On Thu, 03 May 2007 18:26:01 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:49:44 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered "administrative
expenses?"

Max


A very important question.

I found a local charity that hits up newspapers and radio stations for both
publicity, and sponsorship of overhead costs, so 100% of donated money goes to
the cause. United Way gives this particular charity ZIP. The charity takes needy
families shopping, and outfits the kids with winter coats, mittens, and often
blankets. It's called "Warm The Children" and it's been around for about 15-20
years. It's gotten bigger and bigger, but the script hasn't changed.

Sounds like a good cause.

With regard to "ZIP," my local UW would support any agency that makes
application and qualifies. It currently allocates to 34 agencies, and
that list grows as the size of the campaign increases.

I especially like it because the money goes to kids in my local area. Money to
United Way appears to get shifted all over the place.

In my last year on the board, my local UW was forced to curtail
funding for a particular agency that signed an agreement with a state
wide organization that would send some of their funds out of the
counties that are covered. It is outside the charter. All funds
allocated have to stay in the counties covered by the local UW. If
that is not adhered to fundraising would be less than effective. As
you've as much as stated.

I'm not saying United Way
is bad, I'm just saying that there are other avenues where your money may be
used more directly and efficiently to get things done.

Most agencies do not have the power to raise funds via a major
campaign. that particular fund raising prowness is the benefit of the
UW. They do no good themselves, just raise and allocate funds very
efficiently. I can assure you that the individual agencies would not
be able to do that, at least in my area.

The other thing I do is plant a much bigger garden than I can use personally.
All the intentional excess goes to the local homeless shelter and soup kitchen.

CWM