If you have any more suggestions, let me know. I'll be updating this post as I find more.
Separately, Wayne's escapades would never have been possible in the first place if there had been an estate tax: otherwise, his wealth would've been dissipated by the government by two successive taxations on the Wayne Estate, one when his parents died, the other when Alfred declared him dead and inherited Bruce's assets.When you tax the rich, their sons can't afford the appropriate lairs, vehicles, and gadgetry to effectively dispense vigilante justice. Is that the kind of America you want to live in?
Join our conference call Wednesday at 2:00 EST and learn how you can help stop President Bush and the Republicans in Congress from doing what they do best: acting in the interests of the wealthiest in our society.
The estate tax is the most progressive part of the tax code, and it is under seige. Repealing it will save a handful of wealthy and powerful individuals billions of dollars, while making the rest of us pay more. The effort to repeal the estate tax is one of the most egregious examples of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
We need your help in order to combat the plethora of cash currently being spent by pro-repealers. Join us to find out how you can help fight back to preserve this important and progressive tax.
Details are below - Please RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org if you plan on joining:
What: Blogger Conference Call on Estate Tax
When: Wednesday, August 31, from 2:00 - 3:00 pm EST
Where: By Phone (Dial-in at 1.800.820.4690; passcode: 2022348494)
Adam Hughes, Budget Policy Analyst, OMB Watch
John Irons, Director of Budget and Tax Policy, Center for American Progress
Joel Friedman, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
CharityFocus has no paid staff members. A common downfall of nonprofit organizations is that their pure intentions are often overshadowed by the challenges for survival. What begins as a way to serve others, very easily becomes a self-propagating system that aims to stay alive at all costs. Noticing that trend, CharityFocus took another route -- keep the organization fully volunteer-run. No money to raise, no vested interests, no hidden agendas, no image to uphold. So long as volunteers give, the organization will continue to thrive.
CharityFocus has no leaders, no followers; its strength comes from its emptiness and its beauty resides in the hearts of its volunteers.
Story works at a very different level than analytical thinking...We're schooled to think analytically, but story communicates at a level that is much more powerful at building things like trust and imagination.Narrative short-circuits the philanthropy-speak we frequently fall back on, breathing new life into our discussions. Just when thought you could get away with dismissing a grantee, with a wave of your "we're looking for a more collaborative, scalable approach" wand, they tell you what the grant would mean for the people they serve. Just when you thought you could dismiss your cousin Percy's latest program idea, he tells you how much Grandpa cared about that sort of thing. Suddenly, the people behind the buzzwords appear. It was easier, you think, when they were just buzzwords, but it makes for better philanthropy.
There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the 'end of time,' or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered. (The emphasis is all mine; those are incredible lines.)
If you want to know what London was like in 1905, come to Washington in 2005. Imperial gravitas and massive self-importance. That sense of being the centre of the world, and of needing to know what happens in every corner of the world because you might be called on - or at least feel called upon - to intervene there. Hyperpower. Top dog. And yet, gnawing away beneath the surface, the nagging fear that your global supremacy is not half so secure as you would wish. As Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, put it in 1902: "The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate."
So this is no time for schadenfreude. It's a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when American hyperpower has faded; and to encourage rising powers such as India and China to sign up to such an order. That is exactly what today's weary Titan should be doing, and we should help him do it.
After threatening to shut down last Friday, the Brownsville Boys & Girls Club’s future remains uncertain, pending a potential loan from the city and with several administrators resigning this week.
“The Boys & Girls Club is on life support,” said Lynn Anderson, president of the club board. “We’re going to do Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and if we don’t see anything by Friday to make the payroll then we’re going to have to shut down.”
Club officials announced an indefinite closure of the club Friday before a meeting with city officials led to an agreement to re-open the club with loan money
Al McClandon, regional service director for Rio Grande Valley, has been working with the Brownsville club from his San Antonio office, and will visit the area today to assess the situation.
He said the problems faced by Brownsville are not unusual for non-profit organizations.
“Funding is one of our main challenges, so pretty much it is a problem in most places but we find a way to work through it,” McClandon said. “There is always a cash flow problem when you talk about the number of kids versus the money coming in.”
To further complicate matters, executive director Lou Gracia informed board members she would resign when her contract ends on Aug. 1. She did not return calls by press time Tuesday.
“She’ll be there until August and they’ll put out a search to locate a replacement,” McClandon said, adding they were looking for people from other clubs. “But the most important thing is how you can work with people and energize them for the mission.”
Gracia isn’t the only one stepping down.
Of the club’s eight board members, treasurer Chris Inderidson, has resigned and member Dean Owens is expected to resign soon. Other board members may follow, according to Thirlwall.
“It seems that if they’re going to close the club, everybody is thinking about resigning and the financial responsibility is what everybody’s trying to avoid,” he said. “This past week several board members put in the money themselves.”
