Week 10

President Obama is set to reduce itemized deductions to the wealthy. Itemized deductions would include areas such medical expenses, gambling losses, and mortgage interest expenses incurred on a second home, and charitable contributions as explained in the short video above. I agree that itemized deductions might be an easy way to target the wealthy but it would reduce charitable contributions. I feel like the small tax incentive makes all the difference for some people and taking it away could change attitudes surrounding giving. If certain charitable donations were taxed then there would be less distinguishing 501(c)3 organizations from 501(c)4 organizations.  It would tax those making $250,000 or more. However, I feel like most people amass their wealth, then they choose to donate later in life; it may not hurt charitable contributions as much as we think. It really renews the debate on whether the non-profits or the government should provide services as they often provide a duel function. Addressing the tax system as a whole, President Obama was quoted saying, “For too long we have tolerated a tax system that’s a complex, inefficient, and loophole-riddled mess". He addressed issues such as the deficit making the simple point that we are spending more money than we are taking in. We can continue to finance our debt by selling government securities but this puts programs such as social security in jeopardy. The current system just places a greater burden on the next generation and we must have more people paying into the system each generation. It is creating a bubble that will eventually burst as current policy is not sustainable. The question is really who to tax and how to do it. Many look at the estate tax as it is unfair as it creates inter-generational injustice and contributes towards creating a class system. However, there are a number of issues with this tax, are you going to take away someones family farm or property that has been with the family for years? It seems that a number of loopholes would surround any type of estate tax and no law would ever pass congress that would greatly increase this area of tax.

CBO -- Options for reducing the deficit

 El-Erian, author of when markets collide, brings up the point of the United States is having staggering levels of growth while the emerging markets are growing rapidly. The United States has a misalignment of jobs to skills which could prove harmful in the future. It seems somewhat unclear the role that educated people in the United States will play, perhaps more will choose to go abroad for work. It seems that most jobs that are high paying are science related. The article made the point that there was not a huge reduction in charitable contributions during the economic downturn. It was stated how the role of social services can end up preventing problems that are costly to society. Drug addiction, criminal behavior,  and illiteracy among others.

When Markets Collide - El-Erian

The conservative right and religious critics often ruin good things. I feel like it was justified for these art foundations to withdraw contributions from the Smithsonian. Art often takes on a greater role than aesthetics. It is art that tackles a number of social issues, enhances culture, and touches on just about every aspect of the world we live in. If something appears crude then one can simply advert their eyes. Using our own Jordan Snitzer Musuem of Art, there have in the past been displays considered to have adult material, simply they displayed this separately. It seems that removing an exhibit all together just places boundaries on what is deemed acceptable. We need to break away from traditional norms and take on more progressive attitudes in spheres such as art. Non-profits are really able to influence this through their contributions which have a great amount of influence as  there is a continued need for money. Taking into consideration the goals of these foundations was likely a lesson learned by the Smithsonian.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/83259/hideseek-and-the-problem-funding-controversial-art

I really enjoyed reading the article about the Mulago Foundation regarding the effectiveness of non-profits. This organization does not simply dish out money but rather asks for data that will prove the money is well spent. Money is often squandered with non-profits but the Mulago foundation only gives to those that show that they have made an impact thus maximizing results. There is accountability with these organizations that doesn't always exist. Our guest speaker spoke about his organization regarding basketball in South Africa where much of the money they received was rather a photo-op; he said that they preferred lasting relationships where they can work with funders to create lasting results. They received a basketball court at one point but there were was no funding afterward to help maintain the facility. He did however say that it was at times difficult showing impact as gathering data is not always possible but it was still overwhelmingly important to foster some kind of relationship with these organizations.

http://www.mulagofoundation.org/

Week 9 -- International Non-Profits

http://www.kiva.org/
   

Mercy Corps seems to complete a lot of work around the world. Rather than just throwing financial aid at these countries it follows a plan that is more sustainable. It responds to disaster by helping communities rebuild themselves, it provides jobs, and is economic stimulus rather than welfare. I thought it was interesting that this organization operates in Portland. Micro-finance is becoming a big deal and many of these organizations are choosing the Northwest to locate. I thought it was interesting the broad array of activity that this group is involved in, health and sanitation issues, climate change, and conflict and war among others. While browsing through the website I noticed you could purchase a gift such as feed a child or outfit a class room. It is amazing how much farther money can go in other countries. When I read the Greg Mortenson book, they could build a school in a rural location, and for less than $50,000 dollars. The administrative costs for something like that in the United States would far exceed that amount in a similar project I am sure .Here is a link to an article describing micro-finance in Oregon, my Sister works for Oregon Micro-enterprise Network (OMEN), just one micro-lending bank among others catering towards our state.

