Microfinance has been around for over 30 years (the idea for the Grameen Bank first emerged in 1976 and the Grameen Bank Project became an independent bank about a month after I was born), but only really hit the mainstream in the past several years. Since that time, it has truly taken off, gaining celebrity endorsement, earning its founder a Nobel Prize, and now apparently an article in Time Magazine.

This notoriety has been a mixed blessing. On the one hand, organizations like Kiva.org have emerged. Kiva aggregates both donors and 'field partners' - traditional microfinancing organizations - and creates a more personal connection by allowing donors to chose the recipient. The import is obvious: one website taps the eligible recipients of 96 different traditional funds, The result is statistics like these (which are now out-dated): 22.7 hours to fully fund a loan, 1810 entrepreneurs funded, 526 loans completely repaid, 3048 new lenders, nearly $664 000 lent in one week.

On the other hand, microfinance (and more broadly, development), have become trendy. The social appeal lures in potential donors, who seem to see it as an easy way to ‘make a difference’ while making some money, without understanding the mechanics of microfinance in the broader web of development projects.

Microfinance is an expansion of capitalism, but it is so often approached and evaluated as an aid program. A common criticism of microfinance is that loans often don't get used to build a business; they go to pay for school loans, or a doctor's visit, or to provide temporary liquidity for the family. I've often been confused by this complaint. True, helping a struggling family pay for school books for their child isn't exactly a business investment in line with the state goals of the organization (or donor expectations), but it is an investment, in that child, and in the economy of the developing country. The same for doctors' visits.

Poverty isn’t due to a lack of aid; it is the result of a lack of capitalism. The revolutionary aspect of microfinancing was that it provided loans - and other banking services - to an underserved market, namely, the poor. The literature shows that a combination of banking services (and laws to help capture capital, particularly through private property titles) contribute greatly to wealth creation. However, finally, savings accounts - and microfinance institutions acting as real, if small, banks - are emerging, and with them, consumer loans.

But banks are businesses, and they are allowed, entitled, required to make money. While I am defending banks in this regard, this is not an excuse for usurious interest rates. The importance of microfinancing organizations is that they provide an alternative to loan sharks. If that is unacceptable to a donor, then they should run a grant program, and leave the investment to others.

(I feel I should interject here to say that I have nothing against philanthropy, or philanthropists, and part of the reason I started this blog was because I wanted to think and write about ways that everyone can participate in bettering the world. However, microfinance is only one particular kind of tool, and, like all tools, there are some actions it is very good at performing, and other projects that it shouldn’t be used for)

The reality is: development is a many-sectored thing. Not even capitalism can do it all, all by itself; public sector changes are often necessary, and there is always room for philanthropy. But confusing the tools of capitalism and aid does no good for anyone.

I'm not sure that microfinance will change the world, but I do think that it will, as Cowen and Boudreaux claim, empower the poor, particularly poor women, and give them some control over their lives and their assets.

After weeks of stalls, blocks, holds, and all variety of obscure legislative wrangling . . . PEPFAR FINALLY MADE IT THROUGH THE SENATE!

From the Associated Press:

The Senate voted Wednesday to triple spending for a much-acclaimed program that has treated and protected millions in Africa and elsewhere from the scourges of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

The 80-16 vote committed the United States to spending up to $48 billion over the next five years for the most ambitious foreign public health program ever launched by the United States.

[If you want to see how a particular senator voted, the AP is reporting that here.]

From the White House Press Office, President George W. Bush had this to say about the PEPFAR bill's passage:

I thank the Senate for the strong, bipartisan vote today to pass important, life-saving legislation reauthorizing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).  I appreciate the efforts of Majority Leader Reid, Senators Biden and Lugar, and all other Senators from both sides of the aisle who came together today to ensure that America's generosity in battling HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases around the globe will continue in a manner consistent with the program's successful founding principles.

When we launched this program in 2003, about 50,000 people in Sub-Saharan Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS. Today, PEPFAR supports life-saving anti-retroviral treatment for more than 1.7 million people around the world. PEPFAR has also supported treatment and prevention programs that have helped HIV-positive women give birth to nearly 200,000 infants who are HIV-free.  PEPFAR is the largest international health initiative in history to fight a single disease.

Traveling in Africa earlier this year, Laura and I had our most recent opportunity to witness the effectiveness of this program. We were honored to see the doctors, nurses and caregivers of all faiths working to save the lives of their fellow citizens. And we met the patients, including many children, who understand and appreciate America's generosity.

With passage of today's new bill we are one step closer to ensuring that this excellent program continues to help those in need.  I encourage the full Congress to move quickly to send me final legislation that I can sign.

It's also worth noting that included in the bill passed by the Senate includes a measure that "would reverse a policy that has made it difficult for HIV-positive foreigners to visit or seek residency in the United States," according to the Associated Press.  This and other changes Senators made to the legislation "will have to be worked out with the House."

I'll keep tracking this story.  But for now . . . yes, yes, YES!  It finally passed.  Hallelujah, amen.

