pic from Sepponet

Heath Care care be a pleasant experience for employers and an employee or become the disaster that ruins the economy.  The means by which health care is delivered is a life style one is use to that just may have to change.  I question how close to the edge Congress is willing to bring the country to before it makes the math work.  

I had a good laugh the other day when my Governor said I am so proud of the action we took last year rejecting the double digit increases requested by the health insurance providers.  This year they all requested single digit increases.  Well Governor, a 9% increase last year and a 9% increase this year does not help my business grow or allow me to give my employees a raise.   As a small business it is my employees who are the most important asset that should be rewarded not the health insurers.  I want to hire more individuals, I want to pay each of us more but it is health insurers that are getting more of my revenues. 
Governor, I do not feel my employees are any healthier, I do not see them getting a better service, but I do see that the health insurers are making a profit and paying their executives large salaries.  My small business made a profit by me only drawing a salary that fit what the company could afford. 
So I ask, “When is health care reform going to control health care costs”?    I cut expenses during the recession for my small business to survive.  It is time that health costs are capped.  No more increases period. 
President Obama and Governor I request you create an opportunity for a health premium that is lower than what small businesses pay today.  If you make it affordable for my small business than you have made it affordable for many individuals.   Otherwise I suggest their costs and benefits be the same as the majority.  Yes, elected officials should place their own health care option in the trash since it is not available to most employees. 

 pic from Jelene

There was a time where government and nonprofits were joint allies in working to create solutions to a challenge.  As time pass these partnerships became nonprofits 100% reliable on government funding and the partnership ceased.  In reality you have nonprofits functioning as quasi government agencies doing the governments work.  It is privatization of government services.  It is time for the government to reestablish that the solution is not government only. 

There should be no funding of awards to nonprofits or for profits without a required match.  It has been shown that when one is not responsible for a level of the funding that the effective allocation of the dollars is not as efficient.  The federal government has at times required a 10%-50% match when competing for a grant.  However, this needs to be across the board and standard practice at all levels of government.  It must be the goal to maximize the taxpayers’ dollars.  

I would advocate that a minimum requirement of 10% be required for receiving any government funds.  This includes states, city and towns looking to receive government funds from each other.  If a government or nonprofit entity wishes to show an initiative is important, than it needs to put money forward to show its commitment.  This will quickly prioritize the projects that the private sector, nonprofit sector or government sector wishes to support. 

It is alright for government to say I cannot do it alone.  It is alright to say how much money it has, what it wishes to resolve and invite proposals willing to provide a solution.  It will quickly show what the private sector, nonprofit sector and community is able to do with the funds.  Government needs to be more interested in measuring whether it got the result it wanted. 
Those entities willing to put a higher match into an initiative should be given more weight especially if it shows a partnership of multiple entities supporting the effort.

pic by Alan Cleaver_2000 

It’s no secret that even Harvard University is feeling the effects of the recession. Most pointedly, Harvard’s $37 billion dollar endowment has shrunk to $26 billion dollars. According to npr.org, Harvard investors for the endowment put money into investments such as, “hedge funds, private equity real estate holdings and junk bonds —all of which have been hurt in the past year.”

As a result of these poor investments and a major land acquisition, that “cost Harvard more than $4 billion”, Harvard officials are forecasting job cuts. Perhaps instead of thinking only in increasing the endowment through investments that went south, Harvard could have put some of that endowment to good use in the community, since it is a non-profit organization.

Let’s think about what Harvard has done for the residents in the communities where the school has some kind of presence. As far as I am concerned Harvard has done plenty of work through its student body to bring volunteers to the surrounding communities. In a wide range of areas, from health services, tutoring, developing low income housing, and access to cultural centers at the university. Harvard’s influence is felt world wide. The communities in which Harvard has a strong influence has substantially valued from its presence.

Hey, you know I respect everything that Harvard offers to the communities in which it occupies property. But was it really necessary to purchase 4 billion dollars worth of land in Allston for even more research facilities? What if Harvard donated all that money to developing low income housing in Boston, Cambridge, Allston, and Brighton? You think there’d be anymore issues with residents finding homes? I highly doubt it.