Oregon Microenterprise Network

I was really happy to see the William Easterly article which offers the basic critique of foreign aid. We are always dishing out money but it doesn't always help. In a past political science class we read a number of works by modernization and development theory. Simply, these third world countries do not follow the same path to development as the west. They may not have the legal institutions and infrastructure in their country to accommodate development. Further, corruption could exist; these development organizations may not have the social impact they were hoping as money leaks out everywhere.  Modernization theory states that there are certain stages to development and that this occurs in gradually. Dependency theory is rather the reason many states fail; it is social, economic, and political factors that must evolve simultaneously. If one of these factors is off then it harnesses instability. I would like to note additionally on the work of Samuel Huntington, who is the author clash of civilizations; he contributes cultural factors as a reason for failed states. I personally believe that development is complicated and that you can not simply follow a universal model. Each case is unique and it is the role of small groups such as NGO's who make the difference. Below is  a link to Samuel Huntington's latest book, Political Order in Changing Societies, he addresses a number of the latest topics surrounding development.

Political Order in Changing Societies -- Huntington

Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) are a great example to a multilateral approach towards tackling the worlds problems. 15 years seems like a great benchmark as it is short and results are easily measurable.

The website stated the results that would occur if these goals are achieved, "world poverty will be cut by half, tens of millions of lives will be saved, and billions more people will have the opportunity to benefit from the global economy". Development is interesting to me as it will be a different world if everywhere is equally developed.

However, some feel the tensions of global competition, would third world growth create a lower standard of living for those in already developed countries? There is the theory of convergence, we will lose our standard of living, and they or rather developing countries will experience an increase in standard of living; we would then meet somewhere in the middle. Another issue is world resources, we really can't have everyone consuming as much as we do currently; I truly do enjoy driving for example but if everyone in China and India wanted a car and consumed gasoline we would be out in a matter of years. While it is important to focus on sustainability, many of the third world countries are overpopulated; they have a number of problems that western countries do not. The answers to all of this is technological improvement  and changes in consumer habits but currently I don't think our planet could support this many developed countries consuming as much as we are currently.

Week 8 Arts and Culture

  
Foremost, the majority of advocacy organizations are organized as 501(c)4 organizations; this tax code labels them as a non-profit but does not allow donations to be tax deductible. These organizations are involved in lobbying as they represent an interest and making them political in nature. The majority of these groups advocate on social and civil rights issues. They may advocate on gay and lesbian rights, on behalf of senior citizens, or on issues such as abortion. Both 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations are prohibited from advocating for or against candidates, they must keep their campaigns focused on issues. 501(C)3 organizations are not allowed to make advocacy the main purpose of their organization and are subject to the expenditure test.  Many organizations such as Planned Parenthood have both 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations. If you were to donate, you can check a both whether the money should go towards social services or for the right to choose; this determining which tax status the money goes towards.

