<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vote! Cap the cash nonprofits can amass?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/</link>
	<description>Your tax dollars at work.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:14:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: joe barter</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-31011</link>
		<dc:creator>joe barter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:50:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-31011</guid>
		<description>I cannot see why these non profit *(so called non profit) organizations always complaint about having no money. If they are getting paid so high, they must have money, or they allocate most of what they receive from the government to themselves. 

Tax payers be aware of this when props go to ballot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I cannot see why these non profit *(so called non profit) organizations always complaint about having no money. If they are getting paid so high, they must have money, or they allocate most of what they receive from the government to themselves. </p>
<p>Tax payers be aware of this when props go to ballot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Schultz</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1943</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Schultz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1943</guid>
		<description>What falls under "Program"?

What falls under "Management"

Every Council has a fund in the bank (or in stocks/bonds, CD's ,etc.)
drawing interest.  It goes by various names.  Are these Council funds included in the $500 million+ talked about in the article?

What is the Council's share of the popcorn money? Surely at least 25%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What falls under &#8220;Program&#8221;?</p>
<p>What falls under &#8220;Management&#8221;</p>
<p>Every Council has a fund in the bank (or in stocks/bonds, CD&#8217;s ,etc.)<br />
drawing interest.  It goes by various names.  Are these Council funds included in the $500 million+ talked about in the article?</p>
<p>What is the Council&#8217;s share of the popcorn money? Surely at least 25%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: greylox</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1643</link>
		<dc:creator>greylox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:53:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1643</guid>
		<description>Since churches have become nothing more than an arm of (mostly republican) political parties they should lose their exemption entirely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since churches have become nothing more than an arm of (mostly republican) political parties they should lose their exemption entirely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sara</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1585</link>
		<dc:creator>sara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1585</guid>
		<description>strongsidejedi-
That's very compelling , but were these comparisons for other Children's hospitals for like services and care ? Where on the OSHPD website is this info I would like to check it out ? I know at one point you where pressing Teri to do a story on this. With all of the furor over California not having a budget passed, and our huge state public funding issues for all public services one would think this would be information that people in our county would want to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>strongsidejedi-<br />
That&#8217;s very compelling , but were these comparisons for other Children&#8217;s hospitals for like services and care ? Where on the OSHPD website is this info I would like to check it out ? I know at one point you where pressing Teri to do a story on this. With all of the furor over California not having a budget passed, and our huge state public funding issues for all public services one would think this would be information that people in our county would want to know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: strongsidejedi</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1550</link>
		<dc:creator>strongsidejedi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1550</guid>
		<description>sara- 
Take a look what I found on the California OSHPD website tonight...
Average Length of Stay is 6.5 Day(s) in CHOC versus 5.3 days average stay for California

Average Charge is $77,081 at CHOC vs. $34,392 average for California (OVER DOUBLE THE STATE AVERAGE CHARGE PER HOSPITALIZATION)

Average Charge per Day is $11,925 at CHOC vs. $6,486 average for California

Median Charge per admission is $51,194 at CHOC vs. $45,769 for California</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sara-<br />
Take a look what I found on the California OSHPD website tonight&#8230;<br />
Average Length of Stay is 6.5 Day(s) in CHOC versus 5.3 days average stay for California</p>
<p>Average Charge is $77,081 at CHOC vs. $34,392 average for California (OVER DOUBLE THE STATE AVERAGE CHARGE PER HOSPITALIZATION)</p>
<p>Average Charge per Day is $11,925 at CHOC vs. $6,486 average for California</p>
<p>Median Charge per admission is $51,194 at CHOC vs. $45,769 for California</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sara</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1546</link>
		<dc:creator>sara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1546</guid>
		<description>Why does CHOC purposely seem to seek out MediCal patients  as opposed to private insurance patients ?  The clinic is full of non- engish speaking hispanic kids. Yes, they need healthcare but where are all the other sick kids in Orange County ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why does CHOC purposely seem to seek out MediCal patients  as opposed to private insurance patients ?  The clinic is full of non- engish speaking hispanic kids. Yes, they need healthcare but where are all the other sick kids in Orange County ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stumpy</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1256</link>
		<dc:creator>stumpy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:20:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1256</guid>
		<description>Ok, I read this article this weekend and fell down laughing as it clearly did not not add up:

