Reallocation of Foreign Aid to Fund Domestic Needs

The other day there was a movie playing on one of the cable networks named "Dave" starring Kevin Kline, who plays the role of a character named Dave Kovic, who runs a temp agency in Washington, D.C., and is suddenly asked to impersonate Bill Mitchell, the President of the United States, whom he resembles, after Mitchell suffers a coma inducing stroke during an extramarital affair with a White House staffer. One of the scenes that stand out in the movie occurs when Dave reorganizes the national budget during a cabinet meeting in order to save and fund a $650 million program supported by the First Lady (Sigourney Weaver) that he had unwittingly vetoed to help the homeless.

Though that scene in the movie was pure fiction, one has to wonder if such an effort by the President or Congress to address the current domestic financial woes in the U.S. is a reality. The media often reports on earmarks that are attached to congressional bills that fund domestic pork barrel spending projects, such as the well-publicized $223 million for the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, which has become one of the central campaign issues for both the Republican and Democratic nominees bid for the presidency. However, outside of defense spending measures to fund the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither candidate, nor party for that matter has addressed the large amounts of wasteful spending on ineffective foreign aid programs and projects that can otherwise fund much needed social initiatives and upgrades to our infrastructure here in the U.S.

President Bush's fiscal year 2009 foreign operations budget for the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign affairs agencies totals $26.1 billion, an increase of 8.9% from fiscal year 2008. According to the Department of State, the purpose of the funds are to aggressively strengthen and expand U.S. capacity for global engagement by enhancing our ability to pursue diplomatic, development, and security solutions to critical national security issues. Most of the programs that are being funded are justifiable and legitimate concerns that require a certain degree of financial support. However, there are a number of proposed funding programs listed in the budget request that are questionable and should be reassessed.

For example, the administration is requesting $1.6 billion to fund the Development Assistance (DA) account for "developing countries" and $3.1 billion for the Economic Support fund (ESF) to aid "rebuilding countries". The difference between a developing and rebuilding country is marginal at best, yet the U.S. government essentially wants to provide foreign aid to countries such as Pakistan, for the same expressed purpose, but from two different pools of taxpayer money.

Another questionable funding request for fiscal year 2009 is $30 million for the African Development Foundation (ADF), which provides small African-owned businesses with capital, technology, technical assistance, and training to create new jobs in the poorest communities and increase personal income. Africa certainly requires aid and assistance from the U.S., but given the long history of military, political, and humanitarian strife in those countries, one has to question if the $30 million in funding, or any amount of money for that matter, will impart any significant or long lasting change to the socioeconomic climate in that region.

The same questions can be raised about the funding and effectiveness of foreign aid towards the Andean Counterdrug Program ($406 million) and International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement ($1.2 billion) account, both of which finance counterdrug programs and the enforcement of transnational crimes. Neither program has significantly stemmed the global production and flow of cocaine and heroin. In fact, recent reports show that cocaine production in the Andean region has increased, while paramilitary organizations such as the FARC continue to exert more control and influence over drug trafficking operations. Since the fall and subsequent resurgence of the Taliban, heroin production in Southwest Asia has also dramatically increased in the absence of a viable counterdrug enforcement entity and lucrative crop alternative to opium to spur economic growth in the region.

Two of the more interesting, yet potentially damaging funding proposals are the International Military Education and Training ($90 million) and Foreign Military Financing ($4.8 billion) programs, which furthers U.S. interests around the world by ensuring that coalition partners and friendly foreign governments are equipped and trained to work toward common security goals and share burdens in joint missions. One of the stated highlights of these proposals is that the U.S. would increase support for Israel, while at the same time provide funding and training to military personnel in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, all of whom are Muslim states that have a well-documented history of anti-Jewish sentiment that continuously challenge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation in the Middle East. These challenges frequently result in outbreaks of violence between the two factions, which is indirectly supported by U.S. funds, which ultimately subvert gains made in the Middle East peace process.

As the leader of the free world, the U.S. has a moral obligation to aid and assist those countries in dire need. However, there must be limitations placed on the amount of financial support the U.S. provides to the world with respect and consideration to the needs of its own citizens. There is no justification in continuing to fund failed and ineffective foreign programs at the expense of U.S. citizens, who are reeling from a slow economy that has contributed to high fuel and energy costs, unaffordable housing, healthcare, and higher education. These domestic problems are further compounded by a recent spate of natural disasters that have literally wiped out communities and destroyed roads and bridges that are vital to the nation's infrastructure.

At some point, the members of the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government must ask themselves if they are their brother's keeper, as G-Money (played by Allen Payne) did while kneeling at gun point in front of Nino Brown (played by Wesley Snipes), his brother and drug kingpin in the movie "New Jack City". Nino Brown answers with a tear slowly streaming down the side of his face, "Yes, I am", then shoots G-Money in the head and walks off. That scene too is pure fiction, but one has to wonder about the reality...just like in the movie Dave.