Charitable Giving

The following essay on charitable giving is by anonymous CJ. I have contributed my own comments at the end.

                                                    "Charity
     Over the past month or so I have provided commentary on a variety of political issues.  Today I want to comment on charitable giving.
     As you may know, Americans are as a nation the most generous people on the earth.  There are many factors involved not the least of which are our founding principles as embodied in our Constitution.  In recent years, the federal government has become more and more involved in support programs for the disadvantaged.  Some of these programs have worked fairly well and others have been disasters.  None have worked as efficiently and effectively as private charity.  However, one consequence of the government's intrusion has been the dampening of private charity.
     Having said that, I want to urge you to continue and to expand the good work that all of you do on behalf of others.  This takes the form of charitable gifts of money but also in gifts of your time and talent.  Perhaps in your early years the charity is more of the latter, but both are important.  As you consider your gifts, kindly remember to keep the focus sharp.  Contributing small mounts to many is commendable, but larger gifts to a few will have a greater impact.  The simple reason is that in sharpening your focus, you will learn just how much of the gift is delivered to those in need.  It is relatively easy to determine, but you must do "due diligence".
    Prime examples of charities that are efficient and effective are the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army.  There are others.  Examples of charities that are far less efficient  are the United Fund and the Red Cross.  The Red Cross is most efficient in delivering aid in specific cases such as natural disasters.  The United Fund has efficiency and effectiveness problems in general.  The federal government is far and away the least efficient."

    CJ has not covered one of my pet peeves, which is the tremendous number of mail and phone call solicitations that I receive asking for money. We also see these presented as TV advertisements.
    These generally concern destitute animals, starving children, homeless vets, cancer, drunk driving, and a multitude of other things. I generally consider these to be opportunistic attempts to fleece me and line the pockets of the instigators. My attempts to find out how much of each dollar actually goes to the intended purpose have met with failure.
    While I never contribute to these organizations, my wife will occasionally send a small check. This seems to put her on the "grand mailing list", which increases the number of mail solicitations and phone calls. I admit that I could reduce my consternation by getting caller ID, but I hate being forced into that situation. It's also impossible to convince my wife that she is likely perpetuating fraud with these miscellaneous contributions. My son has said, as has also anonymous CJ, that one should take leadership in charitable giving rather than be reactive to advertisements and requests. His leadership suggestions are to contribute only to her church, the Children's Home, and one of the local colleges which she supports. But it falls on deaf ears.
    Anonymous CJ has said it correctly. Use due diligence, which means if you can't spend the time and effort to find out how your money is being spent when you contribute it, you should not be contributing. The other aspect which I will second, is to do work. It can be as a volunteer to the local school system or university, the local food bank, Meals on Wheels, etc..

Low-Interest Education Loans Are a Temptation to Destruction

    Education Week says, "Senate Leaders Say They Have Student Loan Deal.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate's top Democrat and Republican said Tuesday that they've reached a deal that would prevent interest rates on college loans from doubling beginning this weekend for millions of students. But House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has yet to decide whether the pact will be acceptable to his Republican-run chamber."
    Bad move. Only John Boehner may be on the right track. We have already too many young people with college degrees who can't find jobs. They are also burdened with tremendous debt and little hope of repayment using the low interest loan rates previously in effect. I liken this to the housing bubble, where everybody could buy a house with a smile. They subsequently couldn't pay and the whole thing collapsed.
    It's never a good idea to tell people to do something because it's cheap. Look first for a good program and then decide whether you can afford it.

UK Budget Cuts for Science

    There is a report that the UK has a budget problem similar to that of the US. The government is considerably overspent, with respect to its income and they are trying to find ways to decrease spending.
    The UK agency responsible for science funding is the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). It recently decided to give higher priority to research in areas with foreseeable applications rather than open- and science and will also decrease funding for PhD students. Anthony Barrett, of the Imperial College of London says that this strategy is misguided and in the death of British science. for Barrett is also the leader the leader of a protest movement where about 100 researchers took to the streets of London last week.
    The protest is a natural reaction. If you take away a child's lollipop, he cries. However, the EPSRC says it is, "Committed to ensuring that the UK continues to have an enviable international research reputation, punching above its weight in quality, and maximizing the societal and economic benefits of what we invest in". Well said!. However, they give no numbers, and I suspect that similar to the US, there is more talk about cutting funding rather than actual cuts.

Robust Science Budgets in Times of Federal Budget Deficits?