501(C)4 Organizations

     The article "The Power of Non-Profits" noted that our constitution reserves the "freedom of association" (assembly) and "right to petition" (lobbying). It has been rooted in the historical traditions of the United States to challenge and influence government. Farmers used the grange hall to take collective action against railroad rates and taxes for example.  Further, abolitionist groups worked to free the slaves, this a contributing to the emancipation proclamation. While the article gives a number of positive examples, it is important that advocacy exists on both sides of issues, and a number of issues can exist. Organizing a group such as into a teachers union could create an unfair advantage for that group and make it difficult to regulate this group. Next, a group could use misinformation to make an issue more complex. Using the equal rights amendment during the 60's as one example, this was not passed, it rather became a partisan issue due to interest groups misleading voters. While the idea was to promote gender equality, conservatives made it seem that it have drastic effects, forcing women into combat positions in Vietnam and making them eligible for the draft. It made it seem that a loss of rights would occur such as maternity leave. The religious right became stirred up with contentious issues of Roe v Wade at the time and blocked the issue as a whole. It shows how groups can organize on both sides. I personally agree that advocacy should not be tax deductible, and that while speech is free, the government should not subsidize it. Bob brought up an interesting point when we were studying religious non-profits, he stated that while they do advocate on lifestyle choices, they could lose non-profit status if this speech became political in nature.

The_National_Grange_of_the_Order_of_Patrons_of_Husbandry

 "Nonprofit Association of Oregon supports Attorney General’s efforts to publicize questionable charities" and "Senate Bill 40" seem like they could possibly be unconstitutional to me. It completely undermines equal access and limits free speech. Our constitution protects all groups equally and while we may not agree with certain types of advocacy we still need to allow it. Never have we limited minority opinions. It seems that we already have rule making such as tax codes to differentiate these groups, but we can't simply say some groups are wrong and simply bar them from participating within the larger body of non-profits. SB40 aimed to limit ineffective non-profits from using the majority of their funds to fund raise. I feel like groups like these already would have trouble receiving grants among other contributions and removing the tax deductible status would be the final blow. It is unclear to me what the purpose of these non-profits are if they solely collect funds. It may work to regulate these entities but the attorney general would need to make the criteria very clear on what type of fund raising activities qualify and where to draw the line. Perhaps rather than regulating these non-profits legislature such as public disclosure could take place  Labeling for example such as making donors aware of the effectiveness of a non-profit could be an alternative before they donate could be applied to all non-profits and perhaps this could occur by another non-profit rather than having government involvement.

http://www.nonprofitoregon.org/node/509

One point I wanted to note on was the role of 527 groups and Political Action Committees (PAC). While non-profits cannot legally advocate for a candidate, these 527 groups serve that function, and now with unlimited donations thanks to the recent Citizens United case.  Campaign donations are free speech and while 501(c)4 organizations cannot advocate for a candidate these same organizations may organize PAC's and 527 organizations to meet that niche. This article makes the distinction between the two groups.

Legal Definition 527 Organizations

     Non-profit nation makes the point that "Art" is not a money maker while "entertainment" generally does generate revenue.  Government support for the arts is important as it has created a number of museums and art gallery's. The national endowment for the arts reports 1.5 billion spent annually by government on the arts. The United States spends far less than other industrialized countries on the arts but still faces criticism from conservatives. It is important to note the growth of the arts over the last 50 years as more wealthy individuals have chosen to donate. It is interesting to see where the funding comes from, many foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation bean giving in the later part of the 20th century. Further, corporations such as At&t have began donating. I feel like small donations are important as well such as funding local efforts such as theater and concert halls.

NPR -- Stimulus Package Includes Millions For The Arts

The Bloomburg article "Art Groups Pumped $166.2 Billion Into U.S. in 2005" makes the point that funding for the arts may actually stimulate the economy. It makes up an entire sector alone and provides 5.7 million jobs. It leads wealthy individuals to spend rather than horde their money. It has a great effect on local economies as many travel to see the arts. The article stated that "the typical arts patron spends $27.79 per event, in addition to the price of admission, the study found. That figure is higher -- $40.19 -- among attendees who travel to an event from a different county". Using the small mountain town of Colorado for example, it could draw in tourists from the City of Denver, and this could stimulate local business such as restaurants and hotels. This small town of 10,000 is able to host small events such as the Salida Aspen Concert series which helps positively impact the city center and leading to higher growth rates.  Having a presence in arts helps the city justify beautification efforts such as keeping a waterfront and city park clean. Without the arts a small town like this would cease to exist in its current form, as it is the city is highly desirable, and those who live their take pride in their city.

