College Republican Federation of Virginia

Comment from Grozet
Time: November 29, 2007, 3:00 am

CNN is full of it too. The gay general they paraded in front of everyone is working for the Clinton campaign!!

Another reason to count on Fox News.

Comment from Bert
Time: November 29, 2007, 11:16 am

Yes, CNN did not have a good night last night. The general probably got more time than Tancredo, Paul and Hunter combined.

Comment from Archimedes
Time: November 29, 2007, 1:05 pm

Ok, first off, the foreign aid we give is undeniably beneficial to the intersts of the US. In fact, one could argue that our foreign aid to places like Ethiopia, Egypt, and Israel has done just as much to combat jihadism as our military has. Our assistance to countries like Saudi Arabia has enabled them to be a balancing regional force against Iran as well as step up their own counter-terrorism efforts; efforts which just this week resulted in the arrest of nearly 200 terrorists in the kingdom.

And by the way, returning more money to the states means cutting taxes. McCain’s record on the tax issue is well documented and solidly Republican. He is also a fine example of how conservative leaders should view pork-barrel spending, since he has not proposed any earmarks and has been a leader on ethics and finance reforms.

As for Romney, I too find him very troubling. I seem to remember another governor who, running for President 8 years ago, admitted his lack of knowledge on issues and pledged to rely on a multitude of sterling advisors to determine policy. We all know how well that turned out. Romney seems to do very well in promoting his own image and reciting his pre-planned lines, but seems to suffer when asked to prescribe any tyoe of policy which isn’t healthcare.

Comment from Bert
Time: November 29, 2007, 5:07 pm

Pork-barrel spending totals are mere drops in the bucket when it comes down to the hundreds of billions we spend in foreign aid. And no, I don’t think propping up hated middle eastern governments helps us fight terror. As nice as it may sound, throwing money at countries like Pakistan is like the UN oil-for-food program. I call it the aid-for-terrorists program. Unfortunately, this is just exactly what it is.

If we’re going to get serious about the fact that WE will be paying for all this, foreign aid must be cut.

Comment from Archimedes
Time: November 29, 2007, 5:59 pm

And yet, these governments seem to be getting attacked by the same thugs who attack us.

And no, US foreign aid is nothing at all like the UN oil for food program. Oil for food was a humanitarian mission designed to allow Iraq to sell its oil under UN contracts and use the money to buy food and medical supplies. US foreign aid is divided into five major categories, bilateral devlopment aid, economic assistance supporting US policy and security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions, and military aid,

Foreign aid is not simply cash payments, but economic assistance, agricultural and developmental aid, medical supplies, food, and surplus military hardware. As to your claim that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign aid, you are wrong. US foreign aid budgets have never exceeded $100 billion, not even when we were rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan, and that is adjusted for inflation. Current foreign aid budget is approx. $21 billion, not quite “hundreds” or even dozens. Throw in Iraq reconstruction costs and were still only at approx. $38 billion annually.

The fact is that US foreign aid spending is a vital foreign policy tool, especially in places where social and economic stagnancy breeds instability, violence, and ideological radicalism. For example Egypt, the second largest recipient of US foreign military assistance after Israel, serves a few very key strategic interests for the US: 1) they have served as a honest broker between Israel and her Arab neighbors for more than 20 years 2) the Egyptian government has faithfully maintained the Suez Canal, a vital artery of global trade and a key strategic point for the US Navy 3)if we didn’t support Mubarak’s government, the islamist Muslim Brotherhood would be in power, giving the jihadists control.

Comment from Bert
Time: November 29, 2007, 10:02 pm

Yes, I do know most of our foreign aid is not delivered as chests of greenbacks. However, we do give out cash as well: according to the Heritage Foundation we give Musharraf 100 million per MONTH in direct cash transfers. Heck, we could build 100 Woodstock buildings per month with that sum.

Of course, you will say that Pakistan is a valuable ally in the war on terror. I would disagree but that’s for another blog post.

IMO, your belief that foreign aid actually serves to build stability is quite myopic. We have a bad habit of picking sides in fights and having it come back to haunt us (supporting bin Laden, Hussein, etc.) Unfortunately while what you suggest sounds both pragmatic and clever, the simple fact of the matter is that no one is smart enough to play the chess game you suggest. Besides, we’re broke, as if that weren’t a good enough reason. We cannot manufacture long-term stability with misguided dollar diplomacy.

You make a good point about the governments getting attacked who we give aid to. It’s funny you mention it: support for these hated governments is one of the top reasons the CIA gives for high terrorist recruitment and increasing radicalization. It should come as no surprise these governments are being attacked.

While your numbers are what the government legitimately dedicates to foreign aid, those numbers don’t take into account UN expenditures, CIA expenditures, Pentagon expenditures and other hidden payments. I’ve heard numbers cited between 100 and 200 billion as what we really give to foreign nations (for legitimate foreign aid, to prop up governments, to fund insurgencies, etc.)

Comment from Steven Latimer
Time: November 30, 2007, 5:56 pm

Bert, thanks so much for your comments and sound analysis.