[subego]

The Susan G. Komen foundation yanked funds from Planned Parenthood, and there's been a pretty vicious response from Planned Parenthood supporters.

The rage is understandable. PP often (if not always) states they'll have to cut services in the face of major defunding. PP offers services which I consider important, so cutting those services is going to piss me off.

Last time PP was defunded, it was pointed out (by ebuddy) that PP is sitting on a truly collossal pile of money. Something like 1.25 billion in assets, more than 300 million of it totally unrestricted. Likewise, PP runs a tight ship. That 300 million could keep the organization afloat with double the amount of services they provide now... for a decade

My question is simply: how is this not the lowest of the low?

Edit: got my numbers wrong. My argument still stands, I have to rewrite it a bit though. Gimme a second...

[stupendousman]

3 questions:

1. What services do they provide that no other agency or for-profit do?

2. Are any of the services they offer controversial or violate long-held values shared by many of those who give contributions to funds that then pass on the funds to PP? If so, isn't there a big conflict if a foundation is using contributions in a way that conflicts with the values of a large portion of their contributors?

3. Like the government's sponsorship of PBS, are these contributions really necessary, or should the services they provide be able to pay for themselves? Given their huge cash hoard, I'm wondering how one foundation's re-evaluation of their giving is really equatable to the "lowest of the low."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are any of the services they offer controversial or violate long-held values shared by many of those who give contributions to funds that then pass on the funds to PP? If so, isn't there a big conflict if a foundation is using contributions in a way that conflicts with the values of a large portion of their contributors?

If we are talking charitable donations surely its up to the individual to do their homework on how and where their donations will be spent?

If you are talking about tax dollars then I'm sure there are plenty of pacifists who could make the same argument about military spending and I can't imagine you'd sanction the complete disbanding of the US military.

Also, just because a value is long held shouldn't give it any extra priority over other values.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Given their huge cash hoard, I'm wondering how one foundation's re-evaluation of their giving is really equatable to the "lowest of the low."

Whoosh...

[The Final Dakar]

Looks like they gave in to the pressure.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Susan J. Komen foundation yanked funds from Planned Parenthood, and there's been a pretty vicious response from Planned Parenthood supporters.

The rage is understandable. PP often (if not always) states they'll have to cut services in the face of major defunding. PP offers services which I consider important, so cutting those services is going to piss me off.

Last time PP was defunded, it was pointed out (by ebuddy) that PP is sitting on a truly collossal pile of money. Something like 1.25 billion in assets, more than 300 million of it totally unrestricted. Likewise, PP runs a tight ship. That 300 million could keep the organization afloat with double the amount of services they provide now... for a decade

My question is simply: how is this not the lowest of the low?

What exactly is so low? Them declining the opportunity to say "we actually don't need any more money"? It's not realistic to expect any organization to say that, as once you let that dynamic pick up steam it will be hard to turn it around once they do need more money 10 years later. The difference between "we will have to cut services" and "we will have to cut services in 10 years" may seem like night and day, in today's ADD culture where boards of directors stubbornly refuse to think long-term and are constantly getting bitten in the rear for the short-sighted decisions of their immediate predecessors. But that's not the way it *should* be, and their taking the long term view, that income needs to be kept up regardless of savings, is actually admirable all things considered (meaning, if you ignore the controversial nature of their services and focus solely on financial sustainability). /2¢

[subego]

Is there ever a point where they have enough money in the bank that if a big donor doesn't cough up they shouldn't cut services?

Doesn't it stop being the "long view" at some point and start becoming extortion?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there ever a point where they have enough money in the bank that if a big donor doesn't cough up they shouldn't cut services?

Doesn't it stop being the "long view" at some point and start becoming extortion?

There should be a point where the interest or returns covers the cost of services. Theoretically at least.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Equivalent question: is there ever a point where you have enough money saved that you no longer need a job or income? The answer is when you have enough to sustain you for the rest of your life. Savings is a scalar value and income is a vector, so the former can only substitute for the latter if you're measuring over a finite lifetime. So "no" if you think that the organization should be trying to be sustainable indefinitely, "yes" if you think it should have a planned end-of-life pun intended

Do you consider these services to only be valuable for the next x years, or will they be needed effectively forever?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There should be a point where the interest or returns covers the cost of services. Theoretically at least.

One can't count on beating inflation without adding any value/work or taking on significant risk. There is no free lunch

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Equivalent question: is there ever a point where you have enough money saved that you no longer need a job or income? The answer is when you have enough to sustain you for the rest of your life. Savings is a scalar value and income is a vector, so the former can only substitute for the latter if you're measuring over a finite lifetime. So "no" if you think that the organization should be trying to be sustainable indefinitely, "yes" if you think it should have a planned end-of-life pun intended

Do you consider these services to only be valuable for the next x years, or will they be needed effectively forever?

Why do you need to change the question to maintain equivalency? What I'm asking is there ever a point where you need less income, not no income.

[subego]

Just to be sure here, it computes for you that an organization which provides services to the underprivileged has assets more than 100 times their operating expenses?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why do you need to change the question to maintain equivalency? What I'm asking is there ever a point where you need less income, not no income.

I think a lot of charities suffer from the business like mentality that a lack of growth is a bad thing. Either that or when the cost of a service drops and they find themselves with more cash than they need, they start offering another service with it, then they need more cash every year to keep that one going. That said, its not often the cost of providing these sorts of services actually goes down. Doesn't seem to be often the price of anything goes down anymore.

[subego]

I don't think it's a bad thing for a charity which finds itself with more cash than it needs to provide more services with that cash.