Nearly 70 percent on programs (70.4 according to Alan - even funnier)
21.5 percent was spent on management 
11.4 percent was spent on fundraising

EQUALS ~ 103% 

Must be that US budget mathematics class I missed in school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, I read this article this weekend and fell down laughing as it clearly did not not add up:</p>
<p>Nearly 70 percent on programs (70.4 according to Alan - even funnier)<br />
21.5 percent was spent on management<br />
11.4 percent was spent on fundraising</p>
<p>EQUALS ~ 103% </p>
<p>Must be that US budget mathematics class I missed in school.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scott</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1205</link>
		<dc:creator>scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1205</guid>
		<description>Why are you talking about non-profits in your Taxdollars part of the paper, unless of course you are attacking the basis for which the BSA is a non-profit.  As others suggest, look into CHOC.  What about Saddleback Church that runs political conferences?  And then there is the Catholic Church that has lots of $$  Aren't they all the same in your eyes?

Maybe things are a bit slow at your dying publication and now it's time to attack the BSA.  Nice.  Maybe you are jealous?  Who knows but journalism is dead in America and their publications are following to the grave.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are you talking about non-profits in your Taxdollars part of the paper, unless of course you are attacking the basis for which the BSA is a non-profit.  As others suggest, look into CHOC.  What about Saddleback Church that runs political conferences?  And then there is the Catholic Church that has lots of $$  Aren&#8217;t they all the same in your eyes?</p>
<p>Maybe things are a bit slow at your dying publication and now it&#8217;s time to attack the BSA.  Nice.  Maybe you are jealous?  Who knows but journalism is dead in America and their publications are following to the grave.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1196</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1196</guid>
		<description>So spending an extra $1M of an already limited $12M holdings will not result in a loss of another million in dividends over the next 8 years on top of the $2M that would of been required to maintain staffing.

hmmm.  Ever hear of the Rule of 72?

OC Council added more staffing in the last tax return in an effort to focus higher management resources to fundraising under the impression that our recession/depression was going to be short lived.  That was not the case so instead of taking chances with entrusted monies they let staff go - not an easy choice that you make it sound - at a savings of over $3M.

Now your idea of cutting higher management already reduced compensation do you really expect them to stay.  Les Baron gave $160K to the Council when he accepted the job.  In the real world do you think he would of had to pay to take a job?

Let us stick with the reality that short term spending is not possible when you do not donate $50,000 to help ensure someone might be able to keep a job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So spending an extra $1M of an already limited $12M holdings will not result in a loss of another million in dividends over the next 8 years on top of the $2M that would of been required to maintain staffing.</p>
<p>hmmm.  Ever hear of the Rule of 72?</p>
<p>OC Council added more staffing in the last tax return in an effort to focus higher management resources to fundraising under the impression that our recession/depression was going to be short lived.  That was not the case so instead of taking chances with entrusted monies they let staff go - not an easy choice that you make it sound - at a savings of over $3M.</p>
<p>Now your idea of cutting higher management already reduced compensation do you really expect them to stay.  Les Baron gave $160K to the Council when he accepted the job.  In the real world do you think he would of had to pay to take a job?</p>
<p>Let us stick with the reality that short term spending is not possible when you do not donate $50,000 to help ensure someone might be able to keep a job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bucky</title>
		<link>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/277/#comment-1192</link>
		<dc:creator>Bucky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2008/08/27/vote-cap-the-cash-nonprofits-can-amass/#comment-1192</guid>
		<description>Alan,

I think that you are overstating the issue.  The Council is not going to go broke because it sold some assets.  You might argue that it is currently in a very good position financially, but I'm not buying that any outside interference is going to trip up that delicate balance between being rich and going bankrupt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan,</p>
<p>I think that you are overstating the issue.  The Council is not going to go broke because it sold some assets.  You might argue that it is currently in a very good position financially, but I&#8217;m not buying that any outside interference is going to trip up that delicate balance between being rich and going bankrupt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>