How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars For Haiti and Built 6 Homes

An anonymous reader points out an investigation from NPR and Propublica into how the Red Cross spent the $500 million in relief funds they gathered to help Haiti after the country was devastated by an earthquake in 2010. They found "a string of poorly managed projects, questionable spending and dubious claims of success." While the organization claims to have built homes for 130,000 people, investigators only found six permanent homes they could attribute to the charity. The Red Cross admitted afterward that the 130,000 number included people who had attended a seminar on how to fix their own homes.

"Lacking the expertise to mount its own projects, the Red Cross ended up giving much of the money to other groups to do the work. Those groups took out a piece of every dollar to cover overhead and management. Even on the projects done by others, the Red Cross had its own significant expenses – in one case, adding up to a third of the project’s budget." The Red Cross raised far more money for Haiti than any other charity, but is unwilling to provide details on where the money went. In one case, a brochure that extolled the virtues of one project claimed $24 million had been spent on a particular area — but residents of that area haven't seen any improvement in living conditions, and are unable to get information from the Red Cross. The former director of the Red Cross's shelter program said charity officials had no idea how to spend the money they'd accumulated.

Comments

They throw money at shit they don't need...

[kiphat]

Having witnessed first hand how the Red Cross spends its money on IT infrastructure it doesn't need, I refuse to give them a single dime.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[ErikTheRed]

Having witnessed first hand how the Red Cross spends its money on IT infrastructure it doesn't need, I refuse to give them a single dime.

This! I've seen this in other large "non-profits" as well. It's like they don't even know how to do more with less (I own two businesses and could speak volumes on the subject) - they just declare that they "need" more money, fundraise, and then blow it out the way their high-priced consultants tell them to. I don't think they're necessarily evil, but they are run by people whose good intentions far outweigh their management skills (to be charitable, pun intended).

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Though not about the Red Cross, I have two anecdotes about Haiti relief efforts. A 20 year old friend of mine wanted to help so he signed up with a charitable organization to travel to Haiti and help. He used all of his savings to pay for plane tickets, housing, meals, and to donate to the program. He also did it using his 2 week vacation time for the year. They were assigned to teams of about 10 each of college aged Americans. They were given shovels, rakes, and wheel barrows and told to clean up the destroyed shanties. They worked morning until night while the locals watched them. Each week part of the group left and a new group arrived. Some stayed for one week, some for two, others for 2 months. This was going to be a year long project or more to clean the ruined shanties from the valley and hillside. A bulldozer and backhoe could have done it in a month or less, then they could begin rebuilding. The big question is why were the locals that would benefit from all this work not helping? They just stood around and watched. This was unskilled labor anyone could do it.
The other is our local university has a charitable student org that was also getting students to self pay to go help "Rebuild Haiti". All they ended up doing was teaching English.
Waste, waste, everywhere.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC. I used to stop by the IT dept in the Houston office to help a guy out. All the servers were used and refurbished. He did a really good job keeping them up an running IMHO. It was also shoestring budget. So if what you're saying is true, different locations are given different IT budgets?

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[ShanghaiBill]

All they ended up doing was teaching English. Waste, waste, everywhere.

How is teaching English a waste? Haitians speak a creole, that is unintelligible to even standard French speakers. This isolates them from the world economy, and is part of the reason they have 15% of the per capita GDP as the neighboring Dominican Republic, where standard Spanish is spoken. English lessons should be very useful.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[ShanghaiBill]

I refuse to give them a single dime.

I never give them dimes either, but I do donate blood every 8 weeks. They can't embezzle that.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[Stan92057]

might want to reword that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/09/the_business_of_blood.html

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[DescX]

I don't know how it works in the states, but there are multiple ways for charitable organizations to draw revenue here.

Fun story; I left such an organization where IT costs had ransacked the place rather silently. I was hired to keep a seat warm and not ask questions. Bit of a latch-key kid, so I come off mousey but tend to hit hard. I pushed nearly every single day for consolidation of architecture, refactoring efforts, and other things that would keep costs at net zero and set us up for efficiency. I over-worked knowing tens of thousands counted on what I did. Of course, that's way more involved than keeping a seat warm and definitely not what the sleepy organization bargained for.

Over the first month I wrote some paper saving software. When it came time to use it, the org opted to ship out several thousand pre-printed items instead of, y'know, using the said software to reduce costs and waste. I don't normally care about the trees, but it was quite ludicrous watching the post office take off with truck after truck of forms that my code was fully capable of handling on demand, as required. Strike 1. It gave me an axe to grind with executives from that day on, and I didn't let up, with good reason.

I was sent on bogus "training". Our core system was an AMS where the owners did the old bait-and-switch; avoid insolvency or whatever the hell else is going on under the guise of seeking opportunity in new ventures; let the company fail; then consult for it. I could smell this a mile away and suggested we save a buck and do remote courses to satisfy the parent company's training requirement. Nope - I had to be flown somewhere on company dime, hotel and all, to watch a "trainer" click a few GUI buttons on an entirely SQL-driven system. What fun. I made my displeasure clear. Strike 2.

Oh, and day to day purchasing choices. I explicitly stated I didn't want new equipment and would periodically walk in to discover a shiny new on my desk. The least knowledgeable staff managed to sucker management into buying a fancy new server before I even heard about it - which we couldn't use on site for various good reasons. When I tried to get permission to grab a consultant so I could run him ragged on my own terms, the idea turned into an excellent way to screw around and waste time. Management batted 5 or 6 competitors back and forth, often using closed door phone calls with these consultants as an excuse to slip out at 1:00pm. There was some new horse shit every week. Strikes 3, 4, 5, 6......

Needless to say, this wasn't the kind of place a to start a career, and I'm too young for a heart attack, so I quit. Sorry I can't share more. The membership of this particular organization continues to enjoy their basic services and I have no desire to jeopardize that enjoyment -- and the organization doesn't vend life-or-death services, so there's really no incentive to blow a whistle. I'm just happy I kept everything running, made some kind of forward motion, and was able to stop a few bad deals cold. ...it needs to be said that in at least one non-profit, I most certainly met people who were both acting in evil ways and managing poorly. The trouble is, there's no distinction between the negative effects from either problem at end-of-day. Evil and mismanagement look, and act, identical.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[Applehu Akbar]

Something similar just happened in Nepal. The UK raised a huge food and materials drive that positioned hundreds of tone of relief supplies at a military base in Yorkshire, ready to be sent in. It's still all sitting there. Apparently Nepal wants to charge customs duty of 30% on all the relief supplies that are coming into the country.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[Stoutlimb]

Bullshit companies like that are often bullshit because they are just money laundering fronts. Paying people to fill seats is a big tip off. Consider reporting them.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[tompaulco]

I refuse to give them a single dime.

I never give them dimes either, but I do donate blood every 8 weeks. They can't embezzle that.

But they do. They sell it and claim it as a donation, so they don't pay taxes on it, but they don't allow you, the giver to claim it as a charitable donation. Also, they claim 91% of their donations goes toward humanitarian efforts, but they don't include the moneys received from selling the blood, because that would lower their percentage down into the 60s or 70s or lower according to NPR.
Far better to donate to a local hospital and eliminate the waste and the approximately 50% of blood donation that ends up spoiling on the shelf.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[antdude]

Why a single dime in USA? Try a penny. ;)

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[kimvette]

Yep... I've done work for the Red Cross and they are extremely wasteful. We were brought in to audit the design, development and QA process to make it more efficient and less prone to defects and to reduce iterations... but even though THEY brought us in they fought the process every step of the way. We eventually ended up firing them as a client. I think they just wanted someone to rubber stamp their chaos.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[lsatenstein]

Oxfam is no better, There redistribution is around 1%, one cent of every dollar collected. High salaries and benefits consume the rest.

Salvation army has only 3% overhead. 97 cents of every dollar collected go for aid.

Re:They throw money at shit they don't need...

[ChrisMaple]

1) Cut off nose to spite face.

2) Profit ?

red cross CEO makes over $1M

[ralphsiegler]

there are people who would do better job at a tenth the pay 'nuff said

Re: red cross CEO makes over $1M

[amiga3D]

President Obama is paid 400,000 dollars a year. He does get free room and board though.

Re: red cross CEO makes over $1M

[ChrisMaple]

He may have to pay for Michelle's asswipes, but he doesn't pay when Michelle takes an Air Force jet for a cross-country shopping spree disguised as a speaking engagement.

