Obama Wants to Expand Faith Based Programs

My Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works. Too often, faith-based groups - especially smaller congregations and those that aren't well connected - don't know how to apply for federal dollars, or how to navigate a government website to see what grants are available, or how to comply with federal laws and regulations. We rely too much on conferences in Washington, instead of getting technical assistance to the people who need it on the ground. What this means is that what's stopping many faith-based groups from helping struggling families is simply a lack of knowledge about how the system works.

Well, that will change when I'm President. I will empower the nonprofit religious and community groups that do understand how this process works to train the thousands of groups that don't. We'll "train the trainers" by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs. Every house of worship that wants to run an effective program and that's willing to abide by our constitution - from the largest mega-churches and synagogues to the smallest store-front churches and mosques - can and will have access to the information and support they need to run that program.

I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

What the facts about Obama's proposal? ---BBBSecond, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

The Obama campaign released plans saying his new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, working within the White House, "will work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principles that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards of accountability as other federal grant recipients."

Obama wrote:

I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

would this be tax base funded?
I have no problem with faith-based institutions, in fact, in my years as a child protection worker I often made use of such institutions as catholic social services as well as lutheran social services however, I disagree strongly with taxpayer subsidized faith based services; I find the idea to be entirely discordant.

What the facts about Obama's proposal? ---BBB

Obama to scrap Bush's faith-based office
By MIKE ALLEN - Politico
7/1/08

Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

The Obama campaign released plans saying his new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, working within the White House, "will work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principles that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards of accountability as other federal grant recipients."

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
The Obama campaign says the AP's first report this morning that Obama supports "their [faith-based organizations'] ability to hire and fire based on faith" is incorrect. In fact, Obama's plan, they say, would prevent organizations from discriminating based on faith.

Note: The second version of AP story says Obama would support "some ability to hire and fire based on faith."

The change is of one word, from "their" to "some."

But the campaign says the second version is still inaccurate.

I can't help wondering how this would be taken if Obama was not a religious man. Forget for a moment that an overt nonbeliever would never be in a position to become President. What is the best way to get the proverbial boots on the ground? I've raised money for a living on more than one occasion (though never for charity) and I can tell you it is expensive. I've also seen enough BS charity to turn my stomach. For example: Fine print stating that 5% and 10% of every dollar actually makes it out to the intended recipients. Can anybody guess who does it better? People who actually give a rat's ass and would do it with or without government assistance, that's who. The one thing efficient Charities probably all have in common is a very high ratio of volunteers to employees. I've read some chapters of the Red Cross actually maintain an astounding 50 to 1 ratio of volunteers. Now some causes touch enough of every walk of life that people, with no additional incentive, will freely donate their time, money and energy. Blood drives are like that and I've never had much trouble getting a significant percentage of my employees to donate blood. But what about the Poor in the inner city? How many people even understand their plight, let alone feel compelled to help out? Where blood banks in times of crisis occasionally, actually have to alert folks to an abundance of blood; the inner city projects receive less and less aid, the worse things become.

While working for a venture capital firm in Trump Plaza, West Palm Beach; the manager invited all of the Account Execs to volunteer for a couple hours over the holidays. He sponsored Thanksgiving and Christmas meals, not at the fancy Church he belonged to; but at a run down church in a "bad neighborhood" who in turn put the word out to the homeless… and who's own parishioners were on hand to cook, clean and do pretty much everything but hand out the chow with us idiots. I can tell you that there isn't much that feels better than volunteering for something like that, but in truth, a couple of times a year just doesn't get it done. Day in and day out that church's faithful does pretty much the same thing to a lesser degree. From picking up the day old stuff from restaurants and grocery stores and soliciting donations, to the actual cooking and cleaning. They do it because they care. I imagine, they do it in part because their faith compels them to care.

I am as big of believer in separation of Church and State as Dys or Phoenix, I imagine… but sometimes pragmatism is more useful than rigid idealism. The infrastructure for Community Help Programs is already in place, already effective, and just happens to be uniquely qualified to attract a very large ratio of volunteers to professionals… which is the key to efficiency in the Charity game. (There is not, never has been, nor will there ever be a venture capital firm that can raise money half as efficiently as the Christian Children's Fund, for instance VC firms attract NO Volunteers). If our choices are to A. Ignore the problems. B. Pay for the creation of non-religious institutions and use our wallets to compel people into doing the work. Or C. Ease the burden off of the churches and their faithful who are already doing the work for the sake of doing the work; I find that choice a pretty simple one to make.

Faith based programs are intrinsically more efficient at charity and I find it foolish to pretend this isn't so. This is very wise use of Tax Dollars on the balance sheet, and is easily the most potent way to make an impact with however much funding the programs actually receive. Forget 50 to 1 volunteers… how about 5 to 1? Is there someone out there who wouldn't like to see government funding used 5 times as efficiently? I think it would be horrible reason to abandon Obama… and I am speaking directly to you, Dys.

Btw; I only singled you out because you mentioned it could stop you from voting Obama and you're one of the few who actually thinks about issues rather than choosing sides. Not much hope talking to those who've decided against Obama and are now busy establishing their reasons for that decision.

really depends on how it shakes out.

Note: The second version of AP story says Obama would support "some ability to hire and fire based on faith."

But the campaign says the second version is still inaccurate.