Congressman Ron Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries on constitutional, practical, and moral grounds. Constitutionally, Congressman Paul notes that the document that created our country does not grant permission to Congress or the President to authorize funds to be taken from the national treasure and given to foreign countries. He also cites the statements of some of the founding fathers who warned the US to steer clear of foreign entanglements.
On a moral ground, Congressman Paul opposes foreign aid as it takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people in foreign countries. Congressman Paul notes that the morality of taking money from people of the United States to be given to those in other countries is not moral or benevolent, especially when the US does not have enough money to pay for it's own needs.
From a practical standpoint, Congressman Paul notes that the amount of foreign that actually reaches those who need it is dramatically reduced after the numerous levels of bureaucracy within each government is paid for the distribution and any corrupt politician then takes their cut.
Congressman Paul notes that because foreign aid comes from governments, it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. As examples of this, he cites the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Millennium Challenge Account. He stated that the National Endowment for Democracy funds are usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins "democratic" elections. This result is not beneficial to those seeking a truly democratic state. As for the Millennium Challenge Account, which sends U.S. aid to countries that meet U.S.-determined economic reform criteria, Congressman Paul notes that countries that enact solid economic policies will attract many times the amount of private foreign investment on international capital markets than they receive through the Millennium Challenge program.
Congressman Paul has spoken about how the use of foreign aid creates instability and promotes an anti-American view. He cites examples such as Egypt, where the US was spending billions of dollars to prop up a regime that was opposed by a vast majority of the people there. He notes that for the money we spent there, the US received a nation of people who opposed our involvement and are now untrusting of the US. Congressman Paul notes that the instability and corruption that foreign aid fosters only serves to discredit the US and lower our moral standing in the world.
Deficits and International Aid
In November of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address a recent package for international aid while the US is running huge deficits and is unable to address the Katrina aftermath.
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
Abroad November 7, 2005 In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with an ongoing war in Iraq that costs more than $1 billion per week, taxpayers might think Congress has better things to do with $21 billion than send it overseas. Yet that’s exactly what Congress did last Friday, approving a useless and counterproductive foreign aid spending bill. Never mind that the total federal debt recently topped $8 trillion, or that a major US city was virtually destroyed only a few months ago. Arrogant is the only word to describe a Congress that cares so little about its own taxpaying citizens while pretending to know what is best for the world. Consider just a few of the ways your money will be used under the new bill: $638 million for the unelected Musharraf government in Pakistan; $735 million to continue dangerous drug meddling in South America; $150 million for development in Gaza, in addition to the millions we already give the Palestinians every year; $110 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, ostensibly for economic development, although the recipient nations include oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Why in the world are American taxpayers giving welfare to OPEC governments? Over $500 million for various republics in the former Soviet Union. Even as those nations spawn millionaires and even billionaires, Americans are expected to provide welfare for their poor. $95 million in new money for the United Nations Democracy Fund, which meddles with foreign governments but never seems to change them; $34 million for the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, which lectures poor people about having too many children; $440 million for international population planning; $80 million for the dubious Global Environment Facility, run by the World Bank to fund anti-capitalist environmental projects around the world. Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. But there also is a strong moral case to be made against taking money from Americans and giving it to foreign governments. Foreign aid doesn’t help poor people; it helps foreign elites and US corporations who obtain the contracts doled out by those foreign elites. Everyone in Washington knows this, but the same lofty rhetoric is used over and over to sell foreign aid programs. Corporate welfare is bad enough, but corporate welfare in the guise of helping poor foreigners is indecent. In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law. Since American foreign aid programs began in earnest decades ago, tens of billions of US tax dollars have been given to nations around the globe. The utter failure of this money to change things for the better in those nations is no longer in question; even the most earnest advocates deep down must admit the obvious. Most of the recipient nations remain endlessly mired in poverty, political and legal corruption, and cultural malaise. A rational person would argue that failed aid programs should be eliminated. In Washington, however, failed programs get more money thrown at them. The American public deserves to know why there is room in the budget for foreign aid, when taxpayers face record deficits and debt at home.
True Foreign Aid
In June of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss what he called "True Foreign Aid."
True Foreign Aid
A recent Hudson Institute study found that, last year, American citizens voluntarily contributed three times more to help people overseas than did the United States government. This should not surprise us at all, as Americans are generous to those in need, whether here or abroad. There are so many moral, religious, and human reasons to help our fellow men and women in need. It is only when government gets in the way and tries to crowd out private charity that problems arise.
There are good reasons why the U.S. Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced "charity" is not charity at all, but theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause, it does not negate the original act of theft.
There are also practical reasons to oppose governmental foreign aid. Though it may be given with the best intentions, government agencies simply cannot do the kind of job that private charities do in actually helping people in need. Government-to-government assistance seldom helps those really in need. First, because it comes from governments, it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. Take our own National Endowment for Democracy, for example. The "aid" money it spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins "democratic" elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.
Likewise with the so-called Millennium Challenge Account, which sends U.S. aid to countries that meet U.S.-determined economic reform criteria. The fact is, countries that enact solid economic policies will attract many times the amount of private foreign investment on international capital markets than they receive through the Millennium Challenge program.
Another problem is that when a government gives aid to another government, there are so many layers of middlemen involved that by the time the actual aid trickles down to those in need it is a small fraction of the original amount given. Not to mention that much of this aid finds its way into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders.
Private assistance organizations, on the other hand, are more subject to market forces and thus much more effective. When Americans feel motivated to part with their hard-earned money to help someone overseas, they want to make sure it goes only to the most effective charities. Bad news travels fast, and private charities are unlikely to send their resources where they are likely to be wasted, because their contributions would soon dry up. We all recall what happened several years ago when it was revealed that the top management of a major charity organization was paid extremely high salaries: people stopped sending money. The problem corrected itself.
Sadly, this does not happen when government aid is mismanaged. More often than not, the very government agencies that mismanaged the assistance in the first place come back to Congress for a budget increase to solve the problem they created.
So we should be happy to hear that Americans are willing to give so much to help those less fortunate in foreign lands. And we should think hard about all the good we could do both at home and abroad if our government did not take so much from us for its ineffective and wasteful foreign aid priorities. True charity is never coerced.
Annual Foreign Aid Rip off
In June of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the various programs funded through foreign aid.
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
June 5, 2006 This week, Congress will vote to send more than 20 billion of your hard-earned dollars overseas, when it passes the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 2007. Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on America’s working families, but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence foreign governments is counterproductive and actually results in less goodwill toward the United States overseas. Why is foreign aid so bad? Isn’t it our obligation to help those less fortunate? What is not mentioned by proponents of foreign aid is that it very seldom gets to those who need it most. Foreign aid is the transfer of US dollars from the treasury of the United States to the governments of foreign countries. It is money that goes to help foreign elites, who in turn spend much of it on contracts with US corporations. This means US tax dollars ultimately go to well-connected US corporations operating overseas. Foreign aid distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. It breeds resentment among citizens of foreign countries, who see the United States as keeping oppressive governments in power. Also, it is important to remember that forced charity is not charity at all. While I believe strongly in the moral value of helping the less fortunate, charity must come voluntarily from the heart, not under threat from the IRS. This year’s bill is even worse than last year’s bill. Aside from the almost 600 million dollar increase, the bill will spend half a billion dollars on something called the “Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund.” This is nothing but an enormous fund to bribe foreign governments to “liberalize” their trade policies. As one of the strongest proponents of free trade in Congress, I know well that open and free trade is its own reward. Countries that trade freely with each other are wealthier and far less likely to go to war. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: this new program is not about free trade. Its purpose is to encourage countries to enter into new so-called trade agreements with the US government. Government to government trade agreements produce government-managed trade relationships, which are not free trade at all. This fund is a colossal waste of money that will result in less free trade worldwide. Also, this year Congress will nearly double funding for the monstrous Millennium Challenge program. This is billed as a different kind of foreign aid, in that it only goes to governments that pursue “free market” economic and social reforms. Of course this is a waste of money: governments that pursue wise economic policies will attract much more in foreign private investment than the US government can send them. The true reward for sound economic policies is increased prosperity. Foreign aid does not purchase that prosperity but in fact distorts internal markets and props up inefficient companies. Americans concerned about high taxes, out of control gas prices, and economic downturn should think hard about what the US government is doing with the money it takes from them. The greatest “foreign assistance” we can give to other countries is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that limited government and the rule of law ensure freedom and prosperity.
