I’ve previously written that I’ve been in RESULTS for most of the last 20 years. I began my volunteering in 1990, left around 1992 or 1993, rejoined in 1996 and have been a volunteer continuously since then. That means that I’ve lobbied Congress and the Administration to support foreign development under Republican presidents, Democrat presidents, Democrat led Congresses, Republican led Congresses, and just every combination of those two.
I think that history gives me a good perspective and experience to write that there has never been an easy time to get the federal government to fund international development programs. Surprisingly, RESULTS had some of its biggest successes in getting additional funding for development programs under President George H. Bush and the Republican led Congress during the early and mid 2000s.
Now that I and other RESULTS volunteers are lobbying Congress and the President to fund particular development programs, we again hear there’s no money for these programs. That’s just not true. There is enough money, there’s just not the political will.
According to figures from the White House Office of Management and Budget as quoted by the Heritage Foundation, the federal government is expected to have revenue of $2.15 trillion dollars. Put another way, that’s $2,150,000,000,000. Now, I understand that roughly two-third of those dollars are already committed to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, debt payments, etc., but that still leaves about $717,000,000,000 for discretionary spending. Even so, that $717 billion is not enough to fund all the programs Congress wants to fund, so the federal government has to borrow money.
Some will say the fact that the federal government has to borrow money proves there’s too much federal spending. Others say the federal government has insufficient revenue. Still others say the federal government has both problems: too much spending and too little revenue. The one thing that is clear to me, however, is that the federal government does have money. A lot of money.
I’ve often heard budgets are moral documents. The amount of money appropriated for each program indicates the relative value of that program. I’m beginning to wonder if that’s really true. “Relative value” is doubly subjective. It implies that the value of a program is known and that the values of all the programs being considered are weighed against each other and then ranked in terms of priority. Given the number and complexity of government programs, the interests defending each program, the relative turn-over in Congress as newer, less knowledgeable politicians replace older, more experienced politicians, I’m afraid that it’s not the relative value of each program that determines its funding level, it’s the ability of lobbyists and the depth of funding from their backers that determines program funding.
Here’s an interesting fact: The national deficit now matches or exceeds our entire national GDP. This means that our entire worth as a nation (approximately $15 trillion) has been consumed by our debt (approximately $15 trillion). Now, some will argue over the difference between “debt” and “deficit”, which to me is just a red herring. The point is we are in deep financial trouble as a nation. Our economy is in the tank with no relief in sight, families continue to be evicted from their homes due to mortgages they can no longer afford, and more people are applying for unemployment benefits at records numbers. Yes, “there’s no money.” Sure, we can just print more, but with every billion that comes off the presses, the U.S. dollar is devalued even further. So, our money becomes even more worthless, and then we have to print more. As this irresponsible cycle continues, Americans are going to wake up one morning to find that the cost of a loaf of bread has tripled, because the buying power of the dollar has lost 66% of its value. Yes, “there’s no money”.
I don’t understand what it is that liberals don’t understand about “no more money.” We need to fix our own economy, rebuild our infrastructure, and put people back to work before we concern ourselves with the economic woes of other countries and the distribution of more foreign aid.
But, here’s a major reason why more politicians are listening to more angry Americans demanding that foreign aid programs be placed on hold. Billions of dollars of taxpayer monies (taxes) in the form of foreign aid has been graciously given to Palestinians to help their causes. Then I turned on the TV to see tens of thousands of Palestinians wildly cheering at the burning of American flags while chanting “down with America.” And the question arises from taxpayers all across our land: Why are we supporting people who hate our guts!
Now, I support RESULTS because they allot small loans to impoverished individuals and families around the world for improving their lives. But foreign aid programs in general must be seriously re-evaluated; aid to those who hate us should not be considered. As a social psychologist I can tell you that an appropriate analogy would be little Johnny giving his weekly allowance to bully Jason in the hope that Jason would find favor with Johnny. What little Johnny fails to realize is that a bully is a bully! And it won’t be long before Jason demands more “protection” money from Johnny.
Wise up, America! You can’t placate a nation that not only despises us, but ingrains the same hatred in their children … no matter how much foreign aid is given.