Just ask, ‘How much?’

Thursday, February 4, 2010

It’s the “something is better than nothing” point of view and it stinks. It stinks because it allows very clever people to make scads of money by promising to provide funds for good causes, like local police departments.

Last week on The Cabinet’s Web page, and in this issue, Milford Police Chief Fred Douglas takes it to task, and he’s right to do so. Also pretty darn gutsy because you can bet that a lot of his brethren will be irked at him for it, particularly those who believe that 10 percent of something is better than nothing.

Here’s how it works: A telemarketing company has a contract with the New Hampshire Police Association to raise funds. So, their telemarketers start making calls, and they ask you to contribute. You, of course, wanting to support the police – who doesn’t? – say, sure, and agree to send the firm a check or give them your credit card number.

But according to Douglas, “legitimate police associations only make 10 cents on the dollar.” Meaning, of course, that the firm keeps 90 cents of that dollar. Sounds a bit like some charity gambling places we’ve heard of, eh?

“I have never endorsed this type of campaign,” Douglas said last week. Good for him. We don’t endorse it, either.

As an aside, you might take a look at the Web site of the New Hampshire Troopers Association, which represents “the non-commissioned men and women of the New Hampshire State Police.”

If you click on the link to their “fundraisers,” you’ll see what they do and why they do it, and then you’ll see a list of organizations they want you to be aware of. The Web site says: “The organizations listed below have NO affiliation with the New Hampshire Troopers Association … and money should not be donated to them on the belief that they represent New Hampshire Troopers.” Now this has nothing to do with the firm that the New Hampshire Police Association uses, which is clearly a legitimate organization that really does give some money to the New Hampshire Police Association, just not enough.

But what the warning from the Troopers Association should tell us is to be thoughtful before we donate. If, for instance, someone calls saying they represent a group named “Blah Blah Troopers,” check them out, first.

Then, if they are a legitimate group, ask them pointedly, “What percentage of the funds you raise goes to the police and what percentage does your group keep?” We all want to support police groups and we understand that fundraising organizations have expenses, but they shouldn’t get 90 percent of the take. That’s nuts.

Say it isn’t so

There are these persistent rumors that former Congressman Charles Bass, who once upon a time was pretty liberal state senator, is pondering another run for the U.S. House.

Lest we forget, this is the same Charles Bass who was elected in 1994 on, among other things, his promises to limit terms and to balance the federal budget, all part of Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America, that brilliant piece of marketing that obviously meant so little to so many who ran on its precepts.

Bass was one. Not only did he not limit his term, he would have hung on and on, apparently, had not the voters limited it for him. Oh, and it was Bill Clinton who balanced the federal budget, not Bass and his party of spendthrifts like George W. Bush who took Clinton’s balanced budget and spent it into a huge debt. Bass helped. He liked President Bush, apparently, enough to help him spend America into penury.

Now he wants to return. It’s kind of like making a sequel to “Dracula” because there’s still lots of blood to be sucked out of the treasury.

Yes, we know, the current administration and Congress haven’t done anything to balance the budget but, unlike the Bush White House and the Bass Congress, at least this group is trying to help people who need help, not the exceptionally well-to-do, which was Bush’s raison d’etre.

But this could be a good year for Bass. He’s been out of the public eye so people have probably forgotten his failure to limit his term – as he promised – and his willingness to help President Bush spend like a sailor on an infrequent shore leave. And given what just transpired in Massachusetts, it’s probably going to be a darn good year for Republicans in general which means a bad year for people who aren’t exceptionally well-to-do.

Quite a few years ago, when Bass was in the state Senate, then-Cabinet editor and publisher Bill Rotch brought him to the office and introduced him to reporters and editors with great fanfare, lauding him as a progressive legislator who really cared about people.

So, what happened? How did this somewhat liberal, caring man Charles Bass become part of the Bush establishment that ran up the debt, didn’t even ponder health care for people who need it, and didn’t honor his promise to limit his term?

We don’t know, but it’s sad.