Foreign Aid to Israel and Egypt
In November of 2007, Congressman Paul was asked about foreign aid to Israel on CSPAN. Congressman Paul stated that he supported ending aid to Israel and Egypt.
Foreign Aid and Africa
In March of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address foreign aid in Africa and why it won't help Africa.
Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
Congress is poised to pass the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President's requested amount. It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations. Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption. Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds. If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run. For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change. Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones. The obvious question remains: Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ? And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example - family planning facilities that perform abortions? In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were. They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS. Africans should decide what is best for Africa . American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money. Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral. The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems. It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress. It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given. These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided. The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent. The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom. The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets. Perhaps then Africa's leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.
The Revolution; A Manifesto
In Congressman Paul's book, he notes on page 99 that foreign is simply taking property from Americans and giving it to the leaders of foreign countries.
Morally, I cannot justify the violent seizure of property from Americans in order to redistribute that property to a foreign government - and usually one that is responsible for the appalling material condition of its people. Surely we can agree that Americans ought not to be doing forced labor on behalf of other regimes, and that is exactly what foreign aid is.
Foreign Aid to Egypt, Jordan
In January of 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox News and discussed the effects of foreign aid to Egypt and other countries.
Neil Cavuto: A mess that’s getting messier, and reason enough for Texas Republican Ron Paul to say, “The U.S. should stop getting in deeper and cut all financial to Egypt now.” The Congressman joins me now on the phone. Well, that would be a big move, Congressman.
Ron Paul: Well, it would, but I’d include everybody, because I think we just get ourselves into too much trouble. This is a typical example of what happens when we run an interventionist-type foreign policy; we get in the middle of these fights. But we’ve been in the middle of this for 30 years over there. We’ve given Mubarak $60 billion, you know. And so we’re responsible for a lot of the mess that’s over there.
Neil Cavuto: What if we did indeed pull out or stop giving them money? The argument is someone else comes in to our detriment. What do you say?
Ron Paul: Well, that may be, but you don’t know whether it would be to our detriment. Somebody else is going to come in, the big fight now is for us to be charge. I mean, if Mubarak survives, we want to be on his side. If they get a new guy, we want to be on their side. And I just think that doesn’t work, because eventually the people rebel. For a while it seems to be stable, but it’ so artificial.
I mean, all that money going over there, they have a 450,000 man army that will probably be turned against the people unless they take over the government, and there’s a lot of wealth there for a few people, and the people are suffering. It just sets the stage for this. They should be forced to live within their means and take care of themselves. But I would do that with all countries, I wouldn’t just cut off Egyptian aid, I’d cut off all aid to the Middle East, and maybe that whole area would be better off for it.
Neil Cavuto: Well, the argument against doing that, Congressman – we’ve heard this so many times – is that in this case the Muslim Brotherhood through groups like Al-Qaida and the rest would get an enormous influence in the region, a region rich in oil, and we’d be having to kowtow to them.
Ron Paul: Yea, that is the argument. But have they ever thought whether the growth of groups like this is because they have a target, and the target is us, our puppet governments? I mean, we didn’t have to worry about radical mullahs in Iran until we put the Shah in, and then it took a couple of decades and finally the people rebelled and there was a revolution and there was a blowback to us and an unintended consequence.
So yes, I think we have to worry about the radicals, but we have to understand how they get their motivation; and their motivation, how they arouse the people and radicalize them is when we take over. I mean, I think the big issue here is how long is it going to take for this to happen in Saudi Arabia and for people to say that’s impossible, I think they’re kidding themselves. Now that would be big news and that would be major. Maybe that’s why some people are discounting that and I think oil went up 6 to 7 dollars in the last trading day.
Neil Cavuto: That’s right.
Ron Paul: So there’s something significant going on, there’s a lot of concern there.
Ron Paul: On the fear of just that. Great, Congressman, thank you very much. Good having you.
Ron Paul: Sure thing.
How Foreign Aid Creates Instability and Isolates America
In February of 2011, Congressman Paul used his radio message to address the effects of foreign aid on the US and the rest of the world.
Letter to Colleagues
In February of 2011, Congressman Paul wrote a letter to his colleagues in the House urging them to end all foreign aid.
