Powered By Blogger

Publius Speaks

Publius Speaks
Become A Follower

2/28/2011

Assault on the Middle Class: TAX LOOPHOLES

I spoke in an earlier Blog about the important legislative initiatives that President Obama should take to frame the debate with Republicans and Tea Party members.  Unfortunately, the President has allowed the debate about cutting government spending to be framed by those who have already railroaded him into extending tax cuts for the richest 1-2%, and who now want to debate how much should be cut from the modest 12% of discretionary funding in the federal budget, and from entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that most affect the middle class and the poor. 

It appears that the President has chosen not to frame the debate in a direction that would call attention to the favoritism shown by Congress to the rich and powerful.  This is totally regrettable.  In my opinion, he should be relentless in pointing out that two wars in the Middle East favor private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater who have taken advantage of those conflicts to reap millions, if not billions, of dollars in contractual profits.  He should be concentrating on the fact that rich corporations, banks, and brokerage firms have stolen money from the American taxpayer, and that no one has gone to jail or even been charged with crimes against the people (where’s his Justice Department?) -- talk about waste, fraud and abuse…!  He could also be talking more about how rich corporations are holding their massive profits hostage, not wanting to spend for jobs and new equipment because their profits have soared.  Is the President “dithering” while the middle classes are being consumed in the inferno created by the right-wing radicals? 

There is no greater fraud and waste in government than the loopholes and incentives built into the U.S. Tax Code.  It is time to examine some of them, and to demand that they be excised or modified to give everyone a fair shake, and to prevent the ability of a privileged few from escaping the full payment of their tax obligations.  What an opportune time -- TAX TIME -- to frame the debate differently, and to point a finger where it belongs.

According to an article on FiscalTimes.com, the USA has one of the top corporate tax rates in the world: 35%.  However, the actual amount in corporate taxes that the government collects (“the effective tax rate”) is lower than those of Germany, Canada, Japan and China, among others.  Those loopholes will cost the U.S. government an estimated $628.6 billion over the next five years, according to a 2010 report from the Tax Foundation.  Here’s what that Fiscal Times article says are some of the major loopholes for corporations to quietly wriggle through while the rest of us make up the lost tax revenue:

1)    Inventory Property Sales
    Foreign income of American companies is taxed in the country in which it is generated, and the U.S. gives a tax credit for that amount in order to avoid double taxation. Some companies have accumulated a glut of such tax credits (the “inventory”), and in order to use them up, they artificially boost foreign income through a “title passage rule” that allows companies to allocate 50 percent of income from U.S. production sold in another country as income generated by that foreign country (the “property sales”).

2)    Graduated Corporate Income
    This policy places the first $50,000 of a corporation’s profit at a 15 percent tax rate, with higher profit levels garnering higher tax rates, until it tops out at 35 percent for taxable corporate income exceeding $335,000. The result is that an owner of a small corporation pays only 15 percent in taxes on the first $50,000 of profit, leaving more left over potentially for reinvestment and growth. So what do larger corporations do?  Of course: they divide up their company into smaller entities that can qualify for this tax break!

3)    Research and Experimentation Tax Credit
    Intended to spur research and development within companies, in its simplest form this break allows for a 20 percent tax credit for “qualified research expenses.” There are more complex applications, as well. Detractors complain that it is paying corporations to do research they would have done anyway.

4)    Deferred Taxes for Financial Firms on Certain Income Earned Overseas
    Because most financial firms conduct their foreign operations as branches rather than as subsidiaries, as most companies in other industries do, they do not benefit from the tax breaks afforded to foreign subsidiaries. To compensate, this loophole enables financial firms to treat income from their foreign branches as if they were subsidiaries, along with all of the attendant tax benefits.

5)   Alcohol Fuel Credit
    This is a tax credit for the production of alcohol-based fuel, most commonly ethanol, which is made from corn. The credit ranges from $0.39 to $0.60 per gallon. In theory, the credit is meant to encourage alternative forms of energy to imported oil. It is largely responsible for propping up the price of corn, and is extremely popular in corn-producing states like Iowa and Illinois, primarily benefiting food and agricultural conglomerates in these areas. 

