banner2e top

Joyce Banda's Re-election Hopes Could be Doomed by Donors

 April 20, 2014

Joyce Banda's Re-election Hopes Could be Doomed by Donors

banda joyce - president

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from Global International Network

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – One of the few women presidents in Africa stands to lose her post in next month’s polls since foreign donors have cut off support from the once popular leader over funds stolen or misappropriated by members of her administration.

A news headline in the region summed it up: “Donors Desert Joyce Banda in Hour of Need”

During her two year administration, the 64 year old President spent her initial year in office pushing for rapprochement with the international donor community while grappling with spiraling inflation and an angry populace at home.

Among other efforts to address food shortages in the country, she sold off a jet which the former president bought for $22 million. Former president Bingu wa Mutharika, who died last year from a heart attack, had defended the purchase, saying the jet was cheap to run and a status symbol for the poor southern African nation.

Troubles came to a head in October when some 92 million kwacha ($230,000) were reported missing or stolen, allegedly by junior members of the Banda cabinet and staff. The incident was dubbed “Cashgate” by the local media.

The European Union then threatened not to release some 29 million euros ($40 million) to the aid-dependent country until the government cleaned up the treasury fraud. This, compounded by an IMF-backed devaluation of the kwacha currency, stoked inflation, raised the price of food for rural poor and cut into Banda's domestic support.

Currently the southern African country is bankrolled up to 40 percent by foreign donors.

More pressure is being exerted by the International Monetary Fund whose prescriptions – including the sell-off of national companies - would further squeeze the struggling population.

This week at an outdoor rally attended by some 10,000 supporters, President Banda warned that elements behind the stolen funds still face prosecution. “Ndipitiliza Kukumangani” (I will continue to arrest you), she warned.

A devout Christian, Mrs. Banda told the gathering that just like the biblical Nehemiah who embarked on rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, she has been rebuilding the walls since taking over government from the former ruling party.

Elections are schedule for May 20.

South Africa Election May 7: ANC Hopes for Quick and Easy Victory

April 20, 2014

South Africa Election May 7: ANC Hopes for Quick and Easy Victory

anc gathering

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from Global Information Network

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – As the May 7 election day in South Africa nears, former friends and allies of the ruling African National Congress are betting that voters will follow them out of the party or at least send a strong message that the country’s current direction is not good enough.

A number of veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle and former government leaders have even launched a “Vote NO!” campaign that could dash ANC hopes for a quick and easy win.

Among the veterans is former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils, former deputy health minister Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge and other ANC stalwarts.

"Sidikiwe! Vukani! - "We are fed up! Wake up!"  That’s the message coming from some longtime ANC loyalists who now say: "The ANC needs to know that it can no longer take for granted its traditional support and we would be failing South Africa and our democracy by not voting."

Other groups expecting to pick up votes from disillusioned voters are the Economic Freedom Fighters led by Julius Malema, the Democratic Alliance led by Helen Zille and the United Democratic Movement led by Bantu Holomisa.

ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe rebuked the now-opposition leaders saying they hadn't done a good job when they were in Cabinet. Also with the opposition is Pallo Jordan, current member of the party’s national executive committee who has written columns critical of the $23 million upgrade of President Jacob Zuma’s country estate.

Income inequality is one issue that particularly incenses South Africans who are aghast at the sky high salaries for corporate CEOs.

There are “super salaries at the top, and very meager livelihoods at the bottom,” said Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies. "The highest-paid chief executive has earned 51,000 times what someone earns at the lowest rung. That's the level of inequality that we have in South Africa."

Opposition politician Mamphela Ramphele said the Nkandla affair has exposed a serious flaw in the ruling party. “The ANC is in the death grip of corrupt, greedy and arrogant people who don’t actually see that they are destroying this beautiful country and its resources.”

Meanwhile, a popular parody song has become the refrain of the President’s re-election campaign. It goes: "If you're number one, you get to drive the gravy train."

Crisis in Education by James Clingman

Blackonomics 

Crisis in Education      
By James Clingman 

grads                                                                

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - We may as well call it “Edu-pay-tion,” as far as many prospective students are concerned.  The cost of a college degree has risen 1,120 percent since 1978, but wages have increased a mere 6% during that same period.  The national collective college debt is more than $1 trillion!  We have college grads mired in $29,000 of debt, on average, while they are looking for jobs that do not exist.  Parents and grandparents of those grads are also saddled with much of that debt, which is immune to bankruptcy, and they will have to make the payments until they die.

