Nor in the world of non profit and governmental accounting regulations - where its is absolutely defined as different.
But the point is it doesn’t matter how you define it, or which specific spreadsheet you plug it into. At the end of the day, a dollar is a dollar. You don’t get to say you spent a certain dollar on X and a completely different, separate dollar on Y. You spent 2 dollars on X and Y. And it can all ultimately be reduced to a single line item.
Except that - legally - you do. According to the rules - you do. Maybe in terms of practicality it isn’t so - but this is the way government and non profit accounting work - a dollar is not a dollar. Not only do you get to - you HAVE to.
Government and non-profit accounting would be a lot easier if a dollar were a dollar, but they aren’t.
And, in the larger scope of things…
Lets say that the federal government spends more money funding these non-profit health centers (which once again are NOT GOVERNMENT, they are private Non or Not for Profits). These organizations also get a lot of their funding through corporate and charitible grants and individual fundraising. If they need less money to provide their services due to increases in federal funding, then the grant giving organizations and individuals have more money - which they can use to give to Planned Parenthood.
Likewise, if I get my taxes cut because I’m in the tax bracket that should see some benefit from the GOP, I’ll have more money to donate to pro-choice organizations.
I have a friend who works for a pro-choice organiztion. The silver lining to current envents - Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and other liberal organizations have LOTS of money.
If money is fungible, its fungible inside AND outside the organization.
(By the way, the big risk here is that Planned Parenthood funding is cut - but funding isn’t increased - and is possibly decreased to the non-profit grant system, while the GOP implies that that funding increased. That would cause people who currently fund both to move their dollars over to PP, and leave these non-profits - which are absolutely needed - short on cash).
I hope you hire someone to do your taxes…
I think his(?) point is that, since money is fungible, then government funding for non-abortion services essentially frees up money for abortion. Any money has not been specifically earmarked for certain services could then be used, for example, for abortion or other supposedly icky things.
So, if PP has $100 from the government, they can then use $100 of non-earmarked money from donors for abortion. If they didn’t get the $100 from the government, then they might have to use part of the donor’s $100 to pay for such atrocities as contraception or mammograms, leaving less donor money for abortions.
So, accounting aside, giving government money to PP does free up non-earmarked money for abortion services.
(Just to be totally clear, I’m for government funding for PP, and I’m not saying that Rigamarole is against it.)
For those of you in the cheap seats, NO IT FUCKING DOESN’T.
Well, can you explain why, then?
My assumption here is that some of PP’s non-government funding comes in with no strings attached. They can spend it on what they want. If PP has $100 of government funding and $100 of non-directed donor money, and they had to spend $100 on government-allowable medical costs, that leaves them with $100 free and clear to spend on other services, including abortion services.
If the government cuts funding by $50 but they still have $100 of government-allowable medical costs, assuming they spend some portion of the non-directed donor money on those costs, that leaves less money free and clear to spend on other services, right?
When I contributed money to PP, I didn’t specify where it would go, so they can use it as needed. If money comes in that is specifically earmarked for, say, non-abortion spending, they can use my money to cover abortion services. If, instead, less money comes in for non-abortion spending, some of my contribution may end up being used for mammograms, for example.
The vast majority of money from the federal government to Planned Parenthood is Medicaid reimbursements. PP doesn’t get a blank check. Remove those reimbursements, and Planned Parenthood provides fewer services to those most vulnerable, while abortion services just keep on keeping on, and most likely increase due to less education and cheap contraception available (in part provided by the rest of federal funding under Title X). In Texas, they cut PP out of the loop, maternal mortality rates doubled, an estimated $230 million was added to Medicaid spending, and they reversed the decision two years later.
So, if Ryan is successful, he would essentially be saying to the world “Hey, we’ve just earmarked billions of dollars to go to ‘Government Health Centers’. Have at it!” There would be a rush of characters, both legitimate and shady, opening up ‘Government Health Centers’ to cash in.
If Planned Parenthood were smart, they would split their operations and open up their own version of a ‘Government Health Center’ to harvest those dollars, while retaining their abortion operations as separate.
I can’t wait to see how this all turns out.
what could be more fun than watching people trying to get health care :dubious: