One of the frustrations/pleasures of having lived so long is observing how often opinions, even (maybe especially) "expert" opinions, flip-flop. I've mentioned this before on the issue of healthy eating: Fat is bad; no, it's really good. Protein is bad; no, it's really good. Carbohydrates are bad; no, they're really good. Repeat until no one believes you at all. If you always take these pronouncements seriously, you'll eat nothing—or everything.
This time I'm wondering about our attitudes toward the USAID. During my formative years, the Left fought against that organization, claiming that it was just a front for the CIA, operating under humanitarian pretenses. But now that the Left/Right/Center coalition we have in office is finally trying to dismantle the USAID, the new Left is jumping to its defense. I doubt the USAID itself has changed much.
If you take exception to my designation of the current administration as a Left/Right/Center coalition, and still believe that our new leadership is something out of the Far Right, take a closer look at how many of its supporters and major players, including President Trump himself, were once part of the Democratic Party, and still retain many of its former ideals. (Yours truly included.) This coalition is openly one of many diverse interests giving priority to what they have in common and consider critical for our country to survive—and flourish. How else to explain the strength of President Trump's support among suburban white women and inner-city black men; secular and Hasidic Jews and Arabs; the Amish, young religious people, and half of all Hispanics? It's a strong alliance—albeit a fragile one, because we do have major differences. I pray we can keep our "eyes on the prize" through continued cooperation, compromise, and civil discourse.
Indeed. When I was in Bangladesh in 1974 and was gathering information about cross border rice smuggling between it and India for my senior thesis in economics, it was the USAID personnel who had the good data for me.
I can't say whether USAID is a CIA front, a channel to buy favors, the expression of American charity, or all or none of the above. I can't say whether it ought to be dismantled or not.
But I can say that Congress appropriated the funds for USAID for USAID alone, and not to be used otherwise or go unspent. Not using the USAID-appropriated money for USAID is in violation of the Impoundment Act Nixon signed. In other words, shuttering USAID like this is illegal, even if you think shuttering it is a good idea.
A few posts ago, you bemoaned that Congress is failing in its duty to legislate, resulting in more and more executive orders defining government. Can we blame Congress for failing to legislate when its laws are being flouted by Trump and his crew?
I am not an expert on the impoundment act, however, the gao.gov website implies that there is currently a 45-day period during which funds can be withheld pending rescission requests to congress and a 25-day waiting period before the Comptroller General can initiate legal proceedings to compel the release of impounded budget authority. The current CR (continuing resolution) expires March 14. Thus, congress must pass something to fund the government beyond that date. By DOGE going in and finding out all the details about how the money has been misspent at USAID and the Dept of Education, etc. - it will give the current congress the information it needs to cut the budget in targeted ways.
This situation makes me think that I might support another CR in March in order to give DOGE more time to go into other departments to discover how they've spent their money. After DOGE has finished with all or most of the departments, then a full fiscal year funding bill, or set of bills should be passed.
I haven't heard that there was a rescission request, nor that Congress has been asked to revoke their mandate to create and maintain an agency such as USAID. It seems clear that this action is designed to create a new lasting reality, whether or not Congress repudiates it or lawsuits against it are successful. That is how Macchiavelli would run a republic.
Note, by the way, that it is not only USAID that is affected by is dismantling. Because much work was done by NGOs such as e. g. World Vision supported by USAID, these organizations have already had to fire personnel. They thought the US was a reliable partner and have learned otherwise.
I hope you're right about DOGE, though I don't share your optimism. There are far too many conflicts of interest for me to have any confidence in Musk.
I am disappointed to learn that World Vision has been supported by USAID. I'm happy to support World Vision personally; you know that. But this shakes my confidence. It is dangerous for Christian organizations to allow themselves to become dependent on secular governments, and it isn't right to ask taxpayers to fund organizations whose missions they find objectionable. NGO's should be just that: NON-GOVERNMENTAL organizations.
I understand your misgivings, and we see here how a government-funded program can be far more risky than an aid organization might normally think.
However, working for pay on a government project make World Vision no more of a governmental organization than the contractor paving an interstate or a tax-exempt church.
One could argue in the latter case that taxpayers are also asked to fund organizations whose mission statement they might disagree with. For that matter, taxpayers might even disagree with paving roads… some of our tax dollars will always go to things with which we disagree. It should be the job of Congress to find a workable compromise, but compromises in Congress seem to have gone the way of the dodo.
