A couple days ago my local paper, the Contra Costa Times, telephoned to ask if the letter to the editor submission bearing my name was really submitted by me and if I authorized its publication. I excitedly said I did and do. Whenever my local paper calls to ask those questions, it’s a good bet they’re considering it for publication. I’ve learned not to get my hopes up too much after receiving a call. Sometimes even after such a call, a letter won’t get published. Sometimes it may take several weeks for it to appear in print. This time it took two days. Not only did it get published, it was the lead letter of today’s letter section. I’m very excited. It’s headlined as “Education aid”.
The letter was initially drafted in the monthly letter writing meeting my RESULTS group had last week. So far, of the four letters written that night, only mine has gotten published. I’m keeping my fingers crossed more do.
In my previous post I wrote about trying to get my Congressman, Representative George Miller, to sign onto a letter being circulated by Rep. Jan Schakowsky. The letter is addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and urges her to announce a pledge of $375 million to the Global Partnership for Education at its upcoming replenishment conference. Unfortunately, despite several e-mails and phone calls, Rep. Miller did not sign onto the letter. That’s a big disappointment. I’m hoping he will use his influence behind the scenes to support international education, but if he does, I doubt I’ll hear about it.
That’s often the case with activism, at least with activism as practiced by most RESULTS volunteers. We advocate for federal funding of national and international anti-poverty programs. But what happens in the office chambers, hallways, and elevators of Congress is often not leaked out. We in RESULTS can point to significantly increased funding for the programs we support (and for the international programs, RESULTS is often the primary and sometimes the only citizens group advocating for a particular program), but we can rarely point to a specific person’s or even group’s efforts as being key to moving a policy decision or funding level forward.
For the global groups especially, we activists almost never directly see the on-the-ground effects of our work. I know I’ve helped many, many people around the world by my advocacy. But I only know that through the stories I hear from others, never through the people I’ve seen. I suppose I should give up a scuba diving vacation to some tropical location and instead use the money to visit a few sub-Saharan villages and see education, health, and microfinance programs funded by USAID. I should talk to villagers who’ve been helped by such programs and to villagers who haven’t because the programs aren’t funded to the level of need. I know it would make me a more powerful activist, but I’d hate to give up the diving. There’s something magical about being 30 to 60 feet underwater and seeing marine life in its natural habitat. But I digress.
Besides seeing my letter published this morning I learned that 62 House Democrats have signed onto the Rep. Schakowsky letter and zero Republicans have. RESULTS strives to be bipartisan and I know RESULTS groups in cities throughout the U.S. have asked their congressional representatives to sign onto the Rep. Schakowsky letter. In the past, I would have understood Republican reluctance to support the GPE. Until the last several months, RESULTS itself did not support the GPE, or as it was previously known, the Fast Track Initiative.
Last year, RESULTS was championing the Education For All Act of 2010 and advocating for the creation of an international “global fund for education” that would operate with the same kind of transparency, accountability, and effectiveness as the successful Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Over the last year under the leadership of Carol Ballamy, however, the GPE has reformed itself and adopted many of the characteristics of the Global Fund. Consequently, RESULTS is now supporting the GPE and is seeking to shift taxpayer money from underperforming bilateral aid programs to the better run GPE.
The U.S. has never given funding to the GPE or FTI. Perhaps that is one reason why no Republicans have signed onto the Rep. Schakowsky letter. Another reason is the philosophical belief that the U.S. government should not fund the educational efforts of other nations. Why should taxpayer money be spent helping poor countries educate their children? Especially, during this time of economic hardship and huge national debt, many Republicans say we should conserve taxpayer money and free it up to be spent on education efforts at the local and state level.
It’s a sensible argument, if you only look at the surface. But it’s not really an argument. It’s an excuse. That same” argument” could be used to support eliminating funding for any unwanted program.
The one area that Republicans stalwartly defend is national defense and claim its preeminence based on the U.S. Constitution. But the Constitution also says“…Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States….”
Investing in the education of children here in the U.S. and assisting other countries to invest in the education of their own children is necessary for the both the “common defense” and “general welfare” of the United States.