6)    Accelerated Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment
    This one allows companies (airlines & manufacturers using large equipment) to deduct for all of the depreciation of a piece of equipment at once (as opposed to over the, say, 20 years it actually takes the item to depreciate). This is the equivalent of the U.S. government giving the company an up-front, interest-free loan. Congress recently made this expenditure temporarily even larger for 2011, to encourage investment in equipment.

7)    Deduction for Domestic Manufacturing
    This loophole enables a tax deduction for manufacturing activities conducted by American companies within the United States. It covers conventional manufacturers, but also extends to industries like software development and film production. The intent is to keep manufacturing from being outsourced.

8)    Deferral of Income from Controlled Foreign Corporations
    Multinational companies can defer paying U.S. income taxes until they transfer overseas profits back to the United States, under this law. In practice, many companies leave much of their profits overseas indefinitely, thus paying only the tax in the relevant foreign country, which is likely far lower than the U.S. rate, and avoiding U.S. taxes permanently. The list of corporations enlisting this loophole is seemingly endless, and the estimated 5-yr Cost to Government is $172.1 billion.

The article goes on to assert:
America's corporate tax rate is 35 percent.  But 115 companies on the S&P 500 pay less than 20 percent in taxes, according to a study by the Capital IQ and The New York Times. That's not even counting 37 companies like Citigroup and AIG that received more in tax credits than they paid.  All this thanks to loopholes in the immensely complicated tax code.
Business Insider tracked down the data from Capital IQ (2005-2009 aggregate data) to identify some of the large corporations that pay less than 5 percent in taxes:

#15 Boeing Co. (BA)
Pre-tax income: $17,587 million
Taxes paid: $796 million
Tax rate: 4.46%

#14 Amazon.com (AMZN)
Pre-tax income: $3,512 million
Taxes paid: $152 million
Tax rate: 4.33%

#13 Broadcom Corp. (BRCM)
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 3.32%

#12 Host Hotels & Resorts Inc. (HST)
Pre-tax income: $1,116 million
Taxes paid: $34 million
Tax rate: 3.05%

#11 NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG)
Pre-tax income: $5,343 million
Taxes paid: $154 million
Tax rate: 2.88%

#10 TECO Energy, Inc. (TE)
Pre-tax income: $1,620 million
Taxes paid: $37 million
Tax rate: 2.31%

#9 Allegheny Energy Inc. (AYE)
Pre-tax income: $2,538 million
Taxes paid: $58 million
Tax rate: 2.28%

#8 NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)
Pre-tax income: $1,817 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 2.24%

#7 Xcel Energy (XEL)
Pre-tax income: $4,334 million
Taxes paid: $77 million
Tax rate: 1.78%

#6 NextEra Energy, Inc. (XEL)
Pre-tax income: $8,572 million
Taxes paid: $149 million
Tax rate: 1.74%

#5 Plum Creek Timber Co. Inc. (PCL)
Pre-tax income: $1,355 million
Taxes paid: $22 million
Tax rate: 1.62%

#4 Western Digital Corp. (WDC)
Pre-tax income: $2,507 million
Taxes paid: $40 million
Tax rate: 1.6%

#3 HCP, Inc. (HCP)
Pre-tax income: $614 million
Taxes paid: $9 million
Tax rate: 1.42%

#2 Carnival Corporation (CCL)
Pre-tax income: $11,250 million
Taxes paid: $126 million
Tax rate: 1.12%

#1 Range Resource Corporation (RRC)
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $7 million
Tax rate: 0.53%

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that these corporate entities must be treated as individual citizens in terms of (political) free speech rights, isn’t it incumbent upon them to act in a responsible manner in terms of paying their taxes like other individual citizens?  It’s time to “call them out”, and to demand that they all pay a minimum tax of at least 20-25% on their profits!  And, to prevent them from passing that extra burden on to the consumer, there must be stringent laws with huge penalties (like 33% of profits) to prevent that from happening!  Because they are able to reduce their tax burdens to less than 5%, they force upon the rest of us the extra burden of paying for their less-than-fair share.  That’s right middle-class America -- YOU are paying not only inflated rates for their services and products, but for most of their tax burden in order for YOUR government to operate. 

YOU are being thoroughly bamboozled by these corporate entities mainly because you not only allow them to avoid paying their taxes, but because you allow them and their cronies (lobbyists, law firms, congress people, and media) to convince you that our fiscal problems mainly result from entitlements and social programs that benefit the middle classes and the disadvantaged.  YOU are paying for their neglect, their cronyism, their  profits and their robbery from the public purse.  Their stealthy stealing is  immensely increasing your personal and governmental debts. 

