11 March 2011
Jay Meeks
Cutting U.S. Foreign Aid:
In the Midst of a 14 Trillion Dollar Deficit
The United States should consider cutting economic and military foreign aid to foreign nation-states for multiple reasons. While a proposal of this magnitude would face strong opposition from lobbyist organizations, especially those acting as an agent for foreign nation-states, it is only feasible with the United States under a 14 trillion dollar debt which is forcing fiscal budget cuts to a plethora of domestic programs from the federal level to the state level. In addition to financial instability, it is easily proven that there are foreign nation-state recipients of U.S. foreign aid who have abused military aid and there are foreign nation-state recipients of U.S economic aid that are not under the same heavy levels of economic debt that the United States is under.
The United States has recently surpassed the 14 trillion dollar deficit level and Congress, in reactive manner, has began fierce political arguing along divided party lines as they roll out domestic fiscal cut proposals to the FY11 and proposed FY12 federal budgets. Most states have already incurred cuts or are pending cuts in the education and law enforcement areas, and while these are only two vital domestic categories out of many, these two areas will be used to illustrate the effects of domestic cuts due to the federal deficit.
One of the hardest state cuts on education to this date has occurred in the state of New York where Governor Andrew Cuomo rolled out 1.5 billion dollars in cuts to education for FY2012 after 1.4 billion dollars in cuts to educational resources the previous year. In a New York Times article by Jeremy Peter, Democrats characterized the FY2011 education cuts as painfully unavoidable (A25). FY2011 and FY2012 education cuts do have one thing in common and that is the fact that unchallenged outgoing foreign aid continued to flow during both of these years. It is important to note that New York is only one state out of fifty and that education is being cut across the board.
In Camden, New Jersey, more than 300 police officers were recently laid off due to domestic budget cuts and Camden, New Jersey is no stranger to high crime statistics. In November 2010, Camden was reported as the poorest and most dangerous city in the United States where “knots of young men in black leather jackets and baggy sweatshirts sell weed and crack to clients, many of whom drive in from the suburbs” (Hedges 17). Crime is an epidemic in Camden and other American cities, yet law enforcement resources at the state levels are forcefully cut due to shrinking state budgets. Not only are we seeing police officers laid off, but states are unable to afford to incarcerate as many criminals and therefore criminals are receiving less jail time, if receiving any jail time at all. The American streets are already flooded with drugs and crime and now we do not have the funding to even protect our own American citizens, so why do we continue to hand out foreign aid in abundance?
Looking at these deep domestic cuts on education and law enforcement resources in every American state, it makes no sense that the White House and the United States Congress continue an irrational annual foreign aid policy. In recent months, the news channels have been filled with live feeds from Egypt, Libya and Tunisia as civilians in those nation-states filled the streets in government protests that called for democracy. Using the FY2011 Executive Budget Summary as an example, even though prior year summaries and the proposal for FY2012 are also the same song, Egypt is, and has been, the second largest military recipient of U.S foreign aid behind Israel (128). Former Egyptian President Mubarak, a long term recipient of U.S foreign aid, attacked and brutalized the challenging Egyptian civilian population during the recent civil unrest using a military bought and paid for by the United States tax payer under the label of U.S foreign aid. The current events of unrest and government crackdowns in Libya and Tunisia, while certainly not at the massive foreign aid level of Egypt, are similar situations with United States foreign aid. Atrocities and aggressions were used against civilian populations in those nation-states which bordered human rights violations. While it is difficult to determine the depth of U.S military aid utilized against the civilians of these nation-states and the topic completed avoided by the U.S. government, it is certain that these actions contradict the moral principals of the American people and has contributed to the current fiscal deficit faced by future American generations. If this type of atrocious misappropriation of foreign aid could happen with three different governments on the United States foreign aid recipient list within a matter of months, why wouldn’t the White House and Congress reconsider their foreign policy procedures? How exactly did it strengthen the United States and the American people to provide former Egyptian President Mubarak with 2 billion dollars each year for a 30 year period?
Another argument worth considering is cutting U.S. foreign aid to nation-states on the recipient list that are not under similar high levels of external debt as the United States. Israel is the highest annual recipient of annual U.S. foreign aid receiving over 3.2 billion dollars a year, an annual payout which has existed since the creation of that nation-state in 1948. The nation-state of Israel has a very long history of human rights violations against the Palestinian people, the original people Palestine who lived on the land before the modern nation-state of Israel was created by the United Nations, which makes the annual foreign aid to Israel morally questionable at best and generates international hostilities towards the United States from many nation-states in the region who view Israel as an aggressor and an oppressor. The nation-state of Israel is the highest recipient of United States foreign aid and accounts for over thirty percent of the Unites States total foreign aid budget. According to a 2010 Military Technology special edition on rebalancing and reforming U.S. defense, Israel received 2.77 billion dollars of military aid in FY2010 from the United States and the payments are scheduled to increase annually to 3.1 billion dollars by FY2013, a total amount of 30 billion dollars between the periods of 2008 through 2018. This is just accounting for military aid provided to Israel and does not even touch on economic aid and financial aid to assist Jewish migration from Eastern Europe to Israel. Does this sound like the rational actions of a government that is under 14 trillion dollars of international debt?
It makes sense to borrow funding in order to provide humanitarian assistance to nation-states who truly need help, but it does not make rational sense to continue building the pockets of political allies from beneath 14 trillion dollars of external debt which equals almost 99% of the annual gross domestic product. The United States is borrowing money to hand out in the form of foreign assistance. Why should American children have their educational resources cut domestically while foreign aid is being given out to nation-states that are not required to make the same domestic cuts that diminish their children’s future? Why should American citizens have to fear crime on police reduced streets while citizens in recipient nation-states are not required to make the same domestic cuts? In closing, I believe it is evident that slashing our current foreign aid budget is not only a logical plan of action, but a necessary action to avoid the further deterioration of our national infrastructure.
Annotated Bibliography
Hedges, Chris. “City of Ruins.” The Nation 291.21 (2010): 15-20. Print.
In this article, Hedges provides a description of the crime, poverty and unemployment in Camden, New Jersey. It was natural that I would use this desolate description along with the police lay-offs which occurred there earlier in the year.
Peter, Jeremy. “State Senate, Trying to Trim Deficit, Offers Budget Plan Cutting $1.4 Billion From Schools.” New York Times 25 March 2010: A25. Print.
In this article, Peter reports on the FY2010 education cuts in the state of New York. The article is informative.
United States. Dept. of State. Executive Budget Summary Function 150 and Other International Programs. Washington: US Department of State, 2010. Print.
The State Department shows the American people every year exactly where the American money is going on the international scene. Only Americans would rather watch American Idol.
“Rebalancing and Reforming US Defence: QDR 2010” Military Technology 34.1 (2010): 270-277. Print.
This is actually a quarterly journal that follows a theme each quarter. In this edition, the journal actually breaks down informational statistics on every nation-state (mostly pertaining to military).
Works Cited
Hedges, Chris. “City of Ruins.” The Nation 291.21 (2010): 15-20. Print.
Peter, Jeremy. “State Senate, Trying to Trim Deficit, Offers Budget Plan Cutting $1.4 Billion From Schools.” New York Times 25 March 2010: A25. Print.
United States. Dept. of State. Executive Budget Summary Function 150 and Other International Programs. Washington: US Department of State, 2010. Print.
“Rebalancing and Reforming US Defence: QDR 2010” Military Technology 34.1 (2010): 270-277. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment