Charity Begins In Government

I'd like to do dedicate a little ink (metaphorically of course) in a mid-week post this week to my friends in the Glass City.  You know who you are (Maggie Thurber).  You're the ones concerned (if not justifiably outraged) over the fact that your City Council is perfectly willing to donate tax dollars that don't belong to them to worthy causes, yet those very same elected officials seem unconcerned at their utter lack of personal contribution to these same supposedly laudable groups.  

I'm sure that knowing of your charitable nature, many of you can't help but feel warm (if not downright ill) inside to know that while you live in a city that's been balancing their budgets in ways that would make double entry bookkeepers weep in envy; the stewards of your public funding can still find it in their hearts to support those who come to them cap in hand.  Short of funds they may be, but apparently long on votes.  It must be inspiring to know that the same people begging to take money each year from the Capital Improvements Budget to balance the General Fund can still find it in their hearts to donate from that Fund that the city has none to spare.   It must make you feel all warm and fuzzy to hear the same elected officials who complain of a lack of funding for proper police and fire protection calmly dispense public checks to private charities.

While you're basking in the smug and self-satisfied feeling that comes from watching these fiscal watchdogs rob Peter to pay Paul (curious, when you're Peter) I must tell you however that Toledo's well-known level of public generosity may soon need to stand in line.  For this November, it's the intention of Jackson County, Missouri (Kansas City) to place a measure on the ballot which would create a 20-year, half-cent sales tax.  Now while county sales tax proposals are certainly nothing new to those in Toledo, the potentially laudable goal of this particular one might be viewed as rather unique (and potentially scary).

If passed, the expected $40 million in annual revenues would go to equip and provide staff to ... wait for it ... medical research.  Kansas City's Children's Mercy hospital would reap some $20 million, with at least another $8 million to go to both St Luke's hospital and the University of Missouri at Kansas City.  All three of these entities already receive private donations (tax-deductible, BTW) for such purposes, but it's thought that such major funding escalation would allow them to increase the size of their research programs, as well as to allow them to recruit top scientists for the effort.   (I wouldn't at all be surprised!)

Let me say first that medical research is a truly laudable endeavor, and one that I support through personal contribution.  But what kind of research are we talking about you here might ask.  "Why, medical research of course," (he said in his best Bill Murray "Stripes" imitation).  Actually, the particular type of research that will be supported by this funding hasn't been defined by those promoting the tax.  It could be anything from a cure for cancer or AIDS to one that's really important, like a cure for the common cold.  (It might even be Alzheimer's research, but I don't remember.)  Of course, it could be that they don't want to go into too much detail, since knowing what the money would go for might make such a taxpayer donation less charitable.   According to a piece in the Kansas City Star though, "Backers of the proposed county tax say it is adequate to make a major difference, medically and economically."   (my added emphasis)
  
Not surprisingly Kansas City's Mayor and City Council are fully behind this ballot effort.  After all, not only is none of it money from city coffers, but a specific tax like this one doesn't prevent the city from future tax request efforts for project it already has in mind like expansion of the recently approved $100 million, two mile-long streetcar system or the proposed $1.2 billion dollar airport terminal improvement project.  Oh sure, KC could use more police and fire protection as much as Toledo, has their own water and sewer system issues, and has a backlog of street repairs waiting; but pursuing such concerns wouldn't provide the same warm glow as supporting such worthy causes.  Sure, the three largest private foundations in the area could come up with $36 of the $40 million just by setting aside 1% of their assets (again according the the KC Star); but wouldn't that make the taxpayers feel ungenerous by comparison.

Besides, supporters of the tax tell us that if any of this research bears fruit, taxpayers will share in the rewards reaped by it.  Of course their not saying what our share of such research would actually be, but wouldn't taxpayers seem greedy for asking what their cut of this undetermined research would be before committing to funding it for the next 20 years?