The Senate on Tuesday defeated two Republican amendments to legislation (S 2731) that would reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief by "overwhelming margins," suggesting that a broad majority could pass the measure through the chamber "unscathed," CQ Today reports.

According to CQ Today, the Senate voted 70-24 to table an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) that would have limited funding to 15 low-income countries where PEPFAR already operates. Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ky.) amendment to reauthorize the program for five years at $15 billion also failed by a vote of 16-80.The current legislation would reauthorize PEPFAR for five years at $50 billion, $20 billion more than what President Bush originally requested. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "At the time of the authorization, it was clear to everyone that ($15 billion) was not nearly sufficient to deal with what is a worldwide dilemma, a worldwide problem," adding, "We've learned a great deal more since then. We should not, in fact, turn back the clock."

According to an Associated Press article from just a few hours ago,

The Senate on Wednesday diverted $2 billion from a $50 billion global AIDS bill to improve the lives of American Indians.

Senators mainly from the West successfully argued on the need to carve out a small portion of the five-year AIDS spending bill for Indian programs, saying Congress shouldn't forget a humanitarian crisis much closer to home. [...]

The agreement set the stage for passage of the AIDS bill as early as Wednesday evening. With that, the House and Senate would work out a final version to send to President Bush. [...]

While the dramatic increase in spending met some resistance, supporters pointed to the notable successes of the past five years in treating those with HIV/AIDS and preventing the spread of the pandemic.

''We have the ability to prevent these illnesses, to treat them as never before, and to save lives,'' said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., a fiscal conservative. ''That's why this funding is so badly needed and will be so beneficial. This is greatest humanitarian crisis, I think, that I've seen.''

It sounds like things are going pretty well so far.  Hopefully we're almost there.  There are a few more sticky amendments to get past before the bill finally clears the Senate . . . so keep praying!

(Read on for more excerpts from the two articles cited above, especially info on a Senate PEPFAR provision that would get ease travel restrictions on people living with HIV/AIDS.

From the Associated Press:

Among the issues the House and Senate will have to resolve is a Senate-added provision that would end a two-decade old policy whereby HIV-positive foreign nationals are restricted in getting travel visas and applying for residency in the United States.

The U.S. is one of a dozen countries -- including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Russia -- that ban travel and immigration for HIV-positive people.

Even China, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., recently changed that policy, deciding it was ''time to move beyond an antiquated, knee-jerk reaction'' to people with HIV.

''There's no excuse for a law that stigmatizes a particular disease,'' Kerry said Tuesday at a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies HIV/AIDS Task Force.

Kerry and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., are trying to repeal the ban, first implemented in 1987 and confirmed by Congress in 1993.

Under current law, HIV is the only medical condition explicitly listed under immigration law. The Kerry-Smith provision would make HIV equivalent to other communicable diseases where medical and public health experts at the Health and Human Services Department -- not consular officials at U.S. embassies -- determine eligibility for admission.

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a ''public charge.''

From the Kaiser Network:

The Senate on Wednesday is scheduled to consider a provision included in the PEPFAR legislation that would end restrictions on HIV-positive visitors to the U.S. (CQ Today, 7/15). Under the provision, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), HIV would be considered equivalent to other communicable diseases for which medical and public health experts at HHS -- not consular officials at U.S. embassies -- determine eligibility for admission. Under the amendment, HIV-positive individuals seeking legal permanent residency still would have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in the U.S. and would not become a "public charge."

"There's no excuse for a law that stigmatizes a particular disease," Kerry said, adding that it is "time to move beyond an antiquated, knee-jerk reaction" to people living with HIV/AIDS. However, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) might offer an amendment to eliminate the Kerry-Smith provision, citing Congressional Budget Office estimates that new immigrants coming to the U.S. under the relaxed policy could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. The amendment would offset the cost of new immigrants by increasing the price of applying for a visitor's visa by $1 for three years and $2 for the next five years. Although the House version of the PEPFAR legislation does not include the travel and immigration provision, some advocates have said that it will be included in the final version that is sent to Bush (Abrams, AP/Google.com, 7/16).

Measure To Include Provisions for American Indians
The PEPFAR reauthorization measure also is expected to include an amendment that would allocate $2 billion for American Indians, according to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). The amendment would include $1 billion for water projects on American Indian reservations, $750 million for tribal law enforcement and $250 million for American Indian health care services. Under the provision, the money would be added to the PEPFAR bill with no objections and no roll call vote. Thune said, "While I applaud U.S. leadership when it comes to combating HIV/AIDS overseas, my amendment seeks to ensure that we don't turn our backs on some of the most critical issues here at home (Jalonick, AP/St. Paul Pioneer Press, 7/15).

The Senate also is scheduled to consider an amendment by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that would create an inspector general for PEPFAR, as well as another amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that would establish a similar role for the Global Fund (CQ Today, 7/15).