Debunked already.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has already been debunked on skeptics stackexchange http://skeptics.stackexchange....

Re:Debunked already.

[pushing-robot]

Funny, I had come across that a couple days ago and was about to post it.

At least they're ahead of Doctors Without Borders, I hear they didn't build any permanent residences in Haiti. Where does all the money go?

Re:Debunked already.

[amicusNYCL]

I wouldn't call that "debunked". People are certainly throwing around the $500 million number assuming that all went to housing, which is not correct (only about $100 million did), but the Red Cross still failed at their own stated goals, and their lawyers refuse to provide any accurate accounting of where the money went beyond lumping large sums into large buckets (e.g., $24 million went into development of Campeche). The Haitians living in Campeche are equally curious about where the money went, because they haven't seen much done beyond some sidewalks and a wall painted with the Red Cross logo. The Red Cross specifically said they were going to build hundreds of homes and rebuild entire neighborhoods, and they've done neither. Even though it's true that they did not budget $500 million to that single effort, they still have failed to accomplish what they said they were going to do, and they have still failed to account for where that money went.

Re:Debunked already.

[pushing-robot]

It's a joke. The Red Cross is a disaster relief agency which provides refugee camps, temporary shelters, food, water, medical care and communications.
Judging the effectiveness of such an agency by how many permanent residences they happen to construct is a non-sequitur.

Re:Debunked already.

[PRMan]

Not when they claim that a large portion of the $500 million they raised was spent on building houses.

Re:Debunked already.

[nbauman]

Funny, I had come across that a couple days ago and was about to post it.

At least they're ahead of Doctors Without Borders, I hear they didn't build any permanent residences in Haiti. Where does all the money go?

Medical treatment.
http://www.doctorswithoutborde...

Haiti had a massive cholera problem (as a result of cholera being introduced to the island by UN workers).

MSF had a detailed report on what they did with the money.

Emergency Response After the Haiti Earthquake: Choices, Obstacles, Activities and Finance
Six months after the earthquake
Six months after Haiti’s January 12 earthquake, MSF describes the organization’s largest ever emergency response.
http://www.doctorswithoutborde...

Re:Debunked already.

[nbauman]

I wouldn't call that "debunked". People are certainly throwing around the $500 million number assuming that all went to housing, which is not correct (only about $100 million did), but the Red Cross still failed at their own stated goals, and their lawyers refuse to provide any accurate accounting of where the money went beyond lumping large sums into large buckets (e.g., $24 million went into development of Campeche). The Haitians living in Campeche are equally curious about where the money went, because they haven't seen much done beyond some sidewalks and a wall painted with the Red Cross logo. The Red Cross specifically said they were going to build hundreds of homes and rebuild entire neighborhoods, and they've done neither. Even though it's true that they did not budget $500 million to that single effort, they still have failed to accomplish what they said they were going to do, and they have still failed to account for where that money went.

That's a good summary of the Pro Publica/NPR article. https://www.propublica.org/art...

I would add that the people who wrote that article actually went to Haiti where the Red Cross said they provided aid, and talked to the people there on the ground.

I will bet money that the guy who wrote that attack job http://skeptics.stackexchange.... did all his research sitting on his/her ass surfing the Internet within the US.

Re:Debunked already.

[phantomfive]

I doubt anything serious will ever be debunked on stackexchange.

Re:Debunked already.

[speederaser]

Not when they claim that a large portion of the $500 million they raised was spent on building houses.

Read the link again. The Red Cross made no such claim.

Gave money to the Red Cross?

[frovingslosh]

Gave money to the Red Cross? Consider the advice of the great philosophers Nelson and Mr. T.

Haiti government

[Anonymous Coward]

How about giving it to the Haiti government? Surely they know best what areas to focus on?

Re:Haiti government

[frovingslosh]

Absolutely. they could have built more than 6 homes for Haiti government officials with it, and very nice homes too.

Re:Haiti government

[amiga3D]

I'm more and more convinced that the Republican and Democratic parties are like the head and tails of a quarter. No matter which one you look at it's just the other side of the same thing.

Re:Haiti government

[nbauman]

I'm more and more convinced that the Republican and Democratic parties are like the head and tails of a quarter. No matter which one you look at it's just the other side of the same thing.

The proof of that is the Obama health plan, which is really the health plan of the Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank.

The Democratic Party today is further to the right than Richard Nixon (whose Secretary of Health and Human Services was Daniel Patrick Moynihan), who supported a guaranteed national income and a national health program.

Clinton was a "centrist" Democrat, which is not really in the center of American opinion but pretty far to the right. It's only in the center of the big campaign contributors.

Clinton's advisor was Rahm Emanuel, who was also Obama's chief of staff, and who ruled out a single payer health care system or even a public option. The reason Emanuel was so powerful is that he was the Democratic Party's big fundraiser. Under Emanuel, their principles are for sale. Give them $100 million in contributions, as the health insurance industry did, and they'll give you anything you want.

The worst thing Clinton did for the country was his Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which took away the right to welfare, and gave everyone 5-year limits. That increased the poverty in the US, and made poor people really miserable. Clinton's own assistant secretary of health and human services, Peter Edelman, publicly resigned over it. Edelman and his wife were old friends of the Clintons, and Edelman said Clinton's welfare reform destroyed everything he believed in. That was another Rahm Emanuel idea.

The entire Democratic party isn't worthless, just most of them. You can look at the Democrats who voted against the war in Iraq, against the Welfare Reform Act, against the Bush and Obama education bills, against ending bankruptcy for college loans, against the tough-on-crime bills, for single payer and the public option. I'd estimate it might be as much as 1/3 of the Democratic Party. Most of them are in the Democratic Progressive Caucus.

Now Bernie Sanders is running, and he's getting about 15% of Democrats in the polls. We'll see if the majority is smart enough to vote for a candidate who represents their interests, or if they'll just be mesmerized by wall-to-wall TV commercials again.

Re:Haiti government

[ChrisMaple]

The Welfare Reform Act, which you credit to Clinton, was a Republican project only signed by Clinton when presented to him for the third time. It did a great deal to reduce poverty by getting the undeserving poor off their fat, lazy asses.

Benjamin Franklin:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Re:Haiti government

[nbauman]

The Welfare Reform Act, which you credit to Clinton, was a Republican project only signed by Clinton when presented to him for the third time. It did a great deal to reduce poverty by getting the undeserving poor off their fat, lazy asses.

Unfortunately nobody got the undeserving rich off their fat, lazy asses. Democrat or Republican, they're still getting government handouts. GWB, you recall, was a drunken loser and a failure all his life, until his father's friends cut him into a government-subsidized football stadium deal.

The big-time undeserving rich can be found in the medical insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Obamacare has now forced people to get their health care through the insurance industry, which takes a 20% cut off the top of your premium dollar. They've guaranteed that Medicare will pay the pharmaceutical industry whatever they choose to charge, even if it's $50 for an asthma inhaler that costs $15 in Europe, or $100,000 for a cancer drug that was developed with government-funded research.

The welfare "reform", that Clinton signed, was a disaster for the poor. It worked passably well when the economy was booming, and there were jobs for everyone who wanted one, but after the economic bust, the poor were really suffering. There have been plenty of studies to show that.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion...
OpEdOpinion
Will Hillary Clinton run against her husband's welfare legacy?
June 1, 2015
By MELINDA HENNEBERGER, Bloomberg News

Almost 20 years ago, when Bill Clinton made good on his campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it," some of his oldest friends were beside themselves....

A smaller percentage of Americans are getting the help they need: In 1996, 68 of every 100 families living in poverty received cash assistance. Today, only 26 of 100 do, and in 10 states, that number is under 10. Because federal aid is no longer guaranteed to anyone living in poverty, states can simply make it harder to qualify for help, and then point to the low number of people they're serving as a measure of success....

The consensus among Clinton's aides, both those who supported and opposed the bill, was that the move was not politically necessary. Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos told the president that he did not have to sign the bill to be reelected, but was far enough ahead of GOP nominee Bob Dole that he'd win in November either way.

Benjamin Franklin:
  “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Now I understand why Howard Zinn said that the founders of the country were upper-class property-owners serving their own interest.

Franklin's advice may have worked when the county had a labor shortage and there was work for everyone who wanted to work, and free farmland for everyone (except negroes) who wanted to strike out on his own, but it doesn't make any sense when there's massive unemployment and no more free farm land.

