Big-government lovers like denying it, but a study has concluded that nonprofits save society money, both short-term and long-term, in a way that government does not and cannot.
The study was conducted by nonprofit leaders regarding organizations located in the Washington DC area– local, national and international. The source is biased, sure, but I’d love to see someone dispute its basic premise: nonprofits can deliver services that government currently does (editorial note: in a more efficient way), through private donations, while allowing people to become “self-sufficient” in the long-term.
I’d love to see a government program that has those same effects, but does the government even try to claim that about itself? I suspect any government program that is both efficient with taxpayer dollars and eventually leads to self-sufficiency is few and far between, if a single one exists at all.
Why can’t we expand this nonprofit success by using some of these nonprofit organizations for delivering some of the “services” that Americans have come to rely on their government for and pay with everyone’s taxpayer dollars? I’d take the Red Cross over FEMA any day, as well as the Nature Conservancy over the EPA. What about you?
Tags: private vs. public, privatization, nonprofits, nonprofit study, nonprofits government
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967)
Mit der Dummheit k
indecent conceit
February 20th, 2008