Friday, February 03, 2012
Planned Parenthood vs. Susan G. Komen for the Cure
In case you missed it, the there was a great big blowup recently in the women’s health charity world. The big breast cancer and fundraising organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure – the marketing geniuses who came up with the pink ribbon idea for breast cancer awareness, and who engage in a lot of marketing and fundraising for causes related to breast cancer. Whatever they don’t need for operations and overhead, they dispense to hundreds of different breast-cancer related organizations, funding education and awareness activities, screenings, mammograms, and research toward preventing and curing the terrible disease.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure sparked a controversy when they announced they were pulling their $600,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood, claiming that a new internal rule adopted by the Komen board stated they can’t fund organizations that are currently under a congressional investigation. Planned Parenthood was the only charity currently receiving funds that fell into that category, so they felt singled out and objected – claiming that the Komen foundation’s decision was politically motivated and that the real issue was – que’lle surprise! – abortion.
Hilarity ensued.
Planned Parenthood supporters furiously accused Susan G. Komen for the Cure of making a principled stand. Meanwhile, fueled by Facebook, Twitter, blogs, other social media, Komen’s fundraising more than doubled in the days following the announcement, in what the media described as a severe anti-Komen backlash.
At stake, of course, was more than 0.6 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget for the year. Planned Parenthood executives announced that without this funding, either they would have to collect another $1.75 for every abortion performed, or women would be denied mammograms.
Naturally, they were leaning towards getting out of the mammogram business. Which – of course, it turned out they already were: A pro-life activist recently called up 30 different Planned Parenthood facilities around the country, recording the results. All 30 facilities informed her that Planned Parenthood didn’t do mammograms.
Not to worry: Planned Parenthood supporters rode to the rescue – led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As a billionaire himself, and founder of the Bloomberg media empire, Mayor Bloomberg – a ferocious 2nd amendment opponent and the man who thinks government should be free to dictate your choice in French fries, pledged to donate $250,000 to demonstrate his commitment to a woman’s right to choose.
For its part, Susan G. Komen for the Cure was stung by the allegation that its decision to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood may have secretly been rooted in principle. So about 48 hours after making the announcement that they would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood, the female-dominated leadership at Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that they had changed their mind.
The decision was reversed, and Komen announced its commitment to continuing their “treasured relationship” with Planned Parenthood. So Susan G. Komen donors, regardless of their feelings on abortion, will still send $600,000 per year to an organization that doesn’t even do mammograms.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure sparked a controversy when they announced they were pulling their $600,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood, claiming that a new internal rule adopted by the Komen board stated they can’t fund organizations that are currently under a congressional investigation. Planned Parenthood was the only charity currently receiving funds that fell into that category, so they felt singled out and objected – claiming that the Komen foundation’s decision was politically motivated and that the real issue was – que’lle surprise! – abortion.
Hilarity ensued.
Planned Parenthood supporters furiously accused Susan G. Komen for the Cure of making a principled stand. Meanwhile, fueled by Facebook, Twitter, blogs, other social media, Komen’s fundraising more than doubled in the days following the announcement, in what the media described as a severe anti-Komen backlash.
At stake, of course, was more than 0.6 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget for the year. Planned Parenthood executives announced that without this funding, either they would have to collect another $1.75 for every abortion performed, or women would be denied mammograms.
Naturally, they were leaning towards getting out of the mammogram business. Which – of course, it turned out they already were: A pro-life activist recently called up 30 different Planned Parenthood facilities around the country, recording the results. All 30 facilities informed her that Planned Parenthood didn’t do mammograms.
Not to worry: Planned Parenthood supporters rode to the rescue – led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As a billionaire himself, and founder of the Bloomberg media empire, Mayor Bloomberg – a ferocious 2nd amendment opponent and the man who thinks government should be free to dictate your choice in French fries, pledged to donate $250,000 to demonstrate his commitment to a woman’s right to choose.
For its part, Susan G. Komen for the Cure was stung by the allegation that its decision to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood may have secretly been rooted in principle. So about 48 hours after making the announcement that they would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood, the female-dominated leadership at Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced that they had changed their mind.
The decision was reversed, and Komen announced its commitment to continuing their “treasured relationship” with Planned Parenthood. So Susan G. Komen donors, regardless of their feelings on abortion, will still send $600,000 per year to an organization that doesn’t even do mammograms.
Labels: Abortion, cancer, charities, finance, health care, Politics, women
Friday, April 03, 2009
DENIED: Senate Committee Protects Women, Children, Poor and Disabled from Obama's Predations
Obama's plan to limit charitable deductions was strangled in the crib, as it should be.