I believe that the welfare system is broken... Being that I'm not the kind of person to oppose something without offering some sort of solution (even if the solution is uneducated). Welfare does not encourage people to move forward and make more money for the family. Welfare is  very counterproduction by nature. This broken system actually encourages people to keep the low annual figures so that they may keep the aid that they've been accustom to. I realize that there are people in this world that NEED aid. However, a vast majority of aid recipients are able-bodied individual that take advantage of the system.

Normal people with normal jobs

Normal People with Normal Jobs (NPWNJ) are the feeding pool for the welfare leaches. It's no big secret. I believe that it's necessary to implement a few rules to help regulate the Welfare leaches. Here's the rules I think should be strictly enforced for people to qualify for welfare

1.) People drawing welfare should be subject to random drug tests. 

Why I feel this way: I strongly believe that clean drug test results should be a requirement for people to be able to draw welfare or ANY other kind of financial aid. In my experience, people that are using illegal drugs usually lack ambition, motivation and\or have a low quality of life. By implementing this rule we can knock out two birds with one stone, so to speak. crack down on illegal drugs and shorten the welfare line (A ton can be written on this idea, but I'm not going to get to detailed with this entry)

How to make it happen: A lot of people will agree with my statement, but even more will disagree or wonder how I'd go about paying for all these drug tests. Well, I'm not an expert (I'm just a NPWNJ) but here's how I'd do it. The test will wipe out at least 25% of Welfare recipients in the beginning, so the money that's saved there should help pay for the tests. Another approach is to have the recipeant PAY for their own test. Federal discounts can be give at bulk rate.  

2.) People drawing welfare should have an aid duration time based on physical condition

Why I feel this way: If someone is physically able to work but refuses, then those people should be cut off entirely. Welfare duration should fluctuate based on the individuals physical condition. This would encourage healthy people to step it up a notch and take pressure of the working class. People that are unhealthy should benefit from longer coverage durations.

How to make this happen: Some may see my approach as insensitive. Unfortunately, it's impossible to cater to everyones beliefs. 

3.) Aid WILL NOT be automatically give to individuals based on the fact that they are not Caucasian or use English as a second language.

Why I feel this way:I've looked into day care (most of you know.. it's outrageous). A friend of mine was able to get full financial aid because English is a secondary language in his house hold. Even though they are in this country illegally... he is able to get a free ride because English is not his primary spoken language. It sickens me when I think about how much money I'll have to shell out when my child goes to daycare. It's money that's not in my budget... it's money I don't have. But, I'll make it work because that's my only choice. 

How to make this happen:This one is easy.... If you are not a legal citizen you will NOT benefit from our financial aid programs.   

 This thing could go on and on... but I'm done for now.

This girl has a saddest story. She was standing under an old tree with her mother and watching what we are doing with other community members. One of our team members approached her and asked her why she wore black dress. She responded that her father was shot dead 20 meters away from their house while trying to escape and his corpse stayed for three days on the ground and buried just in front of where we were discussing. She said that “now I am fatherless and seeing his grave everyday”. What a disastrous situation! We could not control our emotion and start asking ourselves what we can do to heal such heart!
A terrible conflict took place on May 17, 2008 around a place called Shenkora, where hundreds of people were killed since the villagers were not ready either to defend them selves or flee the onslaught. Similarly, Oromia and Gumuz villages - including Belo Central were severely destroyed; as a result of the attack and the counter attacks that took place subsequently.
Read the whole story by clicking here and also watch the video below.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6625323485972468023&hl=en]

Clay Aiken - he of American Idol fame and now UNICEF ambassador - spent a week in Somalia, with the aim of bringing attention to the specific needs of the people there. Things we take for granted like food and clean water, education, shelter, all are in short supply in this small African nation.

While all eyes are on the earthquake devastation in China and the flooding in Myanmar, and millions in aid go to these worthy causes, other devastated regions of the world go largely unnoticed. War torn Somalia remains a forgotten humanitarian crisis. Invisible even. I'd be the first to admit my only exposure to Somalia is what I'd seen in the movie, Black Hawk Down. Oh and just a week ago, I'd read that a UNICEF official in Somalia had been gunned down.

I applaud Mr Aiken for his courage and his heart. Young as you may be, your compassion inspires me. Here is an extract.

[caption id="attachment_81" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Unicef Ambassador Clay Aiken in Somalia"][/caption]

One of the most incredible things I learned on my trip is that there are only 350 doctors left in the entire country, mostly because of the violence and insecurity. And many of these doctors are older than the average life expectancy in Somalia, which is only 45. I can't help but wonder, what is going to happen in a couple of years when there are no more doctors? What will happen to the children who struggle to survive?

What disturbs me most about this terrible situation for children is that most of the world has ignored it. Millions of children live in fear and poverty—where is the outrage?

At least we know something can be done. Help UNICEF save and improve the lives of children in Somalia. Donate online, right now.