Harvard and other nonprofits with endowments need to be more fiduciary with the donations they receive.  Even below market rate student loans and investments in ones community would be closer to ones mission.  

The IRS with Congress should change the rules on non program related income to t the community and society gains.  Such areas should be in student loans and affordable housing.  For assistance in the economy Congress could create a nonprofit investment bond that endowments can invest in that can fund private or public infrastructure such as Internet, rail, alternative energy, etc.  It is time to tap the wealth of nonprofits in a logically way and create safer returns. 

pic by Slydon 

Recent graduates from college are more than likely going to have to face a huge amount of loan payments when they start to look for a job. Most likely a starting job for these recent graduates will be between $30,000 and $40,000 in either the non-profit sector or for profit sector.

What if the government were to mandate a risk tax for companies in either the non profit or for profit businesses that invested money in places other than housing developments, health services, or education issues? It would be safe to say that more for profits would be charged with such a tax and therefore allowing the non profit organizations a chance at hiring recent college graduates with a competitive salary.

Working for a non-profit organization is not going to make you a millionaire. However, if the mission and views of the organization are similar to the things you want to see happen in the community, state, or even the country, then working for a non-profit organization is a great way to break into the workforce. In particular, with smaller non-profits a new employee has the opportunity to accomplish challenging tasks that most for-profit companies would avoid assigning new employees from the get go. Responsibility, independence and accountability will be formed in these situations, and those characteristics are what employers are looking for. And if the offered salaries are the same when your considering job offers, the chances to thrive and advance in the work place with a non profit is much greater than non profit job offers. 

Plenty of college graduates claim they’ll never work behind a desk for the rest of their lives. Since there are literally thousands of different kinds of non-profit organizations out there, employees may never see another desk again throughout their career. The options for employment in the non-profit sector are just as wide and varied as those in the for-profit sector. The only difference is if you’re willing to work for a cause other than increasing profits for the board and instead help the community.
 

If a college student has a Perkins or Stafford loan they may be eligible to have part or all of it cancelled if they work for the right type of nonprofit.  Now that would be a great investment return for the former college student and the nonprofit they work for. 

I urge you graduates to pick up the phone and call your local nonprofits that meet the cancellation requirements and take a bite out of those loans. 

I urge the nonprofits that meet the cancellation requirements to promote such a fact in their recruitment. 

I have noted a few examples from the Federal Student Aid web site. 

 pic by Sir Realist

Definition of the Middle Class:  1. A class of people intermediate between the classes of higher and lower social rank or standing; the social, the economic,  cultural class, having approximately average status, income, education, tastes, and the like.  2. The class traditionally intermediate between the aristocratic class and the laboring class.  3. An intermediate class.  (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language)

The Federal Government standard for the percent of health care expenses is 7.5%, if one was to use the 1040 Attachment A Tax Schedule.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts standard is any individual with an annual income above $21,660 or family with an annual income above $36,624.  The expected percent of income on health care premiums is 2.16% to 8.89%.  The Medicare Tax is required regardless of income. 

The poor are exempted, those age 65 and above have Medicare and those making $250,000 or more can afford to pay for their own health care. 

Health Care is really about one thing:  The need for affordable health insurance.  Unless Congress and the states reform how health care costs are controlled and keep health care premiums affordable there is no incentive to innovate low costs solutions.

It is one means to create innovation of low costs devices and models is by capping the spending in an industries.  Creating a health care cost cap per individual places pressure on the health care industry to evolve to innovative to lower cost solutions.  If you are a nonprofit in health care services and do not change over the next three years I would predict your organization will be struggling to survive or be closed in 2014. 

The Middle Class demands changed to the accessing of health services.  I predict that Community Health Centers and the health clinics in Pharmacies are the growth areas of health care delivery.  Transportation has been one of the largest obstacles for people seeking preventative medicine and managing their health with a primary care giver.   These health service options will expand affordable health care to many local communities.
 

Our nation’s liberty has been its foundation.  Let’s not allow Health Care to be it’s downfall. 

pic by Ddonar 

The political rhetoric about which Party has the right message is meaningless when the result is the same; talk verses results.