Not nearly as bad as they make it sound.

[Iamthecheese]

As I said on another site, Not as bad as they try to make it sound. The red cross initially committed to building homes but when that didn't work out due to them not being able to buy land they spent the money on improving some homes, building a hospital, and helping out elsewhere as possible. It's true there was a lot of administrative waste, but that waste was due to careful management. The article echos complaints of hiring "lazy" locals. Then it criticizes them for hiring expensive ex-patriot workers. Then it criticizes them for contracting the work out to other companies causing high administrative costs. Well how the fuck were they supposed to do it? If they had advertised for volunteers they would have been criticized for spending the money in another country. It can cost a lot to assure money is spend effectively. Maybe they erred too far on the side of caution on this one, maybe they got as much done as was possible. I don't know. Neither do you. This is making a chicken out of a feather and makes me wonder what real news I'm missing out on.

Re:Not nearly as bad as they make it sound.

[amicusNYCL]

The article echos complaints of hiring "lazy" locals. Then it criticizes them for hiring expensive ex-patriot workers. Then it criticizes them for contracting the work out to other companies causing high administrative costs. Well how the fuck were they supposed to do it?

If only there was a 19 minute story filed with that kind of discussion.

To be sure, building in Haiti is very difficult. Land title and government requirements are complex and time-consuming. But still, it can be done. A nationwide review found other charities have built almost 9,000 homes so far. Not far from the Red Cross's neighborhood development project in Campeche, two charities, Global Communities and PCI, built 260 one-story homes and 75 two-story homes and rebuilt the main road in Ravine Pintade. Now the charities are building a series of multifamily homes with running water.

JOHN WILDY MARCELIN: (Through interpreter) This little house will have two bedrooms. And this is the kitchenette living room, and this will be the bathroom.

SULLIVAN: John Wildy Marcelin is head of construction. He says this project's had a lot of momentum because the majority of the managers are Haitian. He says they're passionate about rebuilding their country.

MARCELIN: (Through interpreter) All this work you are looking at now, the calculation was made by Haitian people, Haitian engineers, Haitian architects, Haitian foreman. We know what to do.

SULLIVAN: The Red Cross does not seem to have used that strategy. One manager emailed supervisors in Washington complaining that Haitians were not being hired for top positions and in some cases, were treated disparagingly. Current and former employees told us the Red Cross relied on foreigners who often couldn't speak either French or Creole.

Re:Not nearly as bad as they make it sound.

[nbauman]

As I said on another site, Not as bad as they try to make it sound.

The reporters at Pro Publica and NPR went to Haiti. The reporters went to the locations where the Red Cross said they had been working, to see what the Red Cross had accomplished, and they talked to the people that the Red Cross was supposed to have been helping.

I don't suppose you went to Haiti yourself to check them out, did you?

God helps those...

[zlives]

that have the money

Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[ZippyTheChicken]

I was watching an interview with this minister that has been down there since it happened and he said "if you want anything done in Haiti it has to go through approval of the Clinton Foundation" ............. something in the area of 6 Billion dollars and 15000 troupes were sent to Haiti .. a quarter million people ended up homeless and there is nothing to show for it but a couple projects that were photo ops.. This is the woman people want for president... how evil do you have to be to steal from people that have nothing... I'll say it .. pretty dam evil.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[sheetsda]

This is the woman people want for president

Here in the USA we do not have the luxury of voting for the person we want for president. We have to vote against the person that we don't want to be president.

See also

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[amicusNYCL]

I don't have any love for Hillary Clinton, but before I accept your claim that she is the personification of evil, do you mind providing a source for any of the claims you're making there?

I was watching an interview

What interview?

with this minister

Which minister?

there is nothing to show for it but a couple projects that were photo ops

Do you really believe that? Over 9,000 homes were built, at a minimum, not to mention consumables like food and water, as well as temporary shelters, repairs to existing structures, and money for rent.

This is the woman people want for president

Are you trying to say that she personally approves or disapproves of all Clinton Foundation work in Haiti, which in turn somehow oversees all international efforts? That everything that happens is traced to Hillary personally? Her husband founded the thing, that's why it was originally called the William J. Clinton Foundation. Hillary joined the thing in 2013 (which is several years after the 2010 earthquake, in case you're curious), and she said she was going to work on issues concerning women, small children, and economic development.

Or, is this what you wanted to talk about:

The 26-member international Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission, headed by Bill Clinton and Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive, convened in June 2010. That committee is overseeing the US$5.3 billion pledged internationally for the first two years of Haiti's reconstruction.

The commission was critiqued by Haitian groups for lacking Haitian civil society representation and accountability mechanisms. Half the representation on the commission was given to foreigners who effectively bought their seats by pledging certain amounts of money. An international development consultant contracted by the commission was quoted as saying, "Look, you have to realize the IHRC [commission] was not intended to work as a structure or entity for Haiti or Haitians. It was simply designed as a vehicle for donors to funnel multinationals' and NGOs' project contracts."

Because, for a minute there, you sounded like just another political idiot taking any opportunity to bash whoever you don't like. But surely that's not the case, right?

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[penguinoid]

We have to vote against the person that we don't want to be president.

Wrong. We have to vote for members of the electoral college who have promised to vote against the person we don't want to be president. (This matters because districts, gerrymandering, etc)

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[amiga3D]

As much as I despise Hillary Clinton I have to say she didn't steal all that money. It was a team effort and I'm sure there are many people who had a hand in it. I've been looking at the travesty that is the 2016 Presidential Campaign and overall Hillary is far from the worst of the possibilities. It's depressing how far the bar has fallen for presidential candidacy.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[amiga3D]

Who didn't lie that lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? The one that said "WMD" in Iraq? Or the Bush that said "Read my lips. No new taxes?" It's a long and distinguished list of prevaricators that operated out of that oval office.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[amiga3D]

and she doesn't swallow!

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[amiga3D]

A lie is a lie. You can't pick and choose like that. They all lack integrity.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[Feral Nerd]

> Wrong. We have to vote for

Please refrain from redundant inflammatory statements. Seriously, he wasn't wrong any more than you are.

I have been reading about the US American electoral college system on and off for decades and I still don't understand it which I am told puts me on an even footing with most US Americans.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[sheetsda]

Irrelevant. 'Voting against' is a consequence of a of a two-party system which is a consequence of a simple-majority, winner-take-all system. A system like run-off voting would fix this problem

I do agree the electoral college has far outlived its usefulness and is contrary to how a democracy should work, with its failure rate of 5%.

For all the hero worship the Founding Fathers get they made tremendous blunders when it came to the voting system.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[spire3661]

Its par for the course for the President to lie in his capacity as President. I dont love it, but thats how it is. Bill Clinton the man does not get the same pass as Bill Clinton the President.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[ChrisMaple]

And in the three months between the time we started gathering troops on his border and the time we actually invaded, he shipped the weapons out of Iraq. What was your point again?

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[tehcyder]

15000 troupes were sent to Haiti

Mime? Contemporary dance? Avant garde theatre?

I do think someone has their priorities a bit confused.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[david_thornley]

As a US citizen, I figure it looked like a good idea at the time.

Re:Haiti Money went through the Clinton Foundation

[jwhitener]

Because, for a minute there, you sounded like just another political idiot taking any opportunity to bash whoever you don't like. But surely that's not the case, right?

At this point in time, I assume that half the posts on the internet that are political in nature are coming from paid shills working for one side or another.

Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

That's the advantage of benevolence based on private charities — the mismanaged ones lose donations and disappear. I too stopped donating to Red Cross long ago — my charity money goes to the IRC.

I refuse to give them a single dime.

Try that attitude with public charities — financed by monies taken from you and me at gunpoint (taxes)... Whatever you may feel about their goals and methods, you can not simply stop paying them — your only recourse is to raise awareness hoping for the eventual healing to begin.

Oh, and they are unconstitutional too, but that stopped bothering anybody long ago.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[kenj123]

you could move to a paradise country with no taxes. I think Somalia doesn't have a national tax.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Another good one is MSF (Doctors Without Borders).

http://www.doctorswithoutborde...

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that kenj123's point is that mi was clearly expressing disdain for the concept of taxes. Ergo, suggesting that they move to Somalia if they do not like the concept of taxes is absolutely correct.

