Posted on 01/02/2005 1:09:05 PM PST by mvpel
Andrew Natsios, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, is bristling at remarks by a U.N. official that the world's wealthiest nations -- that's us -- are "stingy" when it comes to handing out tax dollars to help victims of disasters like the tidal wave that swept much of the Indian Ocean last weekend.
This despite the fact that the $35 million American government aid package announced this week will completely drain his agency's emergency relief fund -- already drawn down to provide ongoing help to Darfur and Iraq -- and that U.S. aid to nations struck by the recent earthquake and tidal wave could eventually reach $1 billion, Mr. Natsios protests.
Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator and head of the Norwegian Red Cross, did not single out the U.S. specifically when he remarked earlier this week that "We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why we are so stingy, really. ... Even Christmastime should remind many Western countries how rich we have become."
The U.S. government is always near the top in any tally of humanitarian dollars handed out around the globe. So what on earth is Mr. Egeland talking about?
Not too surprisingly, the answer turns up in France.
Mr. Egeland was referring to the measure of international aid compiled by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which provides a new ranking of nations not according to how many dollars they actually pitch in, but according to what percentage of their Gross National Products they donate.
Typifying the outlook of the redistributionist left, such a measure would contend a poor man with a net worth of $10 does more good when he donates a dime, than does a millionaire who donates $9,000.
The poor man's generosity should be honored, certainly. But let's not pretend his dime will buy more food and blankets.
In real terms, the U.S. government handed out $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003 (not counting AIDS and HIV programs and money channeled through the United Nations.) Japan came in second at $8.9 billion.
But once the French bean-counters divide that generosity by each donor nation's gross national product, they complain that none of the world's richest countries donates even 1 percent of its gross national product. Of the richest industrialized nations, Norway came in highest by that new calculation -- at 0.92 percent -- while America ranked last, at 0.14 percent.
The measurement is absurd and dangerous on several levels.
First, America's GNP is vastly greater than that of any other nation. This new "standard" is like claiming your rich uncle is a skinflint because he only paid half your kids' college tuition, when he could have afforded to pay it all.
Like all envy, such selfishness ignores the meritorious work it took to get rich, substituting the theory that the successful had "undeserved wealth" dropped upon them, which they are now required to "share" with those who adamantly refuse to adopt the very behaviors which lead to affluence.
Second, the "gross national product" of America is not our government's to disburse as it sees fit. In another concept apparently alien to much modern European thinking, most of America's wealth remains in the hands of the private sector -- which is where all wealth is created, in the first place. Our government is allocated only as much as required to perform its limited, specified, constitutional duties -- among which the job of handing out loot to foreigners does not appear anywhere.
Which leads us to the third and most massive absurdity of this latest version of "biting the hand that feeds them."
American government charity is dwarfed by Americans' private giving ... which the Paris-based OECD chooses not to even count.
Although no reliable breakdown into domestic versus foreign charities is available, Americans last year voluntarily contributed $241 billion to charitable causes -- up from $234 billion in 2002 -- according to a study by the Giving USA Foundation. And a lot of it flows overseas.
True "charity" can occur only in the private sector, anyway -- because government bureaucrats don't reach into their own pockets to fund government "assistance" programs, but merely transfer funds they have seized from third parties.
Perhaps U.N. officials choose to ignore private charity, because they're not as well positioned to divert, extort, and embezzle those funds, as Kofi Annan and his clan appear to have done with Saddam Hussein's oil-for-food billions.
The moral merit of charity accrues to both parties only when both donor and recipient engage in a truly voluntary act. And if taxes were voluntary, the tax man wouldn't check to see how much was in the envelope.
Trust a bureaucrat to ignore the beam and whine about the mote in his eye.
[...snip...]
Perhaps U.N. officials choose to ignore private charity, because they're not as well positioned to divert, extort, and embezzle those funds, as Kofi Annan and his clan appear to have done with Saddam Hussein's oil-for-food billions.
Wonder how the Saudis, Libyans and Iranians are helping out their co-religionists?
Stingy?? nah heck they are even building the bridge to hell to welcome in all illegal insurgents into our country and donating $60 mil for the cause.
Of course, these same people don't recognize the billions and billions of dollars we spent and are spending to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. These good deeds don't count because they don't help keep the PC/liberal crowd in power.
excellent article...esp. the part that you have highlighted and this:
"True "charity" can occur only in the private sector, anyway -- because government bureaucrats don't reach into their own pockets to fund government "assistance" programs, but merely transfer funds they have seized from third parties."
thanks for posting.
7 words: Get the UN out of the US!!!
Worthy of a Moral Clarity and / or a Nailed It! ping
When we remove the "UN", will we then be the "**ited States of America?" =P
But seriously, I'm all for giving them the boot.
By ignoring American private contributions they can better make their case.
All this money we are giving to foreign nations, will there be anything left to help ourselves when disaster strikes at home? Sooner or later it will.
a little anti-venom for this "stingy Americans" crap:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312134/posts
My dad was wondering how much foreign aid we got from Indonesia when Hurricane Andrew hit.
The guilty dog barks first. The UN is a documented failure and an abject disgrace.
Just wait till the story of their unbelievable part in the tragedy of Sudan is fully understood worldwide.
The guilty dog barks first. The UN is a documented failure and an abject disgrace.
Just wait till the story of their unbelievable part in the tragedy of Sudan is fully understood worldwide.
We could give until Our own Babies went unfed, and never satisfy the demand for more!
Only Damned solution is for everyone to start loving Their Babies, as much as I love mine!
If You do not value the "product of Your Loins" as I do, why in the name of all that is decent, must I?
I would have loved to have Fathered dozens, but stopped when I had all I could decently raise!
I have to add, though, that I've read a couple of reports of the hungry being fed by the US aid and being very grateful, as opposed to the UN asses.
A big Bingo to your Dad.....and, for that matter I don't remember the UN marshalling any aid program for the folks in southern Florida.
maybe they were too busy counting the Oil-For-Food money.
I am gratified to read this.
Good find, mvpel.
In short, to those who call us stingy- SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND OPEN YOUR POCKET BOOKS! (by the way - has the EU ever paid us back for the Marshall Plan? Just wondering....)
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.