No shit.
Unanimous, baby!
Splash, out
Jason
The U.S. Senate rejected a proposal by President Barack Obama to finance an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system by limiting the ability of the well-to-do to take tax deductions for charitable contributions.
The chamber unanimously approved an amendment to a pending budget plan that rejects the proposal to limit the size of itemized deductions that can be taken by those earning more than $250,000.
Obama proposed using the estimated $318 billion such a change would generate to help finance a health-care overhaul, which he says will cost at least $630 billion. Lawmakers said they feared the effect of such a tax change on charities.
No shit.
Unanimous, baby!
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: charities, Obama, stupid, taxes
Monday, February 23, 2009
The AP Targets the Army Emergency Relief Fund
accusing it of hoarding vast reserves of cash.
Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.
That's not necessarily a bad thing ... especially as one steers a charity or pension fund (or personal reserve, for that matter) into a period of low interest rates, which decrease the returns available on capital. In order to generate a given level of benefit, one needs a larger sum invested.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but haven't these people ever heard of the function served by an endowment?
Objection, your honor. The use of the term "facade" is prejudicial. AER is what it is. There is no "facade." Nobody in his right mind thinks that the AER is the Army. And as a matter of fact, the AER is NOT the Army, though it has military officers on its board.
On the other hand, the "facade" is so carefully constructed that the organization's own home page specifically says that the charity operates through commanders.
The AP writes that the fact that 91 percent of aid is in the form of interest-free loans, rather than grants, is a bad thing. It's not. Remember that the people the charity serves are active duty military. By definition, these people are employed, have access to quality health insurance, and enjoy pay raises every year. Job security for our active component is strong (our activated reserves are not quite in the same situation, though.)
This makes the AER's population fundamentally different from the population served by most charities. A prudent steward of the fund would use loans rather than grants, where appropriate.
I know that functioning as a prudent steward of capital might be a foreign concept to newspapers these days, but bear with me.
They have the ability to repay loans - particularly those made interest-free. When the soldier pays back the loan, that money is available to help the next soldier.
Furthermore, while it is true that the Army's soldiers are still operating under the strain of fighting two wars, this in and of itself counteracts some of the need, because soldiers themselves are able to save more money while on deployment, thanks to a combination of tax-free income and a variety of special pays and allowances, free food, and no Ski-Doo or Harley Dealership in sight for the length of their deployment.
Let's take a look at the disbursements, according to the AP:
That's $77.5 million in benefits to soldiers and their families in one year, against a capital base of $214 million - a payout rate of 36 percent, in an environment in which 10-year Treasuries are yielding less than 3 percent.
To put this in perspective, a typical endowment fund, until recently, assumed only about a 10 percent rate of return (which was nuts) and a payout rate of about 5 percent.
Furthermore, the charity operates on a demand-pull basis. It makes funds available on the say-so of commanders - as it should be. If commanders don't request the assistance, then donations go to the reserve. The charity has little choice, other than to start giving away money to people who aren't requesting the assistance. But then it would become quite a different thing.
Sure, at some point, maybe it would make sense for some of those reserves to be donated to the MWR program or some other organization. But we aren't at that point yet, in my view. Nor are we at the point where the whole program can be funded from the earnings of that capital reserve without spending down principal. If interest rates rise and stay high, that will help (though more homes will be foreclosed on!).
But in my view, the AP's criticism of the AER is unwarranted.
As for the command's involvement in getting soldiers to pay back the loans, I absolutely do not see why that is a problem.
As a commander, if I put my good word on the line sticking up for a soldier, vouching for his good character and the legitimate need (and yes, I've done so before), then I'm going to make sure he pays back the loan. It's my responsibility as a commander to keep the program in place and in good shape so that the assistance will be there for the next soldier who has a need.
What the AP also fails to understand is that the commander gets a letter in the mail every time a soldier is late on his AAFES STAR-program account, and the command has to come down like a ton of bricks if a soldier is late on payment to a government travel card.
The involvement of troop commanders in debt collection is nothing new or controversial - and indeed the role used to be much bigger.
Splash, out
Jason
ADDED: The article says that "most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent, with more than that considered hoarding."
The problem with that statement is that most charity watchdogs are riddled with libtards who wouldn't recognize sustainable financing if it bit them on the ass. The AER's 12-year reserve is much closer to sustainable.
ADDED: Don't miss Rustmeister's Alehouse today! His take on the reporter: "you're a douchenozzle, Jeff. Your hit piece on AER might read well with the latte sippers, but here, it's just so much crap."
Yep.
