Column:

Put your money where your mouth is

By Kim Adams, Columnist

Published June 8, 2005

A few nights ago I caught a Lewis Black special on HBO. Black, the angry comedian who is now a correspondent for The Daily Show, had an observation about American arrogance. Black pointed out that he didn't understand how the United States gets away with constantly asserting itself as the greatest, most powerful country in the world.

After all, Black pointed out, if someone came into your workplace every day and proclaimed loudly that they were the greatest, most powerful human being to have ever lived, someone would have snapped and killed them by now. So, really it's quite amazing that some European country hasn't gotten completely fed up and given the United States a piece of its mind.

Perhaps some of our arrogance could be excused, of course, if we chose to use our power and greatness to perform benevolent actions in the world. Maybe we would still be loud and obnoxious, but at least we would be a benevolent annoyance. However, this has hardly been the case.

Recently, the European Union member nations agreed unanimously to double aid to Africa in the next five years. Following their example, Japan also agreed to double its aid. And what did the good old, arrogant United States have to say? When President Bush was asked about other countries' efforts, he said, "It doesn't fit our budgetary process."

After meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who presented what is being called a "modern Marshall plan" for the G8 Summit, Bush consented to releasing another $674 million in aid. The money comes from previously appropriated funds. While this is an improvement upon his original commitment of nothing, it still seems like somewhat of an empty gesture.

Where in the "budgetary process" is Bush finding it so hard to double aid? Bush found it within the "process" to spend $87 billion on the war in Iraq, and he was still able to provide a $350 billion tax cut. If we were to double the aid we currently provide to Africa, It would cost another $3.2 billion, or less than one percent of the tax cut Bush peddled in 2003. Even if most of the tax cut is going to our poorest citizens, as Bush claims it is, those considered poor in this country are not suffering the same sort of indignities as the poor of Africa.

While the United States is often at the forefront of humanitarian aid, if the other G8 countries agree to Blair's "modern Marshall plan," the United States will have something to be ashamed of. We present ourselves as an example of how a country should be run and constantly claim to be the standard of fair governing. If this is the case, we should be an example to developing countries by being charitable to those countries that can't afford to provide basic services to their citizens.

Officials have argued that they are concerned with how previous aid was spent in Africa. While I agree what is done with aid dollars is just as important as the amount itself, this is no reason to cut back on aid dollars. If anything, we should carefully donate more money to organizations that have made a proven difference in Africa. While spending more money, if it's not well managed, might not make much of a difference in the lives of Africans, money that isn't spent is guaranteed to make no difference at all.

If America wants to continue to walk into the national scene proclaiming it's greatness without other countries finally getting fed up and beating it down, it's going to have to learn to set an example.