John LeBoutillier
Monday, Oct. 29, 2001

September 11 and the events since then show the best – and the worst – of our country.

The best? The generosity, caring and selflessness of regular people who opened up their wallets – often without even being solicited – and sent money for the families of the victims.

So far over $1 billion has been pledged. What other people – ever – have rallied to their fellow human beings in such a voluntary and generous way?

The worst? The greed, selfishness and power-and-publicity-hungry 'officials' who so far have prevented most of this money from getting to the people who need it most.

The American Red Cross is the best example of this dichotomy. With a Liberty Fund already filled with a staggering $505 million from average Americans, the ARC has been reluctant to disperse the funds. Just two weeks ago the New York Post profiled a pregnant young widow of a man who died in the World Trade Center. This young woman had a total of $450 to her name! And she was wondering where all this aid was.

Well, sure enough, the very day this article appeared, the American Red Cross coughed up enough money to keep the widow going. So, too, did the United Way, which amazingly – and suddenly – had a representative drive out to the woman's house.

But why did it take a New York Post article to get these charities off their duffs?

We can't have 5,000 such stories to prompt these reluctant-to-spend agencies to help the very people this money is intended for.

Last Friday we began to learn a little of what has been going on behind the scenes. The American Red Cross fired its president, Dr. Bernadine Healy. In the news stories describing her contentious battles with her board, we can see how this arrogant woman tried to take money intended for the families of the victims and use it for other projects.

For example, she had earmarked $26 million for "community outreach to teach tolerance."

Is this what people 'out there' who sent $25 to the Red Cross intended? Millions to "teach tolerance"? Tolerance of what?

Dr. Healy also earmarked a staggering $29 million to upgrade the ARC's own telecommunications, information and accounting systems.

Can you imagine spending that kind of money on CPAs and cell phones?

What a disgrace!

Those generous Americans who donated while watching the World Trade Centers collapse did not do so to pay for the Red Cross to hire more bookkeepers.

Of the $505 million raised in the Liberty Fund, the ARC has so far only distributed $35 million to 2,326 families. Dr. Healy's plan was to donate a total of $100 million for the families.

Do you not think that all of the $505 million should go to the families of the victims?

Why should even one cent of it go to the American Red Cross's other programs or internal needs?

Clearly, the Red Cross board was aghast at Healy's awful judgment. However, this board paid her an annual salary of $450,000. We have all heard the timeworn and tired explanation: "In order to get someone capable of running the American Red Cross in a competent way we must pay a wage comparable to what that person could earn in private enterprise."

Bunk!

Running a charity should be in itself such a privilege that extremely competent managers would want to do it for less than the comparable salary.

A salary of $450,000 for the presidency of the American Red Cross is grossly obscene.

Just a decade ago we had huge rip-offs and graft at The United Way. The president was using charitable funds to hide a girlfriend in an apartment and pay her off. He was tried and convicted. Meanwhile the donors' money was being mishandled.

While no one is alleging any criminal activity at the Red Cross, it is poor judgment to allocate donated funds in a national crisis the way it has.

Frankly, I wouldn't give one red cent to the American Red Cross.

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today