Before the city discussed loaning money to the club, board members had to use $4,000 of their personal money to cover employee wages.
Thirlwall said some people see the club as a lost cause and are ready to cut their losses.
“There’s no value that you can put on this for the children of the community but the people that wanted to close it down are just tired of fighting,” said Thirlwall, adding that funding changes over the last several years have led to the club’s financial dilemma.
Coastal Bend Community Foundation
The Six Hundred Bldg.
600 Leopard St., Ste. 1716
Corpus Christi, TX 78473
Telephone: (361) 882-9745
FAX: (361) 882-2865
Contact: Ed Harte
Ed Rachal Foundation
500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 1002
Corpus Christi, TX 78471-1016
Telephone: (361) 881-9040
FAX: (361) 881-9885
Contact: Paul D. Altheide, C.E.O.
Earl C. Sams Foundation, Inc.
101 N. Shoreline Dr., Ste. 602
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 888-6485
FAX: (361) 884-4241
Contact: Bruce S. Hawn, Pres.
Allen Lovelace Moore and Blanche Davis Moore Foundation
3765 S. Alameda, Ste. 416
Corpus Christi, TX 78411
Telephone: (361) 814-6700
Contact: Gary Leach, Dir.
Paul and Mary Haas Foundation
P.O. Box 2928
Corpus Christi, TX 78403-2928
Telephone: (361) 887-6955
FAX: (361) 883-5992
Contact: Karen L. Wesson, Admin. Dir.
4022 Lowman St.
Corpus Christi, TX 78411-3133
Contact: Jeannette Holloway, Pres.
Behmann Brothers Foundation
P.O. Box 271486
Corpus Christi, TX 78427-1486
Contact: Charles L. Kosarek, Jr., Pres.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying of a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling...
Every single day, 30,000 children die, needlessly, of extreme poverty.
On July 6th, we finally have the opportunity to stop that shameful statistic.
8 world leaders, gathered in Scotland for the G8 summit, will be presented with a workable plan to double aid, drop the debt and make the trade laws fair. If these 8 men agree, then we will become the generation that made poverty history.
But they'll only do it if enough people tell them to.
That's why we're staging Live 8. 10 concerts, 100 artists, a million spectators, 2 billion viewers, and 1 message... To get those 8 men, in that 1 room, to stop 30,000 children dying every single day of extreme poverty.
We don't want your money - we want you!
I’m an idiot, I know, but I just figured out that Live 8 is not raising any money for famine relief or malaria cures or AIDS treatment in Africa. It is just designed to “pressure” G8 countries into doing what’s right. Thing is, guys, the G8 doesn’t, (and shouldn’t) care what Madonna, Elton John, U2, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, R.E.M., Coldplay, Bjork, Sting, Dido, Justin Timberlake, Green Day, Snoop Dogg, P. Diddy, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Celine Dion, Tim McGraw, and Faith Hill think about anything, particularly if they won’t put their own riches where their big mouths are. (Ditto Pitt, George Clooney, Will Smith, Natalie Portman and Salma Hayek.) I am in favor of harnessing the power of celebrity for global good but where’s the good in this? Good God, this is a moral crime. All that money available just for the asking—all those lives that could be saved by people who won’t miss the money--and these guys won’t even bother to ask? They won’t even allow charities to canvass the audience. Turns out the concert is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING but moral vanity, and the exploitation of starving, sick Africans, by pampered, rich as**oles and their self-interested corporate sponsors rather than their potential salvation. This is really unspeakably shameful.
Contact information for ten large Atlanta-area foundations has been posted on a new philanthropy-specific Web log, or blog, and readers are urged to pressure these foundations to help a struggling Atlanta nonprofit cover an impending loss of $65,000 in federal funding. The June 8 post to the months-old Philanthropica blog has the potential to become a model for similar, new-media-focused funding campaigns, especially as blogs continue to grow in number and cover more topics. Among the dozen or so blogs to emerge in the past year that regularly cover philanthropic concerns, Philanthropica is unusual in its willingness, even eagerness, to make blunt demands and go beyond diplomatic criticism of the sector. In earlier posts, the author, identified only as "Madmunk, philosopher and philanthropoid," called on foundations to stop complaining about the quality of research about foundations and do something about the problem by increasing support for independent university research. He's also expressed outrage at the "elitist" suggestion that foundation abuses could be curbed by requiring that foundations have assets of at least $1 million.
This blogger's willingness to be so frank is likely a reflection of his anonymity. Madmunk provides no personal contact information, identity, though it is believed that he works as a donor consultant. By email, Madmunk declined to reveal his identity for readers of this newsletter.
