Posted on 07/19/2004 9:20:17 AM PDT by jmc813
The Millennium Challenge Act, a new foreign aid scheme I wrote about back in May, received its hoped-for $2.5 billion from Congress last week. Only 41 members of Congress supported an effort to strip the funding, demonstrating once again that the two parties are not serious about reducing federal spending. Considering all the rhetoric in Washington about runaway spending, one would think a new foreign welfare program would be among the easiest things to cut politically.
Since American foreign aid programs began in earnest decades ago, tens of billions of US tax dollars have been given to nations around the globe. The utter failure of this money to change things for the better in those nations is no longer in question; even the most earnest liberals are beginning to admit the obvious. Most of the recipient nations remain endlessly mired in poverty, political and legal corruption, and cultural malaise.
A rational person would argue that failed aid programs should be eliminated. In Washington, however, failed programs get more money thrown at them.
The Millennium Challenge Act is designed to appease fiscal conservatives and defense hawks by appearing to single out friendly, well-behaved nations for aid payments, ostensibly creating a carrot-and-stick approach. But the Act merely puts a shiny new label on the same old failed policy of trying to remake the world using welfare. Welfare has never worked at home and it’s never worked abroad, no matter what “incentives” Congress tries to attach.
The proponents of the Millennium Challenge Act tell us this time it will be different. If only we condition foreign aid money on the adoption of certain policies, the recipient nations will clean up their acts. Market economies and democratic political reforms surely will follow, if only American taxpayers provide a little seed money.
Does anyone actually believe this? It is beyond presumptuous to think Congress can change the politics, economies, and cultures of foreign nations. It is simply preposterous to imagine that foreign aid will be cut off once given, no matter what a nation does or fails to do. After all, we’ve been giving billions to some of our worst enemies for decades. Once a federal program begins, it becomes permanent. Mark my words, the Millennium Challenge Act budget will grow in future years.
The question nobody in Washington wants to answer is this: What gives the Congress the right to send American tax dollars overseas in the first place? Certainly not the Constitution. Why should American taxpayers, many of whom are poor themselves, be expected to fund foreign welfare? Remember that the poorest Americans are hardest hit by the inflation tax, which is the direct result of deficit spending and the printing of new money to service federal debts.
Congress hardly needs to concoct another way to spend money. Government debt already exceeds seven trillion dollars, and runaway spending will force yet another increase in the federal debt ceiling law before the end of the year. At its current pace, Congress soon will create single-year deficits of one trillion dollars. Combine this indebtedness with future liabilities- in the form of exploding Social Security and Medicare obligations- and it’s clear that Congress can find better things to do with $2.5 billion than send it overseas.
My very modest proposal is this: eliminate the Millennium Challenge Act, apply half the money to the national debt, and spend the rest domestically if Congress simply can’t bear to give it back to taxpayers. Even the worst domestic program is better than useless and meddlesome foreign aid.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Since Ron Paul wrote it a goodly number here will tell you how wrong he is. After all, he isn't GOP.
Then they will complain about taxation.
Big fat BUMP
Logical consistancy is not a hallmark for the majority of either party.
Dr. Paul is as usual, absolutely correct.
Dr. Paul is my hero, and my choice for President in 2004.
Let's make it 2008 and you got a deal.
"What gives the Congress the right to send American tax dollars overseas in the first place? Certainly not the Constitution. Why should American taxpayers, many of whom are poor themselves, be expected to fund foreign welfare? Remember that the poorest Americans are hardest hit by the inflation tax, which is the direct result of deficit spending and the printing of new money to service federal debts."
Dr. Paul is as usual, absolutely correct.
Dr. Paul is my hero, and my choice for President in 2004.
_WhiteGuy____________________________________________________
We absolutely cannot keep going in the direction we are as a country (at least and remain a country we recongnize). The payment on the debt load combined with inflation combined with the wages, immigration, SS (boomers and mexican), the younger generation here and its children are in for a real battle. Not to mention the foreign problems brewing including China. I would love for someone willing to standup, stop the gravey train and speak to what we are really facing to stand up.
Yes.
Discouraging isn't it.
Good Tagline...............................
(Nice picture of you too............)
BTTT
Thanks. Galt's Gulch has really gone to hell, hasn't it?
A number of years ago I shared a taxi with Francis Schaeffer...during our cab ride I asked Dr. Schaeffer , "What is your greatest concern for the future of America? Without hesitation or interval given to pondering the question, Schaeffer replied simply, "Statism."
What did Schaeffer mean? What was at the heart of his concern? To answer these question, we need clear understanding of statism. Our understanding of the term is often obfuscated by a tendency tho think of statism as a phenomenon that only exists in autocratic totalitarian, governments. We tend to associate it with dictatorships not with democracies.
Statism involves a philosophy of government by which the state, or government, is viewed not only as the final ruling authority but the ultimate agency of redemption. In this sense the state does not simply coexist with the church. It supplants the church....the government is seen as autonomous. People look to the state,not to God, for salvation. That Marx consciously developed such a view is well documented.
The classical safeguard against autonomous government is th concept of law, which is usually embodied in some form of constitution....
Herin lies the essential difference between a republic and a democracy... In a pure democracy, the ultimate authority rests with the will of the people. In a republic, the authority rests with the law. the classic formula for a republic is the Rule by Law, not rule by men.
Democratic statism lives by the myth of state redemption. The dream is that the state will provide all my needs. It will provide food for my table, education for my children...and a host of other benefits that will cover me from the cradle to the grave. Welfare founded on statism, is and will be a failure.
The United States began as an experiment in liberty. The guiding principle that underpinned the Union was that which governs least, governs best.
I think all of the "isms" are alive in the US.
I think that politicans seek to stay in power above all else and that political life was never meant to be a career (according to the view of our founders) is a BIG part too.
A Career Politician vs a Statesman...I choose the latter any day.
bttt
Yes................
I was hoping that was not the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.