Analytically Speaking - Coerced Charity?
Coerced Charity
Charity is defined as an individual voluntarily giving of themselves to help the less fortunate. Sometimes the gift is given and sometimes requested. However, the operative word is “voluntarily”.
There has been a change for charities from looking to the public for support to one of depending on governmental funding to carry out their missions. Each year, Non-Governmental Organizations (“NGOs”) ask Gilford for "donations" for their "good works” for Gilford residents; this year over $100,00 in taxpayer monies. When $14,000 was removed for the Red Cross, Genesis Behavioral Health, and New Beginnings (still leaving $86,000 for other NGOs), howling ensued.
Funding goes out and comes back – has for years. Why? Someone always puts the funding back in the budget believing that “for the common good” is always a sufficient reason for using taxpayer monies. Question: is it right or wrong to compel taxpayers to coercively donate to a charity via taxes to organizations that they may not otherwise wish to? Should property taxes better be used only on direct town services?
The cost of government always rises, often well above the rate of wage or price inflation. It is exacerbated when someone demands more spending just because they feel that people do not give enough, especially to the charity of their choice.
I have no problems with fee-for-service NGOs being funded with taxpayer funds arranged in advance. Example? The Humane Society – Gilford has outsourced its animal control needs to them. But according to the definition, even though the Humane Society is a charity in other respects, it is a vendor in this manner.
As it was, the NGO funding was put back in by Alida Millham's motion and a majority of the roughly 300 voters present at the Deliberative Session. She obviously believes that all citizens should be forced to donate to the charity of her choice: "The attitude should not be to let someone else do it" (Citizen).
In other words, it is wrong not to help. Yet...
Question: what do you call a politician that does not forthrightly tell those from whom she is trying to extract their tax monies that she is a member of that same charity (Genesis Behavioral Health Advisory Committee)?
Yes, she can belong to any organization and advocate for what she wishes. But wouldn't the right thing have been to announce that connection?. Or recuse herself?
But then she goes and does it again and reveals a larger problem. The Gilford argument (“Genesis serviced X number of residents”) was also used at the County level. So now it seems, they get to include Gilford residents in the count of assisted County residents – a double dip!
Not content with Gilford's “donation” and a County increase to $27K (10%), she advocated a further increase to $34.2K (31.5%). This advocacy publicly revealed that Genesis has been violating a 10 year agreement with Belknap County to not ask Towns for funding. Her defense? “Millham said she has been familiar with Genesis since its inception and expressed confidence that the organization was asking for an amount that would cover its costs.” (Citizen).
Further, Genesis is now playing hardball and stating that if they don't get the full amount that of $34K, they will shut off services in August. Right! A multi-million dollar operation will shut its doors because our elected leaders decided to only give them a 10% higher "donation" than last year?
Question: what do you call a charity that does its work and THEN demands donations?
Question: what do you call a charity that doesn't reveal that it also receives County, State, and Federal funding – perhaps re-using the same statistics over and over again? QUAD-dipping?
Question: what do you call a charity that sidesteps a 10 year old agreement with the County to not request monies from Towns?
Question: what do you call a politician that, when caught at abetting this practice, says that it would be a “disfavor to say it is duping taxpayers and noted that some expenses...may not be covered otherwise” (Citizen)?
In my opinion, this pulling of the heart strings (“the poor will not be helped”) to make one feel bad and open up someone else's wallets, is not a good way to advocate for additional giving. No one forces Genesis to do what it does – why use a form of emotional blackmail to coerce forced charity? Why not appeal directly to the public for these funds?
Charity begins and ends with voluntary giving - not demands to government. If the services are truly that important, people will contribute.
Charities used to be thankful for donations....is this a turning point?
