Right
now the United States national debt is $6,416,720,702,307.35 and rising at a
rate of $1.3 billion a day! This is
a huge problem and it should be corrected before it becomes worse.
Giving money away when the U.S. is in so much debt is not good policy.
So, increasing the amount of money the U.S. gives away is an even poorer
idea. The United States can’t afford to increase foreign aid at
this time because of its debt; however, the Millennium Challenge Account is a
good plan because it holds recipient countries accountable for the use of the
money.
Supporters
of increasing foreign aid believe that it will promote world peace and improve
the lives of millions. Others argue
that .11% of the budget is way too low and that the United States should follow
the Millennium Challenge Account word for word and raise foreign aid to sixty
billion. Helping underdeveloped
countries with their problems will make the United States look good to the rest
of the world. Increasing foreign
aid will set an example to all the other rich countries out there to follow
along. If the United States is
going to be a leader in the next millennium then it needs to start now. By helping countries in need, the U.S. will gain more friends
and in turn benefit from those new friends.
With new trade partners, the United States’ economy will improve along
with those developing countries as well. Giving
to these countries is like investing in them; America will profit from these
investments.
Increasing
foreign aid is a step in the wrong direction for America.
If the U.S. is to reduce its debt, then it must stop giving money away.
The U.S. is already the world’s largest donor to developing nations.
Some people say that the .11% of the budget that the U.S. government
gives to foreign aid is not that much money.
That .11% is equal to around fourteen billion dollars.
If the sum of all the foreign aid is added up over the past twenty-five
years, it is roughly 130 to 200 billion dollars worth.
The .11% is sufficient enough to support countries as long as it is used
right. An increase of sixty billion
dollars to foreign aid is not a good idea.
The American people can pay for this increase in different two ways.
One, they could just add it on to the national debt.
Or two, taxes can be raised on a population that already has to give
34.2% of their income to the government. The
U.S. needs foreign aid programs that will check on where the money is going and
if it’s being used right.
The
MCA system of holding recipient countries accountable for the money they’re
given is a great plan. However,
many downsides exist when giving money to even responsible and accountable
countries. These countries, in the
long run, will become dependent on foreign aid, losing self-respect and
self-reliance by becoming a beggar country.
Some supporters of increasing foreign aid believe that by doing this, the
U.S. will gain more friends and from this there will be more peace in the world.
This is a nice thought, but it hasn’t worked yet.
The U.S. has been giving foreign aid to over 150 different countries for
the last fifty years. America still
has many critics and enemies despite all the humanitarian efforts.
Those in favor of increasing foreign aid make a case that by investing in
other countries; this will eventually help the U.S.
On the contrary, foreign give-away programs can raise the living
standards of other countries by lowering the living standards of the American
people compared with what they could be. Just
think of what that $200 billion could have done to better American homes,
hospitals, schools, and universities. The
money that American’s invest in underdeveloped countries may or may not get
back to the average worker. Giving
that foreign aid to those areas in need and then getting it back with trade will
never compare to the amount of money that the U.S. could have directly given to
the American people.
With
the United States’ huge debt it doesn’t look like it can increase foreign
aid at this time. However, by
reforming the United States’ current foreign aid programs, America can still
make a difference in the world. The
American people are giving enough; it just has to be used wisely to be
affective. By changing the current
foreign aid programs to the MCA criteria, the U.S. can help countries in need.
The only investments that will mature are those investments that are
sound. This decision on whether to
increase foreign aid is an important one that should not be taken lightly.
It’s clear though that the U.S. can’t afford it and should manage its
money better instead of just throwing it at problems.
Q1-
President Bush claimed that most funds development do not come from
international aid. He mentions three things that do fund development. What are they?
A1-
They come from domestic capital, foreign investment, and especially from
trade.
Q2-
President Bush reminded his audience that successful development in a
third world country requires more than funds.
What two items did he mention in this regard?
A2-
Development also depends on security; there can be no development in an
atmosphere of chaos and violence. Successful
development requires citizens who are literate, who are healthy, and prepared
and able to work.
Q3-
When is money sometimes counterproductive, according to President Bush?
A3-
When nations refuse to enact sound policies, progress against poverty is
nearly impossible. In these
situations, more aid money can actually be counterproductive, because it
subsidizes bad policies, delays reform, and crowds out private investment.
Q4-
Describe the Millennium Challenge Account and include in your description
what is anticipated from donors and recipients?
A4-
This account is set up to see that developed nations give greater
contributions and developing nations become more responsible.
The donors are promised that the money that they give will be used
responsibly to better the lives of the people in countries with incomes below
$1,435. The recipients will get more money from the donors; but they
must use it for the specified objectives or have it taken away.
Q5-
What are the three broad standards that President Bush expects the
leaders of the developing nations to adopt?
A5-
He expects them to govern justly, invest in people, and encourage
economic freedom.
Q6-
Describe President Bush’s challenge to development banks and explain
why or why not you favor it?
A6-
Bush challenges the development banks to provide up to half of the funds
devoted to poor nations in the form of grants, rather than loans.
This is a good idea as long as it doesn’t drive the banks into debt. Private donations towards the right cause are what really
make a difference.
Q7-
What percentage of our national income (GNP) do you think the
United States government committed to foreign aid in 2002?
First answer this question and then use the Internet to find the
answer?
A7-
I think that the United States committed .1 % to foreign aid in 2002.
The real answer is .11 % according to www.globalissues.org.
Q8-
Describe and defend a “Me First” attitude?
A8-
The U.S. increasing foreign aid is a bad idea.
The U.S. has it’s own problems to worry about instead of getting
involved in places they shouldn’t be. The
U.S. has over a six trillion dollar debt and now it’s going to increase the
amount of money they’re giving away. The
countries that the U.S. give money to, hate the U.S. anyway, so why should they
continue to give them money? The
U.S. could put that money to a very good use here in the U.S. instead of off in
some other country.
Q9-
Describe and defend a “Mutual Benefit” attitude?
A9-
The U.S. increasing foreign aid is a good idea.
By giving more money to poor countries that need it the U.S. helps
starving, uneducated, jobless people. The
money will make their lives better because countries will be able to get their
economy going. With the Millennium
Challenge Account the money is sure to go to the right people for the right
cause.
Q10-
Describe three unsuccessful
foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government or private American
Citizens?
A10-
The Agency for International Development (AID) has routinely failed to benefit
the foreign poor in agriculture, economic planning, and food assistance.
The Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
guarantees that poor countries are able to buy food.
They lend them money to do this but it’s never paid back.
The money is not always used for food either.
Q11-
Describe three successful
foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government or private American
citizens?
A11-
The Red Cross has provided medical aid and aid in other forms to countries in
need very successfully. The Peace
Corp has sent people to help with problems instead of money; which is a very
good idea because then the job gets down right.
Finally, the Salvation Army has helped with natural disaster victims and
other forms of aid successfully as well.
Q12-
Steve Radelet, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development, believes we
can do both; take care of our people and lend a helping hand to citizens of less
developed countries. Explain why you think we can or cannot offer aid to both?
A12-
First of all, both welfare programs are failing miserably and need reform.
The money that we give to people in our own country and others are not
used for what it should be being used for.
Both recipients have become dependant on these handouts and are satisfied
with not changing their lives. The
U.S. has a huge debt that it is doing nothing about; by giving money away that
isn’t being used right anyways is just stupid.
Q13-
What do you think about Mr. Radelet’s assertion that “the administration is
leaning towards a system in which eligible countries would write proposals (or
business plans) describing their objectives and strategy, how they would use the
money, the benchmarks used for evaluation.
Giving recipient countries this responsibility is a revolutionary change
in U.S. foreign assistance.”?
A13-
I agree that it is a revolutionary change and that it should of happened a long
time ago. The U.S. has wasted
billions of dollars by just throwing money at foreign problems instead of
dealing with them properly. Instead
of increasing our foreign aid with this new program, the U.S. should change all
of the existing foreign aid programs to this type of accountability strategy.
Q14-
Which of Mr. Radelet’s three concerns regarding the MCA concerns you and why?
A14-
3. The separation of U.S. foreign
assistance in to two agencies could lead to a lack of coordination and
overlapping functions. This one
concerns me the most because the money it takes to run two different agencies
will take away from the people that are trying to be helped.
Funding will be eaten up by two unnecessary administrations that would be
doing the same job.
Q15-
There is evidence of an increase in negative world opinion towards the U.S.
foreign policy, not necessarily the American people.
To counter this negative perception of the U.S. some people want the U.S.
to concentrate more on weapons of mass assistance (WMA) and less on weapons of
mass destruction (WMD). Please Comment.
A15-
The world’s opinion of the U.S. doesn’t really matter.
There are always going to be people who don’t agree with something the
U.S. does. Bribing people with
money so that they will like us won’t work.
It hasn’t worked for the past fifty years (the amount of time the U.S.
government has given foreign aid) and it will never totally work either.
Q16-
What does the World Bank recommend as the United States’ “just and
appropriate share” to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015?
Do you think our citizens can afford that kind of increase?
Defend your views.
A16-
The World Bank wants the U.S. to reach between $40 and $60 billion a year by
2015. There are two ways that the
U.S. can go about paying for this. One,
they can raise taxes; this is a bad idea because of the already huge amount that
the U.S. government takes from the American people. Second, they can just add to the ever-increasing debt of over
six trillion dollars that the U.S. has. In
conclusion, I don’t think that the World Bank has neither the authority nor
the power to tell the strongest country in the world what to do with their own
money.
Q17-
What do you think about the request of Faith Action People Centered Development
Policy’s request that tax dollars be used to fund, not only
government-sponsored foreign aid programs, but “that funds also go to NGO’s
and grassroots organizations.”?
A17-
If these programs have been proven successful in the past then I think diverting
tax dollars that already are used for foreign aid would be a good idea.
Usually faith based programs handle money much better than government
programs do because they don’t use the money to pay their administration.
Q18-
How many countries would be affected positively by health-related investments
according to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH)?
A18-
It would have a positive effect on economic growth and equity in 83 countries.
Q19-
According to the CMH, how much would be gained annually between 2015-2020 due to
saved lives and increased economic growth, if an increased investment were made
in global AIDS and other health services?
A19-
They found that $360 billion would be gained annually due to lives saved and
increased economic growth.
Q20-
Use the Internet for your research and name the two congressmen who introduced
H.R. 4524. Give a two-line synopsis
of that bill.
A20-
Reps. Christopher Smith and John LaFalce first introduced it.
This bill is meant to help relieve AIDS and dept in Africa.
It has been stuck in Congress though for the past few years waiting to be
passed.
Works
Cited
“Chapter
31: Foreign Investment vs. Foreign Aid.” 1993: 12 pg. The Henry Hazlitt
Foundation. 1/6/03 www.hazlitt.org
Hall,
Ed. “U.S. National Debt Clock FAQ.” August 30, 1999: 5 pg. Hall, Ed. 1/6/03 www.brillig.com
Back