I’ve been looking over the Form 990’s of local nonprofits. Did you know that there are 1,068 non-profits in Worcester with $6.7 billion in income and $6.5 billion in assets?
In Worcester they cover the spectrum from the quixotic Dream Center, the perennial patriotic American Legion, to the infamous EAW - Educational Association of Worcester - a profit motivated non-profit who works tirelessly in the fight for educational excellence, to the larger more popular institutions like the good ole United Way. And the less than popular Holy Cross College etc.
Ever read a NP Mission Statement? I have. Many in fact. The stuff is utter nonsense. Too bad they aren't true to their principles. Where did they go wrong?
It’s not particularly hard to set-up a non-profit here in MA. Anyone can do it. Wanna shield some assets from taxation, start a foundation and then hire your friends and family to run it. Take lavish trips at foundation expense. Give money to friends in return for favors. The possibilities are endless. I'm thinking about setting up a foundation to benefit mankind. Namely moi!
The federal government had the foresight to exclude large chucks of non-profit wealth, now over $4.4 trillion in assets and $3.0 trillion in income, from its taxing machine, the IRS, in the expectation that those non-profits would use their accumulated wealth to benefit society. Well they haven't. If their income were taxed, it would, roughly estimated, put about $215 billion into the U.S. Treasury annually. Pays for a lot of roads and bridges; put a whole heap of folks on a payroll. Maybe bailout Wusta?
I often listen to NPR and relish the “unbiased” news reporting (If you believe that then I have a bridge on Route 9 to sell you), it being more a matter of presentation than politics that draws me to NPR. Less ad repetition. Soothing voices.
NPR Inc. (there is also the NPR Foundation) a Washington DC based non-profit in 2008/09 showed $225 million in assets and revenues of $150 million all made possible by listeners like you through the ever increasingly annoying solicitation campaigns. And a heap of federal tax dollars to boot, accounting for nearly 1/3 of revenues according to their Form 990. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe - No Funding for NPR - has an incisive take on NPR's funding issue.
As is typical of a non-profit, salaries make up the bulk of expenses, in their case some $85 million of $165 million total expenses - a whopping 52%. Those silky smooth voices do come at a price: Scott Simon $365k, Michelle Norris $313k, Robert Siegel $359k. Management salaries ranged from $174k to $1.2 million. The top 22 employees made a total of $7.8 million. Yet NPR goes on imploring its listeners to donate their ever scarce dollars to their cause; bemoaning the increasing costs of bringing you the news. With salaries like that, its no wonder.
NPR affiliate, WGBH ($531 million in assets and $200 million in revenue in 2006, the last reported year available to the public) brought WCRB in September 2009, a classical music station for $14 million, the purchase price to be raised through yet another capital campaign. Why is the public so frivolous with their money? What was the point of the acquisition? To squeeze more liberal banter into the local airwaves by moving the music to WCRB.
Here's a tidbit from Greenspun's Weblog dated June 2009: Back in 2006, according to the IRS Form 990 (available from guidestar.org), the company was paying 14 vice presidents between $200,000 and $300,000 per year in current and deferred compensation. Henry P. Becton, Jr., the president, helped himself to $350,000 per year.
I gotta get a job there! So what’s the issue? Why does NPR or WGBH need taxpayer dollars to broadcast their liberal message when they can just as easily milk the public? How is it that conservatives, Limbaugh et al. can get their message publicly financed, but liberals can’t? Because the liberal knows it’s easier to bilk the public than sell an essentially nonviable business concept to the investing public.
How do NPR and WGBH with hundreds of millions in revenues justify milking the federal government to support their political agendas when the monies could be better spent on food stamps or unemployment benefits?
What’s the story on Worcester-based communication non-profits milking the public?
To be continued…