Re: A Year Ago
- From: I_LOVE_SKOKIE@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 28 Dec 2005 07:28:46 -0800
Phil Earnhardt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:54:30 -0500, NoGodForMe
> <religionkills@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Not forgotten. An article that appeared on Drudge is here.
> >
> >http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=uri:2005-12-26T151334Z_01_SIB609286_RTRUKOC_0_US-TSUNAMI.xml&pageNumber=0&summit=
> >
> >I feel bad, but at the same time, I'm frustrated with the way the money
> >has been handled since. Quote from article.
> >
> >"After a much criticized slow start to reconstruction, officials and aid
> >groups say a big chunk of the $13.6 billion in pledged donations -- the
> >most generously funded humanitarian effort in history -- will be
> >deployed for projects next year."
> >
> >Oh, so you mean, all this time, the money has just been sitting around?
>
> It's even worse than that. The UN -- our UN -- is spending over three
> times the acceptable maximum overhead for relief operations. And some
> of the UN agencies refuse to even be report on their expenditures;
> heaven only knows that *their* overhead is.
>
> Kofi Annan doesn't seem to have a lot to say about this. More about
> Kofi does appear in an editorial today: "Where is the Car" at
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007729
>
> And I don't see any NYTimes article about the UN's outrageous overhead
> in tsunami spending; that article doesn't seem to fit their political
> agenda.
>
>
> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051223-010515-8477r
>
> "Up to about a third of the $590 million U.N. fund spent for the
> Indian Ocean tsunami relief may have gone to pay for overhead.
>
> The Financial Times says its two-month investigation showed the money
> appears to have been spent on administration, staff and related costs.
> The $590 million was part of the United Nation's $1.1 billion disaster
> flash appeal.
>
> The newspaper also found several U.N. agencies continue to refuse to
> disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier
> pledges of transparency by senior officials.
>
> The flash appeal covered the money donated by governments to the world
> body in the first weeks after the disaster to fund the early aid work,
> the Times reported.
>
> The newspaper said details of that appeal it obtained from U.N.
> agencies such as the World Health Organization and the World Food
> Program showed 18 percent to 32 percent of the expenditure related to
> staff, administration and other costs.
>
> Some agencies say non-profit aid organizations should claim no more
> than 10 percent of project funds for administration costs, the report
> said."
>
> --phil
The Red Cross is and always has been one of the slimiest "charities"
around. I can remember my father telling me stories about some of the
things they did when he was in the army during World War II. They would
sell clothing, books and food to the soldiers that had been donated by
private citizens. If you want to give your dollars to a disaster releif
organization that won't skim off the top, give to the Salvation Army.
.
- References:
- A Year Ago
- From: Kip Ross
- Re: A Year Ago
- From: NoGodForMe
- Re: A Year Ago
- From: Phil Earnhardt
- A Year Ago
- Prev by Date: Re: Should ASO be sued?
- Next by Date: Re: Disney's Christmas Parade / Expedition Everest peek
- Previous by thread: Re: A Year Ago
- Next by thread: AstroWorld Auction Information
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
