White Courtesy Telephone

Liberal Foundations: Raising a Fuss in the Age of Trump?

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       A   L   B   E   R  T

I.  Where we at

This is a moment of crisis for our country and for the institutions that stand against a lawless tyranny. In this environment, what is the role for liberal foundations whose mission it is to serve vulnerable communities? How neutral and growth encouraging can they afford to be when lawmakers are being bought up and down the Potomac by the very wealthy, when even the trenchant term “class war” seems an overpolite way to refer to the crushing of the poor and middle class?

We look up from our screens, leaving for a moment the politically charged atmospheres of Twitter and Facebook, and we step into an engulfing and healing calm. We have our children to take care of, our chores to do. Unlike the places we read about in the news, we don’t see rioters carting off pieces of the central government; there are no sprawling refugee camps just outside our cities. If we work at a foundation or a nonprofit, we might have a clearer sense than most about the challenges to vulnerable communities, to the environment, to American democracy itself. And we might be lulled into believing that the present is no more than an extension, by gradual degrees, of a familiar past.

On this last point, we would be tragically mistaken. The world has not so much shifted as lurched these past few years. The acorn is now unmistakably an oak.

Attacks on democratic processes and institutions. Activists have struggled for years to introduce democracy to the United States. And while OpenSecrets.org and other organizations have been documenting and warning us about the effects of obscene amounts of cash in political races, the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates to influence-buying by the very wealthy on a grand scale. Gerrymandered districts; intense voter suppression efforts; and this administration’s ho-hum attitude towards Russian interference in US elections tell us that it’s open season on our republic.

Inciting violence. This country has seen many long periods of state-sanctioned violence, beginning with the genocide of Native Americans and continuing through the slave trade to the new Jim Crow. What is not new, but rather a new spin on an old sin, is this administration’s sustained dog whistling and its more direct calls to violence, especially against people of color, Muslims, immigrants, women, and members of the LGBT community. The jackbooted skinhead and your bigoted uncle have been unleashed, championed by the most powerful man in the world.

Attacks on the rule of law.  We currently have a President who flouts rather than enforces our nation’s laws. From direct attacks on judges to packing the courts with unqualified ideologues, Trump and his enablers understand that the only thing standing between them and complete victory is a fawning judiciary (however much our framework of laws generally favors the well-off). The danger cannot be overstated. To paraphrase Thomas More in Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons: ‘When the last law is down, and the Devil turns round on you — where will you hide?’

Attacks on the media.  According to a recent New York Times article, Trump’s attacks on the media are having their intended effect, with 46 percent of Americans now believing the news media makes up stories about him. As noted by communications strategist Steve Schmidt, we tolerate a news network “indistinct from propaganda in authoritarian countries … aimed directly at weakening essential institutions and misinforming the American people.”

I very much appreciate Robert Reich’s unusual candor in his description of the current state of affairs:

This was the oligarch’s deal with the devil (Trump) from the start: Get us a huge tax cut, use the resulting deficit to justify cutting Medicare and Social Security, and get rid of environmental and financial regulations. In return, we’ll finance you, we’ll back your allies in the GOP, and we’ll mount PR campaigns on your behalf that magnify your lies. Hell, we’ll even make you look like a populist. …

These American oligarchs don’t have to worry about whether Social Security or Medicare will be there for them in their retirement because they’ve put away huge fortunes. They don’t worry about climate change because they don’t live in homes that might succumb to hurricanes or wildfires. They don't care about public schools because their families don't attend them. They don't care about public transportation because they don't use it. Truth to tell, they don't even care that much about America, because their personal and financial interests are global.

They are living in their own separate society, and they want people who will represent them, not the rest of us.

The Republican Party is their vehicle. Fox News is their voice. Trump is their champion. 

It might seem a stretch to call the actions of these plutocrats instances of “class war” since this implies the existence of a war room, a coordinated effort among hyper-wealthy families to screw the rest of us. But of course no cabal is necessary. Each of these families can simply seek to maximize its own benefit and all else falls into place. If there are deals to be struck, these can be arranged over a round of golf or a baptism.*

Recall that all of this is happening against a background of staggering wealth inequality in the United States and a lack of universal access to medical care. Also keep in mind that while the oligarchs’ de facto waging of class war has intensified in recent years, it is by no means new.

II.  If not raising a fist, then maybe just raising a fuss?

In one night in November 2016, hundreds of millions of dollars in liberal foundation funding essentially went up in smoke. Trump judicial appointments would now set the country back decades. The regulatory environment that was the fruit of years of advocacy and impact litigation would be cudgeled. Criminal justice reform efforts would die on the vine. An all-out assault would shred even further the little bit of safety net so many advocates had fought to preserve.

I’ve been following what my foundation colleagues have been writing ex cathedra, and I feel there’s a strange gulf between what I read and the urgency of the moment. If I’m mistaken about this, I’m happy to be set right, but for now I’m left wondering (and here I'm speaking to the leadership of these foundations directly**): Where is your voice? What kind of leadership can you provide in these troubling times? Where is your coordinated, sustained, and overwhelming response to this crisis? I understand that public foundations need to raise a buck from wealthy donors they dare not alienate. I’ve been there. But overall, where’s your sense of urgency? Can you show us your theory of change?

I have some suggestions: Instead of the more business-as-usual tones of your websites and other communications, might you instead join with your colleagues in affirming that these nefarious times require extraordinary measures; that the attacks on our democracy and its institutions, the incitements to violence, the demonizing of the media, and the laying waste to our environment are unprecedented and unacceptable? Will you commit to bringing the people most affected by these attacks directly into your planning and your work? What will be your extraordinary thinking and extraordinary acts in these extraordinary times? Will you content yourselves with asserting your “obligation to capitalism,” or will you encourage the exploration of other options for a people and a planet that are getting hammered by Big Capital?

I applaud Darren Walker’s call for moral courage. I have been—and I continue to be—a coward. When I was a community foundation CEO, I didn’t love and I didn’t care hard enough, and now I’m fearful for my country. I hope I’ll have another chance to find the moral courage Mr. Walker so eloquently describes.

-----

*  Nor is it necessary to posit evil intent. In the US, we adhere largely to good Judaeo-Christian values. Rather than kill poor families directly, we prefer to let the markets do it for us.

**  As if they would be caught dead reading this blog! Our leadership has better judgment and taste.

 

Hey, President Obama: Lose the Strut!

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       S   T   U   A   R   T

From the Philadelphia Daily News via The Field Negro:

IT WAS BASEBALL pioneer Satchel Paige who warned: “Don’t look back. Something may be gaining on you.”

In the wake of the midterm elections, that’s one bit of advice that President Obama would do well to follow. If his presidency is to survive, he must look forward and must begin to make changes now.

But exactly what should Obama do, and how and why? ...

Lose the strut …. The president has a way of pushing himself up on the balls of his feet as he walks. I call it “the strut,” and I suspect I’m not alone in finding it off-putting.

Hear that, you Democratic handlers? Better get busy!  If you want my man to be re-elected in 2012, you had better start polishing up that Brand Obama now.  First thing you want to do is help him lose that uppity strut, that confident “I’m the President of the United States” walk that seems to be annoying so many people.  Maybe try dressing him in camo and getting him a guest appearance on that eight-part mini-series TLC is donating to the Palin for President campaign.  Have him shoot a large Alaskan mammal—and be sure to script him, nothing over two syllables: something like, “Gummint will never take away my right to kill me this big-ass moose.”  Whatever you do, don’t let him be photographed stooping over some rabbit turd of a tarball in Prince William Sound!  You dig?

All right.  Re-electalicious!

Why I Return to New Orleans

This guest post was originally delivered as a sermon on November 14, 2010, by the  Reverend Dennis McCarty at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Columbus, Indiana.  We publish it here with his permission.  The reading for the sermon is from an Associated Press article published on March 3, 2010, by Remy de la Mauviniere and Elaine Ganley.

To anyone who doesn’t actually live there, I suppose it does look like a recipe for disaster, to live in a city that’s below sea level. But it’s not that simple. For one thing—below sea level or not—this city is a major seaport. It has a population of a half-million people. Because it sits just a few miles upstream from the mouth of the largest river on the continent, it guards a very important waterway.

