Caught up in the deficit-slashing mood that now grips Washington, the House Foreign Affairs Committee was busy at work this week on restricting foreign aid authorizations. For anyone concerned about the health and welfare of the world's poor, it's not a pretty sight.
The committee this week "marked-up" a State Department authorization bill that, among other things, seeks to cut the U.S. contribution to the U.N. by 25 percent and re-impose the "gag rule" prohibiting U.S. foreign assistance to organizations that advocate for abortion rights.
The committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) that would prohibit the use of any assistance to Argentina, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia for being too sympathetic to the Chavez government in Venezuela. Another, offered by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), would prohibit any foreign assistance to countries that oppose the U.S. more than 50 percent of the time in the U.N. Efforts by Democrats to ensure that there would be adequate funding for the U.N. mission in the South Sudan were quickly brushed aside.
Some might characterize the Committee's assault on foreign aid as "isolationist" or "ideological," but that would be charitable. On their face, these amendments seek to penalize countries and institutions that are not fully in lockstep with the Committee's conservative orthodoxy, but their impact will scarcely be felt, if at all, by the political leaders. The only people who will suffer are the poorest of the poor, who depend on U.N. and U.S. foreign assistance for medicine, food, water, and sanitation.
Almost entirely absent from Wednesday's debate was any discussion of the humanitarian disaster that is sweeping the Horn of Africa, where 10-12 million are on the verge of starvation as the result of one of the worst droughts to ever hit the region. Nor was there any discussion of how rising food prices this year are driving an estimated 44 million people into severe poverty. And hardly a word was said about the tragedies still unfolding in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Cote d'Ivoire. Compassion, even for suffering in our own hemisphere, was just not in evidence, as the Committee rejected efforts to ensure that peacekeeping funding to Haiti would not be curtailed.
With a giant "heat dome' looming over much of the east coast, temperatures in Washington this week are nearing the 100 degree mark. But in the air-conditioned comfort of the Rayburn House Office building, where the mark-up is being held, there doesn't appear to be much concern about global warming. The committee approved an amendment, offered by Rep. Connie Mack, that would block any funds from being spent for the Administration's Global Climate Change Initiative, which helps developing countries devise and implement strategies for adapting to climate change.
Whatever is done by the House of Representatives to rein in foreign assistance, it will make little difference in the efforts to rein in federal deficits; foreign assistance is just a tiny fraction of the federal budget. But even small cuts in U.N. funding or U.S. bilateral assistance can make a big difference in the lives of people struggling to survive in places like South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, Cote d'Ivoire, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Haiti.
The kinds of foreign aid restrictions debated and adopted by the committee are reminiscent of the Cold War era, when the U.S. and its allies were locked into a struggle against communism. But the declared "enemy" then was the Soviet Union; today the great nemesis is Hugo Chavez. Restrictions that may have the practical effect of cutting things like family planning, emergency aid, and refugee assistance are hardly worth of a great power. And curbing funding for the United Nations at a time when it is working alongside the U.S. in places like Iraq and Afghanistan hardly seems a well thought out strategy for those concerned about global security.
What's most disturbing, however, is that in listening to the committee deliberations it's evident that many members simply don't care about the world's poor. They believe that they were sent to Washington to save taxpayer dollars no matter what the cost in terms of lives saved or hardships avoided.
In the next few weeks, Congress may do something to reconcile the government's budget deficit. But it looks as though it will do nothing to address the compassion deficit.
Jarrah Hodge: Canadian Pro-Lifers Take a Page From Tea Party's Book
At this rate by 2020 it will take 19% of the GDP of the entire world to pay our bills, throwing us all into poverty. Stop the wasteful spending, period.
Famine in East Africa with refugees fleeing into Kenya. We are told of difficulties getting food to refugees. Kenya exports large quantities of food to the West.
I have a problem with that. A big problem. The rationale behind Kenya's exports will be success of cash crop exports. Cash for what? To maintain a rich minority in fancy cars and designer consumer goods? To create jobs that do not contribute to the welfare of the Kenyan people but to the fickle taste of the Western middle classes?