Now, if mi had instead only opposed particular uses of taxes, then they would not have referred to taxes as "monies taken from you and me at gunpoint".

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were to donate, I would only consider donating money to Médecins Sans Frontières

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[thesupraman]

No.. He was quite clearly attacking the idea of taxes as a source of charity and wealth redistribution.. Not all taxes.
If you cannot see the difference then you have no place in any discussion about taxes.. Except as an example of the problem.
The point is very clearly that poorly run private charity is easily fixed (move your donations). Publicly run charity is next to impossible to fix and rapidly devices into a self serving politically motivated disaster.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

...my charity money goes to the IRC.

So why did IRC choose a name/acronym that many people are going to confuse with "International Red Cross"? It sure looks like an attempt at deliberate deception - which raises some huge red flags about their honesty and integrity.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

then they would not have referred to taxes as "monies taken from you and me at gunpoint"

Well, whatever your and mine opinion on taxes, they really are collected at gunpoint — you aren't even trying to refute this truism, you (and kenj123) are just expressing your displeasure at it being pointed out to you.

Does this mean, we reject all taxation? No, I don't think so. But I do think, that spending thus-collected funds on anything not threatening the very survival of the country — such as defending from external enemies or maintaining law and order within — is immoral. And, yes, this includes spending even a dime on charities.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[kenj123]

Your point is completely invalid. the instant mi said this:
'Oh, and they are unconstitutional [goodreads.com] too, but that stopped bothering anybody long ago.'
mi is CLEARLY sarcastically expressing an opinion about all taxes.

That opens the whole libertarian can of worms that makes me laugh in total disgust.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

you could move to a paradise country with no taxes. I think Somalia doesn't have a national tax.

And you could move to north korea, where the government knows what's good for you.

Sure, and if you drink too little water you die and if you drink too much water you die - so therefore it's impossible to drink a healthy amount of water.

The interesting thing to me is that there are also countries where people have it pretty good. And it's not just about race, culture, religion, etc.. For example, there are huge differences between North and South Korea.

In the countries at the top of the world happiness report (e.g. the Scandinavian socialist countries), an ordinary person can have a secure comfortable life even if they make the occasional mistake, have a nice work/life balance, and aren't particularly smart or lucky. On the other hand, in the countries at the bottom of the list, even people who don't make any major mistakes in their lives, and work really hard and are even quite smart - are often still trapped in insecure lives without basic necessities.

Now, I'm not necessarily in favor direct wealth or income redistribution (taking tax money from rich people and giving it directly to poor people to spend however they like). But there are a lot of indirect things that governments can do - that really do work to insure that ordinary people have secure comfortable lives. Some things are even a bit outside the box - such as functioning as an employer of last resort during major recessions and depressions.

Anyway, I'm not an expert but, for Slashdotters who are genuinely concerned about inequality, there's a really good YouTube video of a discussion with Paul Krugman and Robert Solo that's quite inspiring.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Applehu Akbar]

"And you could move to a country that has 100% tax. North Korea comes to mind."

But Massachusetts has way better food.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[nbauman]

Another good one is MSF (Doctors Without Borders).

http://www.doctorswithoutborde...

Yes, and as the original Pro Publica article said, MSF collected money for Haitian operations, and then told people not to send any more money because they had enough money. They don't need money. Their main need is for competent personnel. When a crisis hits, MSF is swamped with volunteers, and they have to separate the competent volunteers with experience in crisis work, from the well-meaning inexperienced volunteers who will just create more problems.

When's the last time you heard a charity say they had enough money?

The Red Cross OTOH had meetings where the executives referred to it as a great fund-raising opportunity.

The Red Cross is a parking lot for incompetent, ideologically biased political appointees, like Elizabeth Dole, who among other things edited the AIDS education manuals to eliminate anything that would offend the Christian right, like homosexuality. http://www.thenation.com/artic... http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05...

OTOH, the staff below them includes a lot of dedicated, competent people, which is why they're always blowing the whistle to the press.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean irrelevant stuff like paved roads? We did fine without them before ergo they are not needed for immediate survival ergo we should not pay for them with tax dollars. That means roads only get built by private companies and that either means tolls on all of them or total exclusivity or no roads.

On the other hand immediate survival for cancer patients should then be completely financied by tax dollars and tax dollars alone.

I'm not against that btw. But I somehow get the feeling that you wouldn't necessarily agree ;)

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[drsmithy]

All laws are enforced "at gunpoint". Your statement is meaningless in its generality.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[drsmithy]

But I do think, that spending thus-collected funds on anything not threatening the very survival of the country — such as defending from external enemies or maintaining law and order within — is immoral.

So letting the country's people starve, or not giving them an education that increases the economic prosperity of the country, is no threat to its existence ?

Please justify why the army and police cannot be substituted by private industry.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[LeadSongDog]

"And you could move to a country that has 100% tax. North Korea comes to mind."

But Massachusetts has way better food.

Have you eaten in Massachusetts?

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Scandinavian countries are socialdemocratic, not socialist, and their state welfare programs have been severely curtailed since joining the European Union. GDP first.

Really? The GDP of the Scandinavian countries has taken a nosedive since they joined the EU? For one thing Norway isn't even an EU member and Norway's GDP growth seems to have gone back to the pre-2000 rate. Not that Norway is a typical case study of a no-EU member since their GDP is powered by Oil, a fact which has still not prevented Norway from being a poster boy for how to have a booming economy outside the EU (after all every European country is floating on an ocean of Oil right?). The GDP of Denmark has been on a general climbing trend since they joined what later became the EU in 1973. It has flatlined since the 2008 credit crisis but that crisis was predominantly an American invention. Sweden's GDP climbed after joining the EU in 1995 and is still climbing after the 2008 crisis. If we also count Finland as a Scandinavinan country which it technically is not Finland's GDP has also flatlined since 2008 but it climbed steadily after the country joined the EU 1n 1995. Economic stagnation in EU countries has a lot of causes including the Euro crisis but the ineptitude of eurocrats is not the only cause of stagnation in these countries the ineptitude and stupidity of local politicians also has a lot to do with it as well as the ineptitude of politicians, bankers and business people across the water which caused the 2008 crisis in the first place. The EU may be flawed but it is not the root of all evil, ineptitude, corruption and stupidity.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Ol Olsoc]

And you could move to north korea, where the government knows what's good for you.

Taxes are pretty low there, I'm told. And if they are good enough for Sarah Palin, they are good enough for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Ol Olsoc]

Now, if mi had instead only opposed particular uses of taxes, then they would not have referred to taxes as "monies taken from you and me at gunpoint".

Nobodies gonna take away my goddamned guns!

Oh wait.....ummm, nevermind.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[Ol Olsoc]

The point is very clearly that poorly run private charity is easily fixed (move your donations). Publicly run charity is next to impossible to fix and rapidly devices into a self serving politically motivated disaster.

I promise to behave now.

Speaking of that, faith based initiatives have to be a conflict for some tax hating people. I mean, it's a nice and long overdue bridge connecting religion and the state, but we don't wanna pay taxes..

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Ol Olsoc]

"And you could move to a country that has 100% tax. North Korea comes to mind."

But Massachusetts has way better food.

Have you eaten in Massachusetts?

There was a place in Cambridge Square called "The Wurst House". A nice German eatery. They tore it down though.

They have a lot of Donut shops though. The saying is that you can see the sign fo rthe next donut shop from the one you are in at the time.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Swave An deBwoner]

I listened to your clip and, much as I cringe at anything Palin, she says "South Korean allies" at 0:45/0:46. Did I miss something there?

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Ol Olsoc]

I listened to your clip and, much as I cringe at anything Palin, she says "South Korean allies" at 0:45/0:46. Did I miss something there?

Yes you did. 34 to 38 seconds when she says: "Obviously we have to stand by our North Korean allies - we're bound to by treaty.", at which point Glen Beck corrects her by saying "South Korean" after whic she says ""oh yeah, or Um Yeah".

Have another listen

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Swave An deBwoner]

Yep. I missed that. Thank you. Her political popularity provides a beacon of hope for every idiot in the country.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[Swave An deBwoner]

And then there is the USA, that, almost uniquely in the world, taxes citizens after they leave.

I think that's true only if they intend to come back. Otherwise, don't let the screen door hit you on the ass when you go.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[ChrisMaple]

The point is that since taxes are ultimately collected by the threat of, or actual use of, gunfire, that any use of tax money should be so important that it not using it would be worse than the way it is obtained. This should be considered in full context of all human activity and with respect to the amount of money involved.