Sorry Toledo.  It's not that you haven't shown yourself unfailingly charitable during some of the toughest economic times that any part of the nation has had to face.  Let's face it, you've failed to turn down any but the most ridiculous of tax requests over the years, and your continued tacit support of the city council regularly giving away the money they've torn from your grasp through taxation has all but redefined 'giving til it hurts'.  Kansas City however apparently seems fully ready to raise the bar on both the level of largess and the ridiculous nature of giving.  Like you, their generosity seems to know no bounds (or common sense) and their willingness to tax themselves to provide it apparently knows no limits.  As in the Glass City, here in the City of Fountains, it seems that Charity begins in government.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am compelled to admit with a sense of mean-spirited gratitude and of greedy self-satisfaction that I live in Johnson County, Kansas and not Jackson County, Missouri.

    

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/16/4486667/surprising-opponent-to-jackson.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/16/4486667/surprising-opponent-to-jackson.html#storylink=cpy

I'm Feeling Generous

I have to admit that I've been feeling rather good about myself this week.  Like most people, some part of my attention has been drawn to the 15th and tax day, and none of it had to do with the fact that I filed my paperwork months ago and even received a small refund. (Imagine, getting some of MY MONEY back from the government.)   Instead, the reason that I've been feeling rather proud of myself is because of realizing what a generous guy I've become.  

Now this may be a little hard for many to believe.  After all, I'm a greedy Conservative, and therefore have no heart.  (They're right about having no heart of course, but being Conservative probably has little to do with it.)  While filling out my taxes however, I reviewed a number of slips of paper that listed donations that I had made to various charitable organizations over the last year.  None of them individually might be worthy notice in the local media, and I was not asked to pose with an oversize copy of one of my checks for eventual media publication; but percentage-wise collectively, I think I did better than the nation's leader and his foot-in-mouth 2nd in command in my good works.  

Just as I was beginning to feel a bit smug about my munificence however, I realized that all of us paying taxes this year have every right to be proud of our generosity, regardless of the number of tax-deductible receipts that we're holding. You see, these days we're all making charitable donations on a fairly grand scale whether we know it or not, at least according to this chart from the Heritage Foundation.

See!  We're all paying a sizable portion of our tax dollars to pay for other people's medical bills (after paying an ever-increasing amount for our own health insurance).  We're paying for a "retirement insurance" program (a Government-run Ponzi Scheme) that's likely to be broke before we're able to collect anything from it.  Part of the 19% in income security includes food and housing assistance for those less fortunate, as well as that we justifiably owe in recompense for those who have more than honorably served in our Armed Forces.  As for the net interest listed in the chart, apparently we're all donating to nations like the Chinese, in a capitalist transaction with a Communist country to finance the sad fact that the US continues to spend more than the money than it takes in from the tax revenues we 'donate' to it each year.   It's was also great to find out that we're all so generous that we're willing to be rather charitable where other people's transportation or their kid's education is concerned (beyond what those of us who have to pay in local property taxes).

And while it really isn't broken out in the 7% that's listed on the chart, we're generous in ways that we don't even know (and couldn't comprehend the lunacy of if we did).  We are after all, paying oil companies to drill for oil that our government says is bad for the environment, and grain-based ethanol as a sustainable replacement that's even worse.  Speaking of grain, we're donating money to farmers not to grow crops in places that they could and other farmers for poor returns on those that they did plant at times or in places that they shouldn't. 

We're generous with green energy companies that go broke as soon as they run out of our charitable contributions, on maintaining government buildings that the government no longer uses, and on such needy causes as training Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly (which falls under the category of foreign aid affecting US interests, I'm sure).  Let's face it.  The truth of the matter is that we're spending billions in charitable contributions to bad governments with worse leaders all around the world who really don't like us; in the misguided notion that 'buying friends' is a workable plan.  (Proving that while the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, they're perfectly willing to fund those considered only part-time terrorists and full-time political leaders; who then work with or subsidize other full-time terrorists.)

You know, maybe too much generosity isn't such a good thing after all.  Maybe you and I are in fact donating far too much, and against our own best interests.  Maybe ....

Oh wait, we're talking about taxes after all.  Taxes are extracted at the point of a gun (or the threat of a federal prison sentence),  and their redistribution of our obligatory contributions fall under the same guidelines as most government operation.  Mostly begun with the best of intentions, they have morphed into a bureaucratic monstrosity whose only saving grace is the inefficiency of they're misguided efforts.  I suppose that as such, they cannot therefore really be considered generosity after all.  I feel better again ... sort of.