It is time to stand up against the rich corporations that neglect their public duty; we just can’t afford to take it anymore!

2/20/2011

FOREIGN AID PRINCIPLES and PRIORITIES

Let us come back to foreign aid.  Ron Paul may be right in one respect about foreign aid: it does deserve our criticism, but not our abandonment!  After all, abandonment of foreign aid would be an undue restriction placed on the constitutional powers granted to the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy: to make Treaties, to appoint ambassadors, to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers.  Taking away that executive power would only serve to enhance the power of Congress in the realm of foreign policy; and we don’t need a contentious Congress trying to decide by Committee deliberation, where, and for what reason, to place a particular piece of foreign aid.

As I said two blogs ago: “We desperately need a new set of priorities for how foreign aid is to be utilized, a well-defined set of goals and objectives, and a system of measurable outcomes that can be evaluated to ensure that our money is being used to enrich others around the globe rather than to exploit them. 

If we’re going to have a set of new priorities, we first have to define our principles on which to base those priorities.  I suggest the following as a beginning for discussion:

1)    Foreign aid shall be distributed primarily to enhance the human rights, dignity, freedom, and well-being (health, education, social services, income, etc.) of individuals and communities throughout the world;
2)    Foreign aid shall not be given to any dictatorial regime that restricts the rights and freedoms of its people, unless:
    a)  measurable actions toward the granting of those freedoms and rights are set forth in a written Plan of Action 
    b)  the benchmarks or measures are met on an annual or 2- year timetable  
    c)  those action steps or outcomes are evaluated every year, or two years, by a group drawn from the UN, the World Court, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, global Human Rights groups, and the US Congress.
    d)  current and future aid shall be based on the report and recommendations of the Evaluating Commission; except that no aid  shall be continued or granted if the country is found to be less than 75% in compliance with its Agreement/Plan.
    e)  in the case of the up-to 25% of actions found to be out of compliance, a new agreement shall incorporate new targets and steps toward compliance, in order to receive continued funding; however, further non-compliance after the first two years shall result in a comparable percentage of aid reduction.
3)    In no case shall U.S. foreign aid be used to enhance the military might of another nation unless:
    a)  that nation is assisting the U.S. in a declared war against a mutual foe;
    b)  such aid will enable that nation to defend itself against outside aggression or internal terrorism; 
    c)  such aid will be used in a mutually defined effort to defeat the forces of terrorism.
    However, all such exceptional military aid as defined here shall be allocated according to specific measurable written guidelines contained within an annual or two-year Agreement which shall be evaluated by representatives of global organizations dedicated to the promotion of peace and prosperity for all nations.  The non-compliance rate found in such evaluation shall result in an immediate comparable percentage reduction in aid.  
    Any use of U.S. military aid to suppress, oppress, or harm a country’s own populace shall be immediately terminated.
4)    No foreign aid shall be loaned, granted, allotted, or given to any country or national entity until:
    a) a signed and approved application has been submitted to the Department designating the general aims, purposes, and intended outcomes for that aid;
    b)  a detailed Agreement/Plan is submitted to the Department defining the exact, agreed-upon purposes, objectives, and measurable outcomes expected for the said aid;
    c)  an effective distribution system is approved and a strict accounting method is in place for the use of said money;
    d)  a detailed plan for evaluation of all designated outcomes is included in the Agreement/Plan 
5)    All taxpayer dollars loaned, granted, allotted, or given to a foreign country or national entity shall be reported on an annual basis to the American people  in a readily accessible and discernible format, especially through electronic means.  All new grants or allotments shall be reported on a monthly basis. All such reports will specify:
    a)  the amount(s) granted and to whom;
    b)  the purposes and reasons for the grant;
    c)  the goals and objectives defined for the recipient country;
    d)  any evaluations or recommendations received for continuation or denial;
    e)  any criticisms submitted by other countries or reputable organizations;
    f)  decisions for continued funding or denial

Other points for discussion and resolution might include:
1)    There must be a national foreign assistance strategy put in place that encompasses the principles, purposes, and objectives for our foreign aid programs.  Part of that national strategy must be the designation of one agency responsible for the coordination of all foreign assistance.  The State Department seems the most likely candidate for this so that all diplomacy and foreign aid can be coordinated, and given equal standing with defense and internal programs.  However, the idea of a separate cabinet-level Department of International Development is also worth considering.
2)    The purpose of every allocation of foreign aid must be made clear so that diplomatic (strategic) use is not confused with development objectives.
3)    Along the lines proposed by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, there should be a permanent Quadrennial Review of diplomacy, of foreign policy, and of  international development efforts carried out under our foreign aid.  The Report of this Review should be made easily accessible to all people.