    In the May 21 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Andrea Widener and Susan Morrissey report on "Robust Science Budgets".
    The House passed HR 5326 for $51.1 billion, which includes a 10.5% increase over last year for the National Institute of Science and Technology and a 4.3% increase for the National Science Foundation. NASA gets a slight cut.
    Glenn Ruskin, Director of the American Chemical Society's Office of Public Affairs says, "The House passed bill demonstrates bipartisan support for science and recognition that is critically important for US innovation and global competitiveness". Baloney! We have real federal budget problems and the new House of Representatives, with supposed high Republican representation, should recognize this. Apparently, it does not.
    Harold Rogers, Republican from Kentucky and Chair of the House Appropriations Committee said the total $1.6 billion cut is necessary. Correct but not enough. He also said, "This legislation funds important programs at adequate responsible levels while cutting spending." However, keep in mind that a $1.6 billion cut, which still leaves 51.1 billion, is not a significant recognition of the budgetary problems of the federal government. The NIST and the NSF still get $830 million and $7.3 billion, respectively, of taxpayer money or borrowings to fritter away.
    The only thing I like about this report is the amendment, which would halt all National Science Foundation funding for political science research.

Natural Gas will Boost Segments of the Economy

    There is good news for a couple of segments of the economy.
    Energy costs are dropping and raw material costs for the chemical industry are also dropping. This comes about from the production of natural gas through the fracking process.
    It will be recalled that fracking involves pumping water into gas wells at high pressure in order to break up the ground strata and release the gas.
    For the energy sector, new electricity production can use lower-cost natural gas in new plants, which are less capital intensive will construction.
    For the chemical industry, low-cost natural gas, also gives low-cost ethane, which is a component of natural gas. The chemical industry uses ethane in a cracker to produce ethylene, which is a basic raw material for a number of plastics, including polyethylene and polyacrylates. The chemical industry is lauding this development. One of the celebration locations was the annual dinner meeting of the American Chemistry Council. CEO Calvin Dooley proposed a toast to shale gas, which is another term for natural gas from the fracking process.
    The price of shale gas has not yet reached the anticipated low point, but unless the EPA goofs up the program, the ACC celebration is not premature.
    It should be noted that markets for the downstream chemical products are not expanding in this recessionary economy, but the development has placed the US in a more favorable position to obtain business previously held by companies in other countries. An additional advantage is a reduction of supply line. Raw material access in close proximity to manufacturing plants and customers is a favorable advantage, because it reduces the likelihood of something going wrong in the supply line.
    Hooray for fracking and natural gas!

Why. Does a Company Or Corporation Exist?

    There seems to be some confusion in the public mind concerning why a company or corporation exists. Examples of companies or corporations are United Supermarkets, Bain Capital, General Electric, and Exxon Mobil.
    The reason for their existence is very simple. They exist only to make a profit, or some say, "make money".
    In order to make a profit, they need to supply a desired product or service or both to consumers. Consumers may be the general public, as for example customers for automobiles, or a consumer may be another company needing a software program for their computer operations.
    In order to supply a product or service, a company always needs people to operate the supply system. In other words it makes jobs, but those jobs only continue to exist as long as the company continues to make a profit. The balance lies primarily in the effectiveness of the employees. They must make a product or service of customer-desired type and quality and do so at a cost which is as good as or better than the same functions performed by their competitors. The sales organization must bring to a customer's attention the merits of the product, so that the customer will buy and contribute revenue.
    Without a high level of revenue and low costs, profit ceases to exist and the company disappears. With the disappearance of a company, jobs are lost.
    Note again that the only reason for the company to exist is to make a profit. It is not there to supply products or services to customers, not there to make jobs, not there to pay taxes, not there to create environmental problems and not there to justify government regulations. All of these are ancillary to the company's objective, which is always to make a profit. Without a profit and the disappearance of the company, products and services cease to be generated and available to the public, unemployment develops, there are no taxes, and there's nothing to regulate.
    What about the public good? Don't companies have a responsibility to the general public? The answer is an emphatic "No". There are other mechanisms and procedures, which handle the needs of our society.
    When a company makes money, the owners of the company and the employees also make money. Each of these uses that money at his own discretion. It can go to a variety of things, such as food  rent, RVs, boats, college education, etc., but most people also have an altruistic side. They contribute money primarily to their churches and charities.
    There are a multitude of charities including those for blinded veterans, animals support, poor people, etc. All of these have one thing in common. Contrary to companies, charitable organizations do not exist to make a profit. They exist only for the reason to disperse money which is given to them.

People Who Want Your Money

Ninety per cent of telephone calls I receive are from people who want my money. By that I mean, they are soliciting funds for supposedly one good cause or another, and the majority are requests for political contributions to support campaigns which supposedly will aid me through the establishment of better government. Similarly, 90% of my mail is in the same category.
    

As mentioned, most of these are requests for political money, but those that draw on my heartstrings through cruelty to animals, blinded and wounded veterans, cancer etc. are not insignificant.
    

As I have thought about it, most of these requests for compassionate money do not make sense except possibly for lining the pockets of the organization leaders. It is my understanding that we have the greatest medical support for our military in the world. Through our taxpayer and government borrowed funds, we have veterans hospitals and other medical facilities, which presumably are doing their job. I've never heard of a blinded or otherwise wounded veteran, who has been denied reasonable medical and psychiatric attention by the Military. Why then do we need private organizations to solicit funds to do the same thing?.
    

Similarly for animal cruelty. It is my understanding that every US community government has at least one person responsible to enforce local regulations concerning animal cruelty, and we periodically see in the TV news cases where enforcement has resulted. If we're doing this on a socialized basis, why do we need to have it done by private industry, which means your personal money?.
    

Let's also take cancer, or diabetes, or blindness. The Federal government, through the National Institute of Health, has spent billions of dollars and continues to spend billions of dollars on cancer research and these other diseases. Again, this money comes from your taxes and federal borrowing against your future. Why again, do we need private industry to further support this work?
    

Lastly, let's consider political solicitations. The simple philosophy behind these requests is that by the presentation on the phone or through the mail, you will be convinced that the person or organization requesting the funds will establish for you a better government, which will improve your life. Most of the solicitations involve description of the educational background of the candidate, his experience in government or private industry, any other claims to fame, and finally an indication of his personal beliefs in government, which may include reducing the size, or making it more efficient, etc. Some of this information is useful, in that you can use it to ultimately decide on what lever you press in the voting booth, but that is not the point of his solicitation. He wants money for TV advertising and to support a staff of promoters which hopefully will increase the number of voters who will vote for him. Most people fall for these solicitations and make contributions, which gives them the general feeling of having done something to aid in establishing better government for themselves and for the people. This is usually a misguided effort. The people who actually profit from these contributions are individuals personally involved in the campaign and especially the various TV advertisement broadcasting concerns.

     

It is well known in charity giving that specific help to those in need is the most effective technique. Contributions to organizations soliciting funds and taxes to government for dispersal to "needy" are primarily wasted. It is granted that finding those in need is usually more difficult than writing a check in response to e-mail solicitation from an organization, but there is a great difference in effectiveness. Do you have a cleaning woman or a gardener working for you? Have you discussed her/his finances to see whether he could use a little extra financial support through raising his rates. Have you discussed with him the pitfalls of scams involving the less educated victims and those least able to support losses? Does he have children, some of whom may be particularly bright and need support for education? What about the young person carrying out your groceries at the supermarket? Does he have a career desire, which you can help accomplish? Have you talked with him enough to know whether this would be putting money down a rat hole? You may say, "Well, no. I don't have time". Would you have time to just write a check to an organization, which will likely waste your money, because maybe it will do some good?
    

This is the political season and requests for campaign funds are rampant. Considerations on how you spend your money should be the same as how you would spend it on charity. Be specific for individuals and organizations and know something about them. What are they actually doing, other than just tell you what they plan to do?. Writing a check to the Republican Party is probably in the same category as writing a check to the cancer fund. They already have plenty of money. In most cases, they just don't properly spend it. It is more likely that you would be better able to decide how how your money and should be spent.
    

As an example, I heard on television this morning Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. His basic message in the discussion with the news anchor was that the number of criminal investigations of the Wall Street crowd is the lowest in many years, in spite of the fact that Pres. Obama and his cabinet have especially targeted those people for any lawbreaking. It doesn't cost Sekulow anything to be on TV as a guest, and I've heard him a couple of times. He is obviously doing good work in pressing the Administration to do its job of law enforcement. He hasn't asked me for money, and I haven't sent him any. But I would do so before I would send it to the Republican National Committee, which is basically noncommittal on anything it does. Rather than just writing a check, phone J. Sekulow at 1.800.684.3110. Be specific. Ask him what his latest project is. Tell him what you're interested in and ask how any money you send him might be used for an item of your interest. After that discussion, you then decide whether to forget the whole thing or write him a check for X dollars.
    

Are you interested in a specific candidate. If so, don't start by writing a check. Start with a phone conversation, and when you are satisfied that your money will be well spent, you then write the check.