The utter failure of the Red Cross and other aid orgs in Haiti

Vice and ProPublica did some recent investigations of US aid to Haiti after the quake, and unfortunately you can probably guess what they found. It was literally like the Iraq War in terms of incompetence, mismanagement, hubris, CYA, and outright lies. I am done with the US Red Cross.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNM4kEUEcp8

Generous Americans gave the US Red Cross $500MM for Haiti relief. They outraised all other charities, probably due to marketing and brand. They promised that they would build thousands of permanent homes (with water and sanitation) for Haitians, and even "new communities". So far, they have built SIX (yes 1-2-3-4-5-6) new homes, and are getting ready to pull out. At least Bush eventually got Saddam.

The problem is that the RC is good at distributing temporary disaster aid (like post-Katrina water and tents), but knows nothing about reconstruction. Yet they gladly took our money and promised that they would get it done. Well, land rights and building logistics in Haiti is a Third World disaster as you can imagine, so the RC contracted with third parties. Except doing that requires higher mgmt fees on donations up to 33%. For scale, good charities have mgmt margins of like 5%. So millions of dollars went poof, and those orgs paid bureaucrats to try to get houses built, but never broke ground. For the few shovel-ready projects, they were delayed by red tape from HQ, and many people resigned out of frustration.

All the while, RC PR maintains that they did an awesome job and saved Haiti. They said they gave 4.5MM Haitians shelter, which is pretty impossible considering that is the entire urban pop. of Haiti (and only Port-au-Prince was affected). I have no idea how they got their #s. We know that there are inept, unmotivated people at every workplace. And unfortunately charity orgs are no different, despite their inspirational missions. RC leaders in DC treated Haiti like a 9-5 job, and it wasn't their ass if they didn't deliver. What about hiring local Haitian experts to manage the projects instead? It's their country and they had more innate motivation. Unfortunately there were HR delays and even overt prejudice against Haitian applications and hires. Mr. Big Boss Know-It-All American had to call the shots. I really hope Nepal doesn't turn out like this.

There are opportunists and carpetbaggers after every disaster/war, but I naively didn't expect them to have a red cross on their arms. But the truth is that they are no better than an occupying army, or USAID, or Halliburton.

----

Like, who can you trust? Charity Navigator supposedly rates nonprofits. They rate the ARC as 3 out of 4 stars, with a 10% overhead ratio (90% of donations go to "programs"). That is pretty good, if we can trust their accounting.

But unfortunately, people have been trying to exploit others' generosity/sympathy since the advent of money. What level of hell is reserved for those scum? I can almost tolerate the Nigerian oil scammers and Wolf of Wall Street types, as they are preying on people's greed. But how can you lie to profit from goodwill?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1903#.VXBesecmz9k

Also, F John Paulson for donating $400MM to Harvard Engineering. That's like doing volunteer work for the House of Saud. Literally he could have done much more good if he just gave the money away on a street corner in Boston. But that really wasn't a donation, it was more like a purchase of legacy and boasting to his peers.

http://www.republishan.com/e/7151433366795166/For-the-love-of-God-rich-people-stop-giving-Harvard-money

Homeowner Stability Initiative

To Obama administration,

I am writing to question some aspects of the Homeowner Stability Initiative that the President unveiled this week. I do not know why jumbo mortgages above $417,000 are disqualified from assistance, since that loan amount is about average for attractive metro areas like the San Francisco Bay. Today on the real estate website redfin.com, a modest 1,100 sq. ft. home in San Mateo built in 1941 (just a couple blocks from a horse track and adult bookstores) still has a $799,000 asking price. I know that the government should not rescue speculators or people who "bought too much home", but in inflated real estate zones like mine, a jumbo loan does not constitute a jumbo home. Moderate homes cost $400-700 per square foot, which almost necessitates a jumbo loan, especially for younger buyers who haven't had time to accumulate much savings (car and student loan payments). Foreclosures exist in "wealthier" neighborhoods too, even though many residents are not rich. But this part of your plan boils down to geographical discrimination. Could you please reconsider this restriction?

Out of fairness and common sense, I would also request that you expand assistance to would-be homeowners as well. The government does not want to see more vacant, bank-owned homes further depressing the already troubled market. But in terms of the housing market, it does not matter if homes are occupied by the original residents, barely making payments even with federal assistance, or new buyers taking their place. Prospective buyers want and deserve a home just as much as those who were irresponsible or naive during the boom. But they should be given the benefit of the doubt because they didn't directly contribute to the problem. Under the temptation of easy credit and social pressures to convey financial status through home ownership, they showed restraint and prudence, and lived within their means. Now that prices have corrected somewhat, many Americans are better positioned to afford their first home, which can help stabilize the market. But they are also unsure about the future and may hesitate to act. Don't they also deserve government intervention to negotiate a fair mortgage that limits their interest rate, so that monthly payments do not exceed 31-38% gross salary? It would be a confidence boost instead of a lifeline.

In addition, I have to question the overall moral hazard posed by supporting duped borrowers and manipulative lenders. Then what is the incentive for lenders to make concessions to help restructure impossible mortgages, or borrowers on the cusp to tighten their belts in order to keep up with payments? As long as they appear to be sufficiently struggling, eventually Washington will intervene with taxpayer aid. I know that homes are a sensitive subject and part of the American Dream, but I hope that such sentimentality will not preclude sound judgment. We cannot save everyone, and experts are fairly sure that a good portion of the people who sign up for your mortgage relief plan will still lose their homes in the coming years. We trust you to manage our finite resources, and times are tight. Therefore, we expect you to allocate them in ways that provide the most benefit for the cost, and help the people who merit it most.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090219/us_time/08599188047300
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1880259,00.html