Recently, I attended a meeting with non-profit advocates and program providers whose work would all but stop if Congressional Republicans successfully slash the federal budget. Inspired by public sector workers fighting against attacks on their collective bargaining rights, I hoped we could galvanize a similar uprising in the nonprofit sector. To my dismay, instead of strategizing to combat the cuts, the people in the room were debating whether to fight back at all.
I've found myself in many such meetings in the past few weeks. Each time, I have been surprised -- and alarmed -- by the non-profit community's reluctance to tackle this issue head-on. Frankly, I can't shake the feeling that we are surrendering to the schoolyard bully. These budget cuts are an existential threat to many organizations and, more significantly, dangerous for the millions of individuals who rely on them. Yet those who would hack these programs represent a tiny minority of zealots who are immune to the human cost of their actions.
The dollars on the chopping block constitute too little of the budget to make a dent in the federal deficit -- despite the claims of Tea Party-backed Republicans. But they support programs that do the bulk of the work that most Americans expect from their government -- educating children, caring for the sick, and strengthening communities. They form the basis of the American social contract.
Now, under the false pretense of deficit reduction, that contract is being shredded -- and many non-profits seem unwilling to protect or restore it. What accounts for this passivity -- and what can be done about it?
Non-profit culture is partly responsible. The mission of most non-profits is to provide direct services to people in need, and the idea of stepping into political battles strikes them as an unseemly departure from their real work. Many are also reluctant to criticize the very government that provides them with resources.
Ill-informed lawyers reinforce these beliefs, wrongly advising non-profits that strict laws prohibit them from engaging in advocacy. The philanthropies that fund non-profits often prevent grant recipients from doing anything that might be called "lobbying," even if it's nothing more than contacting or educating elected officials.
High-impact non-profits are testing and proving the very solutions that should inform -- and reform -- broader public policy. But some donors see social programs as fundamentally distinct from social change -- a disconnect that has a chilling effect on providers who need to connect with policymakers.
Behind closed doors, non-profits express hope -- not confidence, but a wish -- that someone else, whether President Obama or the Democrats in Congress, will step in and save the day.
But that could well be a false hope. Indeed, if we fail to let politicians know just how devastating these cuts will be, even our natural political allies will be less likely to take a stand on our behalf.
While we scour the skies, helplessly waiting for Superman, the opposition is bullying us into submission.
But President Obama was right: "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
It is time for America's non-profit sector to take responsibility for its own fate -- and to do so aggressively -- before it's too late. Our inaction creates a vacuum in which the most extreme forces in America can spread their irresponsible ideas.
We may not have started this fight, but we must be the ones to end it.
We must mobilize our supporters, board members, stakeholders, and donors, urging them to call, write and visit their representatives in Congress and to let them know, in concrete terms, what these cuts will mean. Non-profits must also better educate themselves about their legal rights to express these views.
Finally, we need to hold our elected officials accountable for the votes they take and the choices they make. When the Speaker of the House responds to impending job losses with a curt "So be it," you know that political leaders have lost touch with reality. As the people who, every day, fight the tough battles on the ground, we have an obligation to give voice to the voiceless -- to remind politicians that their actions have real, devastating consequences on people's lives.
I've been an advocate for most of my life. I've worked with many incredible organizations that do the hard work that lifts up communities. And I've never felt the sense of urgency I feel now. This is no less than a fight for the principles that define our nation.
We are at a decision point. We can succumb to extremists who would eliminate the bond between government and citizens, and erode the safety net that protects our most vulnerable. Or we can seize this opportunity to fight for the programs that achieve results and improve lives. We can rebuild people's trust in the nation's ability to solve big problems, community by community, person by person.
Characterizing the cutoff of handing out other people;s money to non-profits as "bullying" is laughingly funny. The ONLY bullying here is government taking tax payer's money at the point of a gun. Stopping this abuse of power is the exact opposite of bullying.
Non-profits can find funding from private sources or find real employment.
History Never Equals The Future...
Your article is nothing more than a misleading attempt to create panic among those citizens who may support or depend on the work of non-profits sponsored by taxpayers. It also serves as a classic example of a misguided member of the intellegentsia with an agenda or a clear misunderstanding of the purpose and the success of the thousands of non-profits operating without the support of tax payers.
There are more than 700,000 non-profit organizations within the United States with varying types of charters and purposes, the bulk of these non-profits derive their revenue through private support and contributions. Instead, of asking why does Congress want to eliminate the funding of the organizations, currently receiving taxpayer dollars; why not explore what is it that these organizations need to do to become fully funded by private sources like all the other non-profits in this country. If for some reason that they are unable to garner such private support, maybe their function is either not needed or being fulfilled by another organization.
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
But if they viewed it differently, ... that they are being called to fight on behalf of those who benefit from their work, and not for themselves at all, I think some might rise up and do the right thing, ... to advocate not only for the care of their beneficiaries, ... but for the funds to provide it. Those of us who do the work, must also fight the fight for those who can not, for all the reasons we donate our time or contribute our work for them.
Once the funding is gone, it will likely never be restored.
And how is being in the highest tax bracket a benefit? Tax cuts don't cost money. Spending costs money.
And if you haven't noticed (which, if you get your news from this biased site, you probably didn't), the Republicans have basically become the Party of Medicare. It was Bush who passed Medicare Part D, the biggest (and most expensive) expansion of entitlements since LBJ.
Get out of your Red/Blue mindset. Republicans support big government and Democrats support big military (the defense budget is larger under Obama/Pelosi than it was under Bush/Boener). The illusion of choice is what keeps the sheep herded.
These big tax cuts are especially damaging now because due to the level of unemployment, tax revenues are way down anyway. I read that State tax revenues are down 12%, but the streets still need to be plowed and the garbage still needs to be collected. That is where state budget deficits come from, not because states are spending so much more.
It's what they do. It's why they were elected.
If a non-profit is truly beneficial and honorable it should be successful in raising money from the private sector.
I am greatly disturbed when I hear of a non-profit organization that receives government money then spends that money to lobby for more government money. This is simply wrong.
Not-for-profit may not suuit your tastes, but the work they do, like running shelters for women and children, feeding the poor and mentally ill, was once done badly by the government.
When was the last time you willingly donated to shelters, or programs for the homeless, or indigent?
Second, I spent four hours at the Presbyterian homeelss shelter last night serving food, landering clothes and dispensing clothes. I'm on the 8:00 to 12:00 shift again tonight.
Third, I gave 16% of my gross income to charities in 2010.
How about you?
A good example of this is the Smithsonian's human origins exhibit, which is funded by the Koch Brothers, the same folks who gladly fund the interests who would cut the jobs and funding of things like the Smithsonian.
I remember well the disappointment I felt the day I learned that the (very wealthy) person whose money was in part funding my salary and departmental operations was also pushing hard against health care reform. (Granted, our museum had no official stance on health care reform, but nearly all of our staff members as individuals wanted change.)
When you get in bed with the snakes, expect to be bitten once in a while.
In addition to organizations with a legitimate purpose, I give directly to college students needing tuition and expense money and individuals with limited incomes. The amounts not to charities are not tax deductible.
I also review financial statements of charitable organizations. If administrative and marketing costs eat up to great a percentage of contributions, I will not donate. We don't need to have employees of these organizations pig out on contributions.
If I give money to a person in need, 100% goes to that person. If give to a charity, I have found that in some cases less than 50% is used for the intended purpose. Financial statements are available for review on the internet.