From: Karen Crowell
Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 1:51:33 PM
Subject: non-funding of non-profits
Donna Kelly tells us that:
“The Board of Commissioners sets funding priorities and appoints volunteers to review the applications…. This year there were requests for over $400,000 and about $230,000 to allocate, so you can see the challenge….The Commissioners have an additional $15,000 they can allocate directly to non-profits.”
Then she goes on to say:
“I don’t envy the volunteers that review the applications since there are always requests for a lot more money than is available. I also respect county staff for continually working to improve the system to ensure that county funds are used as fairly and effectively as possible.”
Empathy for the poor volunteers and staff who have the tough job of handing out money to non-profits seems a little misplaced when you consider the plight of the truly poor people living in our community who have to depend on the meager budgets of non-profits to meet their basic food, shelter and heathcare needs. They are the people who have the toughest row to hoe.
“The county doesn’t have the discretion to only tax people who can afford it in order to fund more programs.”
Really? What about the discretion that our elected officials have in drafting budgets that set a higher priority for funding social programs designed to more comprehensively address the health and welfare needs of the most vulnerable, if not all, of its residents? If there isn’t enough money in the budget, why not?
Politicians like to brag about how much money they’ve saved by slashing budgets. Then they “share the savings” by cutting our taxes when they come up for re-election. But what good does this ever do for the working poor? Or the unemployed, who don’t even own any property or have enough income to qualify as taxpayers? Are they any better off because the rest of us got a tax break?
Cutting the budget for programs that try to address the needs of the disadvantaged has its consequences. Non-profits have to spend more time and money raising even more money to meet the demands on their services. Capital campaigns and media events cost money. Which means less money for those who benefit from their services. Is that how we want our non-profits to operate?
“It’s much better if we personally contribute whatever we can afford, to the organizations we feel most strongly about. In that way we can all contribute to a stronger community.”
Noble sentiments, yes, but they don’t pay the rent. With all due respect, if you truly care about the disadvantaged people in your community and the capacity of non–profits to meet the ever-growing demands on their underfunded budgets, then I would argue that there are better, more effective ways to address these problems than by leaving it up to everyone else to donate just a little more of their personal time and money to non-profits.
What can we hope to achieve with an economic policy that dismisses raising taxes or wages as a legitimate option to offset increases in expenses, brought about by the relentlessly rising cost of living? Businesses raise their prices to offset expenses; why shouldn’t government? Let’s not talk about debt ceilings and austerity measures when there are children in our own community who go without sufficient food, decent shelter or basic health care.
Karen Crowell