Even long ago, when people first began to live here, the land was barely above sea level. Centuries of human habitation, land development, and land reclamation have caused it to settle even more. Now, the lowest points of this city are twenty feet or more below sea level. In the past, storms blowing in off the sea, have caused major damage and loss of life. If the sea walls, water gates, and levees were to fail again, the death toll could be enormous. For that reason, I suppose it is natural that someone from an inland state would suggest that the citizens just leave this place to the elements and build somewhere else, on higher ground.

But again, it’s not all that simple. For one thing, there is no ground that’s much higher, not till you get many miles away. For another, more than a million people earn their livelihoods from the commerce, tourism, and manufacturing located in and around the city right where it is. And that’s not even counting the music, museums, educational centers, and festivals. So the people stay. They do the best they can. Oddly enough, they don’t seem worried by a situation we inlanders might see as nerve-wracking.

I’m not talking about New Orleans, though. Welcome to the Dutch city of Rotterdam, which for centuries has been the busiest, most successful seaport in the world. Nor is Rotterdam the only city besides New Orleans that lies below sea level. Twenty percent of the whole Netherlands—and twenty-one percent of the country’s population—live below sea level. Another thirty percent lie three feet or less above sea level. Any mildly healthy North Sea wave, looks down on more than half the country.

Glenn Beck on George Soros

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       A   L   B   E   R  T

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  The New World Order.  The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  And now, Glenn Beck’s attack on George Soros as the mastermind who seeks to take over the United States by creating a shadow cabinet, gaining control of the media, destabilizing the government, manufacturing an election crisis, and, finally, encouraging duped citizens to take to the streets. 

It’s not surprising that the the mid-term elections have brought with them new intimations of elite conspiracies to control America’s minds as well as her economy.  At times such as these, Noam Chomsky continues to be one of my touchstones.  His greatest virtue as a social analyst, in my view, is his ability to explain the structure and actions of elite control without appealing to shadowy conspiracies.  In his 1987 book, On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures, he sketches a simple framework for understanding U.S. foreign policy in Latin America and the Caribbean:

The first principle is that U.S. foreign policy is designed to create and maintain an international order in which U.S.-based business can prosper, a world of “open societies,” meaning societies that are open to profitable investment, to expansion of export markets and transfer of capital, and to exploitation of material and human resources on the part of U.S. corporations and their local affiliates. …

A second and related principle is that an ideological system must be constructed to ensure that the population remains passive, ignorant and apathetic, and that none of these matters are understood among the educated, articulate and politically active classes in the United States or, indeed, in the world in general.

What’s interesting about this ideological system is that it has no architect, there is no cabal of puppet masters writing its secret constitution and taking a blood oath to uphold it.  The system is “constructed” by human actors—sometimes acting individually, sometimes collectively—who take advantage of their power, wealth, and relationships in predictable ways to maintain their status.  No other motive force is needed.  The ideological system that Chomsky alludes to is simply an emergent property of the complex whole that’s the sum of all these actions.  As it begins to take shape, it’s reinforced by the elites who explicitly or implicitly understand its value in maintaining elite control. 

The ravings of Glenn Beck are unremarkable, coming as they do from the unofficial propagandist news organ of the conservative movement in the United States, owned by a man who has himself been accused of attempting to buy control of the American mind.  While conservatives made gains in the midterm elections, they’re still smarting from the Democratic rout in 2008.  There’s bound to be some plaintive grunting when one set of elites nudges another away from the trough.

We’re in little danger of secret societies overthrowing the United States government.  The far greater danger lies in our failing to understand that left- or right-wing conspiracies are an explanatory extravagance; that the keys to social change are simultaneously simpler and more complex than many of us realize.

Hurry! Big Pol Sale Ends November 2nd!

… But there’s still plenty of influence to be bought at everyday low, low prices!

While the Citizens United Supreme Court decision might have set back the efforts of advocates working to introduce democracy to the United States, it had the beneficial effect of creating a new market for the buying and selling of political influence.  This is a great boon to those of us concerned about our sagging GDP.

The polling stations will close November 2nd, but don’t worry if you miss this window of opportunity.  Our still-tepid lobbying rules make it perpetual open season on members of Congress. Even Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., District of Columbia), who hasn’t faced a serious political challenger in years, has given lobbyists the “come hither.” According to a report in the October 18, 2010, issue of the National Review:

The “chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management”—as she described herself—called a lobbyist who had given to her “other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,” but not to her.  And she was puzzled.  “I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my, uh, long and deep, uh, work,” ... “In fact … my major work … it’s been essentially in your sector.”

I would fire the lobbyist not only for this oversight but also for failing to help the members of this Subcommittee draft their legislation.  As we learned from the Corrections Corporation of America’s work in Arizona, simply lining the pockets of legislators is not a vigorous enough exercise of our free speech rights.

Charity for the 5th Largest Economy in the World

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

We read with great interest the recent New York Times article describing plans to address California’s $36 billion deficit. Our understanding is that while the state’s health insurance program for children, Healthy Families, will remain in the budget, it will also be cut by $144 million. According to the article, thousands of children who need health care will be placed on a waiting list unless "a private foundation makes up the balance," something the Legislature apparently hopes will happen soon.

Sir, those of us who blog at the White Courtesy Telephone work at foundations that have very little by way of discretionary assets.  We are nevertheless writing to offer to restore the $144 million in cuts. Apart from your undying gratitude, all we ask is that you and the Legislature grant us the power to levy taxes on California residents, a power you have but are apparently too faint of heart to exercise.

We philanthropoids are many things, sir, but we are not girlie men.

We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

The White Courtesy Telephone Team

Refreshing Candor From An Immigrant Rights Advocate

We asked Q—, a national immigrant rights advocate, to describe the current environment in her field.*  Here’s her surprising answer …

“The immigrant rights movement is going through an overwhelming, tense, and confused time, which is hopefully setting the stage for changes that have been needed for a long time.

“The down side:

“A lot of people didn’t like the immigration reform legislation in the Senate this year.  But now the only thing that might have been a solution is gone, and both political parties are saying they won’t pursue anything comprehensive and humane for at least the next several years.  And that means the lives of immigrants are likely to get a lot worse before they start to get better.

“We’re facing the entrenchment and elaboration of a separate and unequal legal system for immigrants that doesn’t provide checks and balances necessary for ensuring that the government follows the law.

“We’re facing a lack of hope among Americans—including immigration activists—that the federal government can fix anything, let alone anything as complicated as immigration policy.

“We’re facing an overwhelming number of anti-immigrant measures introduced in cities and states.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures,

As of July 2, 2007, no fewer than 1404 pieces of legislation related to immigrants and immigration had been introduced among the 50 state legislatures.  From January to July 2nd 2007, 170 bills became law in 41 states ... State legislators have introduced roughly two-and-a-half times more bills in 2007, than in 2006.  The number of enactments from 2006 (84) has more than doubled to 170 in 2007 ... In the continued absence of a comprehensive federal reform of the United States’ challenged immigration system, states have displayed an unprecedented level of activity.

“We’re facing racial profiling, as people are being asked for their documentation on traffic stops if they look ‘foreign.’

“We’re facing attacks in Congress that keep chipping away at the rights of immigrants to argue their cases in court, the power of judges to make decisions about individual cases, and assurances that detention facilities keep people safe.

“We’re facing the enforcement of ‘material support’ laws that define immigrants and others as terrorists if they have ever provided any help to a rebel group, even if that rebel group fought alongside American troops, and even if the choice was to carry water for an army or be shot in the head.

“We’re facing a seemingly endless trail of death at the US-Mexico border.

“We’re facing the tangled interests and assumptions of African Americans, Latinos, labor, agribusiness, churches, and practically every other politically powerful interest group.

“Many immigrant rights activists are feeling overwhelmed and scared.  A lot of people are angry, and some are more reflective than they had been.

Flu Shots: Blogging the Approaching Pandemic

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       A   L   B   E   R  T

The Department of Health and Human Services is sponsoring a blog summit on preparing for the coming flu pandemic.  I agreed to participate after being assured that bloggers would not be censored and that all comments adhering to reasonable standards would be posted.  You can find influenza and bird flu resources here.  I cross-post my first submission below ...

As with most natural disasters, a flu pandemic will not be an equal opportunity killer.

