A 100 years ago these people would be tarred and feathered and road out of town on a rail.Shame Full profiting on the backs of people who died,people who went to ground zero to help.

You can tell that they know that their salaries are out of line by the way that they're rationalizing them.

Developing the 911 memorial is nothing like running the American Cancer Society, and isn't comparable to other charities on the basis of income. Because all of the 911 memorial funds were given to them with barely any development effort, and their operations are solely devoted to a single project, which isn't ongoing. So operationally they shouldn't have anything like the overhead of an ACS or similarly funded group.

The foundation size comparison made by the charity watchdog organization is more appropriate. By this comparison, the president is making twice what he should, and most of the others wouldn't be making anything like what they're getting.

What you'll often see w/ charity foundations is that the upper echelon of executives and decision makers will collude to pad each others salaries. So you'll get a handful of people w/ outrageous compensation, and then a major gap in compensation to the rest of the staff. It sounds like this is what's happened here, when you look at how the compensation is being distributed. They're paying off all of the relevant parties, to keep everyone happy.

I have an unpopular viewpoint about the inefficiency of charities, but the fact is that they very way charity systems are structured lends themselves to extreme inefficiencies and (effectively) corruption where the 'directors' pay themselves big salaries and the organizations do comparatively little (in fact, they bear a lot of resemblence, efficiency-wise, to government organizations). Proper investment, that is based on expectation of generating returns, is a FAR more efficient and cost-effective way to get things. This is why I cannot stand seeing guys like Gates and Buffet getting swept up in this Marxist hysteria of 'giving their money to charity'. I have seen SO many charities who subsist year to year on donations or even government grants, their directors earning big bucks, and their organizations often doing little or nothing ---- the fact is this type of thing isn't even the exception, it's commonplace.

And you could say "well yes people should only give money to the charities that seem to be well run". But it's just a fact that when people give money to charities, it's natural to automatically think "well now I've done my bit, if it doesn't get spent properly, well at least I've done my bit". But when it's equity-based, i.e. when your money is tied in an investment where you expect a return, then you always will just naturally go to far more effort to make sure the money gets well-spent.

Is it just me or is that headline grammar "9/11 museum bigs cash in" a 'WTF'?

Or is 'bigs' a noun, like short for 'bigwigs'? Then it would make sense.

Worse than their personal gain, is how, after a lifetime of stories, many (me!) don't trust any 'sincere' statement of need from any charity or religion. United Way went through this. I guess I'm supposed to research these things, but I hate the "prove you aren't a lying crook" attitude I have to start with.

There's almost no such thing as a non-profit organization. Except for the Salvation Army and a few others, most of them just jack-up their expenses, including salaries, to make sure they never make a profit. If you did this as a private business, after three years, the IRS would dis-allow your expenses and call your business a hobby.

I cannot stand seeing guys like Gates and Buffet getting swept up in this Marxist hysteria of 'giving their money to charity'

You realize this is simply a tax dodge, so that their children, children's children and so on can have a ranking position in the charity, do a little work, and pull a decent salary for it?

And because they're on the Bill & Melinda charity, they'll be asked to sit on boards for other charities. And eventually, they'll get asked to sit on boards of Fortune 500 companies.

Annnnd what this has done is establish a place where generations of Muslims may go to show others that they beat the "Great Satan".

If you really wanted to deny terrorists their voice, you'd have rebuilt the WTC buildings just as they were. It's more important to cry, and keep crying, nowadays. In that manner, the public may be reminded that America deserves to be punished.

Maybe they're listed in Charity Navigator - they hand out efficiency ratings for charities:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/