To read the full version of Clay Aiken's fieldnotes (part 1) -

http://fieldnotes.unicefusa.org/2008/07/where_is_the_outrage_1.html

and (part 2)

http://fieldnotes.unicefusa.org/2008/07/somalia_keep_spreading_the_wor.html

[caption id="attachment_82" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Unicef Ambassador Clay Aiken in Somalia"][/caption]

According to CGD,

The G8 leaders [...] set a five-year deadline to provide $60 billion to fight disease in Africa, but activists said the pledge meant little to the continent's poor, Agence France Presse reports. The G8 nations also said that they would take "concrete steps" to fight HIV/AIDS, including through "sexual and reproductive health and voluntary family planning programs." The leaders reconfirmed a promise made three years ago in Gleneagles, Scotland, to double aid to Africa by $25 billion by 2010, though Japan is the only nation to have already met the pledge to double its aid.

The ONE Campaign provided more commentary in its update:

Before the summit, the Financial Times leaked that the G8 may backtrack on their 2005 Gleneagles commitments to the world's poorest. But thanks in no small part to a massive outcry from around the world—over a million people in 190 countries, including nearly 200,000 ONE members—they reaffirmed their promises.
 
Unfortunately, reaffirming their promises doesn’t address the fact that their commitments are not being backed up by money. Germany, the UK, and the US are doing well in delivering their part, but the other countries are lagging behind, and dragging down the group as a whole.
To learn more, check out the analysis from the G8 summit on the ONE Blog: http://www.one.org/blog/2008/07/10/1963?id=400-3965350-QFJHkDx&t=1.
 
We’ve helped stop the G8 from slipping back, and encouraged them to take some small steps forward. But they didn’t meet our request to deliver on their promises, nor did they set a timeline for spending $10 billion in pledged agricultural aid.
 
The G8 still have the chance to hit the targets they set for themselves, and we’ll have more opportunities to pressure them to do so in the coming months.

Finally, here's more from Ben Hubbard, on the ONE blog:

The G8 are dangerously behind on their landmark commitments to the region, having delivered only $3 billion of the promised $25 billion in additional assistance to Africa by 2010, according to the 2008 DATA Report.

After difficult negotiations, the G8 summit yielded small gains for the poorest. The bulk of G8 agreements on development and Africa and food security reiterated previous pledges rather than outlining new measures to get the group back on track. The G8 did announce plans for a new effort to tackle the global food crisis, though more details are needed to ensure its effectiveness and delivery. They highlighted the UN High-level meeting on the MDGs in September as an important opportunity to review progress and identify actions needed to overcome remaining challenges.

At a time when G8 credibility is at risk due to slow progress in delivering on commitments, there was a strong call for greater accountability in the G8 Communique. The G8 agreed to track progress against previous commitments in health, education, water and agriculture, as well as its compliance with anti-corruption measures.

 
* Want to get this kind of news yourself?  Join the ONE Campaign to get updates from them.  You can sign up to get e-mail updates from CGD here.  The CGD has several topical newsletters, including one on HIV/AIDS.

The Senate on Tuesday is scheduled to vote on several amendments to legislation (S 2731) that would reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, CQ Today reports. According to CQ Today, the amendments aim to "chip away at the scope and $50 billion cost" of the legislation. One of the amendments, sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) would limit the program to 15 low-income countries where PEPFAR already is operating. "The bill doesn't prohibit funding for China and Russia and India, countries that are quite wealthy and have their own nuclear weapons and space exploration programs," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said, adding, "Certainly, we ought to limit the funding of the bill to countries that need the money." Another amendment sponsored by DeMint would reduce the bill's cost to $35 billion (Graham-Silverman, CQ Today, 7/14). [...]

On Monday, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defended the bill's cost and said that the chamber should avoid toying with the measure. "Most (U.S. officials) believe that adding new restrictions to the law can limit the flexibility of those charged with implementation in 2009 and beyond," Lugar said, adding, "In my judgment, the dollars spent on this program can be justified purely on the basis of the humanitarian results that we have achieved. But the value of this investment clearly extends to our national security and to our national reputation" (CQ Today, 7/14).

Couple comments:

• Sometimes the things people say mystify me.  We shouldn't provide AIDS funding for China, Russia, and India because they "are quite wealthy and have their own nuclear weapons and space exploration programs"?  Even if you agree that the US shouldn't fund those countries, what do nuclear weapons and space exploration have to do with it?  All it shows is that the governments of those countries aren't spending the money going into those things on health care.  Seriously, it doesn't really matter how "rich" a country is on a national level -- the point is whether the people who need access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care resources are actually getting them.
• In the second paragraph I quoted above, I think Ligar's comments are spot-on.

I'll be back with more soon...

En esta ocasión os traemos a esta chica de 17 años y nacida en Vigo llamada Aid (Aída). En enero del 2007 lanzó "Aquí tenéis" y ese mismo año se forma Licor Kafé, un proyecto musical del cual Aid forma parte junto a otros nombre como 040, El Puto Coke y Woyza. Actualmente se encuentra trabajando en su nuevo proyecto. También cabe destacar su colaboración con Porta en la canción "Suben al cielo".

