The Chronicle, 7/21/2005: Seeking Federal Favors: "Seeking Federal Favors
Charities go after earmarks, despite concerns about fairness
By Elizabeth Schwinn
Like thousands of charity leaders across the country, Mary Faithful is lobbying members of Congress to set aside federal money for her organization in the form of a 'legislative earmark.'
She is seeking $200,000 to help Advocacy Inc. -- the Austin, Tex., charity she runs -- upgrade its phone system so it can better provide legal services to the disabled."
2 comments:
Let's not throw out the pork with the rind - or is it the baby with the bacon. Whatever.
Grassley's infamous rainforest in Iowa may be a prime example of pork - sending money to questionable benefit to one's district. I'd like to think it is, just for fun.
But the timely issue in my gut is the continuing push of New Federalism to get programs out of the government and into "community based organizations." Local, state, and federal agencies are pushing ever-more programs down to CBO's, particularly in human services. Begging the question:
"OK. So who's going to pay for this stuff?"
Earmarks are increasingly a tool to get government funds into the hands of the CBO's who serve the most needy of our society. Is that a bad thing? Is the better alternative to have multiple organizations invest significant time and resources to ultimately fail in the federal "competitive" grants process?
In the best cases - maybe in most cases - earmarks are a more effient way for the government to fund services that society deems important. In other cases, probably not. But let's be sure we distinguish the two.
(Disclosure: my org receives federal and state earmarks.)
Thanks for the feedback.
Post a Comment