|
| July 16, 2003 |
|
...And in the category of "Fiscal Unfitness," the Oinker goes to, the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Oinkers are back, bigger and better than ever. What, you haven't heard of the Oinkers? You should have; after all, it's your money. For congressional spendthrifts who spend our tax dollars willy-nilly, an Oinker is the equivalent of an Oscar, only with far less respect. Handed out annually by the Citizens Against Government Waste, the awards are designed to shed some light on pork barrel politics, which despite the huge budget deficit, is very much alive and well and living in the Nation's Capital. Indeed, when lawmakers cleared the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill in mid-February, the country was staring down the barrel of a $300 billion deficit and preparing for battle overseas. But that didn't stop lawmakers from loading up the measure with thousands of porcine projects, ranging from the National Peanut Festival in Alabama to the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Texas. In its annual Pig Book summary, CAGW counts 439 projects like these that symbolize "the most egregious and blatant examples of pork." Together, they total $3.2 billion that just might have been better spent. And that's just the worst of it. All told, the private, non-profit, non-partisan group found that Congress threw our scarce dollars around at record levels in fiscal 2003. Federal appropriators stuck 9,362 projects in 13 budget bills, an increase of 12 percent over last year's total of 8,341. In the last two years, the number of projects has increased nearly 50 percent. And since 1991, the total pork bill adds up to $162 billion. That's a lot of barbecue sauce. As usual, the money was spread around to practically every federal agency in fiscal '03. Hey, even though our beloved Department of Housing and Urban Development did not request any "earmarks" for economic development initiative grants, Congress saw fit to add 899 projects totaling $260 million for everything from the aforementioned peanut party (actually for the construction of an arena at the festival fairgrounds) in Dothan, Ala., to aquatic centers in Alaska, California and Missouri. Among the more questionable projects added to the HUD/VA funding bill were these gems: Which brings us back to where we started, the Oinker for $6.8 million in funding provided for the YMCA and YWCA. The two organizations' mission is to "put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all." No quarrel there. Since their inception, they have offered physical fitness activities for the total community, particularly low-income folks who could not afford to pay for a membership in a posh private health club. No quarrel there either. So where's the rub? Well, CAGW points out, in recent years, some YMCAs have gone beyond their tax-exempt mission to build start-of-the-art fitness centers that sometimes are well beyond the means of the less fortunate. Indeed, they attract an affluent clientele and compete directly with private, taxpaying facilities. I know. I've been in one in Charlotte that puts my own health club to shame. Because many YMCAs charge less than for-profit clubs, ($40 for a full YMCA membership vs. $65 a month at a spa) taxpaying clubs lose members and revenue. Yet, YMCAs still maintain that they should keep their tax-exempt status because they provide services for the less fortunate. According to CAGW, though, nearly two-thirds of YMCA members responding to a survey said they used only the fitness facilities. And nearly one-third of the YMCA's do not offer any membership discounts based on income. Some state and local governments have recognized that the community service organization has gone beyond its tax-exempt mission. In a decision that was upheld by the state supreme court, Oregon's Department of Revenue ruled that two downtown YMCAs should pay their share of taxes. The Internal Revenue Service could do the same. IRS regulations require non-profits to pay an unrelated business income tax known as a UBIT on activities that go beyond the organizations' exempt purpose. But to date, CAGW says enforcement with regard to YMCAs has been virtually nonexistent. "An organization such as the YMCA should understand the need to provide for the entire community, including paying an appropriate share of taxes," the waste-watching group says. "All CAGW is asking is for the IRS to enforce existing policies and require YMCAs that own nonconforming fitness facilities to pay UBIT or serve the community is accordance with their stated mission and tax-exempt purpose." Either that or give us back some of that $6.8 million. |
With an award winning staff of writers providing up to the minute real estate news and advice, thousands of REALTORS® in North America reporting daily market conditions, and a nationally broadcast television news program, Realty Times is the one-stop shop for real estate information. That's why over 10,000 real estate professionals have turned to us for their publicity needs.