Feds Seeks Help in Spending Billions in Uganda More Effectively

U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor ^ | Nov. 24, 2012 | Steve Peacock

[Steve Peacock]

The U.S. government plans to spend another $1 billion in Uganda through 2015 -- and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will devote an additional $17.5 million specifically towards helping its Uganda unit to become more "adaptive, modern" and "effective."

The $1 billion figure is part of the Obama Administration's $3.5 billion 2011-2015 Ugandan strategy, which aims to cut that nation's poverty in half ("$3.5 Billion 'Plan Uganda' Seeks to Cut Poverty in Half -- While Reducing 'Cattle Raiding,' Too" ; U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor, 5/18/11).

The agency will hire a private contractor to carry out this "monitoring, evaluation, and learning" initiative over five years, it said in a solicitation (#SOL-617-12-000021) released Nov. 24 that the Monitor located through routine database research. During that time USAID/Uganda hopes to improve, in sum, how it carries out assistance programs in the East African nation.

The solicitation acknowledges that USAID/Uganda is embarking upon this new contract vehicle following a separate series of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) projects. It points out that while the contractor (The Mitchell Group, Inc.) satisfied agency requirements for M&E, "busy Mission staff still placed little attention on M&E data and did not utilize the data for learning."

RELATED COVERAGE: Obama Has Taxpayers Funding Graduate Programs in Uganda .

FOR ADDITIONAL REGIONAL COVERAGE, SEE THE MONITOR'S AFRICA PAGE and UGANDA PAGE .

FOR FURTHER COVERAGE OF THE U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, PLEASE VISIT THE MONITOR'S USAID PAGE.

[DesertRhino]

Well if THIS isn’t a critical American interest, worthy of borrowing money from China for, i don’t know what is! /

[himno hero]

Another joke, sending more money to Africa.
All that will happen is the corrupt officials will raid it, skim it for their own personal estates and bank accounts.

Do like Bush did for Liberia.

Give them books.
Give them desks.
Let them live learn and earn value.

Giving them lottery money will achieve the same results...

...but Obama and crew cannot use the Bush doctrine, can they?

[lowbridge]

Bump

[dinodino]

Sure is a good thing we have our fiscal house in order at home; otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to afford this sort of expenditure.

[dalebert]

dems getting richer..does anyone see profit or results in helping UGANDA?

[dalebert]

dems getting richer..does anyone see profit or results in helping UGANDA?what should UN do?

[winner3000]

(The agency will hire a private contractor to carry out this “monitoring, evaluation, and learning” initiative over five years)

How much can you bet that the private contractor is an Obama donor?

[wildbill]

Take the money up to 20,000 feet and shovel it out the back end of a C-130.

[onyx]

FR really needs your help!

Please Donate Today.

FReepathon Day 55

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Just give each Ugandan a free cellphone and an EBT card and stop messing around!!

[Chode]

the ONLY foreign aid we should ever give are products bought, paid for and made in AMERICA!!!

absolutely NO dollars should ever leave the country.

stimulate our own economy while helping out those that don't deserve it to begin with...

[Moltke]

specifically towards helping its Uganda unit to become more "adaptive, modern" and "effective."

That's code-speak for "promote homosexuality". The #1 objective of the US State Department by all accounts.

[tm61]

ugandans like that free pie too, gots to spread round that stash obama got ya know.

[GeronL]

spending more on overhead will make it better?

How about we stop all foreign aid?

[chainsaw]

Well, just send me the money and I’ll take care of it.
No problem.

[PieterCasparzen]

Some of that aid money does indeed come back to the U.S. in the form of export sales of companies that export goods and services to those nations.

This is, of course, why so-called conservative elitists so often support meddling in developing nations - because all the power players involved are benefitting. Politicians look like they're "helping" other countries, spreading Democracy, etc., and pro-business conservatives are happy that big business is generating exports (never mind that exports are only about 10% of GDP). Of course, in general it's good to generate business sales, but of course in the true, whole picture of free enterprise, one must also consider the ramifications of what each situation entails, for example, supporting enemies of America, etc. If America falls into political-economic disaster as a nation, those few extra export dollars will seem like quite a foolish tradeoff.

Of course, some is skimmed off by the powers that be in the recipient countries.

USAID and the CIA have shared purposes regarding developing nations, and they work with various non-governmental organizations, as well, which, on it's face, sounds like a smart move, i.e., making use of resources that the government does not have to pay for. On the other hand, however, it puts USAID and the CIA in bed with the likes of the Soros network of organizations, jihadists, etc.

Where did foreign aid of this size and for such generic purposes ever get into U.S. foreign policy ?

One extremely influential group is the Council on Foreign Relations, counting as Directors, Officers and members many of America's elites with strong ties to government.

The CFR dates back to the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson.

Among those currently sitting on the CFR Board:

Muhtar Kent Chairman and CEO, The Coca-Cola Company

John P. Abizaid Senior Partner, JPA Partners LLC (retired General)

Colin L. Powell United States Army (Ret.)

James W. Owens Chairman and CEO Emeritus, Caterpillar Inc.

Penny Pritzker Founder, Chairman, and CEO, PSP Capital Partners and Pritzker Realty Group

There are nearly 4,700 members of the Council on Foreign Relations, all of them being amongst what is considered the elite thought leaders of the world.

I, for one, think that intellectual elites, representing various elitist, ideological and big business interests have reached a point where they are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. I think they should no longer have such a significant influence on governmental policy. I base that on two important facts: they are unelected and their influence is largely hidden from the public, though hidden in plain sight. Shedding light on them is, in my opinion, very long overdue.

To that end, I've floated the following idea:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2960343/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2960965/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2961730/posts

I have over 50 people interested so far - please let me know if you'd like to be on the list.

[SumProVita]

Feds SEEK.....

[hattend]

Feds Seeks Help in Spending Billions in Uganda More Effectively

Buh-bye!

[Chode]

thank you, i agree with you and you know seem to know much more about it than i do...

not sure how much i could contribute but put me on the list for now anyway, thx