Donate Responsibly ....

 

The Limits of Charity

Brace yourself, as this may not be about what you think it is.  

For example, it's not about Corporations getting government handouts.  Nor is it about the money that corporations donate to charitable organizations either in attempts to make themselves appear less greedy or because they genuinely believe in certain causes (and the tax deductions don't suck either).  It's not even about the 'donations' that they make to government lawmakers in order to gain favorable laws or regulations to reduce the competitive nature of their corporate endeavors.  It is however, about how charities have seemingly organized themselves into corporations through whoever it is that runs their fundraising and outreach campaigns.

Some months back, I received a request to contribute to the March of Dimes for a contribution to their annual fund.  With it, I received a small quantity of return address labels.  Now I don't do much in the way of 'snail mail' these days, but I had no return address labels and I've always felt that the March of Dimes was a worthy organization; so I sent a check.  A month later I received another request and another batch of labels, and I sent yet another check; in spite of the fact that I had more labels than I could use in years.

A month later (and I believe this is where the corporate aspect rears its ugly head), I received yet another request from the March of Dimes.  This time however, it was not alone; but accompanied by one from St Jude Hospital with yet more labels.  Now St Jude was the patron saint of my grade school and I wore his medal for many years of my youth.  These recollections caused me to send yet another check to yet another of those I consider to be a worth cause, but I was beginning to mumble under my breath while writing it.  This was only the beginning however, of a deluge of return address labels and requests that followed. 

Those months saw me with literally a flood of such such labels (some including note pads).  Traditionally worthy causes like Easter Seals, the American Cancer Society, and Disabled American Veterans were mixed with requests from organizations so obscure that even now I can't remember their names.  Some of the more worthy received contributions, some of the more esoteric ... not so much.  Along with them however, I was now receiving additional monthly requests from some of those I had first supported.  

Now I like to think I'm a relatively charitable person, though I certainly don't feel myself obligated to (or limited to) a tithe. In spite of my heartless condition as an evil Conservative however, I try to support as many worthy causes as I can throughout the year.  I could not help but notice, even without the use of a tin foil hat, that the campaigns of these charitable organizations was beginning to form a decided pattern. Under the philosophy of 'no good deed goes unpunished', it seemed to me that not only were those groups reaping rewards from my generosity had reaped further rewards by selling the mailing lists of their successes (or simply sharing them internally).  Someone had run a statistical analysis and said to themselves, "This guy pays good money for return address labels ... get him!"

Such an obvious ploy and abuse of trust is, unfortunately for many of them, now reaping a return that they may not like.  The barrage of requests for funding have not only exhausted my supply of disposable incoming for such uses, but my patience as well.  I don't take kindly to being set up for a marketing ploy by the same groups that I had considered worthy of support; and rather than reaping the further rewards that their potentially admirable appeals might have expected, they are instead earning little more than my ire.

These commendable groups are not alone in this execrable practice however.  An almost identical situation has arisen where it comes to donations to worthy political causes.  As I have shared a limited generosity to charitable groups, so too have I done so with like-minded Conservative organizations.  Like their non-political counterparts however, I am now deluged daily with non-stop solicitations from one group after another telling me that the scourge of opinions that I disagree with can only be countered by additional or new contributions to their worthy efforts. 

From political parties to non-partisan groups, they too offer me tidbits and toys (like prizes in a box of Cracker Jack) as a preemptive thank you for a contribution I have yet to agree to.  Many of these too are worthy groups with worthy goals; but like the government entities and policies that they apparently want to defeat, they have yet to learn that there is only so much blood that you can get from this stone. Additionally, sharing the fact that you have received a bit of my largesse with other like-minded efforts does not increase your likelihood of doing so in the future; and will probably dilute my ability to do so.

So for all of you clever marketing groups out there attempting to increase your take through the double dipping practice of getting my money before selling my information to other bidders, I can only tell you that you hurt rather than help yourselves.  While I am happy to share what generosity I can, and while I'm more than willing to 'give til it hurts', there are still limits to Charity.  


