Nonprofits Missing From Big Battles

(Mark Rosenman, a Washington-based scholar-activist and director of Caring to Change, a D.C.-based effort to promote foundation grantmaking for the common good, is a frequent contributor to PhilanTopic. In his last post, Rosenman and co-author Gary D. Bass, executive director of the Bauman Foundation, wrote about efforts by Congress to curtail the advocacy rights of nonprofits.)

We are seven months from what some are calling "taxmageddon" and others describe as a "fiscal cliff." And while leaders in the nonprofit sector are narrowly focused on proposed changes to the charitable tax deduction that could reduce charitable donations by about $2 billion a year, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has already approved cutting trillions of dollars from programs critical to low- and moderate-income people and the charities that serve them.

Charities and foundations should be gearing up to confront immediate and near-term policy battles of extraordinary consequence to them. Instead, they seem to be wearing blinders -- or simply fear controversy, no matter the stakes.

Congressional Republicans seem to want a repeat of last summer's divisive struggle over raising the debt limit and are committed to pursuing new budget cuts. This comes after the House recently approved changes to last year's deficit-cutting sequestration agreement and shifted what was a shared annual burden of $109 billion entirely to domestic programs.

House Republicans also are trying to preserve Bush-era income tax cuts for wealthy Americans, an action that if successful will cost an estimated $1 trillion in revenue over ten years -- and doesn't include the loss of billions in revenue from estate tax reductions for millionaires. They have already passed the budget put together by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a plan that goes well beyond a renewal of the Bush cuts and give millionaires an additional tax break averaging $265,000 a year while cutting over $3 trillion from programs that serve low-income people or fund the charitable programs that help them.

This is not chump change. To give you a sense of the magnitude of the proposed cuts, the shift in sequestration alone is more than the total annual giving of all U.S. foundations combined. And the so-called Ryan plan calls for cuts in domestic program over ten years that are about seven times the equivalent projected total of foundation giving -- a shortfall that would result in some two million people losing their access to food stamps and another forty-four million having them reduced. The Ryan plan also would eliminate the social service block grant through which nonprofits now provide services to some twenty-three million people, over half of them children, as well as invalids dependent on Meals on Wheels programs, those in foster care, and those who rely on nonprofit childcare.

And that's just a start. Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree that the interest rate on federal student loans shouldn't be raised, although the former want to pay for keeping the current rates by getting rid of some business tax cuts, while the latter are focused on defunding nonprofit preventive care programs related to obesity, cancer, and HIV/AIDS.

I've heard it said that nonprofits used to talk about problems and now the conversation is about branding. And everyone knows that foundations are becoming more technocratic in their approach and are focusing on metrics and the promotion of social investment schemes. What's going on here? Have charitable and philanthropic institutions been seduced by our thirty-year love affair with markets and forgotten about the public good? Why do they just accord with politicians' actions that benefit private interests?

These days, it seems to be easier for nonprofits and foundations to acquiesce to externally determined realities, to figure out how to do as well as they can in an environment that glorifies all things private instead of trying to figure out how to change things. Too many seem to go along to get along.

While that might be in the interests of some organizations and institutions, it does not serve society well. And it certainly works against the interests of the increasing numbers of Americans who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. The profoundly disturbing increase in economic inequality threatens all of us, even those who view themselves as one-percent winners.

There is much that charities and foundations can do to challenge policy decisions that are destroying the social safety net in the United States, not to mention the social contract that has been in place since the 1930s.

Everyone knows that Congress is at an all-time low in its approval ratings, but charity and foundation leaders appear to be unwilling to take public positions with respect to its more destructive actions. The nation desperately needs leaders who will speak to the public interest, who will step up and help Americans understand the direction in which we are being led and what it means for ordinary citizens and the organizations that serve them.

Foundations and nonprofit organizations can fund and direct resources to assertive and ambitious voter registration and education efforts. They can help people better understand the critical issues and solutions being debated -- and in some cases avoided -- by elected officials. Charities can propose and advocate for their preferred policy options and can urge individuals to promote action on those solutions by communicating with their legislators and administration officials.

The stakes are huge -- for individuals, communities, charities, and foundations. The ways in which Congress and the next president address the fiscal issues confronting us will determine our collective future for years to come. Policy choices made now and in the not-too-distant future could dramatically worsen the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. And we may soon find both government and the nonprofit sector without the resources to moderate the deteriorating circumstances we face as individuals and as a society.

Most Americans agree that we need comprehensive tax reform which results in the wealthiest among us paying a fairer share of the revenues collected by the federal government, as was the case in and before the Clinton era. We need reforms in entitlement programs that find real long-term savings while protecting those dependent on them. We need infrastructure investments that will stimulate the economy and create jobs. And we need to be sure that the defense budget bears its share of the deficit-reducing burden, especially as the long conflict in Afghanistan winds down.

A disastrous future is not inevitable, and the passivity of most charities and foundations is not immutable. Our nation faces very real choices with profound implications. But we do have choices. The question is who will help make them.

We are rapidly approaching a moment of truth and are in need of leaders who are committed to the public good. Nonprofit organizations and philanthropies can maintain their silence and fail America, or they can help lead us in that direction by promoting popular action on behalf of our shared interests. The time to act is growing short....

-- Mark Rosenman

Comments

[Daniel Stid]

Great post Mark! I would only add that things did not used to be this way. I suggest in a blog post today that nonprofits need to go back to the future, in part by advocating for broader systems changes as forbears like Jane Addams did so effectively. http://www.bridgespan.org/human-service-nonprofits-back-to-the-future.aspx

[David Jacobs]

Hello Mark-

We can't pay for everything you want with the solutions you mentioned. Where does all the money come from? I ask this again in hopes of an answer.

Nevermind that - I have no problems with foundations engaging in advocacy for their causes, even for politically charged ones. But your exortations seem determined to co-opt the sector into becoming some sort of partisan election-year ally. That would be a huge mistake. I'd hate to see the sector paint a big political target on it's back at a time when they're sorely needed by all.

PS: Just for balance, I'd note that while you mention the GOP an awful lot, they only control one-half of one branch of our three branch government. In the Senate, the Democrats haven't introduced a budget in over THREE YEARS, and the budgets Pres. Obama has submitted have garnered a grand total of zero votes from the entire chamber. Both parties have failed us miserably, and current and future spending miseries can be laid at both of their feet.

[Allan Shore]

Absolutely agree. For years I've been trying to get nonprofits in genderal and their funders to take more seriously what is going on and to use their dollars in new, creative ways that show they get that the future needs to be different. Unfortunately, so many are fearful of trying new ideas or stepping out even when the crisis seems eminent. Nice piece.

[bradford smith]

When I read your post, Mark, what struck me most was the degree of passion, indignation and urgency it contained. And it made me realize how its absence in the technocratic discourse that has gripped our field is one of the most serious casualties of the "love affair" with markets and metrics of which you speak.

I will leave the partisan political analysis to my Foundation Center colleague David Jacobs!

[Mark]

Thank you, Daniel, both for your comments and the link to your good post. I too think the work of the Alliance for Children and Families you mention there is important and, given the nature of this post, would direct attention to their civic engagement work -- and to Nonprofit VOTE as well. (Full disclosure: I've been involved with both.)

[Mark]

Hi, David -- good to be chatting with you again.

On you first point, I was remiss in not speaking to the nonpartisan debt reduction plans, such as the Simpson Bowles commission -- it's only there that the larger issue will be resolved. But that too requires agreement from Republicans that new revenues are as necessary as spending cuts -- a compromise that they have been unwilling to consider seriously.

I agree that the nonprofit and foundation world should not engage in partisan politics; we have no argument there. I would suggest, however, that public commentary on the actions of our elected leaders -- and educating voters about them and the under-girding issues -- is fully and legitimately part of the sector's rights and responsibilities. It is central to our role in society that we not only provide services to people and communities but also help build a stronger democracy. Voter registration, education and engagement issues are essential.

I agree with your point that Democrats need to do a better job on budget leadership, but I continue to fault the House for having passed the Ryan budget without genuinely seeking Democratic engagement in that process. It is that budget, and allied actions of Republican leadership, that I think present the most immediate threat to the nonprofit sector, the people we serve, and the larger society.

[Mark]

Thanks, Brad. I really appreciate your comment, especially as it comes from someone of your deserved leadership stature.

On a somewhat related theme to your comment, you might want to look at one of the earlier posts I had here -- on Commercializing the Common Good (6/8/10).