DeMint leads GOP charge to block Bush AIDS funding
Written by Sam on June 26th, 2008WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint on Wednesday spearheaded Republican opposition to a $50 billion expansion of President Bush’s signature program to combat AIDS in Africa and elsewhere overseas.DeMint, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina and five other Republican senators blocked Senate consideration of a bill that would more than triple U.S. aid to nations most stricken by AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and to international relief groups helping them.
“For us to attempt to buy friendship around the world by spending $50 billion is just completely irresponsible,” DeMint said. “There are enough worthy causes around the world to bankrupt us a hundred times over.”
Not just irresponsible, it’s unconstitutional! There is nothing, NOTHING in the Constitution that allows our government to give any of our money away to other nations. Why isn’t this stuff challenged in the courts anymore?? When FDR was trying to implement all of his Marxist programs the SCOTUS was striking them down left and right (until he scared the crap out of them by trying to expand the court and stack it with Socialist judges). Yet, today we see unconstitutional bills passed almost daily and they are never challenged. I hope these Senators hold firm on this. I am so thankful to have a man like Jim DeMint representing my state.
27
AM
Sam, while the constitution does not state the United States can spend money on foreign aid, its pretty clear from the Federalist Papers that the President and Congress have very expansive foreign affairs powers. Like it or not, the world has changed a lot in the last 200 plus years since the Constitution was written, but the fundamental principles of a strong foreign policy powers cannot be denied from the understanding of it put forward in the Federalist Papers.
Foreign aid money can be seen as a logical extension of this power today seeing the destabilizing effect AIDS is having on Africa. It is more or less destroying the little social fabric these societies already have. If these societies, which are already rudamentary, completely fall apart, the states of sub-Sahara Africa will become further breeding grounds for lawlessness and terrorism. We can either try to prevent this or we can clean up the consequences later.
Based off our experiences of abandoning Europe after World War I and Afghanistan in the late 1980s, I have to say its cheaper to spend money now to stablize these socieites than to deal with the consequences of failed states. Pulling out the funding from the Weimar Republic really helped our nation in the end didn’t it?
While the Constitution does not say directly that foreign aid is constitutional, based off the broad foreign policy powers of the document, its reasonable to conclude that founders like Hamilton, who primarily drafted the foreign affairs portions of the document, would approve of such programs if they lived in our world. If you hold such an ironclad standard, blatantly essential agencies like the air force, CIA, and NSA would be unconstitutional because the constitution was drafted before such things could even be conceived.
A more legitimate reason to oppose this legislation is because it does not require enough safeguards to prevent abuses.
27
AM
Ryan,
That was a great response! The only issue I have with it is that no amount of money in the world is going to stabilize the area. Tribal societies aren’t going to wake up one morning to a “forgive and forget” attitude. They have been at each other’s throats for generations and will continue along that path until one group wipes out the others. Genocide is their way of life. Sad, but true.
If it weren’t for the natural resources the continent contains the rest of the civilized world would totally abandon it.
27
AM
Ryan, you may be correct in a more liberal interpretation of the foreign policy powers. Assuming that this aid is very much Constitutional, then we should be asking ourselves if the money is being spent wisely. In my opinion that is an obvious no, which I think you alluded to in your last sentence.
How many years have we been throwing money at Africa? It’s been a long, long time. I remember being in school and having to do a project on USA for Africa back in 1984 (I’m dating myself). We have given billions and billions of dollars to these people for decades and they are still living like it’s the year 800. This is why foreign aid doesn’t work. It doesn’t reach the people it’s supposed to be helping. It goes into the pockets of corrupt government officials.
27
PM
I agree there needs to be accountablity in foreign aid programs, but I would argue that foreign aid to Africa is just a small drop in the bucket of the aid we give out yearly. The problem historically with America aid practices is that they are not usually focused. We already spend enough, but its often spent too thinly in too many areas.
I would not call a view based off the Federalists liberal in the modern context.
27
PM
I mean liberal as in a loose interpretation. I don’t think that holding the opinion that foreign aid is Constitutional under Congress’ foreign policy powers would be considered an Originalist view.
28
AM
Sorry Sam, I really think you’ve got this one quite wrong on a policy basis. I won’t go into the constitutionality of it but I think this Wall Street Journal Editorial sums it all up pretty well.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121460665479612081.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Note the line that says the Africa AIDS program is probably the most succesful American foreign aid program since the Marshall Plan. Also note how notorious liberal Tom Coburn has worked it so that the money is directed very, very specifically at treatment drugs. It also notes how the last $15 Billion directly saved 1.3 million lives. And this is the Wall Street Journal saying this NOT the New York Times.
I’d also note that if this type of ludicrous ignorance towards people dying in Africa were to become the trademark of how the GOP were to be “saved” we’d win all 5 electoral votes of Utah in a best case scenario.
28
PM
People in Africa aren’t our problem and we don’t have $15 billion to send there seeing as how we are $9 trillion in debt and rising.
28
PM
I agree with Sam. It’s nice that we have so much money to throw at other countries (whether or not to good effect), but I’d rather see the money spent here. Preferably to help pay down the debt.
28
PM
Like it or not, it is our problem. If you are willing to accept the Chinese moving into the destabilized portions of Africa, then by all means we should not care about it. If we want to remain on the top, we must be willing to protect our interests and anything that runs counter to our interests, i.e. the Chinese getting quazi-imperial footholds in Africa. Do we want the Chinese to move into sub-Sahara Africa and make it their sphere of influence? I could really care less about the region except the fact that a rival power wants to gain control over it not to mention its potential as a breeding ground for terrorists.
29
AM
Sub-Saharan Africa (who some less politically-correct persons have called “black Africa”) is a potential breeding ground for terrorists? Are you serious? And why would the Chinese want to gain control over sub-Saharan Africa? All snark aside, I’ve totally missed the reports that China wants to take over this most underdeveloped part of the world.
29
AM
I’m an idiot. Which, not who.
4
AM
Yeah, stop the Jesus loving Christian stuff about giving to the sick and poor. Real Republicans cherish selfishness and greed.
4
PM
No John, “Jesus loving Christian stuff” is not what the government is here to provide. The federal government is here to defend our nation’s shores, to maintain a free-market economy, to act as a legal representative of the People in conducting foreign affairs, and to regulate interstate commerce along with other specified duties laid out in the United States Constitution.
The government should get out of the way so that people can prosper. True charity comes from people giving of themselves, not a government writing checks of other peoples’ money.
Americans are the most generous people in the world in individual charity. And I suspect that with more freedom, less government bureaucracy and taxes, and less hassle that the government places on individuals’ lives, and strain that it places on their businesses and wallets, American individuals would be even more charitable.
Private charity is a great thing. But a government writing taxpayer checks, with no oversight, and the money usually ending up in corrupt hands, is not charity. It’s irresponsible fiscal policy that does nothing to really change the status quo.
4
PM
John, go take a long walk off a short pier.
5
AM
By the way, where in the Bible does it say that the government should redistribute wealth? I think I missed that passage. I’m quite familiar with the exhortations to charity… but government redistribution of wealth isn’t charity, because charity means reaching in your own pocket.