The context for your cancer patient includes such things as most people have health insurance, not all cancers can be cured, long-term care differs from emergency care, not all people get cancer, and some cancers are a result of lifestyle choices. This contrasts with national defense, which is essential to all people and which would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve on an individual scale. It also contrasts with roads, which benefit almost everyone

Where I live roads are particularly vulnerable to heavy vehicles during the spring thaw, and potentially damaging users are required to post a bond against damage. Thus, at least some cost of road maintenance gets paid for by the people responsible. Similarly for new residential developments, the deveolpers put in and pay for the new roads, before they get turned over to the town for snow-plowing and long term maintenance.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[ChrisMaple]

People's food needs in the absence of government coercion are already taken care of by private actions: farming, jobs, and in extreme cases by charity. The government need not be involved.

Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education. All but the poorest parents can afford to pay for teachers, and private education reduces the likelihood of government indoctrination, whether such indoctrination be Nazi, communist, religious, or whatever.

Army and police provided by private industry has severe difficulties from many directions. One is that the level of funding required is difficult to achieve, another is that protections against anti-public abuse are difficult. Yet another is the possibility of inter-corporate warfare. Army and police forces are expected protect a given land area; their funding and control should be tied to their land areas as directly as possible. That means governmental control or some other mechanism very much like governmental control; private industry doesn't qualify.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[ChrisMaple]

That all laws are (ultimately) enforced at gunpoint has large and significant meaning. It means that no law should be so unimportant that enforcing it at gunpoint is improper.

Although I do not like to follow this train of logic, it's important to point out that some laws are not immediately enforced at gunpoint. Let's say you're caught on camera trampling on the flowers at city hall. You're identified as engaging in this violation of the law, a court date is set and you don't go. A judgement for a fine is made against you and you refuse to pay. After further legal proceedings, an attempt is made to seize your monetary assets, but anticipating this you close all your accounts. At this point, the government may set a lien on your property (if you don't have any, I suppose a warrant for your arrest could be issued, in which case "gunpoint" is achieved). Now you can't sell your property, so you've lost some control over it, all without "gunpoint". Eventually, fines and interest will add up, and the government will decide to sell your property at auction, taking the money it thinks it's owed, returning the rest (if any) to you. If this isn't where you're living, it's done, no gunpoint. However, if you dwell on that property, the new owner can charge you with trespass, which soon becomes criminal trespass. You are then subject to arrest, "gunpoint." ------ The point is that in the case of trivial laws, breaking additional laws may be necessary before government force is involved. The government will not be interested in your claim that pointing a gun at you is the unreasonable, ultimate result of stomping on some flowers

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[datavirtue]

Now, I'm not necessarily in favor direct wealth or income redistribution (taking tax money from rich people and giving it directly to poor people to spend however they like)

Then shut up because there is nothing left to say.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[datavirtue]

roads, which benefit almost everyone

Everyone benefits from the roads.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[drsmithy]

People's food needs in the absence of government coercion are already taken care of by private actions: farming, jobs, and in extreme cases by charity.

No they’re not.

Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education.

Source, and please define “good education”.

All but the poorest parents can afford to pay for teachers, and private education reduces the likelihood of government indoctrination, whether such indoctrination be Nazi, communist, religious, or whatever.

But apparently protecting kids from private forms of indoctrination is bad ?

One is that the level of funding required is difficult to achieve, []

I’m sure communities can pass the hat around and raise money proportionate to the amount of protection they need. Or would that be too much Government ?

[] another is that protections against anti-public abuse are difficult.

No they’re not. If your private police force or army get abusive, you just fire them and hire someone else.

Yet another is the possibility of inter-corporate warfare.

Please elaborate on how that would be legal.

Army and police forces are expected protect a given land area; their funding and control should be tied to their land areas as directly as possible. That means governmental control or some other mechanism very much like governmental control; private industry doesn't qualify.

The same logic applies to education, and clearly in no way precludes privatisation in your mind.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[drsmithy]

Although I do not like to follow this train of logic, it's important to point out that some laws are not immediately enforced at gunpoint.

Yes. Like tax laws. Glad you agree the original poster was just engaging in ideological claptrap. Not quite sure what the point of the rest of your post was.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

mi is CLEARLY sarcastically expressing an opinion about all taxes.

False. The quote I linked to singles-out spending tax-monies on benevolence. It is that — government's funding of charities — that I and James Madison consider unconstitutional.

I then clarified my (quite coherent, thank you) point in a follow-up. For you to continue pretending, I reject all taxes is disingenuous (a.k.a. dishonest).

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[tehcyder]

There was a long-standing experimental attempt to have a society based on no taxes and private benevolence. It was called the Nineteenth Century.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[david_thornley]

Except that Congress gets to tax and spend for the general welfare. I've been told that Madison disagreed with that, but he is not the enshrined interpreter of the Constitution.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

Except that Congress gets to tax and spend for the general welfare.

If you interpret the "general welfare" part so, then there is no limit on government's power at all and the entire Bill of Rights is dead.

NSA can argue, their eavesdropping is "for general welfare". Banning a religion — or establishing one — can be done on the same grounds. Confiscating guns.

Anything — if the only burden a proponent of a new law has to clear is that it will improve "general welfare", then the Collective will trump the Individual. Officially and for ever.

I've been told that Madison disagreed with that, but he is not the enshrined interpreter of the Constitution.

He certainly is one of them.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

No they [food needs] ’re not [provided for by private markets].

Hah! I grew up, where children were encouraged to "Thank the Party" for providing food and other aspects of "Happy Childhood". I didn't realize, here in the US I must also be thanking the Government for the daily sustenance...

Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education.

Source, and please define “good education”.

Since 1960-ies, the per-pupil annual costs of public schools has quadrupled in inflation-adjusted dollars, while the education quality remained the same at best, or worsened — 70% of 8th-graders nation-wide can not be said to read proficiently, for just one example.

These indisputable facts may not directly support ChrisMaple's statement, but they certainly do make mockery of any claim, that the tax-collecting government is somehow uniquely well-qualified in educating children and that the only way to provide for education is to coerce citizens into paying for it.

I would further add, that no "KKKorporation", however evil, would be able to quadruple the price of its offering(s) without significantly improving the quality (or a spike in raw-material costs). Only a government-backed racket can get away with such a thing — and only because its source of financing is backed by the armed coercion.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[drsmithy]

Fallacies are not convincing, so you could at least do us the courtesy of making them amusing. Though the absurdity of extremist positions does carry a certain amount of humour in itself.

Even a superficial look at the increase in productivity vs wages over the last few decades and how workers are being ripped off by "KKKorporations" will put paid to the idea that "only a government-backed racket can get away with such a thing".

As another poster said. If you want to live somewhere without Government, there are several of them. None are particularly nice places to be, however.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

Fallacies

You have not identified any "fallacy".

paid to the idea that "only a government-backed racket can get away with such a thing".

You have not identified any corporation, that quadrupled the price of its offering without improving quality (or due to spike in cost of raw materials).

Having nothing to say, it really would've been best for you to say nothing... You are only making the whipping you received look worse.

If you want to live somewhere without Government, there are several of them. None are particularly nice places to be, however.

As I answered that poster and idiots like him. I want the government to

• defend the country from without;
• enforce the law-and-order within

Statists expecting more from their government are, no doubt, welcome to Cuba and North Korea and the even much nicer Germany or Greece.

Re:Not donating to private charities is easy

[drsmithy]

You have not identified any "fallacy".

Your posts are almost entirely fallacious reasoning. Red herrings, non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, straw men, circular reasoning, ad hominem. A veritable smorgasboard of broken reasoning. But that is to be expected from people that start at a conclusion and then try to reverse-engineer a trail of reasoning to reach it.

You have not identified any corporation, that quadrupled the price of its offering without improving quality (or due to spike in cost of raw materials).

You have not supported your premise that education today is identical to education in the 60s, nor that outcomes today are worse (or unimproved), let alone provided evidence - or even a rationalisation - that this change is a direct outcome of publicly-funded education.

The best performing education system in the world is generally considered to be Finland's, in which private schooling is all but nonexistent. Indeed, pretty much all the highest performing countries have education systems that are primarily publicly-funded. On top of that, widespread - near universal - high levels of education and literacy have only come about relatively recently with the wide availability of publicly funded education.