Aid demuestra que, a pesar de su corta edad, sabe lo que hace. Buenas letras, buen hip hop, seguro que esta chica llegara lejos y desde aquí le damos nuestro apoyo (como a todos los mencionados en otras entradas). Si es que da gusto ver (o escuchar) a esta chica demostrando que el rap no es solo un "mundo de hombres" como lo califican algunas personas y incluso nos atrevemos a decir que supera a muchos de esos "hombres" y seguirá ascendiendo, como ya lo hicieron en su momento otras figuras del "rap femenino".

Como dice en una de sus canciones: “si lo hago, lo hago bien, sino ya no lo hago…”

www.myspace.com/aid8990
www.licorkafe.com

Aid -Todo es más fácil

I spoke to a woman from UNESCO yesterday working on inclusive education for children with disabilities. Thirty years of warfare have left a significant number of disabled children, most due to poor health care access during 30 years of war but an estimated 25% due to the direct consequences of conflict. For example, those injured from explosive remnants of war (ERWs), including cluster bomb duds or other unexploded ordnance, are frequently children who inadvertently pick up or hit the ERWs while collecting wood, water or other materials for their family.  Children who lose a leg or an arm, suffer deafness, or have other disabilities are usually not allowed to go to school, not allowed to learn a trade, nor given other development tools that would allow them to become normally functioning adults.

The woman I spoke to in UNESCO has been working for the past twenty years to persuade Afghan government entities and school authorities to allow some of these children to go to school.  It's a sad legacy that sometimes the most effective redress for those injured in conflict would be a return to normalcy – something that these children's injuries and the ongoing conflict do not allow.

The Senate on Friday voted 65-3 to consider legislation (S 2731) that would reauthorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief this week, the AP/Forbes reports. As the vote was taking place, the Bush administration issued a statement in support of the legislation that said PEPFAR is "creating strong partnerships and allies in countries where five years ago AIDS threatened to destroy entire generations" (Abrams, AP/Forbes, 7/11). [...]

[Majority Leader Harry] Reid on Friday said that 10 amendments offered by Republicans would be allowed during debate next week, including proposals to reduce the funding levels. He added that he is confident the legislation could be passed in the Senate to allow for negotiations with the House on a final compromise version.

The PEPFAR legislation as it is now would lift the current ban on giving HIV+ individuals visas to come into the US.  One amendment, proposed by Sen. Sessions, would get rid of this provision (so travel bans would stay in place).  Another proposed amendment, coming from Jim DeMint (the guy who started the most recent round of tortuous proceedings), would cut the funding for PEPFAR from $50 billion to $35 billion.

For more on all this, check out this post from the New York Times politics blog, or this post from the blog Politics and Policy of HIV/AIDS.

For commentary, we turn again to our trusty Washington correspondent -- that is, my pal Katy, who works for a non-profit in DC.  Katy wants me to make sure I say that she offers "very unprofessional analysis."  That might be a good thing though, because she's a lot better at explaining some of this stuff than anything I've found online.*  For I now present a transcript of parts of our conversation (over google chat):

h.e.g.:  So, do they vote on which amendments get attached?
K:  Yeah, they vote on each of the amendments, and if, say, the travel ban thing gets added, a lot of people won't vote for it, so the whole bill dies.
h.e.g.:  So, if 60 people vote for the amendment about the travel ban, that amendment gets added. They would then vote for the bill, with that amendment, and some people would vote against the whole thing (PEPFAR and travel-related amendment), and then...no PEPFAR?
K:  Uh, essentially. some will vote for the amendment just to kill the whole bill.  [...]
K:  PEPFAR was supposed to sail through, no real objections, no big deal. But now that both sides have dug in their heels, it's going to be a lot tougher.  [...]
h.e.g.:  If they don't pass the whole thing now, is PEPFAR dead forever, or could it be revived later?
K:  Oh, it'll probably be revived later in a different form, with less funds and more regulations. But probably not till after the election.

So, that's how things are looking.  Basically, a few senators want to add amendments to the PEPFAR bill.  Some of these, if added, would be offensive enough to PEPFAR's supporters that they would vote against the bill itself in order to prevent the amendments from getting through.  (The issue of the travel bans, for example, has proved very contentious.)

I'm obviously hoping that PEPFAR gets passed, and without any amendments that would lessen its impact.  This legislation has been held up long enough.  Further delays will cause potentially deadly problems for the countless people around the world for whom PEPFAR funding is literally a matter of life and death.

Keep checking back here for more on PEPFAR.  I'll keep updating as I hear more.

* My comprehension of the American legislative process is pretty dismal. In my own defense, I grew up in Canada.

WASHINGTON – July 14, 2008 – The federal government unveiled a broad program yesterday evening to bolster troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, extending unprecedented support to the companies and proposing new authority to lend them money and even buy their stock.

