The U.S. has pledged $350 million in aid to countries blasted by the tsunami. How should one feel about that? To say the least, I have mixed emotions.
On the one hand, I feel an incredible sorrow. As of this date, it appears 155,000 are dead in the various countries affected by this tragedy. I cannot begin to imagine the devastation. The loss of life is almost incomprehensible. The loss of homes, businesses, schools, and other man-made things is staggering. It is hard to wrap my mind around a tragedy such as this.
On that same hand, I am proud that America has rallied to the cause. As we speak, there are American troops on the ground there, doing everything they can to help the victims, search for survivors, control looting, and helping the place put itself back together again. This is cause for pride. We're also in the process of giving out a buttload of dough, as noted.
On the other hand, I cannot help but wonder why we are doing all of this. The U.S. seems to be putting on a show of generosity for the world. We seem to be trying so desperately to look like the good guy that the government is willing to throw a lot of money at the problem; money that doesn't really belong to them in the first place.
Consider the fact that we are pledging $350 million dollars in U.S. government- funded relief. This does not even begin to count the cost of having our soldiers over there, not to mention two ex-Presidents.
$350 million is a whole lot of money, and that's just an early estimate. That comes close to replacing the GNP of some of the countries we are trying to help out over there. That's money our troops in Iraq will never see. That's money that could be used on our disabled veterans, who are coming home after protecting us missing limbs. That's money that could be used to secure our borders, which would in turn save us BILLIONS per year, as discussed on this website previously. That's money that could be used to help out our own people. That's money social security will never see.
Let's keep in mind where this money comes from: the U.S. taxpayer. Me. You. Everyone else around us. We are being asked to pay for something that really doesn't affect us. We are being asked to pay for something that will not do a darn thing to earn us brownie points in the world's opinion. I can say with certainty that the U.S. taxpayer will not ever get a thank-you from anybody we have been forced to donate to. France isn't going to like us because we're generous. Iran won't hate us any less. I know it's arguable that this disaster doesn't affect us, but it sure hasn't affected my daily life so far. Not like when 19 terrorists started crashing planes into buildings along the East Coast. It seems the U.S. government is awfully proud of the dough it's shelling out, simply for the public relations value.
Of course, that's not the point of helping out these people. I am so much more inclined to be proud of the millions of people out there who are donating money out of their own pockets, and out of the goodness of their hearts. They are truly doing God's work, and they won't ever get a thank-you note either. They don't expect it, nor do they want the limelight for doing it. They do it because it's the right thing to do, and I don't think our government's motives are so pure. So to that end, the taxpayer-extorted relief fund is an insult. Read this article, which seems to point out that the private sector is going to end up giving way more than the government could ever hope to. This is how it should be, and it's a great thing. Never let it be said we are not a generous, compassionate nation.
Where exactly is this money going to go? Who is coordinating this relief effort? If it's going to the U.N., I have to say it's been wasted. We have seen how great the U.N. is at taking care of disaster victims, or anything else for that matter. How much have they done for the genocide over in Rwanda, for instance? The oil-for-food scandal should have shown everyone out there exactly what a load of crap the U.N. tries to foist off on the rest of the world. There is not another more corrupt organization anywhere in the world, including the U.S. Congress. That's a bold statement.
Plus, why give this money to people who hate us? Sri Lanka is the home of the Tamil Tigers, a radical Islamo-fascist sect, hell-bent on taking over that country. We want to help them out why, exactly? Their stated goal is right there with Al-Qaida: kill the infidels, impose Islamic law on the world, and make Allah happy by blowing themselves up. I don't want to fund that, and if every one of them was killed in the tsunami, so what? That means there's less of them that will try and kill us later.
I know it's harsh, and I feel somewhat guilty about feeling this way. However, I think my tax dollars are better spent in defending my homeland, better arming the troops defending my homeland, taking care of my borders, and generally looking after the welfare of my country first, before spending it on other countries who really don't give a rat's butt what we do for them anyway. I know it can be argued that what happens over there will affect us over here, and that we should be generous in our aid to them.
As noted, the private sector is doing just that. Plus, it's doing it cheaper, more effectively, and with less chance of some bureaucrat stealing the money for themselves. I would prefer the relief donations to come from a pure heart, and not motivated by an attempt to spiff up our image to a world that is going to hate us anyway. Charity should be anonymous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Now the real question is: Does congress actually have the right to commit our tax dollars to charity?
Go see Joe Huffman for one answer. http://blog.joehuffman.org/archive/2004/12/31/740.aspx I for one think that congress does not actually have the right to give away tax payer dollars on charity. As you correctly stated our private donations will far exceed the Dollar amount our government will pledge.
