The President’s bipartisan task force on deficit reduction is having a hard time coming to consensus. No wonder.

Aside from the politics there are just no good choices for reducing our nation’s indebtedness. Raise taxes generally and you hurt the recovery.  Raise taxes on the rich and you incur their wrath and mobilize an onslaught of lobbyists. Cut spending and you hurt the recovery plus a lot of people who are in need of government services ranging from unemployment insurance to mental health care.

What’s the President to do?

One approach that is sure to be included in any agreement is to delay implementation until the economy improves. By the time that happens we will be a lot further in debt, but any draconian moves will be less damaging.

Another approach, recommended by economists, is to ignore the debt per se and focus instead on growing the economy so that the debt becomes a smaller percentage of GDP. This is how we have dealt with it in the past. Robust economic growth coupled with modest reforms could do the trick.

Lost in the debate over the deficit is the role our nation’s nonprofits can play in bringing about economic growth. If the engine of employment is small business, most nonprofits are local, community-based employers of anywhere from one to a couple dozen people. Increased funding for essential services such as homeless shelters, food banks, and counseling programs achieves a trifecta of economic benefits.

First, most of many local nonprofits’ budgets are devoted to human resources so any new money coming in is instantly translated into new jobs, and those workers pay taxes.

Second, newly hired nonprofit workers help their fellow Americans deal with the consequences of the poor economy. Whether it is finding a stable living situation or putting food on a family’s table, most nonprofit programs involve helping their clients through increased economic activity. Renting an apartment or providing a service enhances a community’s economic output.

And third, safety net services provided by nonprofits help government at all levels to avoid expenses.  For example, mentoring programs or other support services provided by nonprofits benefit adolescents  – who might have struggled with an unplanned pregnancy or juvenile detention in the absence of those nonprofit services – and save the state tens of thousands of dollars in related health, welfare, and police expenses.

Unspoken in my argument above, but equally important to our country’s well-being, is the alleviation of suffering nonprofits deliver to our society.

The bottom line: added investment in our nation’s nonprofit service providers will yield immediately increased employment and other economic activity plus long term reductions in cost. It is not the total solution to our economic mess but it is a step in the right direction.

A few years ago the Chicago chapter of the American Lung Association left the national organization to form its own independent entity: the Respiratory Health Association of Chicago. At the time it was an unusual move.

Yet in recent weeks we have seen two more major affiliates of well-known national nonprofits leave the fold. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, in Northern California, is now Golden Gate Community Health, and KCET, the PBS affiliate in Los Angeles, recently announced its intention to leave the PBS family in January 2011.

Each of these situations is unique and involves a combination of differing perspectives, financial tensions and interpersonal conflicts, but I wonder if economic pressures are increasingly going to drive large affiliates of national organizations to leave behind their household brand name in favor of independence.

KCET will lose access to crucial PBS programs such as Sesame Street, while the two health organizations named above will continue to offer the same service but without the benefit of instant name recognition.

Given the demands of participation in a national organization (financial, programmatic, quality review, brand usage and the like) we may see additional large affiliates deciding they can do better on their own.

In the short run that may be true, but it remains to be seen whether they can replace the instant name recognition and credibility of their former national partners with local support. And of course there is always the possibility – indeed the likelihood – that the national organization will establish a new franchise in the same area, providing a high profile competitor who will build on the previous organization’s name recognition, now abandoned.

Stay tuned.