Foundations and Funders
This weeks readings centered around foundations and funders. It was interesting to read about the Oregon Community Foundation, I was really surprised to see how big it was and how much it could accomplish. It was also surprising in doing the scavenger hunt to see just how many grants and money is out there.
I agree entirely with the plan in Obama's budget which we had to read. It seems that today taxation is getting more and more regressive as though that is going to solve any problem. I like the fact that Obama's proposal is fiscally responsible and only effects the top tax bracket. It's refreshing to see that there are some changes in the tax loopholes. I think there's a misconceived understanding that rich people give a higher percentage of their wealth to charity, I'm not so sure that that's true. I feel as though we are really saddled with a deficit and all the tax breaks to the rich are not really helping. In order for fiscal responsibility people need to make sacrifices (as the middle class is making with government benefits) the upper class is going to have to make similar sacrifices.
It seems as though the future of nonprofits is pretty hazy. It was interesting reading the article by Stannard-Stockton about how it must react to the “new normal.” I agree that philanthropists really need to stay on their toes while the crisis unfolds. It seems as though cuts in the nonprofit sector would be the normal reaction to a crisis like this. However, there has been evidence of the contrary.
The article by Goldmark seemed like a shot of reality. It seems as though non-profits have to have a clear mission and goals in order to receive money. It was interesting to see the different measure of non-profit effectiveness. Instead of return on investment or any kind of market efficiency it was impact. I feel as though this is the money appropriate way to measure the success of a nonprofit albeit unclear. Of course, determining all of this is far from simple. It seems as though “impact” is a subjective term and there are certainly steps in determining what impacts one thing more than another.
Additionally it was interesting to read about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It seems as though the foundation has been a great success and has been particularly good at reducing soil erosion and promoting sustainable agriculture (two topics I'm really interested in).
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Pages/overview.aspx
Additionally it was interesting to read about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It seems as though the foundation has been a great success and has been particularly good at reducing soil erosion and promoting sustainable agriculture (two topics I'm really interested in).
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Pages/overview.aspx
It was interesting to read about the Lake Winnipeg watershed and the role the Community Foundations of Canada had. It was interesting to see how this one foundation would try to attract other foundations to help with the effort of improving the water in Canada. I was surprised to see that many of the foundations came together and mobilized to work together. I had thought that foundations would be competitive or in conflict. I was very happy to see that they worked together to improve the watershed. One part of the solution was educating the community to treat the water better. It seemed as though once these foundations pooled their resources together they were able to be more effective. People were able to get together and work on the environment, but it certainly required some context. The mayor was very progressive and the foundation was proactive in involving the community.
www.cfc-fcc.ca/doc/environment/thinking-like-a-watershed.pdf
I also agree about Obama's policy on taxing the wealthy. While this is an oversimplification, his plan goes about taxation in the most effect ways it can, and is really a step in the right direction. Conservatives often shout that spending and taxes are too high but seem to preach cuts in all the wrong areas. Yes to national defense spending and no to social services? It really bothers me to see areas such as welfare suffer when these cuts come at such a high social costs. The main subject of the reading was itemized deductions and whether cutting these were a good idea. I would say yes, they only benefit the wealthy; it is just one example of our tax structure that leads to loopholes. I feel that the wealthy is a good idea, and when we think of the wealthy this is those making over 250,000 annually; this is probably after all of the write-offs. What it comes down to are that these people find themselves in a very privileged class and would probably not change their lifestyle or spending habits as a result of the tax.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed in the Sean Stannard-Stockton article, the days of America as a global superpower are slowly dwindling and I agree that we will hopefully be seeing a shift in international relations over the next few decades. Up until this point, America has held an almost childlike pompousness of our role as the global protector, and our oversight into structure of other countries has sometimes caused more harm than done good. I feel that as international aid is moved slowly outward to a broadened pool that the “new normal” will lead to less corruption by influence, as the influence of one country over aid wont be as severe.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised too by the size and depth of Oregon Community Foundation. They do lots of great work and help Oregon in many ways. Obama's tax plan is ambitious and idealistic but I don't think its going to work because we live in a capitalist country where the rich is in control thus taxing them is unlikely and how those people won't be willing to give up their money. Only the rich and famous like Bill Gates give a lot to charity, so they are misleading examples on how people think rich donate a lot but like you said, that is not the case. I agree that the upper class need to make sacrifices for the better for this country and hopefully they do that before it's too late. I think impact is a loose term and how do we measure impact like effectiveness but I seeing the "impact" a organization does, shows more results and have more definitive goals.
ReplyDelete