Every human being can talk about anything,
Every human being has control over some fraction of capital.
Every human being requires food, clothing and shelter to survive.
But not every human being has the ability to make the same impact with their fraction of capital. 

A simple action that every human being does is to balance spending to their capital.  This action is both on a personally level and in the decisions one makes as an employee, a business owner or public servant.  Ultimately whether as an individual, business or government not controlling ones costs will eventually outpace ones capital. 

The number one uncontrollable expense of an individual, business or government entity is health care costs.  It is not a choice of whether to limit spending in this area.  The spiraling costs are not sustainable.  Each year individuals drop health insurance coverage, each year businesses drop health insurance coverage and the government picks up more of the burden.  However, government is funded by We the People and if we already cannot afford it relabeling does not make it any more affordable. 

The solution for sustainability is to limit health care insurance to a percent of a person’s income either paid by the individual or their employer.  Let’s have the discussion be about what that percent should be and pass a law to that effect. 
But it does mean that we all have to admit the following:
1. Does everyone get sick during their life time? YES
2. Is health care free? No   (Health care just does not come out of the air)
3. Do laws require you to be treated in an emergency if you cannot pay?  Yes
4. Does the USA have the highest health care costs in the world? Yes
5. Does the USA have better health care outcomes than other industrialize countries?  No
Let’s be real in our discussion to recognize that legal expectations created by Congress over centuries and supported by We the People have now created a health care system that should be recognized as a utility.  It’s required to be made available for all regardless of the ability to pay.  Therefore, everyone needs to be required to pay for their future health care needs of the basic services.   

I wish to remind everyone that most employees pay a Medicare tax to cover health care services for those age of 65 plus. I have not heard any objections to this mandated health care insurance coverage. 

If this change occurred, we as individuals, business owners, executives could make plans to use our capital in ways that promote our growth based on our missions; not on uncontrollable health care costs. 

The alternative is a bankrupted economy.

 Pic by Robin Hutton

There have been two areas of the economy where costs have outpaced the cost of living index: health care and education.  For the purpose of this post I am concentrating on the public education system. 

It is funny how failure in education is viewed by government as a reason to give an education system more money.  When one researches successful schools districts or individual schools it is not the money that has created the positive educational outcomes but the staff and curriculum.  Do not get me wrong about money not being needed to improve education but government needs to stop rewarding failure. 

In business if you sell a lousy service or product the consumer goes elsewhere.  Therefore, reward good schools and have them take over the failing schools.  Let them replicate their model. 
The truth of the matter is to quickly increase positive outcomes for failing students and those dropping out.  Due to the diversity of student needs and interests this would promote and facilitate more innovation.  

The Charter School movement as part of the public education system is a laboratory to show that for a set price students can be educated.  It shows parents, federal and state officials how educational dollars can be better allocated with the right staff and curriculum to create great results. 

I would promote that any student attending what it’s state educational authority consider a failing school  should be allowed to attend any District School, Charter  School or Private School for the set Charter School Tuition set by the authorizing government entity.  District schools should no longer be given the latitude of years to make changes when each year thousands of students are failing to be educated.  Any limit on the number of students given this opportunity is a discriminating practice and should be legally challenged if it continues. 

Any educational system that is based on the luck of a lottery for which school one is placed including a failing school should be considered criminal.  A failing school should not be allowed in a lottery based system unless the student is allowed to take their tuition elsewhere.

A District school must be made accountable for their failure to educate students and when said failure reaches a percent of the school that students can transfer to any other school that will accept their tuition. 

Many of these charter schools show a public school model that competitively beats many District School models and private school models on price and outcomes.    If anything, charter schools are a threat to the private school model.  The charter school offers parents and students many of those services they selected private schools for. 

Today, charter schools promotion of a free public school education is bringing more students back into the public school system from the private sector.  

It just might be the way to bring the price of private schools down or increase the amount these schools give in scholarships. 

 Pic from www.thomastoons.com

Non-profits have a nice perk that exempts them from paying most of their property taxes without regards to the amount of square footage in their possession. Boston College officials are using this exemption to their advantage.