One could argue that a charity has a moral obligation to do so (within reason).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why do you need to change the question to maintain equivalency? What I'm asking is there ever a point where you need less income, not no income.

Less than what? Less than before, or less than their expenses? I think that if their income falls below their expenses, their mandate is to either raise income or lower expenses, regardless of how long they can live on borrowed time by depleting their savings before going into debt (or whatever the alternative is).

BTW, I don't know what PP's situation is, and I don't really care about them enough to find out... all I know is what's posted in this thread. I'm just exploring the original accusation that this is bad behavior.

Originally Posted by subego 

Just to be sure here, it computes for you that an organization which provides services to the underprivileged has assets more than 100 times their operating expenses?

No, it doesn't compute, mathematically. You can't compare a scalar with a vector.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

BTW, I don't know what PP's situation is...

I'm constructing an answer, but in doing so I realized I misread the annual report and was (way) off with my expense numbers in the OP.

I'll edit the OP, answer you, etc., but I wanted to get that out there as soon as possible.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Less than what? Less than before, or less than their expenses? I think that if their income falls below their expenses, their mandate is to either raise income or lower expenses, regardless of how long they can live on borrowed time by depleting their savings before going into debt (or whatever the alternative is).

First off, one can surmise PP has spent much time with income higher than expenses, otherwise they wouldn't have the pile of savings.

The most recent annual report is FY2010, for which their revenue was $18 million more than their expenses.

To compare, IIUC correctly, all the Komen grants, not just the ones to PP, total less than a million.

[The Godfather]

Why would any organization sit on a pile of cash and not invest it for the profit motive?

[Waragainstsleep]

Ask Apple.

[subego]

*No music labels were bribed in the making this contraceptive.

[ebuddy]

I guess I'm not clear on the question subego.

I can tell you that I think it was disgusting the way PP went after the Komen foundation. It'd be like you giving $1000 to the Salvation Army each year, deciding you're going to cut back your donations to them, then reading a hit-piece against you in the paper the next day written by someone at the Salvation Army. Not; "hey thanks for all the money you've given over the years and we hope you'll reconsider..."

*As an aside, I would hope at some point the Komen foundation acknowledges the link between abortion and breast cancer and eventually pulls their funding for that reason. The number of clinics at which one can receive a mammogram are pretty scant anyway (and not the bulk of those receiving funds from Komen BTW) and certainly not the only entity that would provide them at means-tested rates.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Ask Apple.

They invest. It doesn't just sit in a pile next to Cook's desk, you know.

[stupendousman]

Yeah, my first question is WTH is PP doing to help find a cure for cancer, which would seem to be Komen's primary mission? PP's primary mission to perform as many abortions as they can (which has changed just slightly from their doing so specifically to keep inferior black and stupid people from populating the Earth).

The second is why would someone give to Komen now, given that it's clear that politics are more important to it than a logical analysis of needs based spending of it's funds? If it's primary mission is to help find a cure for breast cancer, then regardless of how you feel about abortion, is helping to fund PP the best way to help achieve your primary goal? That should be the question they answer, and not bend to either side.

I'm guessing they answered that question, and they ended up bowing to political pressure in the end. My moth is a breast cancer survivor and I once contributed to them but haven't in several years. I'll look to find a less political organization next time the opportunity arrises.

[subego]

I thought Sanger was anti-abortion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought Sanger was anti-abortion.

She professed that they were "unnecessary", and wanted instead for people to use birth control and "immediate sterilization" of women, but she was a big advocate of eugenics and somehow - gasp - the organization she started became the largest provider of abortions. She was also had a big focus on keeping the "coloreds" from reproducing. It would interesting to see the racial breakdown of those they service present day.

Sanger wasn't exactly known for the honesty of her words either. Actions speak louder than words.

I'm not sure how any of these funds get away with supporting an organization that was started to provide a kinder, gentler form of aryan dominance that Hitler then took to the extreme. It's pretty mind blowing. It's almost like if the Klan started offering medical services and people got upset because some wouldn't want to fund that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They invest. It doesn't just sit in a pile next to Cook's desk, you know.

It's not in a pile. Cook has a vault behind his office where swims in it like a kiddie ball pit. Scrooge McDuck has nothing on him!

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sanger wasn't exactly known for the honesty of her words either.

Considering the endless litany of batshit which came out of her mouth, I have trouble buying the argument she was keeping her real agenda close to the vest.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I guess I'm not clear on the question subego.

I can tell you that I think it was disgusting the way PP went after the Komen foundation. It'd be like you giving $1000 to the Salvation Army each year, deciding you're going to cut back your donations to them, then reading a hit-piece against you in the paper the next day written by someone at the Salvation Army. Not; "hey thanks for all the money you've given over the years and we hope you'll reconsider..."

I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

To me, it seems worse than your analogy. It would be like the Salvation Army responding "okay, we have to close down soup kitchens now, and it's your fault", even though they're making enough to keep them open.

That's basically extortion.

[Waragainstsleep]

Komen VP Karen Handel Quits Over Planned Parenthood Dispute - Nicholas Jackson - Health - The Atlantic

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not in a pile. Cook has a vault behind his office where swims in it like a kiddie ball pit. Scrooge McDuck has nothing on him!

I would love to see that. A actual vault the size of the one Scrooge McDuck had in the center of the new Apple Campus with $$ signs all over it lol

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I would love to see that. A actual vault the size of the one Scrooge McDuck had in the center of the new Apple Campus with $$ signs all over it lol

Use it as a recruitment tool for new senior executives. Monthly swims in the cash as a perk.