Print This Post Print This Post

State Budget Cuts and Charity Regulators

Charities that receive taxpayer money are suffering as the result of state budget problems. States looking to cut their budgets should also look at their charity regulators.

States can cut back budgets for charity regulators and yet still increase the amount of information available to the general public and charity regulators themselves, as I explain in one of my posts.

Not all states have charity regulator offices, yet we see no statistics showing states without such offices suffer from any greater nonprofit malfeasance.

Charity regulators have vested interests in their own jobs and bureaucracy. They won’t make suggestions for the good of their states, taxpayers or charities. It will be up to others to suggest reviews, audits and ultimately budget cuts for charity regulators. What are the budgets for charity regulators? Can their work be accomplished more efficiently? Is their work wasteful of taxpayer dollars, and can it be streamlined?

Charity regulators will criticize and malign the suggestion to cut their budgets. But do they offer an alternative? Meanwhile, states are cutting funding to charities. Who’s hurt, and who’s selfish?

1 comment to State Budget Cuts and Charity Regulators

  • These fees are being passed to bnnikag customers as a result of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, specifically Sen. Durbin’s amendment regulating the debit card transactions. While there are many good things in the Act, this amendment is an example of over-regulation. While cutting the fee on debit card transactions from 44 cents to a maximum of 24 cents, this amendment will cost the banks about 6.6 billion dollars per year. Collecting this fee allowed banks to offer free checking and other services to it’s customers. Banks are a business and their goal is to make money. By passing this regulation, our government ensured that the banks would look to others sources to makeup this revenue. It should not be a surprise that banks are planning to raise fees on customers.Consumer’s are not the beneficiary of this particular regulation. What will happen to the 6.6 billion dollars each year the banks are no longer receiving? The retailers are the beneficiary of this regulation. Big retailers lobbied for this regulation, not consumers. Will big retailers pass this 6.6 billion dollars back to the consumers in lower prices or will they merely increase their profits while reducing the banks’ profits? How does this regulation the benefit the consumer?I urge the Consumers Union to call for a repeal of this regulation, as its repeal would be in the best interest of consumers.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>