Whether CEOs of large establishment groups such as the San Francisco Foundation or the Ford Foundation are white or black, male or female, they present themselves as pasty grey people who have long shed any passions or quirks that would make them interesting. Consequently, many people have quit listening to them. It’s been decades, for example, since the president of a major foundation has written an article or given a speech of large national importance.
Most observers now recognize that lifetime giving understandably increases as people move up the economic ladder. For instance, the richest 1.2 percent of American wealth-holders contribute 28 percent of all charitable donations according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy (CWP).
But CWP research also suggests that it’s not just the objective size of people’s pocketbooks that matters but also their subjective sense of financial security.
A sense of financial security has a strong positive relation to charitable giving. Why? At the least, these findings reflect a growing ability and desire among people who have settled the economic question for themselves and their heirs to discern their discretionary resources and to invest that surplus in socially and spiritually purposive ways. For this reason, a growing and vibrant economy that fulfills the desires for family well-being is an indispensable ally of philanthropy.
The ICRC is the only organization mandated by international treaty to monitor the observance of the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, and it has the right to visit prisoners. But the GOP report charges that the group has exceeded the bounds of its mission by trying to "reinterpret and expand international law" in favor of terrorists and insurgents; lobbying for arms-control issues that are not within its mandate, such as a ban on the use of land mines; and "inaccurately and unfairly" accusing U.S. officials of not adhering to the Geneva Convention.
This automatic power, unless it is very carefully circumscribed, would be an open invitation for presidential administrations to use the IRS as a weapon against charities and foundations they disagree with philosophically. Even if tax-exempt status were not revoked, a serious IRS challenge to the exemption would tie up in administrative knots a politically disfavored charity or foundation, making it much more difficult to carry out its mission.
Business executives who worry about meeting growth targets every quarter may think they would have fewer headaches running a nonprofit. In fact, the job is more stressful than ever as more nonprofit groups compete for limited funding. And while juggling myriad personnel and other duties, heads of nonprofits also feel pressured to strengthen governance practices and codes of ethics. In this post-Enron era, many nonprofits, including Juilliard, have adapted the governance practices laid out in Sarbanes-Oxley, the 2002 corporate reform law.
"Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't apply to nonprofits, but like ink in water it's changing the way they operate," says Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware's Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. "Suddenly you've got accounting firms that audit nonprofits clamoring for the same financial controls now in place at for-profits." And nonprofit trustees want more transparency. Although they're exempt from financial liability in most states except in cases of fraud, they worry that in this climate their reputations could be hurt if money is misused or the organization falters.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.
Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."(my emphasis)
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said. "Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
Then, Chicago's Democratic mayor, Richard M. Daley, declared: "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military would act like that."(emphasis mine)
Thank you for contacting me regarding Washington, D.C., property taxes. It was good to hear from you.
The homestead deduction is a reduction in the assessed value of a home, prior to tax computation, for a property owner claiming Washington, D.C., as his principal residence. I maintain a residence in Washington because I have been elected by the people of North Dakota to represent them in the nation's capital. However, since my principal residence is North Dakota, I have repeatedly asked the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue not to give me this deduction. Enclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote the D.C. government, and a copy of the letter I received in response.
Again, thank you for contacting me... (emphasis added)
Although we apparently qualify for the homestead credit, we choose not to receive it.
Some of the developmentally disabled adults who spend their days at the Hi Hope Service Center in Lawrenceville have been dining for free in the agency's cafeteria since they were children, but that's about to change.
Starting this month, the 46-year-old nonprofit center, which offers training services, work programs and housing for its clients, will lose about $65,000 a year in federal grants. Hi Hope officials say replacing that revenue will require the agency to charge clients $75 a month for meals in Hi Hope's cafeteria. The food subsidy paid for breakfast and/or lunch for about 100 Hi Hope clients.
Other recent cuts in the agency's funds may require the center to assess clients' families other charges for services, Hi Hope's executive director said Monday.
"Everybody is going to have to pay something. At the rate we're going, there's going to have to be an assessment fee," said Alice Cunningham, the executive director. "It concerns me because without doing the assessment fee to families, it's going to be very difficult to stay open."
Mentally disabled children who started coming to Hi Hope when it was a school in 1959 are now adults who do part-time work in the center's workshop — putting nuts and bolts together, stuffing envelopes or labeling packages — for less than minimum wage.
The goal of the workshop is to make participants productive people in the work force.
And it turns out that's bad for Hi Hope.
The center has been disqualified from the federal meals subsidy because it doesn't meet the definition of an adult day care center, said Todd Blandin, spokesman for the Bright From the Start, Georgia's Department of Early Care and Learning, which administers the program money.
If the workshop were being used to maintain mental alertness and motor skills and not to train clients for future employment, Hi Hope would qualify for the food subsidy, Blandin said.
"There are guidelines and clear definitions, and based on that information, they're not eligible," Blandin said. "It has to come down to something, otherwise it's just all a gray area."