Borrowing money from China — or printing it out of thin air — to hand out overseas in [an] attempt to purchase friends has been a failing foreign policy, as we see most recently in Egypt where there is not even a government in place! We should seek friendly relations and trade overseas, but we cannot justify lavish gifts to foreign leaders when American taxpayers are increasingly feeling the pain of our economic crisis…. We cannot afford to have ‘business as usual’ when we are bankrupt.
At that same time, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox News and spoke about his desire to end international aid and the negative effects that aid has on the US.
2011 CPAC Speech
In February of 2011 Congressman Paul spoke at the Conservative Political Action Committee. He stated during that speech that foreign aid was taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to rich people in a poor country.
Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country. And there can't be a better example of that than what we did with Egypt. We took money from you, it made people poorer, it contributed to our debt, billions and billions of dollars and all we get is chaos from it, and instability. There’s nothing wrong with what the founders talked about. They talked about having friendships and trading and getting along with people and with staying out of entangling alliances and the internal affairs of foreign countries when it’s none of our business.
Buying Friends Creates More Enemies
In March of 2011, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to again discuss the effects that international aid has on creating more enemies.
Buying Friends Creates More Enemies
Last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of my concerns regarding US foreign policy and the costs of our interventionism around the world.
Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.
We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further US interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced by another US puppet. It is ironic, but the US government’s endless promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true self-determination.
Radicals who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US involvement in the first place. I have never understood how the US government justifies subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the name of promoting independence and pluralism. It makes no sense.
Unfortunately it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at the committee hearing that “nothing is off the table” with regard to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of “no-fly zones” and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to overthrow the Gadaffi regime. Some military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both financially and in lives.
The costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don’t have the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration for “international affairs,” which is code for “foreign aid”, is two and a half times larger than it was just nine years ago! As our economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase abroad. As our infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend billions expanding infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we will be soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan military operation. It does not take a genius to see that we are going broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as usual. I fear that if we continue this way we may soon be out of business altogether.
The Western Debate
In October of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Western Debate in Las Vegas. He states that foreign aid should be cut to everyone.
COOPER: Time.
Congressman Paul?
PAUL: On foreign aid, that should be the easiest thing to cut. It's not authorized in the Constitution that we can take money from you and give it to particular countries around the world. To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And it becomes weapons of war. Essentially, no well -- no matter how well-motivated it is...
COOPER: Congressman Paul, would you cut aid to Israel?
PAUL: I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally and fairly. And I don't think aid to Israel actually helps them. I think it teaches them to be dependent. We're on a bankruptcy course.
And -- and look at what's the result of all that foreign aid we gave to Egypt? I mean, their -- their dictator that we pumped up, we spent all these billions of dollars, and now there's a more hostile regime in Egypt. And that's what's happening all around Israel. That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us. It softens them for their own economy. And they should have their sovereignty back. They should be able to deal with their neighbors...
CNN National Security Debate
On November 22, 2011 Congressman Paul participated in the CNN debate on national security. He stated that he did not support foreign aid. He also stated that it would be beneficial to the nation to avoid spending aid on other countries in an attempt to promote ideology.
BLITZER: All right, here's the question. Can the United States afford to continue that kind of foreign assistance to Africa for AIDS, malaria -- could run into the billions of dollars? CAIN: It depends upon priorities. Secondly, it depends upon looking at the program and asking the question, has that aid been successful.
In other words, let's look at the whole problem. It may be worthwhile to continue. It may not. I would like to see the results.
Just like every program we have here domestically, what have the results been. Then we make a decision about how we prioritize. BLITZER: Ron Paul?
PAUL: I -- I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries.
And they're used as weapons of war so you accomplish nothing. We should export some, maybe some principles about free markets and sound money and maybe they could produce some of their -- their own wealth.
But this whole idea of -- of talking about the endless wars and the endless foreign aid, it seems like nobody cares about the budget. I mean, we -- we're in big trouble and -- and -- and nobody wants to cut anything.
So if you're gonna keep sending foreign aid overseas and these endless wars that you don't have to declare and -- and go into Libya without even consulting with the Congress, the biggest threat -- the biggest threat to our national security is our financial condition.
And this is just aggravating it.
Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation
This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.
References
[1]Website: AntiWar.com Article: True Foreign AidAuthor: Congressman Ron Paul Accessed on: 02/27/2011