Scrambling to announce the initiative before the trading week began, federal officials said they would allow the firms for the first time to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Officials are also seeking permission from Congress to temporarily increase the amount the companies can borrow from the Treasury and enable the government to invest directly in the firms if conditions worsen.

The two firms, which dominate the market for U.S. mortgages, have been reeling amid investor concern that the companies might not have enough capital to handle their losses due to the rising number of bad home loans. Both firms’ stocks plummeted by almost half last week.

Treasury officials said last night that they were confident Congress will be able to pass the new laws they seek by the end of the week as part of a broad housing bill under consideration on Capitol Hill.

The Federal Reserve announced that it would allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money on an emergency basis. The firms, should they experience a cash crunch, will be able to exchange certain assets for cash at the Fed’s discount window, a privilege long enjoyed by commercial banks and extended in March to struggling investment banks.

If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac collapsed, it could cripple the U.S. housing market, dealing a staggering blow to the wider economy, and would saddle the federal government with massive debts if it chose to seize control of either firm.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies,” Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said in a statement he read before television cameras last night. The strength of their debt “is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets,” he said.

A failure of either company would also rattle global financial markets because their shares and debt are widely held by pension funds, mutual funds and foreign governments.

Both companies said they were financially sound but were grateful for the confidence-building efforts. The proposals, taken together, make more explicit than ever that the federal government backs the two federally chartered companies, even though they are investor-owned.

The changes that Treasury plans would expand the amount that Fannie and Freddie could borrow from the government in the event of cash flow problems. Currently, they can each withdraw $2.25 billion. The Treasury secretary could increase that amount at his discretion.

The Treasury secretary would also have the authority to invest government money in the firms by buying their stock, a step that would only be taken if the firms don’t have enough capital and are unable to raise it on private markets.

“Use of either the line of credit or the equity investment would carry terms and conditions necessary to protect the taxpayer,” Paulson said.

The new measures would give Paulson the authority to provide federal money to the firms after negotiating the conditions with them. Treasury officials stressed that this would allow the government to get the most favorable terms possible for taxpayers, potentially putting existing shareholders in a less favorable position.

“This is a very sweeping proposal,” said Bert Ely, a banking expert and longtime critic of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “This plan goes further than I thought they would go and suggests a deeper level of concern about the companies.”

The initiative comes after a harried weekend of calls among officials at Treasury, the Federal Reserve and other agencies, and between Washington and Wall Street. Paulson led the creation of the plans, in sessions that went late into Friday and Saturday nights. He and Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, held extensive conversations with Wall Street executives in preparing the initiative.

The plan aimed in part at heading off further losses of confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on global markets and was unveiled shortly before Monday trading opened on stock markets in Asia. The announcement also came on the eve of a crucial sale of $3 billion in securities by Freddie Mac. Federal officials also worked through the weekend to ensure that the sale, a test of investor confidence, would succeed.

Government leaders opted not to inject new money into the firms directly and stopped far short of nationalizing them. Officials continue to state that the companies are financially sound and should be able to continue funding Americans’ home mortgages.

A senior Treasury official said that both of his department’s proposals – the expanded credit line and the authority to make equity investments – are envisioned as temporary, expiring after 18 months.

The official said there were extensive discussions with congressional leaders of both parties over the weekend and that “nothing suggests we will not be able to accomplish this.” Key members of Congress last night endorsed the Treasury and Fed efforts, though one suggested the measures may not be adopted as quickly as the administration hopes.

Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that he expects the thrust of what Paulson requested will be approved by the House this week and accepted by the Senate next week, allowing President Bush to sign the measure by the end of next week. He added that the plans did not amount to a “bailout.” Instead they conveyed that “we don’t think there’s a terrible problem, but we want to reassure you if there is one, we can deal with it.”

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Joint Economic Committee, also welcomed the plan. “It will be reassuring to investors, bondholders and mortgage-holders that the federal government will be behind these agencies should it be needed,” he said in a statement. “The Treasury’s plan is surgical and carefully thought out and will maximize confidence in Fannie and Freddie while minimizing potential costs to U.S. taxpayers.”

Another component of the plan is to give the Federal Reserve a “consultative” role in setting the firms’ capital requirements. That would enable the Fed, which works to ensure the stability of the financial system, to help set requirements on Fannie’s and Freddie’s finances that might lessen the risks they pose to the broader economy.

The actions mark the most extensive government intervention into the financial world since the Fed rescued Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns from bankruptcy in March. They are also designed to allow the companies to continue their roles making funding available for Americans to buy homes.

The firms funded about 70 percent of the home mortgages issued in the first three months of the year, but investors fear that the companies do not have enough capital to weather the eventual losses on bad loans on their balance sheets. Freddie Mac’s shares have tumbled 88 percent since their high in 2006, and Fannie Mae’s stock is off 85 percent since its most recent peak last year.

Separately, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced yesterday that it and other regulators will immediately begin to examine whether securities prices have been manipulated by the intentional spread of false information. This action was timed in part to coincide with the government’s announcement about its aid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Also yesterday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. issued a statement indicating that IndyMac, the failed California-based bank it took over Friday, will reopen today with all its functions operating normally.