Why are Western governments helping such industries to develop? They are disgusting.
If Kenya wants to export food for cash fine. But they cannot then ask for aid for starving people in that region. Kenyans have responsibilities too! THEY SHOULD NOT BE EXPORTING FOOD!!!
But you know what is most wearying? Asking these questions but never receiving answers.
So, I ask again as I have asked elsewhere in recent days:
Does the ''international community'' include the rich of Africa as well as the poor of the West?
That being said I truly do believe that the American people have incredibly charitable hearts and will always give to the very best of their abilities collectively. I know many struggling families that have given even though they themselves are suffering greatly right now.
Frankly, I do not believe in any foreign aid of ANY kind whatsoever. I feel that at best it is inefficient, often used or stolen and sold by tyrants for weapons, etc.
Why not allow all the good private charities do the work? They give more help for less $ than the UN, the USA or any other bureaucracy in the world. Give people the incentive to give. Teach our children how important charity is and how we are morally, as human beings, obligated to help those less fortunate than ourselves. However, legislating it and allowing the federal govt to send billions a year to countries that steal it, waste it and cannot be trusted to actually use it for what it was intended is a real waste.
Remember Blackhawk down?
I can't help. It has nothing to do with compassion - it has to do with economics. All we ever hear about is our eleventy trillion dollar debt. And yet Americans lack compassion when we question enormous expenditures of our money to people overseas? There has always been, and always will be, drought in parts of Africa. It's very sad, but it's not our responsibility to make everything right. Especially when we're not doing such a bang-up job of taking care of people right here.
Also, the poorer and more miserable people are in Latin America the more will immigrate to the USA illegally. Its cheaper to buy a few tents and malaria nets than to build more fences on the border.
So no matter what pathetic story you come up with, we have NO money. I'm all for taxing the rich, but not if that tax money is going to make up paycheck discrepancies in Latin America. And if tents and malaria nets are so cheap, why don't their governments provide them? Why is it our responsibility? Oh wait - it isn't.
It is interesting that the thing that has actually brought the most people out of poverty has been sending jobs overseas (Give a man a fish ...and all that). It means we no longer make many sneakers here in the US but the jobs elsewhere have very effectively raised people from poverty. A lot of the aid money gets syphoned off by bureaucrats but it is hard for them to do the same to shoes.
The typical American voter upon whom the politicans rely do not care about the world's poor. Why then would an elected representative?
And if politicians believe that's why they were sent to Washington, that's because it is by and large true, that IS why they were sent to Washington.
Do not blame freely and democratically elected representatives of the people if they turn out to reflect the mindsets, values, and interests of the people who elect them.
If you really want to find fault, don't be looking at the members of a House committee, be honest and place that fault where it belongs, the American people.
Most people have no understanding of compassion, because empathy is only something they use to look better, or get something they want, so their solution is to demand everyone feel pity.
I don't know about other people, but for me, a preoccupation with the poor as such, especially in someone hailing from a different social class, is usually a dead giveaway for a current, or future dictator.
Anyone with an ax to grind can amass an army of the poor and disaffected, which is why they make such marvelous, expendable tools for 'revolution'. They want to know whose ass to kick about their situation, all someone has to do is give them a name, or a party, and stand back.
Isolationist, yes, I suppose I am leaning that way. I would also call on on representatives to cut all tax deductions to the wealthy who give donations outside the US. We need those donations here - so if they choose to have a charity overseas, let them bear the brunt of it, do not allow the IRS to consider it tax deductible unless it assists Americans.
No sympathy here - the time has come for us to clean up our own home before we worry about the poor and disadvantaged overseas. We have more than enough here in the US to be concerned with than going outside our borders to help.
Mrs. Gates, or anyone, should be free to spend their money as they choose, but they shouldn't be rewarded for it with a tax deduction. At least not here, not now and not in this economy.
Perhaps we should stop "helping" so much with our military.