Rockridge
High School
Taylor Ridge, IL
Teacher: Barb Downey
Too Many
Questions!
By: Sarah Elliott
12th grade
Can our government afford to increase its commitment to foreign aid? President George W. Bush thinks we can with his proposal of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). The objective of this program is to increase foreign aid. By doing this, the United States would have to come up with a means of making more money, such as raising taxes, to fund such a program.
Can we afford this? Is it a step in the right direction? Yes and no. This program is a very good move on Bush’s part, especially with all the recent terrorist threats. It definitely conveys a positive message that our government is finally taking some action and directly trying to help weaker countries. Although the MCA proposal is an instrumental step in the right direction, with all the current economic turmoil in the U.S., we cannot afford to increase the budget for foreign aid at this time.
Currently our nation is slowly moving out of an economic recession. We have to use every spare penny towards our own needy. If we keep the money in our country, it will help strengthen the economy here. Before we start worrying about playing hero to other countries, we should exert our efforts towards our own people.
Not only do we need extra money to help contain poverty, but we also need it in case of war. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, our nation has faced a serious threat of war. As can be concluded from our nation’s history, wars are costly. In post-war America, it takes a long time to restore the nation mentally and physically, not to mention economically. With all these costs, added to the money spent on weapons, our country will go further into debt. Yes, these are facts from the past…and although there is no guarantee that we will go to war, there is still that possibility.
The MCA promises an increase in funds. The program is expected to escalate our development assistance by billions of dollars over the next three budget cycles. That is an immense amount of money. There is probably going to be a cut in financial aid programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. Is it fair to take money away from programs aiding our own people, only to put it in the hands of countries with leaders who might be corrupt and end up using the money against us? No, it is not! We cannot start taking money away from our own (to give to others) with no real assurance it will be used for the common good.
On a positive note, even though I do not think the U.S. can afford the MCA proposal, I think it has a good message. This plan indicates to our people, as well as people of other countries, an initiative to help. With all the terrorism and poverty in the world right now, this is a valid idea. For one thing, it would help poor countries financially. With the development banks providing nearly half the funds to support this in forms of grants rather than loans, maybe these nations will not be so far in debt. If they only have to pay back half of everything they borrow, then they might be able to expand development.
However, there could be a problem with this. Countries might begin to take advantage of the money. If they know they only have to pay back half of what they take, they might keep multiplying their “need”. A good portion of the money is liable to be wasted. Suddenly these countries might be putting the money towards unnecessary things, and not towards what it is supposed to be used for: “govern justly, investing in their people, and encouraging economic freedom”. There should be some sort of limit. If that is not possible, then there should be some way to monitor how the money is being used.
This plan has too many, “I’m not sure…” lines in it. There are questions that do not have a sure answer. Yet, even with these questionable aspects, on the whole, the MCA is a compassionate plan and clearly displays the message, “We want to help”.
There are just too many margins of error in this plan, from the process of getting the money, to deploying it. It seems to fluctuate too much; there are no ‘clear-cut’ rules. We are not sure if the money will have to increase each year, we do not know if it will take much needed money away from our own financial aid programs, and we are not sure if we need to be saving money to possibly go to war. Although the MCA proposal is an instrumental step in the right direction, with all the economic turmoil in the U.S. right now, we cannot afford to increase the budget for foreign aid at this time.
Q1: President Bush claimed that most funds
for development do not come from
International aid.
He mentioned three things that do fund development.
What are they?
A:
Three things that fund development are domestic capital, foreign investment, and
especially, 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?
A:
Development can provide security and the education of illiterate peoples.
Q3:
When is money sometimes counterproductive, according to President Bush?
A:
According to President Bush, money is sometimes counterproductive because it
subsidizes bad policies, delays reform, and crowds out private investment.
Q4:
Describe the Millennium Challenge Account and include your description what is
anticipated form donors and recipients.