What have we gotten ourselves into?  The greed that accompanied those easy-to-obtain, just-sign-here college tuition loans, borders on immoral.   Financial institutions were like Black Friday crowds, trampling one another to get in on the act.  New lending operations cropped up every day, and new proprietary colleges and universities opened their doors throughout the nation, advertising their degrees and easy to get loans for tuition.  What would happen if students and parents just stop paying on that $1 trillion debt?  Who would pay then?  Bingo!  I can see another bailout coming, and this time it will be for student loans.

Ethical implications exist on both sides—the lenders and the borrowers, but no matter what side you take the problem is still here and is looming as yet another bubble about to burst in the near future.  As many schools are raising their tuition costs, despite the ominous specter of a meltdown, many prospective students are opting out of their plans to attend college. But where does that leave them in today’s “jobless market”?  Sounds like a catch-22.

This nation trails many other countries in various fields of education, and we will find ourselves even further behind if this tuition bubble is not deflated very soon.  Our young people will not be able to compete on a national level, much less on an international level, without access to adequate, relevant, and higher educational experiences.  In other words, the famous mantra, “Leave no child behind” will soon become, “Help every child catch up.”

We have smart bombs and dumb children. We have the ability to kill people with drones without even seeing them, but we cannot—or will not—provide adequate education for our children whom we see every day.  We have spent trillions destroying and rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, but a relative meager amount to secure the future of our own youth.  Now we are sending money to Ukraine, along with all the other places to which our dollars flow, while our young people slip further down the education scale.  Our priorities are all screwed up.

This is not to say that money alone will solve all of our education problems, but more of it, pointed in the right direction, sure would make a positive difference in our current educational crisis—and that’s exactly what it is.  Simply throwing money at a problem only results in it being caught by folks for whom it is not meant.  The students are at the bottom of the food chain and see little or no benefit from money meant to help them.

Meanwhile, as we teach our children how to take tests rather than how to use their critical and analytical thinking skills, we are doing them a gross disservice.  And similar to what we saw with the sub-prime housing debacle, if we continue to make financial institutions even wealthier by allowing them to make outlandish loans to college students who cannot afford to repay them, we will soon have another piper to pay.

So what do we do?  Prospective students should start looking at less expensive alternatives to attain their college degrees.  For instance, go to a local school and live at home (I know that’s a tough one, but it beats having to go back to live with your parents when you graduate); stop treating your student loan like it’s a free monthly check that you can use to buy everything but educational necessities; and, here’s a novel idea: work while you are in college.  It may not be the most glamorous job, but if it helps pay your tuition and keep you out of thousands in debt, that’s a good thing.

Government and financial institutions worked so well when it came to the bailouts.  Banks were too big to fail and had to be helped with $780 billion or so.  Aren’t our children too important to fail?  Maybe they are not; at least not in this country, huh?  Anyway, if they care to listen, banks, proprietary schools, and government officials should get together and stop the madness that has led to $1 trillion in student loan debt while graduates cannot get commensurate employment and cannot compete in a global society.

We have to stop education from turning into “educ-pay-tion.”

Encouraging Economic Leadership By William E. Spriggs

April 19, 2014

Encouraging Economic Leadership
 By William E. Spriggs
fedchairjanetyellen
 Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen

(TriceEdneyWire.com) Last week, Janet Yellen made her second major speech as chair of the Federal Reserve Bank. Again, her talk as chair is fresh air compared with what is typically heard from Fed chairs. During her first speech in April in Chicago, she actually called out the names of specific unemployed workers—putting a human face on the real effects of Fed policy.

The Federal Reserve is an odd body. Its Board of Governors is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There are seven members of the board, and every two years, a new 14-year term will begin for a slot on the board. So, in theory, a president would appoint only four members, although board members rarely finish their terms and presidents normally appoint more. The chair and vice chair of the board are chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate, from among the board members. Their terms of four years do allow more direction from the president.

The Board of Governors, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Regional Bank and four of the remaining 11 presidents of the regional federal reserve banks (who rotate their one-year membership) form the policy-making body that sets U.S. monetary policy—the Open Market Committee (FOMC). That committee sets interest rates for the United States, determining how easy it will be for banks to extend credit and businesses and consumers to borrow to invest in the economy or buy homes or cars—expanding the economy and creating jobs.

The five members of the FOMC who are regional bank presidents are chosen by their regional bank’s board of directors, the majority of whom are elected by the commercial banks in that region, with approval from the Fed Board of Governors.

So, for such a powerful policy-making body, this clearly is a design giving more weight to America’s financial elite. Though the operating tenet of U.S. monetary policy set by the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act is to promote full employment consistent with price stability, because banks loan money, they are clearly more nervous about inflation than unemployment. Inflation lowers the value of dollars, helping those who borrow and get to repay loans with dollars of smaller value. And workers, of course, are far more concerned with unemployment than are bankers.