In an article from Boston.com, the Boston Redevelopment Authority “approved BC’s plans to convert a high-rise apartment building about a third of a mile from the Jesuit University’s main Chestnut Hill campus into a dormitory for 560 students.” Not only that, but BC is also planning on building a new baseball park and even more dormitory space in the coming years. The amount of property Boston College owns compared to other non-profit organizations in the area is quite drastic. Shouldn’t there be some kind of property tax on non-profits who have an exceedingly large amount of property like universities or the prestigious hospitals in the city?

Non-profit organizations that own more property compared to other non-profits in the same community should pay some kind of extra property tax. One solution is that the town forms regulations for non-profits. The regulations could consider the square footage that can be owned before the NP is forced to pay taxes.

Consider this: Boston earns most of its income from property taxes. But the non-profits in the area, including major universities and hospitals own 53 percent of the land in the city. According to Wikipedia, Boston has 89.6 square miles in land. This means that 53 percent of the land owned by these non-profits is tax exempt. Forcing hospitals and universities to pay more property taxes has the potential to help develop safe community centers for inner city youth, or affordable housing for low income families.

That is one option, but the universities themselves could make themselves available to these inner city youth by offering more tutoring centers, athletic clubs, English as a second language, the list can go on and on in the value these schools and hospitals can provide to the city.

Harvard University is in a league of its own when it comes to its expansion plans in Alston. Harvard officials are planning on constructing two new facilities each about 500,000 square feet in size. All of this land will be eligible for some kind of tax exemption.

In many communitites across the country nonprofits are placing an unfair burden of the property tax onto individuals under the guise of their nonprofit mission.  Boston is just one city where it has become an extreme portion of the tax base and a better solution is required. 

Congress and the IRS should create a solution that stops nonprofits from shrinking from their responsibility.  Reward those that have taken the initiative under  pilot tax programs and mandate those that refuse to participate with a user or head tax.  Already there is law preventing nonporofits from skipping out on the gasoline tax. 

 pic by www.thomastoons.com

According to the US census bureau, 45% of all households in the US earn about $50,000 dollars for the year. The president of the United States makes $400,000 dollars a year. If a company were to say that their CEO will only make a salary equal to $400,000, the chances are that the candidate pool will expand substantially. Rather than hiring someone who may be the best qualified person for the job, but also demands a salary triple the size of $400,000.

For a non-profit organization to be willing to pay someone anymore than $400,000 dollars is simply ruining their chances of accomplishing their goals. For one, you hired someone who clearly isn’t as interested as the rest of the employees in accomplishing your organizations goals as opposed to raking in as much cash as possible. Too much money for one person means less income to achieve your organization’s mission.

It’s clear that the president of the United States has the hardest, most time consuming job in America. He is on call twenty four hours a day for four years until election time comes around where he’ll work even harder to get the same position for another four years. If he can live with a $400,000 dollar salary, any candidate for a president position either for non profits or for profits should be quite comfortable with such a lucrative salary.

Clearly many if not all of the fortune 500 companies did not get the memo about how reasonable a $400,000 dollar salary for their CEO’s is. According to the associated press, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein earned $42.9 million. Consider that only 2% of the households in the US earned $250,000 dollars or more in 2007. Is it really necessary for anybody in any kind of position to ask for more than $400,000 dollars a year for putting in hardly the same amount of work and strain the President puts on himself? I think not.

Boards of Nonprofit’s practicing the approval of these unreasonable salaries need to stop fooling their donors and focus on their mission and stop paying large salaries.   Any organization that wants to pay these high unreasonable salaries should become a for profit company.

Another alternative is the Board votes to lay off the high price individual and keep the workers actually delivering the mission of the organization. 

pic from magnusmangosmangos

Nonprofits, charter schools, foundations and businesses are being created to save the education system from itself.  The national security of the United States is at risk unless the economic foundation of the nation is solid. 

The education system needs dramatic improvement and can not be left to where one might live or what resources are available.  The education system has to produce for all  students the opportunity to be employees in the 21st century.  This means most jobs require a work force that is based in technology and science.  This means a work force that is able to work in a global economy. 

The Race to the TOP is not only about states competing for creating the best educational outcomes, it is also about the United States racing to the top of the global economy.

Together the US can reach that goal.