We have a moral obligation to help those truly in need.

WAWAWAWAWAWAWA. Victor, write them a personal check. I do.

I already do

We'll have to write even bigger checks without county support. How many nonprofits already have gone under because of the county's 2012 cuts? And now the county wants to cut more? I hope they're prepared for what will happen next.

Good for montco. These "non-profits" are industries unto themselves. If individuals feel the world needs saving- go do it. Its not the role of govt to pay organizations to deal with the losers of society. Im all for giving people a hand up, unfortunatly the majority of these programs establish clients that stay in the system.

@SMYRNA-X: Better said than I did.

May those of you in real need of help obtain the help you need. it can strike anyone!

If these functions are so essential then the county should perform them. If not then they need to seek their fund through charitable means. What concerns me is the dubious programs that they operate totally. Such as the Green Gas Reduction Project, or the Commission on Woman and Families, or the Montgomery County Transportation Authority? Are all these expenses essential? Do they overlap with other agencies? Is time to cut the fat!

Wonder if Jim Matthews country club membership and car repairs were also county perks?

I'm torn on this one and I've been very consistent about limited and responsible government.

Many (not all, but many) of these agencies are providing a good service at a good price (i.e., low budget). It's not until you reach the United Way or Red Cross level do you see agency management getting astronomical compensation and accusations of broad misuse of funds.

My conflict is that if we're not helping to cover the costs of the agencies, then the government will directly step in to provide those minimal services which ultimately have to be provided and I'd much rather private industry be called upon to do so effectively and efficiently.

Perhaps a matching fund requirement along with performance monitoring would be a better plan than cutting altogether?

As the mother of a high functioning autistic daughter soon to be aged out of the school district, I have been hit full face with budget cuts. So far we have picked up the slack personally. We do not take public assistance of any kind except what is provided to everyone through the school district...no medical assistance, which she is "entiteled" to , no SSI, which she is "entitled" to but the rub now comes when she turns 21. Since we have taken responsibility for her thus far AND she tests with an IQ higher than 70 although she cannot tie her own shoes, ride a bike or drive a car, she will qualify for no entitlement services. None. Yet there are people living very close to me in their own homes, going on vacations, their kids have Xboxes and smart phones who are now on their 2nd year of unemployment and food stamps. Entitlements were meant for those who truely cannot help themselves. They were meant as a safety net first and a hand up second. What I have seen over the years is they have become a hand out that is very difficult to hand back. It has created a voting block that is hard to beat and leaves those that are truely needy in the dust. So...we will continue to take responsibility for our own. We will help her find a job, even a part time job, so she is a contributing member of society and we will spend our retirement transporting her because she cannot survive without that help and dollars that should go to help her go somewhere else.

Djbemom, you hit the nail on the head. If more people would see the govt as a safety net, than a handout, we would not be in this financial cliff situation. Instead the freebees for unemployment, welfare and health are getting harder to burden the middle class with. Most of the people arguing for the programs are employees. How could the likelyhood of thier loss of jobs not be bias. To the murse- catholic charities, salvation army, ymca, ywca, birthright -all carried on without govt money for years. Thier missions important enough to raise money but not destroy our country's economy.

Murse, your right. Those non profits do take govt money. They did not years ago. Now they are part of the drain on tbis country, state, and county.

You can debate the merits of nonprofits all you want. Some do good others are a waste. What you cannot debate is that we over spend and are over taxed.
It is a tough decision but the stark reality is that we just can't continue to raise taxes everytime a group needs funds. It is refreshing that the new board of county commissioners balanced the budget WITHOUT A TAX INCREASE!
I feel sorry for the nonprofits but I am happy our taxes are not going up again.

I feel for the commissioners. They have some Solomon type decisions to make. Most people do not realize, however, our county taxes increased last year by 17% mostly due to decreased state funding which was due to decreased federal funding. This is the trickle down effect of the new century. The services are great. The community college is great. The libraries and parks are great. We cannot continue to have 17% tax increases on a yearly basis to support them. Someone has to put their big boy and girl pants on and make hard decisions....there are people on the state and federal level that have to do the same thing although, especially on the federal level, I don't think they are going to. I am glad I am not that person....they will not be popular.