The winds and rains of Hurricane Katrina buffeted the just and the unjust, the black and the white.  The storm wasn’t selective about the structures it destroyed.

But it didn’t affect all populations equally.  The poor, the elderly, and the infirm were hardest hit, populations least able to shelter properly, or flee, or recover from the storm’s devastating effects.

Likewise, while a flu pandemic can affect anyone, at any income level, those of us who are not already weakened by food insecurity, who have access to quality health care, who can afford to stay home from work to avoid infection—have a much better chance of surviving.

In 2004 there were 46 million uninsured people in the United States, most of them poor or low-income.  Eleven percent of U.S. households in 2005 were food insecure.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 6.4 million working poor in 2000; by 2003 that number had grown to 7.4 million.

I applaud the efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services to help Americans prepare for an influenza pandemic.  But as I see it, the most effective way to help those in the lowest income brackets prepare for this tragedy is to urge this and all Administrations to bolster—rather than dismantle—the safety net for the poor.

The President’s 2008 budget proposed deep reductions in domestic discretionary spending to continue financing tax cuts for those of us who are well-off.  According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

The discretionary programs in the budget subfunction known as “health care services” include community health centers, HIV/AIDS programs (for U.S. residents), maternal and child health programs, the Indian Health Service, substance abuse and mental health treatment ...  This subfunction is slated for $2.5 billion in cuts over the next five years, relative to the expected fiscal year 2007 funding level adjusted for inflation.  The cuts would reach $861 million, or 4.1 percent, in 2012.

The President’s budget also included a provision that would cut the Food Stamp Program by $740 million over the next five years, taking more than 300,000 low-income people off the program in an average month.

If we want to help all Americans prepare for the inevitable flu pandemic, what’s the sense in decreasing, rather than increasing, the resiliency of our most vulnerable neighbors?  What, if anything, did we learn from the experience of Hurricane Katrina?

The Democrats Dance a Box Step Around Lobbying Reform

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       J   O   H   N

Remember how, during the 2006 elections, exit pollsters reported significant voter frustration with corruption in politics?  Nancy Pelosi, then soon-to-be Speaker of the House, promised a shakedown in Congress.  “The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,” she said in an apparently unguarded moment.

As many predicted, the Democrats have already started back-pedaling on meaningful lobbying reform, moving to strike provisions that would:

• Require lobbyists to disclose details about large donations they arrange for politicians.
• Make former lawmakers wait two years, instead of one, before lobbying Congress.
• Bar lobbyists from throwing large parties for lawmakers at national political conventions.

Apparently if it pays, it plays. 

Meanwhile, lawmakers continue their periodic assaults on nonprofit advocacy rights.  Our colleagues at the Alliance for Justice need to be ever-vigilant for legislation that would erode the ability of Third Sector organizations to speak out for or against legislation, register voters, and, in general, engage a wider spectrum of the American public in civic deliberation.

Nonprofit advocacy organizations provide a voice for low-income and other aggrieved communities.  They’re a great democratizing force, frequently challenging government and big industries on a range of issues.

Apparently in politics as in other domains, the squeaky wheel gets the grief—especially if that wheel doesn’t offer you a golf junket to Scotland.

Hunger Strike for the People of Darfur

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       D   I   X   I   E

Mr. Start Loving describes himself as a “would-be disciple of Jesus.”  He’s on the 36th day of a hunger strike that he hopes will awaken our moral conscience to the genocide of the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit people of the Darfur region in Sudan.

He’ll stop his water-only hunger strike when he’s assured that there will be an “airtight protection” of the people of Darfur against attacks by the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited by the Sudanese government from among the Bedouin Arabs of the region.

This is an unprecedented opportunity, he believes, for the United States to exercise leadership and reacquire some of the moral authority it has lost over the past six years.  According to his analysis, the United States refuses to take more vigorous action because it doesn’t want to upset China, a country that buys 70 percent of Sudan’s oil.

You can read his blogs here and here.

Let's Just Skip the Election

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       D   I   X   I   E

It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

I suppose that’s what was on the mind of Mr. Hohensee, pictured at right.  His flyer reads:

[email protected] for President by Constitutional Amendment # Senator Feingold for VP # my pre-Murtha Iraq withdrawal plan endorsed by Col. Ann Wright # incarcerate and prosecute GW Bush # decommission the CIA # real 9-11 investigation # real recovery in the Gulf region # real intervention in Darfur # the GW Bush regime is an emergency …

Rick also has a  website. 

I wish Mr. Hohensee well.  However good or bad a governor he may turn out to be, I appreciate it that he, like all good citizens, sticks his nose into matters that are properly his business.

Introducing Democracy to Our Nation’s Capital

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       S   T   U   A   R   T

This past November, the official website of the multinational force in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, told the story of Sargeant John Eldridge, 372nd Military Police Battalion, 89th MP Brigade, who had been deployed for a second time and would miss sharing Thanksgiving dinner with his family.

This story about the Washington, DC native concealed a great irony.  He had been sent overseas, according to official reports, to fight for the cause of democracy, but back home he and half a million fellow Washingtonians would be barred from full participation in the democratic process: residents of our nation’s capital have been denied a voting representative in Congress since 1801. 

Perhaps, as one wag suggested, the U.S. Marines should have invaded the District of Columbia.

Those who live in the seat of American democracy pay their taxes, are called for jury duty, and serve in the armed forces, but are denied the most basic of democratic rights.

Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) was part of a congressional delegation that went to Hong Kong and pressed leaders there to allow democracy.  Davis said a senior Hong Kong official told him, “Give your nation’s capital the right to vote and then come talk to us about democracy in Hong Kong.”

Big props to my peeps at DC Vote for their recent voting rights victory in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, a first step toward righting a great historical wrong.

DC Vote is sponsoring a Voting Rights March on Emancipation Day, April 16, 2007, starting at 2:30 p.m.  For more information visit the DC Vote website.

The Public Will and the Public Won't

A recent article by Rick Cohen points to one of the classic tensions between foundations and government and one of the possible downsides of Warren Buffet’s gift to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:

In President Bush’s proposed budget for the fiscal year 2007, the administration justified proposed cuts in its small schools programme by citing the availability of funds for the same purpose from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That made a foundation programme, where the decisions are made by a few administrators and the foundation's two trustees, a potential substitute for a federal government action. …

This happens regularly in the US. In the administration’s 2006 budget, the White House proposed terminating programmes to educate children about the dangers of obesity due to the availability of projects sponsored by Disney and the Nickelodeon channel, again substituting charity for governmental obligations …

Mr. Cohen has it exactly right.  I’ll wager half my tax return that today, in some foundation in this country, you’ll hear an exchange like this one:

Program Officer:  ‘The city has decided it’s going to discontinue funding transitional housing programs, so ABC, Inc. is requesting $100,000 to replace lost city funds.’

Foundation Executive:  ‘Why should we replace lost city dollars?  Transitional housing programs for low-income people are a public responsibility and should be supported by tax dollars.  If we make up the funding gap, we’ll only encourage city officials to stop funding other programs.’

There are several possible outcomes to this discussion.  The foundation might decide to fill the gap for a year, to give the nonprofit time to find replacement dollars.  Or, as often happens, it might decide to hold the line.  It’s then left as an exercise to the program officer to determine how best to communicate the bad news to the applicant, to explain a decision that begs a thousand questions.

I’ll leave it to historians to describe, for a given community, how the line of scrimmage between public and private responsibility fell where it did.  The question then becomes, how and under what circumstances does that line ever shift?

Here’s an example of how that game is played: Elected officials succumb to public pressure to cap or reduce taxes.  Smaller tax revenues mean less public support for safety net programs for the poor.  Foundations yell “foul” and refuse to step into the funding breach, claiming that foundation dollars should be used not for funding basic services, but for testing new ideas, supporting programs unpopular with individual donors, and other like purposes.

Foundations have a few plays of their own in this game.  Many will support nonprofit advocacy efforts to shore up or increase public support for safety net programs.  It’s now elected officials who cry “foul” and threaten to strengthen legal strictures on advocacy funding.

It’s an old contest and the balance shifts this way or that with the blowing of political winds.

Is it the proper role of foundations to plug the gaps created by retreating public funds?  Those who say yes will often argue along Libertarian or humanitarian lines: government should be smaller, say the former, foundations should not leave poor people in the lurch, say the latter.