A:
The Millennium Challenge Account calls for a new compact for global
development, and defined new accountability for both rich and poor nations
alike. The United States will be
setting an example. Our nation will
increase our development assistance by $5 billion over the next three budget
cycles. This new money is above and
beyond existing aid requests in the current budget President Bush submitted to
congress.
The goal is to provide people in developing nations the tools they need
to seize opportunities of global economy. In
return, we expect nations to adopt the reforms and policies that make
development effective and lasting. MCA
will reward nations who root out corruption.
Q5:
What are the three broad standards that President Bush expects the leaders of
the developing nations to adopt?
A:
The three broad standards are: ruling justly, investing in their people, and
encouraging economic freedom.
Q6:
Describe President Bush’s challenge to development banks and explain why or
why not you favor it.
A:
President Bush is proposing that development banks provide nearly half of
the funds to support poor nations in forms of grants, rather than loans.
His intent is to stop debt.
This is a pretty good plan, because I think it makes the countries feel
poorer when they have a lot of loans to pay back.
Plus with all the interest, it really adds up.
So, by them only having to pay back half of what they borrow, it will
give them more money to support and develop other programs for aid.
In addition, the more nations that take part in this program, the better.
There is one thing, however, I think they need to put in place along with
this idea. There needs to be some
sort of tracking system. We need to
make sure that the money is being used for the right reasons.
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.
A:
I would guess that about twelve percent of our GNP was committed to foreign
aid in 2002.
The United States government commits one-tenth the total of the national
budget, and additional cuts are expected to help the U.S. with other
international concerns.
Q8:
Describe and defend a “Me First” attitude.
A:
I think President Bush has a good reason to propose this plan, especially
with all the terrorism issues going on in the world at this time. However, it seems like he didn’t give it a lot of thought
and just threw it out there to supposedly please the other nations.
I believe they need our help and support, but let’s face it, our own
nation is in dire need of finances.
There is so much poverty in the U.S. that it is nearly possible to
imagine. I think that we should get
our country on the right path before we worry about trying to rescue other
countries. We should widen the
purse on financial aid programs to reduce poverty in big cities.
Q9:
Describe and defend a “Mutual Benefit” attitude.
A:
Why not split the money between the two countries?
That would please everyone, right? Yes,
I think so. We could be helping
poor countries to get back on their feet, while at the same time, helping our
own nation. There is so much to be
done here, but we also need to remember the less fortunate.
Our country has the most freedom and wealth.
Everyone else looks up to
us, so if we start helping the poor countries, maybe others will follow us by
example.
Q10:
Describe three unsuccessful foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government
or private American citizens.
A:
1) The International Fund for Animal Welfare seeks to improve the
welfare of wild and domestic animals throughout the world.
It also wants to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to
promote animal welfare policies that advances the well being of both animals and
people. This program is
unsuccessful, because it was not in accordance with the CBBB Standards for
Charitable Solicitations. The
earnings pronounced by the charity were not enough to cover its expenses.
There was not enough money to be used for the program.
2) The purpose of the Society of Missionaries of Africa is
to remain faithful to their call to share life and mission of Jesus, and to give
witness to the gospel, in Africa and among the Africans wherever they may be.
There was too much money spent on materials and supplies.
This program proved unsuccessful because it did not escalate enough money
to make a good amount by the end of the year.
3) Refugees International, generates humanitarian
assistance and protection for displaced people around the world, and works to
end the conditions that create displacement.
This program only made just over what it paid to put the program in
effect. Since there was hardly any profit to finance this program, it
too proved unsuccessful. The need
for money was too great and their goal was not reached.
Q11: Describe three successful
foreign aid programs operated by the U.S. government or private American
citizens.
A:
1) Pedals for Progress is a foundation that has been up and running
for eleven years. This program is a
means of providing affordable transportation for the less fortunate overseas.
It saves bikes that others might not want anymore, and reconditions them
to make them usable again. Then,
they send them overseas to be sold at low prices, which the people can easily
afford. Over the last eleven years, this program has supplied 62,016
bikes.