Plays well with seditionists, though.
Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.
That's not necessarily a bad thing ... especially as one steers a charity or pension fund (or personal reserve, for that matter) into a period of low interest rates, which decrease the returns available on capital. In order to generate a given level of benefit, one needs a larger sum invested.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but haven't these people ever heard of the function served by an endowment?
Tax-exempt and legally separate from the military, AER projects a facade of independence but really operates under close Army control.
Objection, your honor. The use of the term "facade" is prejudicial. AER is what it is. There is no "facade." Nobody in his right mind thinks that the AER is the Army. And as a matter of fact, the AER is NOT the Army, though it has military officers on its board.
On the other hand, the "facade" is so carefully constructed that the organization's own home page specifically says that the charity operates through commanders.
Founded in 1942, AER eases cash emergencies of active-duty soldiers and retirees and provides college scholarships for their families. Its emergency aid covers mortgage payments and food, car repairs, medical bills, travel to family funerals, and the like.
Instead of giving money away, though, the Army charity lent out 91 percent of its emergency aid during the period 2003-2007. For accounting purposes, the loans, dispensed interest-free, are counted as expenses only when they are not paid back.
The AP writes that the fact that 91 percent of aid is in the form of interest-free loans, rather than grants, is a bad thing. It's not. Remember that the people the charity serves are active duty military. By definition, these people are employed, have access to quality health insurance, and enjoy pay raises every year. Job security for our active component is strong (our activated reserves are not quite in the same situation, though.)
This makes the AER's population fundamentally different from the population served by most charities. A prudent steward of the fund would use loans rather than grants, where appropriate.
I know that functioning as a prudent steward of capital might be a foreign concept to newspapers these days, but bear with me.
They have the ability to repay loans - particularly those made interest-free. When the soldier pays back the loan, that money is available to help the next soldier.
Furthermore, while it is true that the Army's soldiers are still operating under the strain of fighting two wars, this in and of itself counteracts some of the need, because soldiers themselves are able to save more money while on deployment, thanks to a combination of tax-free income and a variety of special pays and allowances, free food, and no Ski-Doo or Harley Dealership in sight for the length of their deployment.
Let's take a look at the disbursements, according to the AP:
Make no mistake: AER, a normally uncontroversial fixture of Army life, has helped millions of soldiers and families. Last year alone, AER handed out about $5.5 million in emergency grants, $65 million in loans, and $12 million in scholarships.
That's $77.5 million in benefits to soldiers and their families in one year, against a capital base of $214 million - a payout rate of 36 percent, in an environment in which 10-year Treasuries are yielding less than 3 percent.
To put this in perspective, a typical endowment fund, until recently, assumed only about a 10 percent rate of return (which was nuts) and a payout rate of about 5 percent.
Furthermore, the charity operates on a demand-pull basis. It makes funds available on the say-so of commanders - as it should be. If commanders don't request the assistance, then donations go to the reserve. The charity has little choice, other than to start giving away money to people who aren't requesting the assistance. But then it would become quite a different thing.
Sure, at some point, maybe it would make sense for some of those reserves to be donated to the MWR program or some other organization. But we aren't at that point yet, in my view. Nor are we at the point where the whole program can be funded from the earnings of that capital reserve without spending down principal. If interest rates rise and stay high, that will help (though more homes will be foreclosed on!).
But in my view, the AP's criticism of the AER is unwarranted.
As for the command's involvement in getting soldiers to pay back the loans, I absolutely do not see why that is a problem.
As a commander, if I put my good word on the line sticking up for a soldier, vouching for his good character and the legitimate need (and yes, I've done so before), then I'm going to make sure he pays back the loan. It's my responsibility as a commander to keep the program in place and in good shape so that the assistance will be there for the next soldier who has a need.
What the AP also fails to understand is that the commander gets a letter in the mail every time a soldier is late on his AAFES STAR-program account, and the command has to come down like a ton of bricks if a soldier is late on payment to a government travel card.
The involvement of troop commanders in debt collection is nothing new or controversial - and indeed the role used to be much bigger.
Splash, out
Jason
ADDED: The article says that "most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent, with more than that considered hoarding."
The problem with that statement is that most charity watchdogs are riddled with libtards who wouldn't recognize sustainable financing if it bit them on the ass. The AER's 12-year reserve is much closer to sustainable.
ADDED: Don't miss Rustmeister's Alehouse today! His take on the reporter: "you're a douchenozzle, Jeff. Your hit piece on AER might read well with the latte sippers, but here, it's just so much crap."
Yep.
Plays well with seditionists, though.
Labels: Army, charities, finance
