Stingy II

[Ronald Reagan]

I'm sharing because I think this is right on the mark. The perception of US aid (and European, as well) is far greater than the actual amount delivered (often we promise and don't deliver.)

I find the numbers below surprisingly stark, still.

Perception - 24% of gov revenue
Actual - 0.24% of gov revenue

Sounds stingy to me.


NYT's editorial - Dec. 30th

"President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.

We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.

The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.

Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises."

[turpin]

What about total foreign aid? The "development aid" category sounds like a word game to me. What other categories of foreign aid are there?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Here we go again. Equating American generosity with the amount of tax dollars given, as if the only donations that count come from the US Treasury. Bush should stick it to these critics by pledging exactly zero public money for relief. Instead, he should make an impassioned plea for Americans to generously support private relief efforts. I guarantee those dollars would surpass all other foreign funds combined.

[krank]

Ab do you think Americans are more generous than other nationalities? Do you believe Gov aid crowds out Private contributions?

Measuring foreign aid relative to Gov spending seems to be the only sensible yard stick on which to measure.

[turpin]

Originally Posted by krank

Ab do you think Americans are more generous than other nationalities? Do you believe Gov aid crowds out Private contributions?

Measuring foreign aid relative to Gov spending seems to be the only sensible yard stick on which to measure.

Measuring total aid (government + private) against GDP (or GNP) is the only sensible yard stick.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

I think the whole business of comparing generosity, and of impugning the contributions of one nation almost before the water has receded, is misguided and idiotic. The dollar amount is almost irrelevant at this point -- disaster victims can't eat or drink money, and even if they could, how would we get it to them? The most important assistance is material aid, delivered quickly. Wanna venture a guess on which nation is doing the most in that regard (i.e. the nation that is saving the most lives right now, other than the native rescue forces)?

[Ronald Reagan]

Ab, I mentioned in another thread (before the conversion) that I thought the people in the US are very generous, but that the gov only pretends to be. So, I think we agree on that.

Turpin, an amazing % of our "foreign aid" is arming allies with very expensive weapons. And, much of that is for Israel only. I forget the % of total "foriegn aid" that translates to giving weapons to Israel, but I believe you'd be shocked. I want to say it's around 70%.

The point I was making, which was again successfully ignored, was the stark contrast between public perception and reality. Seems we're mislead on many things.

[Ronald Reagan]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

I think the whole business of comparing generosity, and of impugning the contributions of one nation almost before the water has receded, is misguided and idiotic. The dollar amount is almost irrelevant at this point -- disaster victims can't eat or drink money, and even if they could, how would we get it to them? The most important assistance is material aid, delivered quickly. Wanna venture a guess on which nation is doing the most in that regard (i.e. the nation that is saving the most lives right now, other than the native rescue forces)?

I hope we do deliver aid EFFECTIVELY. I'm not dying to see waste, but I want to see help delivered. The reality is that money buys the drinking water, and delivers it there. If the Red Cross does not feel that contributions are rolling in, they will allocate less resources to this project. It's a simple management decision. That's one reason this matters.

The second reason "the whole business of comparing generosity" is good is that it puts pressure on govs to buck up some money. Political pressure more than doubled the US's offer, from $15 to $35 million. If you want to see aid delivered, that's good pressure.

[krank]

Originally Posted by turpin

Measuring total aid (government + private) against GDP (or GNP) is the only sensible yard stick.

So do you think Americans are more generous than other nationalities? Does Gov aid crowd out private donations? If not then analyzing Gov donations relative to their budget seems to make sense. I have no problem with your measure either however I wonder if it skewed downwards because more of the wealth may be controlled by a small percentage who contribute less in % terms than the general public. Dunno??

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

The second reason "the whole business of comparing generosity" is good is that it puts pressure on govs to buck up some money. Political pressure more than doubled the US's offer, from $15 to $35 million. If you want to see aid delivered, that's good pressure.

So why is only public money measured? Let's say I'm an American citizen tired of seeing my country slammed for selfishness, even as I write big checks to relief organizations. Maybe it's time I stop writing those checks and put it all on Uncle Sam. The net effect is zero in dollar terms, but for some reason now we're not selfish anymore.

You're thinking in UN-bureaucrat mentality. Think about it.