Source: wahingtompost.com

This information is posted by www.FloridaLoanSpecialist.com for your convenience. Need Financing? Call Christina Felgenhauer @ 239-699-1462 or email Christina@FLS-Service.com
Professional, Fast, Reliable!!

I have been harping on this for some time and finally decided to lay out why I think it makes some sense for Google to consider making 'clickable countries' an option in Google Earth.  In the world of the aid worker communications bandwidth is the single most important factor.  We pay more for bandwidth than just about anyone in the world.  In an earlier post I pointed out that SIM cards in Myanmar cost $1500.  I can tell you that from experience a VSAT installation in the tsunami ravaged region of Aceh, Indonesia costs $1700 for service equivalent to a dial-up connection from the 1990's and 1MB of data over an INMARSAT portable satellite modem costs aywhere from $4 to 8$.  To view www.cnn.com just one time costs about $5.

Bandwidth is the Achille's heal of the aid community and while things are getting easier (aircards are replacing data cables) the rates are still through the roof and the networks are dirtier a more fragile than most folks can comprehend.  The question I always ask is, "Do you know how many syringes I can buy for $5?"

That being the case it would save all of us a tremendous amount of money if the folks over at Google took it upon themselves to implement for Google Earth what I have long referred to as 'clickable countries'.  The idea is to give the user the ability to turn off the image layers for any country, continent or body of water.  If I am working in Myanmar all I really need to see imagery for is Myanmar and Thailand.  I don't need North America, South America, the Pacific Ocean, etc.  The bandwidth savings, if we were able to drop out all unnecessary imagery, would be tremendous and that translates into money saved which is money that can be used to buy more syringes, medecines and medical equipment.

I am not sure how easy it would be to accomplish this from a technical standpoint but the benefit to the humanitarian aid community would be tremendous.  I have heard time and time again from various aid workers that while they love Google Earth there is really no way they can you use it in the field because of the slow speed and high cost of bandwidth.  Implementing 'clickable countries' in the Layers section would make a somewhat inaccessible tool readily available to the people who desperately need it - aid workers in the field - and Google could take full credit for the countless lives they would save by doing so.  Not only would such an action benefit humanitarian aid workers, it would also benefit the communities they serve.  They communities we work in around the world all suffer from the same low bandwidth fate as we do yet they do not have the same cash resources to resolve the problem.  Google Earth's market penetration could be significantly increased were they to implement the 'clickable countries' solution.

I have a heard a number of times that caching imagery is a viable solution to the bandwidth problem but the reality is that most folks have no idea how to cache imagery and when the fabled 'DVD full of imagery that gets shipped to the field' solution comes up it takes about 30 seconds to convince the other person that it is really just a nice idea that has little basis in reality.  The tech community needs to learn the rules we play by and we need to learn the same about the challenges they face.

I am hopeful that somewhere down the road Google will implement the 'clickable countries' solution but if I have learned anything during my foray into the world of technology it is patience.

Well, I made it.  After driving back and forth numerous times to the O'Reilly campus in Sebastopol I am now back in Marin and reflecting on what an incredible time I had at FooCamp.  Here is the Wikipedia definition of FooCamp which is fitting as I found myself at one point talking to Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales over chicken and black beans.  Michael Arrington over at TechCrunch, who was also in attendance, has posted his review of FooCamp here.  One of the best parts about the event is that only your name appears on your little tag with no mention of affiliations other than your favorite Star Wars character (which I didn't quite get).  For the semi-technorati illiterate like myself it makes for good fun as you get to just walk up to people and say, "Hi, what do you do?"  I met a whole slew of people who I knew nothing about but after getting home and Googling their name I would sit back and say, "No s@#$!"

It was an impressive collection of PhD's from MIT, astronauts, investors, journalists and dozens of tech icons.  The brain power was overwhelming and I had a hard time geting my head around some of the discussions.  (After dinner one night some folks got together and synthesized bacteria to smell like bananas.)  At one point it occurred to me that if 1% of the folks in attendance focused their energy on some of the problems facing the aid industry we would be in a much better place.

I took part in a disaster tech event run by Jesse Robbins which had a good size turn out.  Some folks presented a very cool app having to do with geo-location and information in emergencies. The development was for Google's Android and not the iPhone 3G so I was a bit off in my previous post where I surmised that the weekend would be about the iPhone 3G.  (As a matter of fact almost no one spoke about the new iPhone 3G.)  We told some good stories, brainstormed possibilities but mostly just spent our time trying to explain to the rest of the room just how difficult it is to work in an emergency setting.  As always, the biggest obstacle to progress is the total lack of understanding, on the part of both the tech industry and the relief industry, as to how things get done in our worlds.

