Every day, the national debt rises by $4 billion. This is an astounding number by any account, and one that is unsustainable for a healthy economy. In response to this spiraling plunge, a number of our nation's most prominent politicians have put forth plans to single-handily eliminate the deficit and get America back on the ""Path to Prosperity."" Like a peanut gallery playing a game of hot potato, the Democrats and Republicans continue to disagree about the right combination of cuts and tax increases, offering wildly different proposals with little chance of reconciliation.
In the federal budget, one aspect in particular has become a popular source of funding cuts: international affairs and foreign assistance. Indeed, this is a popular notion among Americans; 59 percent of us believe in cutting foreign aid, according to a January Gallup poll. But this is a sentiment fueled in part by ignorance. According to worldpublicopinion.com, the average American believes that foreign aid comprises 25 percent of the entire U.S. federal budget, and those same Americans felt that, on average, 10 percent would be more appropriate. Those with a college degree or higher were more cautious, guessing that aid represents 15 percent of the budget.
The real answer? Total foreign aid, including both military and economic spending, amounted to an astounding 1.28 percent of the federal budget in 2009, or, $44.9 billion—pocket change compared to defense and social security.
Now that's not to suggest that $44 billion is a small number, but when talking about the budget it's important to think comparatively. The United States may top the list of foreign aid donors in absolute terms, but when it comes to aid as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, we're at 19th, right behind Portugal. And a whopping 25 cents of your entire yearly taxes go toward the cause.
Yet it has become a popular target of budget cuts, specifically for U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-wisc., and his high-profile proposal to reduce government spending by $6 trillion over the next 10 years. Ryan wishes to reduce funding for international affairs and foreign assistance by 44 percent by 2016. That sounds nice at first, but when that same plan calls for a 14 percent increase in defense spending, the savings from foreign aid appear trivial.
So why support foreign aid? After all, as the common argument among Americans goes, why help other countries when we have problems here at home?
The first and most obvious answer is rooted in altruism. The United States is in a unique position to help developing countries deal with the ramifications of broken economies and war.
But let's be real: compassion is unlikely to sway most. The real benefits of foreign aid and diplomacy are strategic. The progress of developing countries' economies can have positive benefits domestically. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, our role in such development can have massive military and economic impact. Look toward the post-World War II Marshall Plan, and to a greater extent the entire Cold War, for an early example of foreign aid as a diplomatic tool.
Reducing funding for the State Department's foreign operations budget undermines peaceful efforts to aid in the continued development of third-world economies and exerting our influence abroad. Perhaps no country better exemplifies the potential use of foreign aid than Somalia.
Somali pirates continue to threaten international trade along the northeast African coast, prompting heavy joint efforts by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Such military response, known in foreign policy terms as ""hard power,"" comes with an enormous cost and serves as only a temporary solution. Somali piracy is only one of the many consequences of the failed Somali state, which has operated with no central government since 1991. For 20 years, the United States and our cooperative peers have concentrated efforts on a military response to piracy instead of focusing time and money toward cooperative development in the country.
Thus, in this case, an early effort toward aiding the development of a peaceful and governed Somali state might have eliminated the need for military response later on. Soft-power diplomacy, when properly executed, can be a cheaper and more preventive strategy than hard power defense spending.
Proper execution, of course, is easier said than done. A common and often worthy criticism of foreign aid is that it is used inappropriately. One must only look at Egypt as an example. Our long history of military aid to the country, often in the billions of dollars, has supported a dictator in order to maintain American interests. In addition, when it comes to economic aid, grants from the United States often have strings attached; most notably, requiring some developing countries to use aid money only to buy American products. This disrupts the international market and undermines these countries ability to use such aid effectively.
But when used correctly, foreign aid and international diplomacy can serve as a valuable and preventive diplomacy tool. Such tools have the potential to positively exert our influence abroad while aiding the development of the international economy. Our use of military and economic aid is not without its flaws, but massive and broad cuts to the State Department would be irresponsible, and would do little to help reduce our massive deficit.
Miles Kellerman is a sophomore majoring in political science. We welcome all feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
