A prominent Obama Adminstration official warns that without a 22% increase in funding to USAID, 70,000 children will die. As reported in FoxNews.com, “USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah told the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee on Wednesday that the budget plan, which would cut $61 billion in federal spending, would lead to the deaths of 30,000 kids in a malaria control program that would have to be scaled back, 24,000 from a lack of immunizations and 16,000 from a lack of skilled attendants at birth.”
For those of us who do not entirely understand the mission of USAID, here’s a short bit of information from the USAID website. “USAID plays a vital role in promoting U.S. national security, foreign policy, and the War on Terrorism. It does so by addressing poverty fueled by lack of economic opportunity, one of the root causes of violence today. As stated in the President’s National Security Strategy, USAID’s work in development joins diplomacy and defense as one of three key pieces of the nation’s foreign policy apparatus.” It states further, “These efforts to improve the lives of millions of people worldwide represent U.S. values and advance U.S. interests for peace and prosperity.”
OK. Here’s that “advance US interests” thing again. The US taxpayers are funding assistance to people in 100 developing countries, in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Near East, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and Eurasia – all for a measly $48,800,000,000! Not a lot of money when you consider the excessive government spending in most other US agencies. And all they want at USAID is: just 22% more. Is that too much to ask?
Perhaps though, you weren’t asked. Maybe nobody living in the lavish royal castle known as the White House ever bothered to find out whether you wanted to fund an additional 22% for USAID to people in other countries that probably don’t even like the US. In fact, maybe after giving some thought to it, you might vote to defund the agency all together.
Consider this. According to The American, “In 2006, Americans gave about $295 billion to charity. This was up 4.2 percent over 2005 levels, and charitable giving has generally risen faster than the growth of the American economy for more than half a century.” Even if only half ($147.5 billion) of that made it out of the US, it’s still nearly 3 times the $48 billion spent by USAID.
But who is doing the giving? ABC News on-line reports, “Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.” ABC on-line continues, “Arthur Brooks, the author of “Who Really Cares,” says, the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.”
And Brooks states, “”You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away…” Brooks says. “In fact, people who disagree with the statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.”
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah’s statement that 70,000 children who will die if USAID funding is not increased by 22% becomes more unbelievable in context with simple facts. USAID contributes just 16.2% of the amount US taxpayers kick in for charity.
It looks like the US could cut USAID funding altogether which is more radical than the GOP request to keep funding at its current level. Think about it, cut $68 billion here and $68 billion dollars there… But you see, the US federal government uses your money for different reasons than you do. You give from a charitable heart while your government has… well… different ideas on the purpose of this “charity” extended to other countries. Like maybe regime change, global influence peddling, or just plain meddling.
And back to the subject of saving the lives of innocent children; perhaps USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah could weigh-in on the US promoted policy of abortion – a genocide on innocent children that has killed far more than the hypothetical 70,000 children Mr. Shah references. CNN reported in 2009, that Mr. Obama, “President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.” With that Presidential action, US taxpayers became complicit in funding abortions in foreign countries that accept US aid.
Mr. Shah, you may want to come up with another rationale for your request for a 22% increase on top of your current $48 billion budget. Here are some ideas you could use to persuade recalcitrant piggy Senators and CongressThugs:
- Your agency is knee deep in bribing foreign officials and loss of funding puts the global elitists in a bind. This may cause set-backs for globalists seeking world domination leading to less funding for needy politicians.
- Lack of ability to meddle in the affairs of other countries makes it more difficult to sneak spies into other countries which could compromise US “interests” abroad.
- 22% more funding permits you to add a whole bunch of new US federal government workers, and we know that adding to government payrolls stimulates the economy – doesn’t it? It doesn’t?
USAID is one more agency that should be eliminated. Let’s not stop here. EPA, Department of Energy, HHS, Department of Education… hey, here’s a link to all US Agencies. Go there yourself and see if you think America really needs this much Federal Government.