But more important than the dollar amount our government is pledging is the manpower and equipment we are supplying.
Kyle When are you going to start a blog roll?
your site will garner much more traffic with one.
This is a great site for doing a blog roll as you only have to insert one line of text in your blog and then just go to the site to add links. Very easy, even for a Lawyer ;)
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
I think generosity comes from selfless giving-- giving without the expectation of anything in return. Giving despite the fact that, as you say, the disaster didn't directly effect our own shores. We have to live with those Christian principles of selflessness all the time, not just when it's convenient or when we think we have something to gain.
That being said:
I think a lot of times when governments commit to "aid", only a fraction of that aid usually appears in the form of cash. Other forms may come from equipment, food, or even manpower. That means the government is spending much of the money in our own economy before sending the materials overseas. Just something to think about.
Furthermore, if you want to talk about concrete benefit for the money, I think you're discounting the power of "public relations". There's no doubt that the Tamil Tigers and their ilk are a problem. It's certainly easy to demonize someone you've never met, as they (and we) do. Is it not possible, even likely, that after experiencing the generosity of America first hand, much of their local support could dry up? Sure, there will always be nut-jobs who want to kill us. But maybe next time a neighbor overhears plans for a bombing or attack, she'll think of that aid worker who helped her at her darkest hour and alert the authorities.
And if not, we'll rain firey vengence from above.
Kirk, as we speak, I've gone to Blogroll to sign up. Technically challenged as I am, I should be able to get a blogroll going relatively soon. Wish me luck. In other news, I will soon be up and rolling with another blog, so stay tuned for more info on that one.
As for the second post by the anonymous person: it's sort of Pollyanna-ish to think that if we give them money, they are going to like us. We've given about 5 trillion in aid since WWII. We see how much the world likes us because of that. They are not going to start now. We won't win anybody over. They'll just happily take our money, then make snide comments and try to kill us. The $350 million is an early estimate, not counting ths costs of troops, equipment, etc. That's cold hard cash. It is also likely the US will be giving more, according to Colin Powell this morning. There will also be long-term relief. So yeah, $350 million is wrong. It's going to be a lot worse than that.
We're on the forefront after every disaster, every time. We're criticized for being stingy, for not having high enough taxes, for being imperialistic, for being free, for being Christian....Jiminy Christmas, enough IS enough. If we are not appreciated for our generosity, fine. We'll take that generosity somewhere else.
Kirk raises a good point: where exactly in the Constitution does it say that we have to fund disaster relief for the rest of the world? I really don't think the US government has that power de jure. The seem to have it de facto, becuase they seem to be doing it a hell of a lot. With our money. I missed the charity amendment to the Constitution in law school. I don't think the overreaching argument regarding the Commerce Clause gives them this kind of power in this case either.
So do we have a lawyers view on giving the public's tax money away? I pointed that article out to you as it was news to me. So just how are we justifying giving all this cash away?
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
Kirk:
Short answer: it beats the hell out of me.
It probably gets justified under the "promote the general welfare" phraseology of the Constitution, along with the Commerce Clause. Both of which are complete BS arguments, in my humble opinion.
I hate seeing my tax dollars for this sort of thing. I have never found a good justification for it, in the law. But it gets done anyway, all the time. On good years, that sort of relief spending is in the neighborhood of 530 million dollars. And that's just when nothing really big happens.
Terrible, ain't it?
Kyle
"As for the second post by the anonymous person: it's sort of Pollyanna-ish to think that if we give them money, they are going to like us."
Sorry. I hit the "publish" button too soon the last time. I think it's way oversimplifying things to say it's all or nothing. *Some* people may be turned in our favor, others will not. What's the ratio? Neither you nor I are in a position to say. I DO think that our government giving "foriegn aid" to other *governments* (such as we've done in the past with, oh say, Iran and Iraq) does little for building lasting allies. That's like paying someone to be your friend, and it ends as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
I think giving aid on a *local* or *individual* level would be a more effective way of building long-term goodwill.
Darn it! I did it again! The above unattributed posts are mine.
-Paul
I'm not sure how one would go about giving in a foreign country at a local or individual level.
"Here's $20. Will you like the US now?"
I'm not sure that would do us much good either. I think the best way to gain their respect is the same way we got it from Japan and Germany: beat the hell out of them. That would work wonders wherever militant Islam raises its ugly head.