Week 8 Arts and Culture

Education

     The article Subprime Opportunity made a strong argument against for-profit colleges. The for-profit universities seem to “sell” their education plan rather than “inform” prospective students.  The article stated that debt upon graduation is $31,190 for for-profit colleges, compared with $7,960 at public, and $17,040 at private non-profit institutions. The loans required to finance this debt exceed the maximum amount allowed by government subsidized loans and forces students to take out private loans. There are a number of alternative options available that offer similar programs to the for-profit institutions, such as community college, and with apprenticeships. Prospective students often have big dreams and do not realize that their degrees from these for-profits will not pay off.

     The article titled "Fed Up at the University of Phoenix" stated that congress was attempting to renew the higher education act to provide greater regulation and oversight. It went further to criticize how the federal grants just gave corporate investors higher profits as students racked up debt. The article "Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011" brought up the issue of federal dollars were going to for-profits as a result of government programs like the G.I. Bill. It also brought up the point that degrees from institutions such as Kaplan and University of Phoenix are generally looked down upon. It gave the example of the paralegal who was fired after they found out her degree was from Kaplan. For profit colleges often do not have their credits transfer which sends up yet another red flag.

    Private non-profit colleges and Universities receive 10 percent of their revenue directly from government appropriations, grants, and contracts. In contrast private elementary and secondary schools receive little to no funding. I feel like private elementary and secondary schools can be better but that is not always the case. It seems that private schools can adapt their curriculum and teaching styles while public schools follow a strictly set curriculum. A private school can assign grades with smiley faces and rainbows and ban the teaching of evolution while a public school must have standardized testing and letter grades. I feel like the most expensive schools generally are much better, the ones which the elite choose to send their children, fostering an ideal academic environment that would simply not be possible at a public school due to cost. I don't think it is fair for our elite universities to favor students from private schools that not everyone can afford. Standardized testing helps, but only to an extent; it seems like in the end those with money always come out ahead. Further, grade inflation exists at private institutions; this is for both high schools and colleges. Here at the University of Oregon it seems that while the quality of education is generally poor it might actually make sense to have this policy. Here is a graph showing the trend of grade inflation.

    In class today, we were asked about a solution to make higher education affordable. I thought about how to reduce costs when choosing a University. I chose in-state and a public university rather than a private or out of state school. I additionally took a number of  courses from a community college and then tested out of of classes. I avoided many of the University of Oregon's "money making lower division lectures" by jumping directly into "upper division courses" this increased the marginal value of my education. My DSC 240 professor joked about how the students at Lane Community College could take the same courses from him, they paid half the cost, and they had computers and a 30 person class size compared to our 450 person lecture hall. 

    Introductory courses inflate grade point averages which is unfair to those who choose to save money and take them from a community college. Grades from transfer courses do not count towards grade point and are not likely to meet the University of Oregon's general education requirement.  The point that I am trying to make is that there is little flexibility when it comes to higher education and cost saving policies for students are not favored as it would usually mean a loss conflict with  for the University.

Week 6 -- Environment

Foremost, the article about the McKenzie Watershed Council shows how a number of stakeholders can come together, and how they can tackle issues in a socially optimal way. It shows how cooperative decision making can help the community reach results that everyone can agree on, it lessens tension, and provides a forum for discussion. The McKenzie river is important as it provides potable water for the city of Eugene, it also provides hydroelectricity, and it serves as the habitat for fish and wildlife.  Some interesting facts noted in the article include the highway having the designation "Wild and Scenic" by the federal government.  There are a total of six dams on the river having a negative impact on fish. Most notable about the article, it stated a number of accomplishments such as habitat restoration, this combining voluntary funds from both private organizations such as EWEB and public organizations such as ODFW. Expanding further on the subject of environmental decision making, here is a link to a scholarly article which breaks down the process, and how it is important to involve the various interests.

