NYT: U.S. Cutting (global) Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency

[DeepModem Mom]

U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency
By ELIZABETH BECKER

Published: December 22, 2004


WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - 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.

As a result, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and other charities have suspended or eliminated programs that were intended to help the poor feed themselves through improvements in farming, education and health.

"We have between five and seven million people who have been affected by these cuts," said Lisa Kuennen, a food aid expert at Catholic Relief Services. "We had approval for all of these programs, often a year in advance. We hired staff, signed agreements with governments and with local partners, and now we have had to delay everything."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22aid.html?oref=login

[PA Democrat]

1. How many people could be fed with the obscene amounts of money

spent on the weapons of war, the 700 plus military bases we maintain around the world, the corporate welfare to big business?

[Rose Siding]

9. Ironic, huh? It's even in our own nat'l security interests...

to be very generous with aid. And the benefits are infinitely greater than would be those of a weapons system that doesn't work!

"Values" voters. Ugh. HERETICS!

[DeepModem Mom]

11. Right, PA Dem -- Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, hungry of the world...

from Bush's America.

[gnofg]

2. Let's see

food for starving people or tax cuts for rich. Silly question taxcuts for the rich. Boy am I a compassionate conservative or what.

[leftofcool]

4. Hasn't it been American Foreign Policy

that causes, in part, some of the world hunger? What am I saying? That must be a different US.

Left of cool

[moondust]

3. Large yachts are getting expensive these days.

You didn't expect George and the boys to cut back on their necessities did you? God forbid!

[LynnTheDem]

5. "unable to honor some earlier promises" vs "bush always does what he says

he will do".

And the truth is yet again out;

bush is all mouth, all bullshit. All the time.

[gnofg]

6. Bush

" you know where I stand" reneging is my middle name

[yorkiemommie1]

20. another Bush FlipFlop n/t

[G_j]

7. the failed missle test cost 85 million

don't even mention Iraq.

Didn't Jesus say feed the poor?

[Karenina]

8. like, with Monsanto goodwill???

;-)

[0007]

10. junior only helps the rich!

[Rose Siding]

12. Of course there's the ritual whine: "make Europe do moooore"

snip>
She also said Europe should increase its food aid and relieve some of the pressure on the United States, which is by far the largest donor to United Nations food programs, contributing almost half of the total.
--------------
In 2003 we ranked TWENTY-SECOND in donations as GNP percentage. We FOLLOWED Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, France, Switzerland, the UK, Finland, Germany, Canada, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Portuagal, Greece, Japan, Austria and Italy. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

[indepat]

13. There's just not enough money to fund unnecessary projects: our priorities

must be kept straight for Criss-sakes.

[MisterP]

14. less money for food = more food; Bush-Reagan-Randmath is nuts!

[OnlyInAmerica]

15. Wait a second....

I thought most people on this board would be praising the cutting of donations to the food program due to the fact that a religious charity, Catholic Relief Services, was involved. Anytime a religious charity in the US is mentioned along with Shrub's "Faith-Based Initiative" program there is no shortage of posters who decry the government giving resources to religious charities to help the poor and hungry. All of a sudden it's okay for the government to give to a religious charity? Where are all of the people who are in favor of absolute separation of church and state?

[iamjoy]

16. That's Not The Point

I mean, I see your point. Why are we upset he is taking away from a "faith based charity"

Some of us mis-trust faith based program because it gives federal funding to organizations which discriminate.

Some of us are hardline, no mixing of church and state.

Some of us (like me) think it is a fine line, supporting good works without endorsing, promoting or establishing a religion.

But in any case, the idea is not to do away with programs that feed the poor, etc, just choosing which programs receive funding. It seems Bush is taking away from Catholic Charities, but not replacing it by giving money to a secular organization that feeds the hungry.

And I am sure that many secular organizations working to reduce poverty will also be hit hard by these cuts. It seems highly immoral to give a tax break to millionaires while children (well, anyone really) go hungry.

But I have little sympathy for the Catholics who condemned Kerry for voting Pro-Choice. Obviously they feel the abortion issue is the most important issue because the fetus matters more than the people dying of hunger.

[OnlyInAmerica]

18. I agree with you

I don't have a problem with money going to private charities. Certainly there are some issues that need to be dealt with, but Catholic charities and other non-secular charities do a tremendous amount of good work around the world. They don't require that someone listen to a bible reading or sermon prior to receiving assistance. Certainly they would be willing to tell the recipients about Catholicism if they seemed interested, but it is not a prerequisite to getting food. I just found it somewhat hypocritical that for all the bashing the Catholic church gets on DU, as well as the faith-based initiative, those same people who are critical on those issues are now upset that Catholic Relief Services are having their gov't funding cut.

spelling edit

[OnlyInAmerica]

19. Also

On this thread on the same topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1092234

I posted a completely disingenuous message entitled "Good" about an hour ago, yet nobody has criticized it. Just found that interesting

[punpirate]

17. It's important...

... to stay focused on what's most necessary. The US doesn't deal directly with some nations in need of relief, and NGOs of all kinds do.

What I find most interesting about this is that for almost twenty years, the free trade mavens have been touting how expanded free trade through the WTO and NAFTA and GATT/GATS will lift more people out of poverty. Now, we find that malnutrition is actually increasing, and malnutrition is a direct symptom of poverty and poverty is a direct symptom of trade policies.

It's no surprise that the Bushies are reneging on prior commitments. That's been their modus operandi for their entire administration. Nor is it a surprise that they're attacking non-military spending and using the deficits as the excuse--that's been the plan all along, and such ought to convince the general public of the far right-wing roots of this bunch. Unfortunately, the public will be steered to the belief that we spend too much on foreign aid as it is (even though the facts prove otherwise--in terms of percentage of GDP, the US spends less than any other developed nation).

Six months from now, the Bushies will be saying that the money wasn't necessary....

[gottaB]

21. sigh