,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I see that Trump has decided to reinstate federal funds for the Special Olympics (SO) reacting to the outrage, uproar, etc. Let me start by noting I have donated to the SO and that I had a Downs Syndrome brother. I am a big fan of the SO. But...
it's not a good idea for all good causes to receive federal funding. I have no idea if the SO is well run or poorly run. I am confident that the people who were outraged don't know either. The people with the best idea of how it's run are its board and donors. Boards aren't...
perfect but they are closer to what is going on than taxpayers. SO's budget is about $117 million--$100 million from private donations and $17 million from government. Losing that $17 million was described in today's WaPo as "devastating." That's unlikely. Yes...
a 15% cut is unpleasant. But it wouldn't have stayed like that. A letter to donors asking them to step up after federal cuts would surely have closed some if not all of the gap. That's a good thing not a bad thing. It's a good thing for organizations to have to convince people...
that they're helping people. Yes, there's a free rider problem. Some people won't give because they can rely on the gifts of others. But there's also the incentive problem on the other side--when you use taxpayers to fund your activities, you don't have to do such a good job...
That tradeoff might make for an interesting discussion. But we can't have that discussion which is one problem of using a political process that uses other people's money for funding. Instead, we get a massive exercise in virtue signaling. People eager to prove how much they...
hate Betsy DeVos or Trump created a firestorm of contempt. Those two might deserve our contempt. But the idea of letting charities stand on their own feet doesn't deserve contempt. It deserves consideration. But that's not where we are and I'm not sure getting there is possible.
