Another day, another picture of Olga. This is around the corner from our flat, next to the Roche Bobois furniture shop (the window with the funky vases at upper left) and across the street from the tennis club. We had just a hint of sunrise on the horizon, below the clouds, but most of the greenish light is coming from a streetlamp.
I promise I am not going to complain a lot about Donald Trump today. But I've been struck by the irony of his recent moves to destabilize the Agency for International Development (USAID). Trump makes so much noise about illegal immigration, and he's allegedly taking forceful steps to stop it, yet he is targeting an agency that could play a critical role. If we want to stop or slow immigration, we need to give people reasons to stay home, and that means developing the economies of their home countries. Which is exactly what USAID does. It's a tiny fraction of the federal budget (and ought to be a lot more) and it makes a real difference in providing jobs and developing industries for people overseas.
As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I am curious to see what Trump will do with that agency. I can't imagine it will prosper under his inwardly-turned worldview. (The Peace Corps is separate from USAID.) The Peace Corps is less expensive, so it's probably lower on his hit list.
Trump has done at least one thing that I think was a good idea, and that is ordering the declassification of all the information about the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations. There's apparently not much classified material left, and it still may not all be made public, but I think it's past time to be as open about those events as possible. Anyone involved is almost certainly dead by now, or at least very elderly, and perhaps doing so will quell the endless conspiracies that continue to circle about JFK in particular. It's probably just political showmanship, as the Kennedy family has said, but I'm all in favor of anything that could help foster the open flow of information.
USAID is 1% of the budget, a lot of money relatively speaking, but a lot of bang for the buck. China will be happy to fill the gap. Love the greenish light.
ReplyDeleteI read about the USAID somewhere, maybe my local newspaper and other things he is doing, and since it is all happening quite fast I can't help wondering just who in the background is pulling all the strings? surely he isn't thinking of all this on his own and barely two weeks in?
ReplyDeleteIt is just awful..mine host here watches fox all the time and it is excruciating hearing all the falsehoods being peddled and pushed...
ReplyDeleteMind you it was ironic having the Village People at his inauguration...
It's not a "Green Sunrise" for America under that nasty old bigot, it's a dark grey one or maybe a bloody one. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with the logic of what you said. But some things about USAID do bother me and were in need of having some action. (Note, that doesn't imply that shutting it down completely was the right action.) According to non-governmental watchdog agencies, about 40% of USAID's budget goes directly into the pockets of U.S. corporations. Basically, USAID hires out all work to private contractors, the bulk of those of US origin and comes right back to those company's bottom lines. USAID also has a very storied history as being used as a political weapon through the years. Bush II especially did this a number of times.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is a need for aid for the reasons you mentioned. But like just about all examples of government run agencies, it is rife with fraud and abuse. Saying that however, I'm not anymore optimistic that had we given the same money to other non-governmental organizations, it would have been run any more efficiently.
Thus my view for such things is that we need to stop creating organizations dedicated to such funding. Permanence leads to inefficiency and fraud. Instead, we need to infuse the money quickly and locally at the source of need. Assign a responsible group or person to doll out that money given once and then when it is spent, move on. Eliminate the guarantee of continual funding through any one company or group.
My example would be much like how we have done with FEMA in the past for natural US disasters. Set up a person and a fund and doll the money out until it is gone and then re-evaluate. Abuse will still happen for sure, but I have to believe it would be less than it is right now with 40% of every dollar going into the pocket of U.S. corporations.