I do not pretend to have all the answers on distribution of foreign aid.  Far from it.  In fact, I think the Obama Administration has done an admirable job in defining the goals and objectives (their Categories and Sectors) of current foreign assistance.  What is lacking is the strategy for using those Goals and Objectives in determining who shall receive aid, and the use of measurable outcomes, and their intense evaluation, to ensure that the purposes, goals, and objectives are actually met by every entity seeking and receiving our aid.

I do contend that those leaders, like Ron Paul, who criticize without offering detailed analysis or detailed plans for improvements or alternatives, are lacking in depth and in leadership qualities.  There are no easy answers to the dilemmas, conundrums, mistakes,  or problems created by our foreign policy or our foreign aid programs.  However, abandonment of foreign aid is a terrible idea.  Positive reform and remedies are much more difficult, and require a persistence and tenacity that seem sorely lacking in many of our current “leaders”.  Let us hope that the mere musings of a Senior Citizen are not the only result of the Egyptian “revolution” and of Ron Paul’s simplistic criticisms.

2/13/2011

Does Egypt’s Revolution Teach us Anything About Foreign Policy?

Let us hope that the Egyptian Revolution puts us all on a path to better governing and governance!  Let us hope -- no, let us resolve -- that their victory for human rights can be our victory as well.   We Americans, from the perspective of  a very young (representative) democracy, must be willing to have an ancient civilization teach us something vital: that the very basic yearning for freedom, liberty and justice is not limited to a small group of people, but exists everywhere, in all peoples.  It is not our right, nor our responsibility, to “spread democracy”.  It is, rather, our responsibility to support the yearnings, the dreams, the aspirations of others toward democratic ideals that should guide our foreign relations and our foreign aid.

Egypt may have taught us some other very important lessons.  One, that human contact and relationships are vital to our relations with other groups.  It can probably never be determined or revealed how important was the contact between our military personnel and their counterparts in Egypt.  That contact was built on mutual ties of education, trust, goodwill, and common ground that were forged in our military schools.  We need to use the idea of common ground to forge more such relationships with other countries through education and training around common goals; and not just in the military.   The support of education and training in other cultures, the support of mutual education and training within this country; the support of person-to-person mutual learning and teaching - as through the PEACE CORPS -- is absolutely vital to our national interest and to the aspirations of others in other countries. 

Second, the propping-up of military and other kinds of dictatorships, is not a good way to use our taxpayer dollars.  The billions that Hosni Mubarak and his family accumulated for themselves out of our foreign aid, and what it could buy for them, is ludicrous.  More specifically, the use of foreign aid to dictators for the express purpose of buying our armaments and weapons for their own use is a travesty.  We are the leading purveyor of arms to other countries.  That must stop because we cannot “buy” the allegiance or the loyalty of dictatorships and expect that it will serve us in the long run.  It will, instead, put us in the bind in which the Obama Administration found itself ; namely, when a dictator is challenged by his or her own people, we have grave difficulty deciding who to support: the people, or the dictator who has served our bought interests for a number of years.  We must free ourselves from that conundrum, and change our approach to supporting dictators, once and for all.  Oh yes, and just so we don’t forget:  the American arms bought by dictators, and given to dictators, have ended up helping to oppress their people, especially when the people decide they have had enough and then rebel.  “Order” is then the key word, and order is restored by repressing the people with the tanks and guns and who knows what (tear gas canisters!) that we Americans supplied through foreign aid.

Third, this Egyptian Revolution may not succeed.  And why not?  Because there is no recognized leader amongst the people ready to lead.  Because there is a “culture” of bribery for getting things done simply because people need to enhance their dismal pay with bribes.  Because there is a forced absence of democratic institutions and practice (like a free press), of voluntarism and organizing, of alliances and coalitions -- all focused on helping neighbors; on the well-being of the community; on the rights of each and of all.  You can’t have a democracy - or democratic practices - without the attitudes and ideals that support that way of thinking and acting. 