For too long, the Fed has kept Wall Street happy by assuring everyone that inflation would remain under control, not unemployment. But that means keeping a tight rein on the economy, resulting in long periods of high unemployment. Weak labor markets break down the efficiency of labor markets. First, the bargaining power of employers is obviously higher when unemployment is high and there are lines of potential hires to choose from. Depressed wages weaken the signals that rising wages send of skill shortages that would encourage people to get training for occupations in demand. Second, many job openings are filled by word-of-mouth networks among friends, co-workers and neighbors. High levels of unemployment, like fallen telephone wires, break down the flow of information on jobs in the networks, making it more difficult for firms and workers to find matches of skills and wages—especially those who are high school educated.

In Yellen’s New York talk, she emphasized the Fed would remain committed to moving toward full employment, warning that may be at least two years away.  And, most importantly, she said that rather than a single target—like the unemployment rate—the FOMC would consider a range of information on the labor market.

Predictably, inflation hawks in the financial world don’t like that message. They instead warn that if the economy overheats, it will cause the Fed to take “costly” actions to undo that. But, that is an odd reaction. The Congressional Budget Office estimates our unemployed resources will cost the economy more than $1 trillion compared with producing at our nation’s potential this year. And that is five years into this “recovery.” Given the unprecedented efforts of the Fed to move the economy forward, the lesson of this downturn is that the Fed should seriously doubt its ability to get America back to full employment if it takes actions that slow the economy. What could be more costly?

America Needs to Build Upon What LBJ Gave Us By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

April 19, 2014

America Needs to Build Upon What LBJ Gave Us
By Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Jesse3

(TriceEdneyWire.com) -  Fifty years later, former President Lyndon Johnson got the tribute he more than earned. Four presidents praised his contribution. The Great Society, the War on Poverty, Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act opened doors that had been locked.

“I lived out the promise of LBJ’s efforts,” said President Barack Obama, rejecting the cynicism of those who would dismantle Medicare and food stamps, signature LBJ achievements. Bill Clinton praised LBJ for demonstrating “the power of the presidency to redeem the promise of America.”

Getting our history right is vital. For decades, LBJ’s achievements have been slighted. Liberals scorned him because of the war in Vietnam, and finally drove him to not seek re-election. Conservatives loathed him because of the civil rights achievements, with Republicans moving to displace Democrats as the party of the South.

The War on Poverty, which dramatically reduced poverty in America, was dismissed as a failure, as the anger of the cities exploded. New Democrats dismissed him for believing in big government, as they tacked to a conservative era. In fact, as the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas recognized last week, Johnson was a giant, standing with Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln as presidents who saved America.

Under Johnson, the scourge of segregation was finally ended, and equal protection under the law moved from a lie to a promise. Millions were lifted from poverty, as the poor were provided a ladder up out of despair. Johnson’s reforms — civil rights, voting rights, immigration, Medicare, child nutrition, food stamps and more — were nearly as great as those of FDR, and never matched since. Johnson was propelled by a massive movement for civil rights, as Americans moved at the courage and dignity of ordinary heroes willing to stand up or sit down, protest or march, suffer abuse and jail for their rights. He was helped by allies like Dr. Martin Luther King.

In the wake of the assassination of JFK, he had a legacy that he could invoke. But his leadership, passion, energy and skill were indispensable. President Obama invoked one of LBJ’s famed lines: “what the hell is the presidency for if not to fight for causes you believe in?” Acknowledging Johnson’s greatness in our rear view mirror is important in part because it may help our vision looking forward through the windshield. Today, America is more unequal than ever. Our schools are segregated, by race and by class, separate and unequal. We rank second to the lowest among industrial nations in the assistance we provide to the poor. In LBJ’s time, we enjoyed a broad middle class — for many, there were good jobs and good benefits. Now the middle class is sinking; we suffer mass unemployment with the jobs that are being created too often low pay and part time.

The millennial generation is graduating into the worst economic straits since the Great Depression. And across the country, basic rights are under assault. State after state, particularly across the South, are passing measures to suppress voting — limiting voting days, ending Sunday voting, demanding voter ID, stripping the right to vote from nonviolent drug offenders who have served their time, and more. The Supreme Court has weakened the Voting Rights Act and is rolling back affirmative action. Republicans in the Congress want to turn Medicare into a voucher, gut Medicaid and turn it into a block grant, slash food stamps, Pell grants and other support for the vulnerable. A detailed analysis by the Center of Budget and Policy Proposals finds 69 percent of the cuts in the budget just passed by Republicans in the House come from programs from poor and low wage workers.

We do well to honor Lyndon Johnson. He understood the power of government to make America better. But it is not enough to honor his legacy. It is time to stir ourselves, as he pushed himself, to not simply defend his contributions, but to extend them to meet the challenges of our day. 

X