  

TFP Column: Feeling Uncharitable

Congress, in its apparently never-ending quest to increase the debt limit on the national charge account, is considering closing some loopholes in the tax code. (Of course they ought to consider scrapping the tax code and closing the IRS instead, but that's an effort for another day.) 


Among the many suggestions not being taken off the table, is one that will end the tax deduction for charitable contributions. Apparently, like mail delivery, the government would like a monopoly at providing philanthropy. 


At a time when so many can use a hand up (not a handout), it's likely that if such a policy is passed, it will (as the title of my most recent TFP effort states) leave some "Feeling Uncharitable". 


But hey, final negotiations are not complete in Congress and there's plenty of time for them to come up with an equally egregious and nonsensical solution to the problem of spending too much of the taxpayer's money. There's also plenty of time for all of you to catch up on what's going on in Toledo and NW Ohio by reading Toledo's largest circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

The Haitian Posturing Parade

People are often at the best when things are worst, and the generosity of the American people, as well as those of the rest of the world is once more revealing itself. There are drives going on here locally in Toledo and NW Ohio, more going on everywhere across the state, and countless ones going on across the country and around the world. 


Unfortunately, not everything going on out there contributes to the relief of the Haitian people or to the standing of those making the effort, and I'm not just talking about the inevitable scam artists that will attempt to rip people off during this time of terrible tragedy. The NFL for example, is posturing today, broadcasting "public service" announcements allowing people to donate to the Red Cross by texting a special number on your cell phone. (Don't do it while driving though, or you might get a ticket, and remember that texting charges may apply.) I guess that people watching football wouldn't have the intelligence to know how to donate to the Red Cross or any other charitable organization without the NFL stepping into the middle to explain how. 


They are not alone however, with every good corporate public relations expert in the country attempting to position and posture his organization properly and find a way to jump to the front of the parade as it begins to form. They do so in the hopes of bolstering standing in their respective communities, while hopefully contributing to the actual relief of those doing the suffering. 


Such posturing is not beyond our presidents as well, as a recent announcement would illustrate. President Obama met today with former Presidents Bush and Clinton to announce their own fund raising effort at http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org . This website is designed strictly for the acceptance of money and not material goods. 


Again I ask myself however, why such a site is necessary unless it is to provide an opportunity for power brokers seeking favors from those who still have some influence on politics and policy in this country? I believe that former President Clinton might actually have some standing in any effort on Haiti's behalf, as he is currently the UN special envoy to that country; (I'm not sure why they should need one, but that's a posting for another day.) but I'm not sure that putting his, Bush's or Obama's face on a charitable effort is going to gain extra money from the American people. 


Amazingly, it appears that we are all supposed to applaud such efforts, as politicians finally find a reason to reach across the partisan aisle and join together for a worthy cause. As a Curmudgeon and a skeptic however, I am forced view such endeavors with a more jaded eye. Why do we need former presidents to provide us with the means to do charitable work when such work is already well on its way? Why does the NFL need to take some of the credit for our donations rather than announcing what its own will be? (One from the owners and another from the players union please!) Why should we feel warm and fuzzy feelings about any corporation that lends its name (but far too often, not its money) to the efforts of Americans to come to the aid of others? (and the potential of getting a texting charge for a charitable donation really sets me off ...) 


I believe in the concept of charity and applaud charitable efforts in general. I believe in the notion of nations supplying aid to those in crisis when disasters occur. I believe that the tragedy in Haiti is one of those occasions and hope that all will attempt (as I have) to give something to the effort. I do not believe however, in efforts which appear to be little more than a posturing parade.

TFP Column: Government Dependence

This week's effort for the Toledo Free Press talks about the encroachment of government in every aspect of our lives.  It seems as though someone is in fact working a conscious agenda to create more "Government Dependence" by taking away income that might otherwise be used for charitable purposes.

If the trend continues, we may soon find ourselves in a position where the only charity left in this country is the redistribution of wealth through government largess.


It would be more than charitable, in fact it would be downright beneficial for you to spend some time this week catching up on everything going on in the Glass City in the Toledo Free Press.