Our foreign aid must be attuned to those needs, and must find a way to encourage people in all lands toward a democratic mind-set and a democratic approach to solving and resolving problems; indeed, a way of living.  How do we do that?  I don’t know exactly.  I can only say it has something to do with the principles of community organizing: the very strategies that have been so denigrated and attacked (remember ACORN?)  by a certain group in this country.  It is a tragedy that we ourselves have allowed the rights and aspirations of the poor, the homeless, the poorly trained and educated, even of children and the elderly, to be restricted, held down, trod upon and unfunded.  What are some of those community organization principles and programs?  Advocacy for oneself and for each other; formation of coalitions and grassroots organizations; community linkages (networking); voter training; job training; child-care provision and early intervention and education; in-home parent support and training; access to legal aid;  nutrition and adequate meals; mutual aid; home maintenance -- it goes on and on because there is always something more that one can do for oneself and for/with the community.

Let us come back to foreign aid.  Ron Paul may be right in some respects about foreign aid: it does deserve our criticism, but not our abandonment!  After all, abandonment of foreign aid would be an undue restriction placed on the constitutional powers granted to the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy: to make Treaties, to appoint ambassadors, to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers.  And taking away that executive power would only serve to enhance the power of Congress in the realm of foreign policy:  and we don’t need a contentious Congress trying to decide by Committee deliberation, where, and for what reason, to place a particular piece of foreign aid.

With this small detour, we shall look next time at some principles and practices that might guide our foreign aid.

2/08/2011

FOREIGN AID: Eliminate or Re-structure?

Ron Paul,  Libertarian Republican Congressman from Texas, wants to eliminate all foreign aid.  In light of the situation in Egypt, one can understand a reaction to the $1.5 billion annual request in foreign aid to Egypt (and to other Middle Eastern countries in varying amounts), but Paul’s over-reaction is typical of politicians blinded by their ideologies to the larger realities of the wide world.  Can we not count on our Congressional leadership for more thoughtful and intelligent leadership?  Probably not.  Strangely enough, this attitude harks back to the proposals of a certain staunch conservative (some called him worse), named Jesse Helms who proposed in 1995 that the Agency for International Development be replaced with a foundation that would channel foreign aid for education, health and agriculture through grants to companies and nonprofit groups.

This is not to say that Dr. Paul doesn’t make any sense.  His is not the only critic of our foreign aid policies, and of the process by which our largesse is distributed. Many independent “watch-dog” groups have said that our foreign aid:

Props up dictators and provides opportunities for them to line their own pockets;
Often does not get to the people who need it because of corruption in the distribution system;
Finds its way back to this country through contracts with U.S. corporations;
Reduces free trade by forcing recipient countries to buy U.S. goods and services;
Too often involves the financial and political interests of the current Administration;
Rewards political and military partners rather than advancing humanitarian causes ;
Is used as a political weapon for the US to make other nations do things “our way”;
Promotes aggression and war through sale of military weapons or transfer of cash that can be used to buy weapons;
Since 9/11, has been cast too frequently in terms of “contributing to the war on terrorism” as the top foreign aid priority.

Let’s first put “foreign aid” in perspective.  In FY 2009, the Bush Administration’s foreign aid request for the Department of State and USAID, equaled $39.5 billion.  Although we do not have the  Obama Administration’s budget figures for 2011, there will probably be some cuts in aid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps lowering this figure by a few billion dollars.  What is important to understand is that the total foreign affairs budget in the FY 2010 federal budget was just 1.7% of the total budget for operating the federal government (according to a Forbes article).  This percentage may be even less under the FY2011 budget being proposed by the Obama administration.  For anyone serious about reducing the deficit, it is doubtful that foreign aid is the most productive place to start. 

The United States leads all developed nations in the total amount of foreign aid given to other nations (probably because the USA is the richest nation and this figure encompasses all foreign aid, including private sector contributions!).  However, the USA is rated the 21st stingiest of 22 developed countries in terms of the percentage of governmental foreign aid given in relation to its GNP.  Denmark is actually on top in that latter category, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the USA manages just .17%.  Not only is the USA the second stingiest in proportion to its GDP, but the largest portion of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.  

Unlike Ron Paul’s simplistic analysis, let us realize that “foreign aid” is a very complicated subject, involving different sources of aid and various reasons for the aid in the first place.  Generally, different types of foreign aid support different objectives. 

The Clinton Administration emphasized the promotion of “sustainable development” as a new post-Cold War strategy for the programs under the aegis of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), centered around six inter-related goals: broad-based economic growth; development of democratic systems; stabilization of world population and protection of human health; management of the environment; building human capacity through education & training; meeting humanitarian needs.

Early in the G.W. Bush Administration, these goals were modified around three “strategic pillars”  of 1) economic growth, agriculture & trade; 2) global health; and 3) democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance.

Under the Obama Administration, foreign assistance is divided into 35 “sectors” under seven categories, which are: 1) Peace and Security; 2) Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance; 3) Health; 4) Education and Social Services; 5) Economic Development; 6) Environment; 7) Humanitarian Assistance.

More than $58 billion per year goes to foreign assistance through more than 20 federal agencies; roughly $38 billion of that is managed by the USAID and the State Department within the just-described categories.   However, Americans have always given beyond their taxes to support humanitarian causes throughout the world.  It is estimated that private American charitable donations equal about $250 billion each year; 75% of that coming from individuals (corporations are particularly poor philanthropists). 

And, what about that other $20 billion that doesn’t go through the State Department or USAID?   The USA also provides assistance to friends and allies to help them acquire US military equipment and training (about 23% of total US foreign aid).  Foreign Military Financing  (FMF) is a grant program that enables governments to receive US military equipment or to access equipment directly through US commercial channels (most FMF funds support the security needs of Israel and Egypt: F-16 Jet fighters, Apache attack helicopters, and other equipment, like the teargas canisters used against the peaceful demonstrators in the Fahrir Square in Cairo--made right in the good old USA).  Peacekeeping funds are also used to support voluntary non-UN operations and training, especially for the Afghan army.

The total US commitment to international health, particularly HIV/AIDs programs, is somewhat larger than that run through USAID and the State Department when budgets for domestic “non-foreign aid” agencies (like HHS and Labor) are included.  The same is true of Economic Support Fund grants, much of which target countries of importance in the war on terrorism.  ESF funds can be used as cash transfers to help stabilize economies or to service foreign debt.  Let’s not forget that a relatively small 8% of total US foreign assistance is combined with contributions from other donor nations to finance multi-lateral development projects through such international organizations like UNICEF, the UN Development Program and the World Bank.  In addition, there are programs related to foreign affairs that go through the budgets of several other federal agencies, including Agriculture, Energy, HHS, Commerce, Homeland Security, and even Interior.

Conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers demand cut-backs in spending, but because they never target specifics, their generalized cut-talk borders on irresponsibility, and on ideology-based rather than reality-based information.  Once again, a little perspective is helpful: the federal government invested $100 billion (TARP funds in 2008) in Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo in order to prop up the US financial sector, but spends half that on foreign aid. 

So what am I calling for?  Well, in my opinion, the Ron Pauls of this world are on the wrong track!  We don’t need elimination of foreign aid; we need a new way of looking at it and of providing it, because:

--We are too politically-motivated  about who receives our aid, often having to fit or adjust our own goals and objectives for political ends.
----People of other countries are driven to hate us for economic aggression, hypocrisy, and power-mongering through our aid programs.
--We think “money is power” and that commercialism trumps morality.
--We are trying to buy the loyalty, morality, commerce, style of government and fealty of other countries.
--We are perhaps the loudest self-congratulators of our own largesse; we claim goodness because we are generous.
--Our motives are often not seen as charitable but as manipulative; we are not trusted.
--We think our way is best; know little about the rest of the world, and think that our “exceptionalism” means that other countries are not “in the same league.”

These attitudes are not serving us well.  They taint our true humanitarianism and the caring attitudes of our people.  Foreign aid should be an expression of our recognition that the world is not alien; it is our larger community and we do have a basic responsibility for it’s well-being.

We desperately need a new set of priorities for how foreign aid is to be utilized, a well-defined set of goals and objectives, and a system of measurable outcomes that can be evaluated to ensure that our money is being  used to enrich others around the globe and not to exploit them. 

More on this next time.