But the way Cunningham sees it, that means that if the center's clients sat around and watched TV all day, rather than work, they would qualify for the meals subsidy.
"That's the government," she said. "That's the law, so it would be a matter that the Legislature would have to look at."
Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, Inc.
50 Hurt Plz., Ste. 1200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 522-6755
FAX: (404) 522-7026
The UPS Foundation
55 Glenlake Pkwy., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (404) 828-6374
FAX: (404) 828-7435
Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta, Inc.
50 Hurt Plz., Ste. 449
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 688-5525
FAX: (404) 688-3060
J. Bulow Campbell Foundation
The Hurt Building, Ste. 850
50 Hurt Plz.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 658-9066
FAX: (404) 659-4802
The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation
3223 Howell Mill Rd, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 367-2100
FAX: (404) 367-2059
The Goizueta Foundation
4401 Northside Pkwy., Ste. 520
Atlanta, GA 30327-3057
Telephone: (404) 239-0390
FAX: (404) 239-0018
The Marcus Foundation, Inc.
1266 W. Paces Ferry Rd., No. 615
Atlanta, GA 30327-2306
Telephone: (404) 240-7700
The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc.
1 Coca-Cola Plz., N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30301
Telephone: (404) 676-2568
FAX: (404) 676-8804
Turner Foundation, Inc.
133 Luckie St., 2nd Fl.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 681-9900
FAX: (404) 681-0172
The Wilbur and Hilda Glenn Family Foundation
1201 W. Peachtree St., Ste. 5000
Atlanta, GA 30309
The Gwinnett County Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc.
Hi-Hope Service Center
882 Hi-Hope Road
Lawrenceville, Ga 30043
Bill Schambra: I think Emmett Carson’s proposal is a terrible idea, the notion of banning foundations under $1 million. If we are going to have a grass roots agenda in this country that does, in fact, cut across the political spectrum, it's going to come not from the large foundations that are entrenched in the technocratic agenda, but from the folks who have set up a very small foundation, who are moved by some very small, particular concern on some issue, who are focused on their locality. Those smaller foundations, I think, are the hope of the future.
I think Emmett made a telling remark, that if you were to ban those foundations, it wouldn't affect the membership of the large philanthropic associations at all. This is part of that general process of eliminating amateurs by professionalizing and credentialing and raising the barrier to entry for new start-ups. I think this is happening in the foundation world. I think that the philanthropic associations are very likely to game the Senate in such a way that they actually manage to get restrictions that are more onerous for new struggling start up organizations of all sorts, and that is a dangerous thing.
Emmett Carson: For those of you who are listening to what I am saying, let me be quite clear: These individuals can continue to give, continue to be effective, continue to have whatever values that they have, but there are 48,000 entities that don’t have annual reports, that don’t have any access to professional information, to ideas, to research - to a whole range of things. The structure of a foundation is very complicated, but it offers no inherent advantage to individual giving. There are other ways that donors can be just as effective, not have a tax return every year, not drain resources. The issue is the structure. It’s not the giving.
Pablo Eisenberg: Emmett, I would feel a lot more comfortable about your suggestion if, in fact, there were a minimal payout requirement for those funds under community foundations and other financial institutions to make sure that the small donors actually pay out some of their money.
"While the public's trust with our field depends on government oversight, we have practically no oversight," said Dorothy S. Ridings, president of the Council on Foundations, an organization that must balance demands for further scrutiny with the interests of its members. The excise tax that the IRS levies on excessive compensation was originally designed to fund enforcement of nonprofit foundation rules. Instead, the tax revenue has been routinely diverted to other government programs since its inception in 1969.
"It's been an absolute farce to say that the excise tax has anything to do with oversight of the industry," Ridings said.
Philanthropies with $1-million or less in assets seldom have staff members, typically do not produce annual reports or grant-making guidelines, and usually offer no means by which grant seekers can contact them. What's more, most of those foundations do not join national or local professional associations so they do not often get exposed to training sessions and educational materials that would help them understand changes in laws governing nonprofit organizations and learn how well-respected, effective grant makers operate.
Philanthropic legitimacy can be defined as the just and fair exercise of philanthropic power. By this, I mean donors can claim to have met the test of legitimacy when they are perceived by the full range of relevant stakeholders around them as acting in a way that is just, fair, and free of caprice and ill-intent.Frumkin then goes on to claim that by engaging the issue of legitimacy, the sector will find:
...it is impossible to be legitimate without being substantively accountable for their work. They will also soon discover that it is impossible to be substantively accountable without being able to demonstrate their effectiveness at achieving their own objectives and missions.That is where I disagree. I do think that a more democratic sector, a philanthropy "of the people, by the people, and for the people," would certainly be a more responsive, more responsible sector. That isn't the same thing as a more accountable sector.