Centerfield

Meh. I'm not seeing any plus in the US committing to a percent figure. Do other governments do this?

Bottom line, whatever else it may be, it's a commitment to additional spending. Obama would say yes we can, but I have to ask "can we?" Where's the money going to come from, or what program cuts elsewhere will be needed?

I bet if you polled Americans, less than 40% would say they think it's a good idea to make the budget bigger in order to give away more in foreign aid, which as we know goes to toother countries.

And yeah, you did say "not quite," which means the more won'tbe much more. But you know what? More is more. All those liitle addition to the budget that are "just a little bit more?" Well, they add up.

When in doubt, read the bill. It's Senate 2433. Key words are "require," "develop and implement," and "comprehensive strategy." Knowing some of the history of the programs involved, it looks to me as if certain liberals are trying to jump in front of an existing administration-run parade in order to appear to be leading it, and indeed to demand the right to lead it.

Namely, most of what they want is already being done and was initiated and expanded by the Bush admin, what they're doing with the bill is trying to force "comprehnsive annual reports" that make it look like they, Congressional Democrats, are responsible for any successes. At the same time, they're clearly signalling their intent to push MUCH more federal money into the parts they like in assorted ways, and demanding that the UN goals (rather than US goals, as should be) be the official unit of measure and assessment. Which means that WE are supposed to make up for the fiscal shortfalls of other nations who aren't toting their share of the load. So yes, to some extent they're letting the UN set the height of the bar rather than letting US interest and policy be the guage. Same old story--the UN decrees, the US is supposed to pay the bill.

However, the claims of making US policy completely and utterly subservient to the UN Millenium Development "Goals" is somewhat overwrought. You can find those goals here. The Poverty Relief Act applies to only one of the goals, that of reducing global poverty. Had it been written as to apply to all eight and include the supporting findings of the UN in producing it, I'd have to agree with the critics. But it doesn't appear to that I can see.

Oh, and you might want to correct that bit about the cost being a mere $65M, utter peanuts. That's B as in BILLION. Per year.

I beg to differ.

The only way this is going to help anybody, in any third world nation, is if they have a government that has not become a hotbed of corruption. Who won't funnel that foreign aid money into local warlords and corrupt bureaucrats. Do you really want this money ending up with someone like Mugabe? Because I guarantee you it will, or we're "racist".

Seriously. Read this article in Spiegel about what the aid actually accomplishes.

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

Tully:
Whoops, OK, 25B. Who cares about a zero or three between friends? That's noticeable, if smallish, even by gummint standards.

Yeah, reading the bill text never hurts, eh? I'm against cancelling all loans to the poorest nations, another provision in the bill. I think it's counterproductive in very corrupt places like Nigeria, where they'll just draw new loans for more mansions and guns.

JonBuck, Shikwati:has a real point, but he overstates it. His conclusion says: "Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong." Africa is a HUGE continent, with many, many different places. His part of Africa IS getting worse and failing to rein in corruption. Other places, like South Africa, Uganda, and Botswana, are growing less corrupt and improving their peoples' lives.

The Millenium Development effort mostly doesn't just dole out money without thinking to places like Zimbabwe. For something with so much overheated rhetoric, it's surprisingly thoughtful about feasible things, where to spend, what to spend on, using methods that have shown promise in the field, and monitoring.

Er, SIXTY-FIVE Billion, Jon, not $25B. A year. That $65B would by itself be a near-15% increase in all non-military discretionary spending, which is exactly where it would fall in the budget. Or call it $500/yr in average additional taxation for each American household. NOT peanuts. NOT smallish, even by US government standards.

I'm against mindless loan cancellations too, if they're just to be replaced by new loans that will once again end up in the Swiss accounts of the current crop of "leaders." But as you note, most of our poverty/health program spending in, say, Africa is much more directly applied, not just handed over to the local kleptocracy. Even though some of that bleeds off through corruption it's still producing real results. It's in the loans and "direct monetary aid" where the corruption hurts so bad, is even actively counter-productive of the goals.

The real objection on my part would be to codifying any modifiable UN resolution into governing law. We should not surrender sovereignty to foreign powers, ever, in any degree. I alos note the unfunded nature of the bill, the imposition of institutionalization on programs that should be flexible, not strait-jacketed, and (of course) the attempt to claim credit for things already being done that the bill sponsors had little to do with. (That last is kind of ordinary, but still noteworthy for us cynics.)

Er, SIXTY-FIVE Billion, Jon, not $25B.

The bill I read SAID an additional $25B. I'm certainly open to the idea that a bill could be misleading (gasp!), but where does the remaining 40B come from?

The real objection on my part would be to codifying any modifiable UN resolution into governing law.

Yeah, even many/most of us Dems keep in mind the UN's democracy deficit. I even think we should be putting pressure on the UN by using democracy-only clubs for things. Though it'd be realistically OK because of our veto.

(of course) the attempt to claim credit for things already being done

That IS fair, I think - the Bush response to the Millenium effort has been IMHO pretty good.