http://www.gdrc.org/decision/nr98ab01.pdf

The Raymond article touches on how the environmental non-profit sector receives very little in both donations and grants when compared with non-profits as a whole. It does show how environmental regulations have greatly reduced pollution. The Kyoto Protocol did a great job of this as it brought together governments to provide universal restrictions on pollution. The article noted on carbon credit trading, this has been deemed the best way to regulate, and this as it regulates the market as a whole rather than just individual firms. Economists argue that this provides socially optimal solutions as it allows for the free market to play into the regulations. Firm A for example could have higher marginal costs and benefits in mitigation (75:25) and firm B could have lower marginal costs and higher marginal benefits in mitigation (25:75). The two firms can trade credits to find the socially optimal solution as one firm needs less credits and the other more. It places an actual price on polluting and allows for the government to reduce this over time. However, there are a few small issues such as grandfathering, as the initial credits are allocated for free but new firms would have to purchase them. The first link outlines the importance of the Kyoto Protocol, this as it actually commits governments to mitigating pollution; it shows an example of how supranational organization and multilateralism have emerged in the 21st century. Secondly, I looked up an article on carbon trading, it outlines the economic argument for why economists have advocated for this approach.

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/~dliverma/articles/Hepburn%20carbon%20trading%20ARER.pdf

One last area surrounding the environment involves environmental justice.  I prefer the term environmental justice since it does not directly specify race as a factor of discrimination. Rather, it refers to all groups located in areas high in pollution, and it places more blame on the free-market. Policies that locate industrial areas near low income communities are not racist; it just seems that primarily minorities reside in these places and that other areas of equality should be addressed. We already have welfare, non-profits, and affirmative action (reverse discrimination); it seems that these are working to correct the problem of inequality.  Recently, the federal government has began to regulate these firms through federal agencies and programs.  For example, the EPA was established in 1970. George H.W. Bush established the office of environmental equality in 1992. Clinton then issued executive order 12898 which directed federal agencies to develop strategies to help them identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.  The video mentioned how the primarily black community failed to make a case of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It seems that if they could make this case it would fall under strict scrutiny in the court system. However, the courts found that these people were just poor and this only fell under a rational basis for review. It seems that it is wrong for these communities to suffer from pollution. The polluting companies should face greater regulation and should face penalties for their pollution.

I feel like the government is overprotective of business and that our laws are designed to protect these entities. It seems that non-profits help to address problems of equality allowing for the poor to have a greater chance to succeed. Additionally, legal groups could assist in fighting the problems surrounding the environment. A number of public interest attorneys came to my public law class to speak and one thing that they all shared in common was the fact that they were up against large well-funded firms and did not have the same amount of resources available. I feel like the role of regulation falls on the government and that continued help from groups such as non-profits will help steer policy in the right direction. The video below outlines the basic problem of environmental injustice, it shows a text book example of how a primarily black neighborhood has experienced a number of problems including adverse health risks; it makes the moral argument that it is simply wrong for the poor to suffer while others profit at their expense.

Week 5 Blog -- Healthcare

It seems more fitting for non-profits to handle health care than the private-sector as they make their decisions for the well-being of the people rather than for profit.   Non-profit health care includes hospitals, nursing homes, blood and organ banks, disease charities such as the american cancer society, and even health insurers such as blue cross (O'Neill 99). According to non-profit nation, America's thirty thousand non-profit health organizations had $385 billion dollars in revenue (O'Neill 91). While the non-profit sector does alleviate some problems, the current structure favors the private sector; they have vast amounts of money that they are able to use to influence legislature for example. The picture above seems to show the number of components surrounding health care which has led to the mess we have today.

The article "Value of Nonprofit Health Care" laid the basic arguments for why non-profits are more suitable for handling health-care. It stated some alarming facts, such as two-thirds of Americans did not know whether their health insurance was public or private, and of that group 80-90% did not care. Unlike for-profit hospitals, non-profits use the earnings to reinvest in the organization such as by improving quality, service, and efficiency.The remaining profits are used for community benefits to help reach out to groups who could not otherwise afford services and serve in areas where little profit exists. Non-profits typically provide the services at a lower cost and are less likely to mislead consumers. More research and innovation comes from non-profit groups. Rather than researching drugs such as Viagra they would be more inclined to research cancer treatments providing a greater benefit to society. Further, they would focus on a cure, rather than long term drug use that would only alleviate symptoms (allowing them to sell more drugs). Overall, it has been proven that greater satisfaction comes from non-profits, and that they provide higher quality care. The stigma surrounding non-profits is largely false as they operate much similarly to the for-profit entities but with better intentions.

