philanthropy which fails (as mine does) to increase Disability-Adjusted Life Years in the developing world. Not entirely satisfied with my arguments and would welcome any and all assistance.
The Nonprofiteer is at it again, gently suggesting that a Sun Microsystems billionaire isn’t necessarily the world’s authority about how to combat poverty.Â But maybe fighting poverty isn’t what he had in mind after all.
Who taught people to say “charity” with a sneer?
I hold forth on/as the Nonprofiteer on the idiocy of our debating who should pay for public schools, and the extreme idiocy of our thinking it swell that the cradle of a democratic society should be controlled by individuals whom nobody elected.
In my guise as The Nonprofiteer, I suggest that the solution to poverty might be money.
Alert the media.Â No, really.
Another word on the IRS “scandal” from me over at the Tribune’s blog aggregation site.
This is the smartest, ballsiest response Iâ€™ve seen to the omnipresent nonsense about how whatâ€™s wrong with philanthropy and charity is that theyâ€™re too soft-hearted and how all the problems of the world could be solved if they were just more rigorous and did their â€œdue diligenceâ€ and brought other failed concepts and consultant buzzwords over from the for-profit sector. What refreshing thoughtfulness and appropriate humility. Bravo, Mr. Scanlan!
cross-posted with nonprofiteer.net
There’s an old joke about a man who asks a woman to sleep with him for $1 million. She agrees, whereupon he asks her to sleep with him for $1. “What kind of a girl do you think I am?” asks the woman indignantly. “We’ve settled that,” replies the man, “We’re just arguing about the price.”
This came to mind in response to this story about the price of the Broad Foundation’s generosity to the schools of New Jersey. A recent Broad Foundation grant stipulates that it will be available only as long as Chris Christie remains governor.
Continue reading “What price democracy?”
Hereâ€™s a new wrinkle in the ever-popular saga â€œTaxation of the Tax Exemptâ€:Â members of the Scranton City Council threaten to withhold zoning changes from owners of tax-exempt property unless they make â€œvoluntaryâ€ PILOTS (Payments In Lieu Of Taxation).Â Â I’m certainly open to the notion that non-charitable tax-exempt organizations should have to pay property taxes, even as I acknowledge that the definition ofÂ â€œcharitableâ€ remains contested.
But letâ€™s settle these issues in open political debate, with nonprofits able to make their case that they are truly charitable, and/or that their contribution to the public good entitles them to property tax exemption whether or not theyâ€™re charitable in some strict definition of the word.Â Just for the sake of being reality-based, letâ€™s not torture the concept of â€œvoluntaryâ€ by suggesting that a payment extorted in return for rezoning is somehow a free-will contribution to the public fisc.
Cross-posted to nonprofiteer.net
Nancy Pelosi’s “attack” on Stephen Colbert and his Super PAC is the cleverest marketing the Democrats have done since the 1964 daisy ad linking the Republican Presidential nominee with nuclear war.Â Yes, it’s been a long dry spell; but let’s be grateful for this particular bit of rain.Â If nothing else it disproves the canard that feminists don’t have a sense of humor.
The most powerful argument in this LA Times op-ed piece opposing the charitable tax deduction is that it’s a poor trade-off.Â Retired foundation executive Jack Shakely points out that charities have permitted themselves to be shorn of their ability to influence policy and politics in return for a mess of pottage.Â Of course the restrictions on charitable participation in the public arena aren’t as draconian as nonprofit executives (and especially Boards) think they are—but the point is that nonprofits understand themselves to be constrained, and rather than bothering with the details remain quiescent politically.
As strong a proponent as I am of the pursuit of individual gifts, in the real world virtually every social service agency needs seriously more government money if it’s going to make any dent in the social problems it faces.Â The more social service agencies feel free to advocate for this particular budget bill or that particular provision in a piece of legislation—both prohibited by the current tax-code provisions—the more likely it is that those bills and provisions will pass, which would serve way more of the agencies’ clients than the most blue-sky estimates of their potential for growth in individual giving.
And for someone with foundation cred to say this!Â All hail Jack Shakely.