Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,606
- 910
Tom Hart, North America executive director at the ONE Campaign, agreed. “It’s a dangerous document. Even if Congress rejects the proposed cuts. The signal the administration’s sending about how it values — or in this case doesn’t value — global development — is really alarming,” he said.
Despite strong opposition to some of the proposed cuts by members of Congress, military leaders and business leaders, administration officials seem to have made few changes to the foreign aid budget from the “skinny” budget and earlier leaks.
“This [budget] to me feels much more like a PR campaign than a policy initiative,” said Loyce Pace, the president and executive director of the Global Health Council. “That’s very intentional ... they know it won’t save money; they know it will appease many of their supporters.”
In place of a belief that long-term global development investments serve America’s best interests, the president’s budget request appears to interpret “America First” as a preference for shorter term, transactional funding streams that win favor with geopolitically strategic allies. The budget funds security assistance to Israel and Egypt, for example, and it excludes those two countries from a broader shift away from assistance grants to loans.
“What’s ironic in this budget is that the thing that really galls people is when we write blank checks to countries that are not accountable and sometimes don’t have our best interests at heart,” Hart said.
“It is the very thing that this budget would cut back that the public likes most about our engagement abroad,” Hart said.
The budget suggests, “we’re going to focus on countries that are advantageous to us for reasons that are outside what we typically see as development priorities — so looking at them for military leverage or economic opportunities,” Pace said. She added that while that interpretation is based on some assumptions about what the administration plans to do, it still raises concerns that the poorest of the poor could be abandoned under a new set of priorities if those communities are not seen as strategically important.
While Congress is likely to put forward a significantly different budget proposal, the global health and development communities should be thinking about these cuts and the ideology they represent, Pace said. They may also want to think about reframing some issues, or countries to help policy and decision makers see some of the ties from funding to U.S. strategic interests.
“We can continue to talk about lives saved but that’s not necessarily enough,” she said. “We need to be talking about dollars earned and crises averted and really message all of this in terms of morality, economy and security.”
Others took issue with the Trump administration’s claim that development programs must be sacrificed in order to prioritize national security.
Trump budget thrusts US foreign aid into a political fight
They have never had to fight for funding. Absurd.
Despite strong opposition to some of the proposed cuts by members of Congress, military leaders and business leaders, administration officials seem to have made few changes to the foreign aid budget from the “skinny” budget and earlier leaks.
“This [budget] to me feels much more like a PR campaign than a policy initiative,” said Loyce Pace, the president and executive director of the Global Health Council. “That’s very intentional ... they know it won’t save money; they know it will appease many of their supporters.”
In place of a belief that long-term global development investments serve America’s best interests, the president’s budget request appears to interpret “America First” as a preference for shorter term, transactional funding streams that win favor with geopolitically strategic allies. The budget funds security assistance to Israel and Egypt, for example, and it excludes those two countries from a broader shift away from assistance grants to loans.
“What’s ironic in this budget is that the thing that really galls people is when we write blank checks to countries that are not accountable and sometimes don’t have our best interests at heart,” Hart said.
“It is the very thing that this budget would cut back that the public likes most about our engagement abroad,” Hart said.
The budget suggests, “we’re going to focus on countries that are advantageous to us for reasons that are outside what we typically see as development priorities — so looking at them for military leverage or economic opportunities,” Pace said. She added that while that interpretation is based on some assumptions about what the administration plans to do, it still raises concerns that the poorest of the poor could be abandoned under a new set of priorities if those communities are not seen as strategically important.
While Congress is likely to put forward a significantly different budget proposal, the global health and development communities should be thinking about these cuts and the ideology they represent, Pace said. They may also want to think about reframing some issues, or countries to help policy and decision makers see some of the ties from funding to U.S. strategic interests.
“We can continue to talk about lives saved but that’s not necessarily enough,” she said. “We need to be talking about dollars earned and crises averted and really message all of this in terms of morality, economy and security.”
Others took issue with the Trump administration’s claim that development programs must be sacrificed in order to prioritize national security.
Trump budget thrusts US foreign aid into a political fight
They have never had to fight for funding. Absurd.