2) The objectives of Prosperous Africa is to improve
the environment, strengthen capabilities of village levels of government,
promote new economic activities to low-income residents, help to advance
production of goods, and finally, to establish programs promoting health
awareness and training, and other specific studies.
It is a national and international organization.
The main goal of this program seeks to reduce disease through waste
prevention and recycling.
3) The Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) is
an international program committed to improving poverty and forming better diets
for under privileged countries, through research, development, and training.
The institute provides different methods of vegetable production,
marketing, and distribution. Furthermore, all this indicates to the people that there is a
need to keep the environment healthy.
Q12:
Steve Radelet, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development believes we
can do both—take care of our own people and lend a helping hand to citizens of
less developed countries. Explain
why you think we can or cannot offer aid to both.
A:
I think we can offer aid to both, but I do not agree with Bush’s MCA
proposal. We have so much; we
should certainly be able to help other countries out.
The only exception would be if we went to war.
It would be kind of hard to support other countries, when we need all the
money we have to use towards weapons and food.
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 US foreign assistance.”?
A:
I agree with Mr. Radelet’s statement.
I think he has the right idea. If
each country wrote these proposals, it would give our government a clear picture
of what our money will be financing. In
this way, we will be letting them set their own goals.
It will be a lot easier for them to achieve their own goals, then the
ones we have set for them. Also, it
would let them focus on what they really need, and not so much what we
‘think’ they need
Q14:
Whish of Mr. Radelet’s three concerns regarding the MCA concerns you and why?
1.
As more countries in this income range become eligible, there will be
fewer MCA funds available for
the poorest countries that are implementing sound development strategies.
2.
The make-or-break requirement may unnecessarily eliminate some countries.
3.
The separation of US foreign assistance into two agencies could lead to a
lack of coordination and overlapping functions.
A:
Mr. Radelet’s comment on the ‘make-or-break’ requirement concerns me
the most, because it is not sound. If
we are going to try to help these countries we need to make sure it is
completely fair. With an expected
margin of error like that, there are countries that will be cast aside.
The countries that need it most might not make it because of one
thing/criteria. Who are we to judge
who we think has the most need? The
cut-off is too strict, what if we are wrong?
Q15:
There is evidence of an increase in negative world opinion towards 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
destruction (WMD). Please comment.
A:
I think we should focus on WMA, because it would help people. Peace with other countries is our ongoing goal.
We want to offer aid, isn’t that what this whole proposal is about?
Why would we want to threaten to destroy them?
That would just trigger more hate towards our country.
Q16:
What does the World Bank recommend as the United State’s “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.
A:
They propose that the United State’s share of this amount would be an
additional ten to fifteen billion annually for these programs. I think this could be reached in a longer time period.
That is quite an increase for a yearly goal, especially considering that
our country is slowly moving out of economic recession.
We need to worry about our own poor.
How does our government expect to get that much money to help with a
program not concerning our people? The
citizens of the U.S. might become angry and cause even more problems.
Has the government anticipated that?
Q17:
What do you think about the request of Faith Action for 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 NGOs and
grassroots organizations.”?
A:
I think it is a bad idea. If
this money is available to all these different types of organizations, the money
is bound to run out. These
organizations will just keep asking for more and more money.
Once they know they can ask for this money, there will be no end to their
demand.
Q18:
How many countries would be affected positively by health-related investments
according to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH)?
A:
There would be 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?
A:
Three hundred and sixty billion dollars would be gained annually.
Q20:
Use the Internet for your research and name two congressmen who introduced H.R.
4524. Give a 2-line synopsis of
that bill.
A:
The two congressmen that introduced this bill were Mr. Chris Smith
(Republican, NJ) and Mr. John Lafalce (Democrat, NY).
The objective of this bill is to help poor countries that are in debt, to increase their resource availability for the development of their people. Furthermore, this plan will serve as a means of reducing poverty, and other related purposes.