I am hopeful that by attending such events (I am pretty sure I was the only aid worker in attendance) I can not only come away with new ideas that can make our job easier but also educate and energize the tech community to rally around our efforts and come up with some solutions that could greatly improve the way we do things.  Hopefully, FooCamp will serve as a catalyst for future events that will draw the both the humanitarian aid community and the tech industry closer together.

I had a great time and thanks to Tim O'Reilly for throwing the event.

G8 Summits are fast becoming synonymous with Africa’s miseries. It’s almost predictable that at the top of the agenda of every G8 Summit is how Africa is dealing with the triumvirate issues of poverty, political instability and disease. In the 2005 G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, it was Darfur. In this year’s Summit in Japan, it was a threat to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe for holding a fraudulent election and suppressing the opposition.

More ...

Nothing makes me feel more like a woolly liberal than the aid debate. I seem condemned to see both sides of the argument and veer between the ‘aid as salvation’ and ‘aid as imperialism’ camps. With equal vehemence and seemingly absolute certainty, aid pessimists slug it out with aid optimists, often citing the same evidence, but arriving at completely opposed conclusions. What’s particularly odd is that the most scathing sceptics often work for the aid industry, or at least for the NGOs. It’s a bit like the Automobile Association urging a mass switch to rail (if only).

The latest anti-aid salvo comes from Jonathan Glennie, in a crisp, well argued book to be published in October (one of the benefits of being in the back-cover-plug business is you get to see stuff early). Jonathan divides up the impacts of aid into

· Direct impacts: in recent years aid has funded lifesaving AIDS drugs for two million people, paid for 30 million bednets, leading to a two thirds reduction in child deaths in Rwanda, and so on. With the exception of the odd dud infrastructure project, this is strongest argument for aid.
· Policy impacts: cue big critique of economic policy conditionality, which I would share
· Institutional impacts: Glennie sees these as overwhelmingly negative. Again I would have some sympathy with this – see the revealing paper on the impact of aid on Ghana, by my colleague Emily Jones or the great article on Afghanistan in June’s Prospect magazine - but the impact of aid on institutions is complicated; healthcare and education are not just good in themselves, but vital to building accountable institutions
· Macroeconomic impacts: a somewhat flimsy discussion on whether aid does/doesn’t lead to growth, and whether growth does/doesn’t lead to poverty reduction, plus that staple debating point of aid economists, Dutch Disease.

Read the full article here

Firstly, I must say, if all these attacks comitted by Muslims were really done, how can ALL men charged and convicted with these attacks be acquited within a few days of the end of their trials? If these attacks were done byt these people, why is it they are being released due to lack of evidence? Isn't 'their' blood trail enough?

LIES, LIES, DAMN LIES!

How can you publicly profess to the public that AL QAEDA, THE TALIBAN or some other Muslim Fredoom Fighter Organisation killled X amount of people in an attack, which 'they' 'admitted' to doing and then right after the trial you acquit them?

LIES, LIES, MORE LIES!

MADRID BOMBINGS - Not only was the mastermind acquitted due to lack of evidence, ALL of his 'apprentices' were also released! The Spanish court says that they cannot charge convicted criminals, since the 'criminals' were already serving jail sentences in Italy.

I ask you all to wait a few more weeks and then you'll here ITALY will also acquit them of all their charges. Just a matter of time.

9/11 - Not only was the mastermind behind it 'released', all charged somehow couldn't be found or WERE ACTUALLY ALIVE AND WERE SUING THE US GOVERNMENT FOR FRAUD.

So what happened to Sheikh Khalid Mohammed? You know the conspirator, the planner for 9/11? Yeah that guy, he is scheduled to be released soon.

--------------------------------

Suicide attacks in Iraq? Who are behind them?

The CIA and RAF are behind all attacks, that be 9/11, 7/7, Madrid Bombings and the USS COLE Bombing, ALL EMBASSY BOMBINGS............yes they are.

In Iraq, 2 RAF soldiers dressed like Arabs, went through streets firing at civillians 'provoking' them. When Iraqi police jailed them, the RAF demanded them back, when the Iraqi's refused, the RAF broke into the jail with a tank and recovered the 'soldiers'.

An admission by a CIA Agent also confirmed 9/11 was a setup, a pre cursor to enter IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN and IRAN is soon to be entered. The USS COLE bombing was done by CIA agents, and the 7/7 bombings were done on the SAME day the Metropolitan Police were practising for an attack like those which occurred.

Coincidence? NO!

Theres a plan for all of us. Sound crazy? It should!

Americans should investigate THREE MAJOR THINGS if they want to know the truth :

1) The North American Union

2) The Amero

3) How "federal" the "federal reserve" really is.

X) oooooooo and tell me where in the US Constitution you are REQUIRED to pay taxes....... (hint : there is none )

Everything you see and know, is there for a reason. Look into it for a bit and you'll see. You believe too much of what the MEDIA says, who controls the media? Certainly not the Government....nooo....I mean come on why on earth would they do that? (sarcasm!)

Check it out guys, tell me what you think when you're done!

-Techliveadmin

-TGC