Consequently, the argument that publicly-funded education is inherently inefficient or low-performing is simply ridiculous on its face, and the argument that private suppliers can achieve the same outcome - given many millennia of failure to do so before the rise of public education - is sketchy, at best.

As I answered that poster and idiots like him. I want the government to [...]

You have failed to justify why these are the only two functions Government should perform. What you'd "like" is entirely up to you, but it carries no more weight than what I'd like - and at least what I'd like has some basis in reasoning, fact and evidence rather than ideology, paranoia and fear.

Statists expecting more from their government are, no doubt, welcome to Cuba and North Korea and the even much nicer Germany or Greece.

What's a "Statist" ? Someone who thinks Government has one more responsibility than you do ?

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[david_thornley]

No, you have misconstrued what I said. Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare. NSA eavesdropping, banning or establishing religions, and confiscating guns are neither taxing nor spending. If you've noticed, Congress often tries to establish policy by giving out money with strings attached, rather than legislating directly, which in many of these cases Congress can't do.

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[mi]

Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare.

Congress can do anything for the "general welfare" — if that's how we interpret the two words.

NSA eavesdropping, banning or establishing religions, and confiscating guns are neither taxing nor spending

Huh? It is not done for free — it certainly is taxing and spending!

If you've noticed, Congress often tries to establish policy by giving out money with strings attached

Yes, I have noticed — and I hate it, because it means, like I said, that they can do anything and the only limit is the political will (as in UK, for example), but not the Constitution.

which in many of these cases Congress can't do.

Well, you meant to say "should not be able to do", because they clearly can — and have — done it in this round-about way.

Can Congress vote to put a person to death — for the "general welfare" (better known among the openly Socialist as The Greater Good[TM])? They sure can — according to your interpretation — by spending money on the execution.

But let's get back to the topic of coerced "benevolence".

Your interpretation of the clause is wrong if only for the above reason — that it removes any Constitutional limit on government's power.

But that's not the only reason. Your earlier statement, that laws must be interpreted as software, is not quite correct. While I agree, that laws aren't unlike programs, humans — being semantic rather than merely syntactic devices — aren't like computers. While the machines can not (yet?) know the programmer's desires beyond what he actually writes, we can — and do — consider the legislative intent.

While such intent is not always known, in this case it is perfectly clear. Not only did James Madison (known as Father of the Constitution, BTW) state it, we also know, that not one of the other Constitution-framers still alive at the time (1794), rose up to remind him about the "general welfare" clause. The refugees from Haiti did not receive tax-paid help from America..

Re: Not donating to private charities is easy

[jwhitener]

Name a form of tax that isn't wealth redistribution.

Take the military for example. If we didn't have a military, people would be required to hire private security to keep their country/property safe. Rich people could handle this easily, poor people not so much. By taxing everyone, including the rich at higher rates / higher total tax amount, we provide this blanket protection (military) to everyone, regardless whether they could have afforded it.

The mega-rich could afford to basically create the entire infrastructure and services (miltary, roads, power lines, etc..) required to have a modern functioning society. The middle class and poor, not so much. So, we tax and re-distribute to create a functioning society for everyone.

Local charity

[vivaoporto]

This and many other examples like

- PETA euthanizing more animals than they shelter
- UNICEF expenses of 52 million dollars (pdf) in expenses related to management and fundraising (out of a 600 million dollars budget, and that's one of the best managed ones out there)

show that it is much more efficient to donate time or money locally instead of to big organizations.

Donate to your local food bank, soup kitchen, volunteer some time in the retirement home, the satisfaction will be the same and the effects will be much more efficient. Or, at the very least, don't screw people over, it is more than enough if you can do that.

Why should you donate anything to help someone in the other side of the world while people needs your help in your own neighbourhood?

Re:Local charity

[GungaDan]

Since you mentioned PETA, I'll toss in the idea that your local no-kill shelter and animal rescue groups are often worthy recipients, as well. Full of volunteer opportunities, too, for us soft hearts with more time than money.

Re:Local charity

[Anonymous Coward]

So people "on the other side of the world", who probably suffer greater problems than the people local to you (like in the case of Haiti having much of their country decimated) aren't worthy of you consideration or help.

What an arrogant, self centered little fuck you are.

Re:Local charity

[grcumb]

- UNICEF expenses of 52 million dollars (pdf) [unicefusa.org] in expenses related to management and fundraising (out of a 600 million dollars budget, and that's one of the best managed ones out there)

(I'm not even going to comment on PETA because they have jack shit to do with the current conversation.)

You are actually complaining about an administrative overhead of 9%? Seriously?

For comparison, Apple's OPEX was a little over 25% of revenues as of March 2015. Google's was a little less than 25%. Microsoft's was 22%

These are all operations that have significant global logistical operations, and involve a combination of scale and skill in their day-to-day operations.

I assisted UNICEF (as a local 'fixer') with their operations when cyclone Pam hit Vanuatu. (See here for a blow-by-blow account.) It is emphatically true that costs are very high in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Spending time nickle-and-diming over expenses can cost lives. We needed phones, cars, room to work (their local HQ was damaged), food and water, and sufficient staff and infrastructure to move hundreds of tonnes of food and supplies at a time.

For the record: The Red Cross and UNICEF were the first organisations to deliver emergency supplies, because they had the foresight to pre-position materials and equipment in-country prior to the disaster. That was money well-spent.

And yet... and yet the biggest problem we faced was middle management second-guessing the people at the operational level, failing to support them because of the expenses they were incurring. And this fear continues to permeate precisely because of stories like this.

Let's be perfectly clear: It was the AMERICAN Red Cross that screwed up so royally here. Not the International Red Cross, which provides unique and necessary services throughout the world.

You wouldn't tar every single technology company with the same brush as games maker Electronic Arts (who really do deserve their own special circle in Hell). So why, when one NGO manages their way to disaster, does giving to charities suddenly become unwise?

I have witnessed—up close and in more detail than anyone could ever want—the effects of disaster. I'm still working to document the many successes and failures of cyclone Pam. And I will say without hesitation that the mantra here in Vanuatu was 'we will not be another Haiti'. Haiti really was a clusterfuck from start to finish, mostly because of the local government's inability to control and coordinate the response. In Vanuatu, government officials stayed on the front foot, and were unafraid to take NGOs to task when they first refused to cooperate.

People need to be reminded: Disaster zones are shitty places to work. They are in fact some of the worst places in the world. And on top of this there are indeed thousand-dollar-a-day careerists who descend on them as a matter of course. But for every one person like that, there are hundreds of dedicated professionals who have devoted themselves simply to helping out. Many of them work on a purely voluntary basis. Mistakes get made every day, for countless reasons, but not least because in a post-disaster situation, you're working with whatever information you've been able to gather by word of mouth; you've got virtually no means to coordinate your efforts, and you cannot know what the worst-affected areas look like until you go there yourself. On top of all that, you're working as much as 20 hours a day, resting for maybe 10-15 minutes at most, and eating whenever someone stuffs an emergency ration into your hand.

Not to put too fine a point on it, It's really fucking hard.

So yes, rag all you like on the American Red Cross.

Re:Local charity

[riondluz]

Thanks for that viewpoint, well-spoke.

Re:Local charity

[amiga3D]

Arrogant maybe, but someone that donates money and time to help others is hardly self centered. At least he's trying to help someone and I don't care if he wants to insure that it's actually helping someone instead of wasted by doing it locally. You feel so concerned for Haiti you should donate your efforts there.

Re:Local charity

[amiga3D]

Interesting response. I have to say that you make good points. Still, as long as a charity hides information on where their money was spent it only causes these accusations to gather momentum. The best thing is to explain where money was spent and why as openly as possible. If you fail to be open it will only look like you have something to hide.

Re:Local charity

[tompaulco]

This and many other examples like - PETA euthanizing more animals than they shelter - UNICEF expenses of 52 million dollars (pdf) in expenses related to management and fundraising (out of a 600 million dollars budget, and that's one of the best managed ones out there) show that it is much more efficient to donate time or money locally instead of to big organizations. Donate to your local food bank, soup kitchen, volunteer some time in the retirement home, the satisfaction will be the same and the effects will be much more efficient. Or, at the very least, don't screw people over, it is more than enough if you can do that. Why should you donate anything to help someone in the other side of the world while people needs your help in your own neighbourhood?

