Thanks for the NGO comment. It should be part of the language of the upcoming convention of states proposed amendment limiting Congress's ability to spend and to control 'where they send our money.'
This is a really interesting proposal... I don't have the ground knowledge to comment on the implications (the NGO landscape in the US is - by design! - a labyrinth). But I think you and I both know why this will not get passed. That doesn't make it unworthy of thinking about, though, nor of championing.
One small point: I think 50% would also work just as well, and as 'match funding' could be easier in terms of courting political support. It would eliminate those dreadful governmental non-governmental organisations, at least. 🙂
This provision would completely gut Blue Cross-Blue Shield, United Healthcare, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser, et al. It would effectively abolish Medicare Advantage plans. I’m all for it based on that effect alone. And that effect alone means getting it through Congress without enough exceptions to render it toothless would be impossible.
I work for a prison reform nonprofit (which doesn't fund itself with government funding or grants) and I can tell you that this proposal would effectively be an existential crisis for the modern progressive coalition. It's not that they don't believe in equity and gender identity and climate justice and all that... Those things aren't their raison d'etre. Their central, driving force is the urge to absorb wealth and redistribute it to clients and college graduates. It's a VAST make-work scheme, propped upon the flimsy pretext of research or social programs or advocacy (etc.). They haven't reconciled with the fact that their organizations are fundamentally parasitic but they will fight like hell to keep the money coming.
It's literally the most important issue for almost every single one of them. Forget equity, forget climate. They want JOBS (and expense accounts, and student debt forgiveness, etc.). The rest is play-acting.
"Ideally, it would be illegal for governments to grant taxpayer funds to NGOs."
Why not stick with that sentiment? Backing off to 20% funding adds to the number of things the government can and would spend money investigating (NGOs would be motivated to pretend they get more private funding than they do, to keep from losing government funding). The number of bureaucrats will increase. In my view, only disconnecting the government from NGOs altogether moves the country in the right direction.
If it can be zero, it should be. But if it can be only 20%, that would be a massive improvement, that is, still the “right direction.” I don’t even think that is possible. Too many piggies squealing at the trough. (That said, if I were just peddling my ideals, there would be no government to grant largesse to anyone.)
But Congress will make no law against its own interests. That has been proven by its resistance against term limits, auditing the FED, and any cleanup of election processes (among others.)
Thanks for the NGO comment. It should be part of the language of the upcoming convention of states proposed amendment limiting Congress's ability to spend and to control 'where they send our money.'
Hey Max,
This is a really interesting proposal... I don't have the ground knowledge to comment on the implications (the NGO landscape in the US is - by design! - a labyrinth). But I think you and I both know why this will not get passed. That doesn't make it unworthy of thinking about, though, nor of championing.
One small point: I think 50% would also work just as well, and as 'match funding' could be easier in terms of courting political support. It would eliminate those dreadful governmental non-governmental organisations, at least. 🙂
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
This provision would completely gut Blue Cross-Blue Shield, United Healthcare, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser, et al. It would effectively abolish Medicare Advantage plans. I’m all for it based on that effect alone. And that effect alone means getting it through Congress without enough exceptions to render it toothless would be impossible.
I work for a prison reform nonprofit (which doesn't fund itself with government funding or grants) and I can tell you that this proposal would effectively be an existential crisis for the modern progressive coalition. It's not that they don't believe in equity and gender identity and climate justice and all that... Those things aren't their raison d'etre. Their central, driving force is the urge to absorb wealth and redistribute it to clients and college graduates. It's a VAST make-work scheme, propped upon the flimsy pretext of research or social programs or advocacy (etc.). They haven't reconciled with the fact that their organizations are fundamentally parasitic but they will fight like hell to keep the money coming.
It's literally the most important issue for almost every single one of them. Forget equity, forget climate. They want JOBS (and expense accounts, and student debt forgiveness, etc.). The rest is play-acting.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/leviathan
"Ideally, it would be illegal for governments to grant taxpayer funds to NGOs."
Why not stick with that sentiment? Backing off to 20% funding adds to the number of things the government can and would spend money investigating (NGOs would be motivated to pretend they get more private funding than they do, to keep from losing government funding). The number of bureaucrats will increase. In my view, only disconnecting the government from NGOs altogether moves the country in the right direction.
If it can be zero, it should be. But if it can be only 20%, that would be a massive improvement, that is, still the “right direction.” I don’t even think that is possible. Too many piggies squealing at the trough. (That said, if I were just peddling my ideals, there would be no government to grant largesse to anyone.)
But Congress will make no law against its own interests. That has been proven by its resistance against term limits, auditing the FED, and any cleanup of election processes (among others.)
Sad face.