The rest of these people still won't like us. If they are Islamic, they're going to hate us eventually one way or the other. If they're something else, there might be a chance they will be predisposed to liking us because we help them. I fail to see the cost-benefit analysis coming out positive for the government spending anything over there. Let the private sector deal with it.
Beating the crap out of them will only work if you have the right culture.
Take Japan for instance. Yes we defeated them, yes we destroyed 2 of their cities, no doubt that there are those Japanese that still hate us for that, but we also rebuilt their country. During the rebuilding of their country we taught them a lot of automation and management processes, they picked it up and ran with it and were able to better their country, most Japanese are grateful for the help that America provided them.
Now look at Germany. Yep we defeated them, yes we destroyed most of their cities, and the marshal plan rebuild not only germany but most of europe on our dollars. But we have a strong socialist movement across all of the europe. They don't work as hard as we do and are envious of our way of life, and they have forgotten the aid that America gave them, basically they hate us and have nothing good to say about us at all unless that means they will loose our dollars. The germans are screaming now that we have started to pull out our armed forces and the 6~8 billion dollars per year that they pumped into the german economy.
So just kicking the crap out of an enemy is not good enough to gain respect. If a culture/government has to have and enemy to survive, nothing we do will make them change (especially when we are their great satan). It seems that Islam has been fighting in one form or another for the last 1200 years. That culture in its current form will never change. Either that or we have just not used a big enough stick over there yet (see Qaddafi).
Kirk
www.limpidity.org/blog
Kirk makes an excellent point, and one I've been quietly espousing for a couple of years now. It's the idea of cultural imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism). The way to pacify the middle east isn't with bombs or bullets-- it's with Britney Spears and McDonalds. Fundamentalist Islam is anti-freedom, anti-peace, anti-freakin'-fun! Our culture, on the other hand, is incredibly infectious because it IS freedom. It's the freedom for Britney Spears to shake her ass on a music video and for us to watch it. It's freedom to eat a tasty, fatty, death-burger at McDonalds. And once you get a taste of freedom, you just want MORE. Fundamentalist Islam is a lot less appealing by comparison.
THAT is why Imans hate the US. It's not so much our government as the threat of our culture totally subsuming their own--stealing away their followers in the process. Of COURSE they think we're the great Satan--their power is based on very strict control, and our culture is eroding that control.
If we want to pacify the middle east we need to take a long-term, cultural imperialist approach. That's not to say that short-term measures aren't also necessary to ensure our security, but we need to recognize that military action alone does not change cultures and only a dramatic culture shift will bring peace.
Let's stop and compare the cultures in the example. Germany and Japan were both monarchies. Cut off the head of the giant, and the body withers. With Fundamentalist Islam, the power is more dispersed. Yes there's a main leader for each sect, but there are also hundreds of local religious leaders constantly vying for more power. If one dies, the others merely recruit his followers. As long as the *system* is intact, breaking their spirit is much less likely than what we accomplished in WWII.
We have an excellent opportunity to slowly and steadily insert our culture into that region using the international exchange students who come here for our education. If we're going to allow thousands of student a year into our country at all, we need to make sure that they are thoroughly indoctrinated with American culture before they return home. They are our viral carriers. If we "infect" them with our ideology, when they return home they will spread it for the rest of their lives. They'll listen to our music, watch our dvds, and pick up our satellite signals. Our culture will spread, our ideology take root. Furthermore, since these students represent the best and brightest of their country, they are more likely to rise to positions of power. Sooner or later those countries will reach a cultural tipping point.
It won't happen instantly. In fact, it may take two or more generations. And I know that goes against our American penchant for instant action / instant results. But when it DOES happen, it will be a much more profound change than what we can accomplish with military action alone.
Damnit I did it again!
-Paul
I would tend to agree. Our culture has to "infect" them in order to bring about meaningul change over there. But that means we have to beat them into submission, and then rebuild them.
On a side note, the U.S. has ended up rebuilding every place we've gone to war against.
Germany vs. Japan at the end of WWII. I think there's a big difference with the way those places were handled. In Japan, Macarthur basically became the territorial governor over there. He forced them to create a bicameral legislature, adopt a Constitution, and generally forced Democracy down their throats. We took a much less hands-on approach in Europe, instead choosing to focus more on economic aid, basically creating a welfare state over there. We let them structure their own governments and whatnot, much more so than what we did in Japan.
Which one now is moving towards socialism? It ain't Japan. They took to democracy pretty well, despite some shake ups in the last 20 years or so. They've remained strong, and prosperous. That's not to say they don't hate us, but by and large, they co-exist peacefully with us, and that's really all that matters.
They don't have to like us. They just have to stop trying to kill us.
Post a Comment