Agree. Local charities aren't big enough to mismanage the funds, and the people are close enough that they will probably volunteer their time as well and not need a half million dollar salary.
There is too much graft and corruption in all of the big charities. Red cross makes $2 billion a year selling your blood and not giving you any tax credit for it, but claiming it on their taxes as a donation.
United Way and March of Dimes encourages quotas, threat of firing and ostracizing to force people in organizations to take part in fund raising for organizations which donate to causes which they don't necessarily agree with.
All of these big organizations spend more than 10 cents out of every dollar on actual humanitarian causes, and as you can see often cannot even tell you how they spent the other 80-some cents, and neither can they people that the organizations claim to have benefited.

Re:Local charity

[amiga3D]

But people are people. If you don't audit then there will be graft and corruption.

Re:Local charity

[tehcyder]

One of the connundrums is that to detail exactly where money is spent requires additional auditing which then ends up with higher overheads.

It's only a conundrum if you're one of those idiots who think charities can magically operate with all the employees working for no pay and paying for their own computers, offices and travel expenses.

Re:Local charity

[jwhitener]

PETA can be pretty over the top sometimes, and that has earned it a bad reputation, especially here on Slashdot. That said, PETA (ethical treatment of animals) likely considers euthanizing an animal less cruel than it starving to death (due to lack of resources in the shelter).

If you have only X dollars to support Y animals and only Z people come to adopt, I can see euthanasia as the logical outcome for some percent of Y.

New Executives destroyed the Red Cross

[nwaack]

The Red Cross decided they needed high-power ex execs from places like AT&T who have no idea whatsoever how to run a relief charity. They destroyed the company from the inside out.

Re:New Executives destroyed the Red Cross

[tompaulco]

The Red Cross decided they needed high-power ex execs from places like AT&T who have no idea whatsoever how to run a relief charity. They destroyed the company from the inside out.

I assume that they wanted the company destroyed. After all, these high power execs also destroyed the companies from which they came.

6 + more...

[ErikTheRed]

Their CEO, Gail McGovern makes $500,000 / year in base salary. I bet it's built her a house or two...

Re:6 + more...

[hondo77]

Is she worth it? Has she cut expenses and/or increased income enough to justify her pay? I don't know the answers to that but I would at least look into it before criticizing her pay.

Re:6 + more...

[aoism]

It's the damnedest thing. CEOs with Experience being willing to work for only 500k, instead of millions or tens of millions per year.

Re:6 + more...

[tompaulco]

She's the CEO of a charity. Shouldn't she be doing it for free? If doing it is a full time job, then perhaps they should find someone with a trust fund who doesn't need any more money to do the job.

Re:6 + more...

[tehcyder]

She's the CEO of a charity. Shouldn't she be doing it for free? If doing it is a full time job, then perhaps they should find someone with a trust fund who doesn't need any more money to do the job.

I think you're confusing the CEO with people like the "honorary president" or whatever.

A seminar? I hope they served refreshments.

[spads]

:x

Re:Never give to any charities

[Anonymous Coward]

And as soon as the tornado rips your trailer park to shreds, you'll be the first one with your hand out looking for donations.

Waste Money on Call Centers Too

[Kunedog]

The ARC has called me three times a week for several months asking for someone by name. Fuck if I know what they want, but after telling them 3 or 4 times that I've never heard of the guy they're looking for, I added their number to my call blocker.

I am shocked, shocked.

[Just Some Guy]

In my hometown, Red Cross kept raising the rates they charged to local hospitals for donated blood. Eventually it became so expensive that a local coalition founded their own blood bank and began distributing blood products for much lower prices.

I don't begrudge the Red Cross selling donated blood. Supplies, equipment, refrigeration, etc. all cost a lot of money and even a 100% volunteer organization can't wave that stuff away. I begrudge them charging so much that another, much smaller group without the same national recognition or economies of scale can set up a parallel system offering the same services for far less money.

Re:I am shocked, shocked.

[penix1]

Red Cross blood services has been separated from the National Red Cross Disaster Services for many years. I remember when it happened. It caused the closure of many Red Cross offices because it was Blood Services that was supporting the Disaster side. They have a separate management tree, budget and facilities. A big part of the cost associated with blood is in the testing for blood diseases and processing such as blood separation processes. The testing alone costs a small fortune.

So please keep in mind that although Blood Services carries the Red Cross name it really is a separate entity.

Re:I am shocked, shocked.

[PRMan]

Too bad. As long as they carry that name they get nothing.

Heh

[Greyfox]

I bet it built some really nice homes for the guys in charge of the Red Cross.

Damn, I'm cynical.

To be blunt

[rsilvergun]

this is why I'm a socialist. Anyone who complains about gov'ts wasting money has never paid any mind to how charities spend their bucks. With gov't we can at least bring corruption charges when this sort of thing happens (assuming we have the political will). With these private charities it's all nice and legal...

Re:To be blunt

[nbauman]

this is why I'm a socialist. Anyone who complains about gov'ts wasting money has never paid any mind to how charities spend their bucks. With gov't we can at least bring corruption charges when this sort of thing happens (assuming we have the political will). With these private charities it's all nice and legal...

Under a well-run socialist government, you can set the priorities in a rational way, where there is the greatest need. In Haiti, they have to develop, equip and maintain their main hospitals, and in public health, the most cost/beneficial priorities are pregnancy and infant care, vaccinations, and sanitation.

Private charities respond to emotional and psychological needs.

We spend so much money on breast cancer that we're harming women from over-screening. The Koman Foundation got hijacked by the anti-abortion right wing.

Bill Gates came up with the Gates Foundation to reverse his horrible image as a monopolist. He started out ok by hiring public health people who really knew what they were doing, to recommend the most cost/beneficial ways to spend a few billion dollars, and that was AIDS and vaccinations in the third world, where he did a lot of good. Then the anti-government and charter school people put a bug in his head to "reform" education by mandatory testing and firing teachers. He's responsible for an educational disaster.

That shows what happens when you have a billionaire dictator running things.

Re:To be blunt

[ChrisMaple]

With gov't we can at least bring corruption charges.....

Obama's Attorney General has repeatedly refused to bring charges against obvious law breakers who are either black or Democrat.

Re:To be blunt

[lucien86]

The problem isn't government though - its Americas government.. Or Europe's or UK's government or.. Anyway efficiency and competence are the most important thing - whether its private, public, socialist, liberal, Republican or whatever..

In the US the biggest problems include corporate socialism, wealth and social inequality, the slush of money the richest 0.01% bring to the table, and basic political stupidity..
In Europe the biggest problems are things like lowest bid tendering, privatisation, the single currency, the open single market, corporate socialism, excessive bureaucracy, and basic political stupidity..

All we need is intelligent, competent, efficient, compassionate, moral, and strong government. Maybe we need a new "Moon Program" to replace our politicians with something better - like machines. (Disclaimer : I am working on developing such machines)

There are no good charities

[Anonymous Coward]

They are all varying levels of a scam. This is a perfect example - major charity raises tons of money in a relief effort, takes minimum 30% off the top, sends the rest to smaller regional charities who take 30% minimum off the top and have to kick back a percentage to the original charity for "travel costs, observations and consultation." These smaller regional charities then distribute the money to local charities who take 30% minimum off the top and have to kick money back to both the first and second level organization. However, at this level, some work actually may start to get done. Too bad that more than $.90 of every $1 is already gone.

This do not debunk anything at all

[Skulthur]

The link you posted do not debunk anything at all, just that they did not literally built only 6 houses. Don't you think the title is clickbait a little? I don't think I read any of the 2 articles but I read one yesterday about this and yes, seems like they had paid about 50 (?) millions in food and related things and built temporary shelter but appart from that there is still a long way to go to the 500 millions. Similar groups seemed to have done a lot more with a lot less, so we're still waiting for the Red Cross to tell us what it did with the money.

Re:This do not debunk anything at all

[amiga3D]

There is a good chance they spent it on something else. I can not remember the exact circumstances but I know that I read an article back about 30 years or so ago about how the Red Cross would use a major disaster like the Haitian earthquake as a fundraiser but not necessarily earmark the funds it received for that specific cause. Don't know for sure but it could well be they still operate like that.

Over Paid Red Cross Executives

[pubwvj]

I lost respect for the Red Cross when they over paid their executives.

Fraud

[Etherwalk]

Having witnessed first hand how the Red Cross spends its money on IT infrastructure it doesn't need, I refuse to give them a single dime.

What I have heard from multiple sources, including people who have worked for it, is that the Red Cross lies to people about where money is being used as part of its business model. It claims to be raising money for disaster X and then puts the money into its coffers. While it does spend some money on disaster X, there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that the money you sent in for disaster X will be used for disaster X.

There's a word for that: fraud.

Re:Never give to any charities

[Gavagai80]

In fact, you should just steal money from all the fiscally irresponsible people around you because we know you'll manage it better than they could.

No use for the Red Cross

[Anonymous Coward]

The Red Cross doesn't show up to a disaster site until the cameras are there. It's the way they've been as long as I can remember. It seems like the people that run it have become more and more corrupt over the years and I don't have much use for them. Whereas I have nothing but good things to say about the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is much more transparent and pays there top people at the same rate as everyone else that works for them and they are almost always one of the first assistance organizations on site regardless of media coverage or none.

Re:No use for the Red Cross

[shutdown -p now]

Whereas I have nothing but good things to say about the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is much more transparent

Yes, they're pretty blunt about their homophobia.

Ask a Vet

[Gim Tom]

I don't know about other veterans experiences with the Red Cross, but one I had over 40 years ago has kept me from giving them a dime ever since. I would not be surprised if many veterans had similar or worse experiences. I remember my Father talking about his during WWII, but didn't really understand until it happened to me.

Re:Ask a Vet

[phantomfive]

What kind of story is that?

Re:Ask a Vet

[Gim Tom]

In my case it was when I was trying to get home from South East Asia on emergency leave after my mom had a cerebral hemorrhage with a poor prognosis for survival. I landed at Travis AFB near San Francisco after being awake for most of 3 days travel with only a little cash, but a good balance in a Bank America checking account and the Red Cross at Travis said it would take them 3 or 4 days to get an ok to cash one of my checks. I gambled my last cash on a bus ride to San Francisco International Airport and fortunately Delta was happy to take my check for a ticket and I got home in time to see my mom in the hospital. That is my personal experience, I have heard GI's tell of much worse.

Don't give money to big charities

[Karmashock]

... And don't give to any charity unless you can audit to some extent how the money is spent.

The waste in these things is beyond unethical. Huge salaries for management, lots of money funneled to things that have NOTHING to do with what they raised the money for...

The Red Cross pocketed most of that money. In their minds they need that money for their other good works. So tehy show up at a disaster say "oh look at teh poor people, give to the red cross to help them"... and then basically just put all that money into their general fund.

There's no compartmentalization. So money donated to help Haitians could actually go almost anywhere... including the CEO's yacht/hooker/cocaine fund.

Re:Don't give money to big charities

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a broad ignorant brush you're painting with there.

There are very good charities like MSF and UNICEF which give efficiency ratings for both around 90%. Their CEOs are paid around $500k / yr. More reasonable than similarly sized for-profit companies (keep in mind they are handling operations around the world). Also, a breakdown of their funds are all available in their tax returns -- you can see exactly what portion of funding goes to fundraising and managerial overhead.

Re:Don't give money to big charities

[koick]

A great, objective resource is charitynavigator.org. Only give to charities with a 4 rating.

Re:Don't give money to big charities

[Karmashock]

Unless they're paid off or someone on the review board is involved in one of the corrupt institutions.

Conflicts of interest are really common in these subcultures. They all know each other. They all go to the same events. They're all fucking each other in the back room. So its really hard to know what they actually think or if that is just what they're saying.

You see this is a lot of issues. Its a big issue in journalism as well. They all know each other and they all talk to each other. You think an article is independent, but what you don't know is that the guy that wrote the article in the other paper emailed the guy in the paper you're reading and they decided to both print the same story the same way and not tell anyone that they basically colluded.

You see it in lots and lots of places. Not just charities or journalism... any sub culture with a relatively small population of people in control. They all know each other and they're often friends.

Article 1, Section 8, sentence 1.

[stomv]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

In addition to the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the debts, and provide for the common defense, the Congress shall have the power to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

Yes, Virginia, the United States government has the Constitutional power to tax and to spend for general welfare, and no amount of libtarded "taxes are theft" nonsense changes that.

Re:Article 1, Section 8, sentence 1.

[mi]

Yes, Virginia, the United States government has the Constitutional power to tax and to spend for general welfare

Are you seriously going to argue the legislative intent with the guy, who wrote the very law? I linked to the quote already, but you are too righteous to click on some wingnut's links, aren't you? Well, here it goes by value, rather than reference:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

— James Madison

Or, maybe, you are confusing "general welfare" with the Welfare-check? That must be it, Virginia... Because if Madison says, spending taxes on benevolence is against the Constitution, then it really must be...

Re:Article 1, Section 8, sentence 1.

[ChrisMaple]

The phrase "general Welfare of the United States" does not point to giving money to poor individuals, which in most instances degrades the general welfare of the United States.
individual - town - county - state - United States --- the individual is 4 layers separated from the U.S.. It is you who has failed to understand the meaning of the written word.

Re:Japan suffers Tsunami and Nuclear plant failure

[amiga3D]

Haiti really never had a chance. Read the history of the country then thank God you were not born there or you'd be just like them. Don't be so fucking judgmental.

Easy Solution

[Slim_Jack]

Take the Big Government solution to these problems - throw so much money at them that in their blindness from all the floating lucre they stumble in the right direction.

Re:Easy Solution

[Swave An deBwoner]

You can't cure poverty by throwing money at the problem.

Oh, wait ..

they suck

[Charliemopps]

About 10yrs ago I decided to do some volunteer work. By the time I was done, I decided not to volunteer anymore. It's just too depressing that most, if not all, of the charities are run so poorly. But the red cross was one of the worst. I told them I was a programmer and a DBA so they made me the "host" meaning I handed out cookies and made people frozen pizzas while they donated blood. For this I had to go through a background check, speak with a councilor. They told me that if I couldn't pass the background check, that was ok, I could drive the trucks if I had a record. You know, the trucks with the blood in them. Really.

Then they needed help with this Access database, I was a DBA right? No, get back to the cookies! they say. They hired this consulting firm to help them with Access, who charged them $20k and sent it a kid strait out of community college.

They'd run adds on TV "We're running low on blood! We desperately need you to donate this weekend!" but that came out of marketing, who didn't tell the doctors or nurses, so they'd get slammed when they weren't staffed to handle it.

The red cross is completely mismanaged, disorganized, and clueless. But then again, so was every other charity I found so...

Send your money to Habitat for Humanity.

[jcr]

If you want to help build houses, they get it done.

-jcr

Re:Oh, you thought charities exist for the poor?

[ChrisMaple]

That happened between 81 and 101 years ago.

This puts lie to the argument...

[sydbarrett74]

...by conservatives that charities are necessarily more efficiently at allocating resources than government. Diseconomies of scale are inherent to any firm of sufficient size. The major problem with any organisation is scope creep: straying from the core mission/purpose and taking on more tasks, doing them all poorly.

Big deal.

[gzuckier]

The nation builders dropped $12 billion in Iraq, and built ISIS. http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Re:HOW I AND MY HUSBAND WERE CURED FROM HIV/AIDS

[lucien86]

Now that really would take a miracle - herbal tea cures cancer/ AIDs/ death.. That's why when you go in the hospital instead of an operation or treatment thy give you herbal tea.. Traditional medicine with the same traditional response - you probably die!

Spamming here is not a good idea... I feed the TROLL.....

Give directly

[mundlapati]

Send money directly to the extreme poor https://www.givedirectly.org/o...

Re:Japan suffers Tsunami and Nuclear plant failure

[amiga3D]

Haiti decolonized because their masters had become so horrible that the system could no longer continue. When you drive people beyond a certain point they revolt. The terror of retribution is outweighed by the misery of continuing under the system. Never drive people to the point death is preferable to life under the lash. So now you have a people who revolted to be free but lacked any idea of how to build a society. In Africa most of the colonies were stripped of their resources by the European powers and then, when they ceased to be profitable they were freed. Not surprising they flounder along. Most of those countries have artificial borders carved by outsiders with no consideration of tribal boundaries. Constant war was thus guaranteed in many cases as multiple tribes struggle for supremacy against traditional rivals that they share borders with but little else.