Not THAT Foreign Aid!

Andrew Sullivan posted a graphic a few days ago that has been bouncing around in my head for a few days. He re-posted it today, with a barb that clarified my thoughts. Here's the graph:



Foreign aid tops that list. Before I go any further with this thought exercise, let's have a pop quiz: How much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid? Anyone? Buehler? The answer is about 1%, or $23.5 billion in 2008. Private philanthropy contributes more, at around $35 billion. (I think there is a reason for philanthropic donations, and I'll get to that in a moment.) So which destitute, impoverished nations receive that aid? Anyone? Those of you who followed that link above will have been led to think that poor African nations receive that money for food. [insert buzzer noise here] The top recipients (I could only find 2007 data) are Iraq ($8.1 billion) and Afghanistan ($5.8 billion). That is on top of the costs of our misbegotten wars in those countries. Next in order are Israel ($2.5 billion) and Egypt ($1.97 billion). Even Russia is getting $1.6 billion, and that excludes all the -istan countries, Georgia, and other former members of the U.S.S.R. Clearly this is not charitable donations for feeding the poor. It's military aid primarily.

Here's a proposal: Cut foreign aid by lopping off that $4.5 billion (likely more now) in aid to Israel and Egypt. Any "conservative" takers? Based on my reading of the news, I'll get none. They mean, cut aid to starving African nations.

There are good reasons to provide foreign aid, and that is likely why there is so much corporate and other philanthropic aid money. It helps stabilize unstable countries. War is a lousy tool of statecraft, and using it as a first tool is insane (unless you make bombs or bombers). I propose we immediately strip $50 billion out of the Defense budget ($515 billion, excluding the not budgeted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and shunt it in place of the approximately $50 billion spent on foreign aid.

So, without that $50 billion per year as separate foreign aid, we can fund health care with a subsidized Medicare buy-in for five years.

*insert cricket sounds*

One last thought on that first graph. Something like 40% of conservatives want to cut welfare, but only about 12% want to cut "aid to the poor". What am I missing? Purely conjecture, but is it that "welfare recipients" are typically portrayed as unmarried black women with lots of kids, while "poor people" are your white neighbors who are down on their luck? Anyone? Buehler?