NYT - In one of the first signs of the effects of the ever tightening federal budget, in the past two months the Bush administration has reduced its contributions to global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.
With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.
Officials of several charities, some Republican members of Congress and some administration officials say the food aid budget for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 was at least $600 million less than what charities and aid agencies would need to carry out current programs. Ellen Levinson, head of the Food Aid Coalition, said the best estimate for the amount of food that was not delivered in November and December was ''at least $100 million.''
I read this article a week before I heard the news of the tsunami... that whole week I began thinking of the number of children who die every day of PREVENTABLE hunger and disease.
While the number of the world's people who go hungry is rising for the first time in years, the Bush administration can find no better way to reduce spending than to cut $600 million from global food aid programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.
That belt-tightening of $600 million doesn't make much of a dent in a federal discretionary budget of $965 BILLION (it's 0.0001 percent), but in the developing world, it's emergency food to prevent the starvation of millions, and long-term agricultural development to help people feed even more people themselves.
Or put another way, it's 1/60th of the $35 BILLION that remains in the budget to maintain America's Cold War nuclear weapons equivalent to 150,000 of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima.
This is so outrageous that there's now a BIPARTISAN effort in Congress led by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) to convince the administration that global food aid should not be cut.
I am not aware at the amount of money the Bush administration has promised to the tsunami victims in asia. I can only hope that they keep this one. it comes as no surprise to me that the kingdom of this world would offer aid only when something is in the headlines... as a way to save face... so not to appear "stingy", However, I hope that for me at least, this is a wakeup call to the 40,000 preventable deaths happen each day.
That death toll will be 160,000 by Saturday.
1.04.2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Actually it's .06217 percent. I agree we can't let the defenseless go hungry, but it is time to start teaching people to fish instead of just giving them fish. I know you mentioned long-term ag programs to teach people to feed themselves, but there was no mention in the article that this was being cut. These are by far the best programs for people to not only help themselves but to be free from any obligations. When people become able to provide for themselves, they are also free from the tyranny of those holding it over their head. Be careful, this may be a blessing in disguise. Besides, this is America where the gvernment doesn't own the money, the people do. In America we don't/shouldn't depend on the government to do the charity work we should be doing ourselves.
I had a guy in our church make a video about the Tsunami tragedy for this past Sunday. It was powerful. It was amazing. It was shocking. I was in tears 10 seconds in, and remained with a steady stream for the full two minutes plus. As the video ended I struggled to push words out of lips that were shaking with grief. I don't know why this tragedy impacted me so deeply, but it did.
Challenged by our recent conversation my words comments leaned more towards the topic of compassion, than simply the Tsunami. I mentioned the thousands who die every day from hunger around the world, but because it is gradual it doesn't make the headlines. I shared that it takes tragic things like this Tsunami to grab most Americans attention, and move them towards a single act of compassion. I challenged them to a new lifestyle... one of compassion. I challenged them to think twice before buying that extra monthly luxury, amenity or service. I challenged them to sacrifice an "extra" in their life to save someone elses. I challenged them through lots of tears.
I looked it up...
29,000 people die each day from hunger.
It used to be 40,000; until World Vision and others got involved.
That is 203,000 people a week.
That is 10,556,000 people a year.
I have heard those stats a million times but until you all compared them to the Tsunami the other day it never hit me.
It breaks my heart.
As of today 01/04/04 on the Tsunami.
There are 150,000 confirmed dead.
Many more to find and count.
America has pledged $350,000.
To Douglas (or, How to Bait a Hook),
Are you suggesting that if I am wealthy - beit inherited, invested, or earned - instead of giving that which is clearly in excess to those that are literally starving to death, I should teach them how to use Capatilism to exploit their neighbor, play the Stock Market, and/or procure a degree of higher education (though such institution may not exist for them) that they may be more marketable in their economy?
Why, we should ask ourselves, would I not simply give that which I have in abundance?
(I'll go one step farther, intentionally not dragging the name of Jesus into this one)
How can we be fooled into thinking that our "generosity" is solely for Them? If feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and consoling the mourning is still for Their sake, then we haven't yet learned what Life has to teach.
[Please understand, this post is not a reactionary one, directed at you, Douglas. Rather, I think it is something that many of us have been thinking/praying about in recent days. Let us drive a hard line, that when the ideological chips fall where they may, we do not later come to realize that it was Us that placed them at such an accessible level]
I love Chipotle.
I find the reaction to my comment most intriguing, mostly because it argues against what I did not say.
First, please notice that I began by saying, "I agree we can't let the defenseless go hungry." I didn't just say this to fend off complaints; I said it because I mean it.
Second, whether capitalism is exploitive is a discussion for another time. I did not mention or even hint at capitalism. I simply suggested that simply giving people what they need now only helps now and helping people to help themselves helps them forever. Not only that, but it allows all of us to help more, because once one person becomes independent of my help I can help someone else and so can they. The blessings are multiplied.
Third, I never suggested that people should not give all that they can; in fact I believe they should. But I am very disappointed in some (not necessarily you, anonymous) who use the government to do for them what they should be doing themselves, like "feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and consoling the mourning."
Fourth, you make an excellent point with your question: "How can we be fooled into thinking that our 'generosity' is solely for Them?" But I certainly do not want to hurt someone by only providing what they need now and keeping them dependent on what others will provide for them next. That does not seem like a blessing to me. This kind of dependence is an invisible set of shackles, which is why I said that this will free people from the tyranny of their providers.
We should always help those in need, but we should not fool ourselves into believing that the government will do this for us. We also owe it to others to be sure that our help is really helping.
By the way, Eric, great entry! I love a discussion that challenges and leads to good discussion.
james- its $350,000,000
plus another $200,000,000 privately
It's just money. Its not even our money.
redcay
doug, what your saying makes sense.... but i can't accept it on the grounds that i have met way too manny people that use your arguement as an excuse to not give to the poor.
what doug is saying makes perfect sense. i know many people who would agree with doug, myself included, and give a generous amount of money to the poor, and charities. we do need to be generous to the needy and defenseless, however we also need to be responsible in spending taxpayer money. our focus should be following the teachings of Christ in our individual lives, and not on ideological or political groups. i can only choose as wisely as possible when electing our leaders, but i am fully responsible my actions as it relates to following Jesus. mike
Mike, I appreciate you cleaning up my mess and finding those missing zeros for me. I should have made it simple for myself and said $350 million. I didn't know about the other $200 million though. Wow.
I wish our government did better with our tax money so they could give more away BUT why do we expect them to do it? There is more than enough money among Christians to handle this need. We don't need the government to do it and besides, we could (and do) do a better job of it.
Having said that, I do think we ought to try and get our government to do all that they can and to hold them accountable (by voting) when they don't do what they said they would. I do think it would be more accurate for us to acknowledge how much the US actually does give away while we're bitching about how much more they (I mean WE) could do. Both are true.
Post a Comment