While I feel like non-profits are a better solution than the private sector the best option would be  a government run system. The U.S. system is ineffective as a third-party payer system. The first and second parties are the medical providers and the patients. The third party is the insurance provider who pays the costs such as private insurance (employee or individually purchased) or public insurance (medicaid, medicare, SCHIP, and Vetrans (TRICARE, CHAMPVA). Only 13% of U.S. medical expenses are paid out of pocket (Leete). The insurance company would then collect money either as a deductible, co-payment (fixed amount), or coinsurance (percentage amount). It is interesting to think that the U.S. is the only democratic capitalist industrialized country without national health insurance and with largely privately funded health care (Leete). The U.S. could adopt a single payer system such as in Canada or a nationalized system like the U.K. A nationalized system seems possible as only 1/6 people are without health care in our country meaning that they are covered one way or another. It is more likely than not that the remaining could afford care or are eligible for Medicaid (for the low income) or medicare (for elderly and disabled). The link below explains how government programs and insurance work in-depth if you are interested in learning more.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/methodology/definitions/cps.html

Further, the bureaucracy and administrative costs surrounding health-care are another problem; everyone needs health care and in the end people do whatever it takes to get it. Many choose to take certain jobs that they are overqualified for just to recieve coverage for their family. It is a complex game the insurance company plays approving some claims and denying others, limiting how many visits someone can have, and telling someone which treatments they are covered under. It creates a paperwork headache dealing with referrals and having to go through your primary care physician every time you need to see a specialist. Preventative care could actually save money and we already pay for emergency services. Opponents argue that providing universal health care would be too costly. This is largely false, currently the U.S. is spending a greater amount of its GDP than the countries within the E.U. having universal health care. It really makes me question where all the money has gone. The graph below helps compare the United States spending compared to that in the U.K. It shows a continuing divergence from the European countries and a steep rise in costs during recent years.

The health care system in the United States is an absolute failure.  Government run health care could cut out the insurance company which makes a business out of denying claims. Personally, I feel like the government would be much more trusted in providing insurance; there would be less money lost to lobbying and political campaigns, investor profits, and executive bonuses. There would be a lot less denying of claims on technicalities. Health care is one area where the free-market should stay out. It is just such a complex sector that many become confused. Lets look at adoption services for example. If someone were making money by selling children it could lead to problems such as baby snatching. Simply, profits are getting in the way of someones well-being. It seems like an area such as this would need heavy regulation to make it work but the better solution would be to allow the public and non-profit sectors to take on this role. Where is the regulation surrounding health care? The complex structure surrounding the various components of this sector creates a mess, government health care is the solution, simply purifying this sector that amounts for 13% of our GDP. The below pie chart shows where the money goes, but it doesn't account for investor profits, and the money spent in areas such as lobbying, and exectutive bonuses.

The two questions that are asked in regard to health care reform. First, is the quality of care better? And what will it cost? Well, looking at other countries and how they provide care, Europeans love their health care, and they have a much greater amount of coverage than we do. The second question, in addressing costs, we already spend much more than they do and without the same results. We could copy their model of health care and introduce cost saving measures. We could have different tiers to our health care system, everyone receiving basic health care (such as medicade), and those contributing more could have a greater amount of coverage.  We could stop costly treatments such as excessively spending money on prematurely born babies or keeping someone on life support. Simply, allocating this amount somewhere else could provide a greater amount of social well-being. It is crazy to think that 65% of someones lifetime health care expenses are spent during the last 30 days of their lives. Perhaps we should simply judge when and when not to treat someone since it draws from an insurance pool meant for everyone (death panels?). If someone wanted to spend their own money that is one thing but in the case of life support maybe pulling the plug would be the better option.

Here is a link to the the Affordable Health Care for America Act. As well, here is a video by the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, this which explains many of the important aspects of this Act.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Works Cited:

Leete, Laura. "Health Care Finance and Reform." Policy and Planning Analysis. University of Oregon. Eugene, OR. 01, 02, 2011. Lecture.