Report Calls For 'Selective' Foreign Aid, But Falls Short of Taxpayer-Minded Critical Analysis
A new report analyzing U.S. foreign aid intelligently exhorts policymakers to "make economic and security assistance more selective." At the same time, this in-depth analysis strategically places a guilt-trip on Americans for failing to know the exact percentage of the foreign-assistance portion of the federal budget, an oft-repeated maneuver apologists regularly leverage to keep such expenditures high.
Still, the Monitor questions the Center for American Progress and Center for Global Analysis joint report for taking the oft-repeated "Foreign aid represents less than 1% of the federal budget, so what's the big deal?" approach to framing the terms of this critical debate.
The sort of federal programs typically exposed via the Monitor reveal that significantly greater scrutiny of foreign aid is required in order to appease U.S. taxpayers -- programs that either are obscene in their disregard for fiscal responsibility or else are simply enrichment mechanisms for U.S. industry and the former government employees who now work in the private sector and directly benefit from contractual largess.
It's time to look beyond just the numbers and instead focus on the politics of foreign aid -- focusing on who is getting what, why are they getting it, and how are such programs truly benefiting the people who pay for them.
It's time to stop making it sound like USAID, USTDA, and others are simply benefactors of U.S. generosity and "values."
It's time for concerned citizens to draw the line -- and for elected officials to take taxpayer concerns more seriously and much sooner.
-- Steve Peacock, founder and investigative reporter, U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor.
Report Calls For 'Selective' Foreign Aid, But Falls Short of Taxpayer-Minded Critical Analysis
A new report analyzing U.S. foreign aid intelligently exhorts policymakers to "make economic and security assistance more selective." At the same time, this in-depth analysis strategically places a guilt-trip on Americans for failing to know the exact percentage of the foreign-assistance portion of the federal budget, an oft-repeated maneuver apologists regularly leverage to keep such expenditures high.
U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor nonetheless cautiously lauds the authors of the report -- "Engagement Amid Austerity: A Bipartisan Approach to Reorienting the International Affairs Budget" -- for advocating greater discernment in doling out precious taxpayer dollars around the globe as a means of achieving U.S. policy objectives.
Still, the Monitor questions the Center for American Progress and Center for Global Analysis joint report for taking the oft-repeated "Foreign aid represents less than 1% of the federal budget, so what's the big deal?" approach to framing the terms of this critical debate.
The sort of federal programs typically exposed via the Monitor reveal that significantly greater scrutiny of foreign aid is required in order to appease U.S. taxpayers -- programs that either are obscene in their disregard for fiscal responsibility or else are simply enrichment mechanisms for U.S. industry and the former government employees who now work in the private sector and directly benefit from contractual largess.
It's time to look beyond just the numbers and instead focus on the politics of foreign aid -- focusing on who is getting what, why are they getting it, and how are such programs truly benefiting the people who pay for them.
It's time to stop making it sound like USAID, USTDA, and others are simply benefactors of U.S. generosity and "values."
It's time for concerned citizens to draw the line -- and for elected officials to take taxpayer concerns more seriously and much sooner.
-- Steve Peacock, founder and investigative reporter, U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor.
The comments to this entry are closed.