Yesterday in Church our pastor preached on the resurrection. That seems obvious, as it was Easter Sunday, except for the fact that the main scripture for the sermon was the resurrection of Lazarus, not that of Jesus. He focused most of his sermon on John 11, where Lazarus gets sick, yet Jesus does not go to him until after he has died, and Jesus resurrects him four days after Lazarus has died.
Our pastor made a few points that I want to touch on before getting to my main point. At one point he highlighted when Jesus says "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe." On this verse our pastor brought up the fact that Jesus had done healings before, and that if Jesus went and healed Lazarus to prevent his death, there would always be a few people who would say "he wasn't really that sick" or "it was the doctor who saved him." However, once Lazarus was dead, nobody could deny that it was an outright miracle performed by Jesus that brought Lazarus back from the dead. He also said something else that I found interesting. Our pastor added that maybe there are times when the situation doesn't call for a miracle. Perhaps Lazarus' being sick didn't call for a miracle, but his having died did. He made the point that we want and expect God to do miracles in our lives, but we don't want to be in the situation that requires a miracle. Interesting point.
Our pastor also highlighted Martha's faith in the story. In John 21:11, Martha says "Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." What incredible faith! Not only did she have faith that Jesus could have healed Lazarus had he come before Lazarus died, but she fully trusted that even after Lazarus' death, Jesus could ask God to resurrect him, and it would be done. If only we could all live with that kind of faith.
I think what impacted me the most however was not something from scripture, but rather a point about the overall story that out pastor made. In relation to this story, our pastor referenced a friend of his who once said "don't put commas where God puts periods, and don't put periods where God puts commas." I particularly liked that last part, as it is incredibly applicable to this story and to our lives as Christians. In John 11 it would have been so easy to put a period after Lazarus' death. Lazarus dies, end of story. As humans we'd tend to do that, but God put a comma there instead. While we might expect the story to end there, God wasn't done, and he showed his incredible power again in resurrecting Lazarus from the dead.
I think this point is particularly applicable in our everyday life. We can't see what God has in store for us, and we don't know what God is doing, whether it be in the future or even how He is working in things that we are currently experiencing. It's so easy for us to experience something and put a period after it. End of story. I think that quite often we think something is over, and God is still working. Too often God does something in our lives and we say "that was God working, thank you," and assume that the work is done and it's time to move to the next thing. However, God may still be working in that situation. Even when we can't see it, God is always working. When we think God is done, He may be just getting started.
So when something isn't going well, or doesn't appear to have worked out the way we'd like, let's remember that God works in mysterious ways, and we often don't understand or even realize how God has been working until long after He's done His work. I think if we can all remember that God is always working and that we need to actively look for how He is doing that, we might just see things we didn't expect to see.
Let's leave the punctuation to God.
Showing posts with label DC Semester. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DC Semester. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
A Week and a Half
Next Friday I will be done with college. Wow. I said it. Next Friday, the Washington DC Semester program ends, and with it, my career as a student at Calvin College comes to a close. I'm not going to write a big reflection on my time at Calvin yet (though that may come later), but I thought maybe it was worth noting.
It's been a fantastic four years at Calvin (well, 3 plus one abroad). It's actually funny to think about the fact that I am where I am today, because I spent most of my life saying I was not going to go to Calvin. When I started visiting colleges and looking at where I wanted to go I mostly ignored Calvin. I had nothing against Calvin, except for the fact that it was close to home and almost my entire family had gone there, so I didn't want to.
Four years later I am so thankful that I chose Calvin, and I have not a single regret about going to Calvin. I've had so many fantastic opportunities, and I know that my time at Calvin will continue to provide me with opportunities through the course of my life.
Again, in a week and a half I'll be done with college. One month from tomorrow I'll be a college graduate. Wow.
It's been a fantastic four years at Calvin (well, 3 plus one abroad). It's actually funny to think about the fact that I am where I am today, because I spent most of my life saying I was not going to go to Calvin. When I started visiting colleges and looking at where I wanted to go I mostly ignored Calvin. I had nothing against Calvin, except for the fact that it was close to home and almost my entire family had gone there, so I didn't want to.
Four years later I am so thankful that I chose Calvin, and I have not a single regret about going to Calvin. I've had so many fantastic opportunities, and I know that my time at Calvin will continue to provide me with opportunities through the course of my life.
Again, in a week and a half I'll be done with college. One month from tomorrow I'll be a college graduate. Wow.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Living Our Thanksgiving
This morning in Church our pastor gave a sermon on Matthew 26. He selected a few sections to focus on in following with his recent sermon theme of "All In." He spoke of the woman anointing Jesus' head with expensive perfume, saying she was "All In." He spoke of Judas' betrayal of Jesus for a 30 pieces of silver, saying he was clearly not "All In." He spoke of how we should be "All In" in our lives.
The key image that he presented was the contrast of the Cup of Wrath and the Cup of Thanksgiving. In Isaiah 51, the prophet speaks of the Cup of the Lord's Wrath, which Israel has drunk in its sin.
Rise up, Jerusalem,
you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD
the cup of his wrath,
you who have drained to its dregs
the goblet that makes people stagger. (Isaiah 51:17)
He contrasted that image with the Cup of Thanksgiving in Matthew 26: "Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The Cup of Thanksgiving, as the symbol of the blood of the covenant, represents our salvation from sin through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. This is prophesied in Isaiah 51:22, where it says
This is what your Sovereign LORD says,
your God, who defends his people:
“See, I have taken out of your hand
the cup that made you stagger;
from that cup, the goblet of my wrath,
you will never drink again. (Isaiah 51:22)
By offering Himself on the cross for our sins, Jesus bears the Cup of Wrath for us, so that we may never have to drink from that Cup again. Rather, we drink from the Cup of Thanksgiving, which gives us new life, as a new creation, in Christ, free from sin.
Jesus went all in for us. He drank the Cup of Wrath so that we do not have to. We are called to go all in as well. In response to Christ dying for our forgiveness, we are called to live our lives as a servant of Christ, carrying out His will each and every step of the way, and living our lives as examples and vessels of Christ's love, carrying it to all nations and all peoples.
The key image that he presented was the contrast of the Cup of Wrath and the Cup of Thanksgiving. In Isaiah 51, the prophet speaks of the Cup of the Lord's Wrath, which Israel has drunk in its sin.
Rise up, Jerusalem,
you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD
the cup of his wrath,
you who have drained to its dregs
the goblet that makes people stagger. (Isaiah 51:17)
He contrasted that image with the Cup of Thanksgiving in Matthew 26: "Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The Cup of Thanksgiving, as the symbol of the blood of the covenant, represents our salvation from sin through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. This is prophesied in Isaiah 51:22, where it says
This is what your Sovereign LORD says,
your God, who defends his people:
“See, I have taken out of your hand
the cup that made you stagger;
from that cup, the goblet of my wrath,
you will never drink again. (Isaiah 51:22)
By offering Himself on the cross for our sins, Jesus bears the Cup of Wrath for us, so that we may never have to drink from that Cup again. Rather, we drink from the Cup of Thanksgiving, which gives us new life, as a new creation, in Christ, free from sin.
Jesus went all in for us. He drank the Cup of Wrath so that we do not have to. We are called to go all in as well. In response to Christ dying for our forgiveness, we are called to live our lives as a servant of Christ, carrying out His will each and every step of the way, and living our lives as examples and vessels of Christ's love, carrying it to all nations and all peoples.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Taxes
It's tax season and people around the country are finishing up (or already finished) reporting their income and paying their taxes. Meanwhile, at InterAction I'm writing a paper on Innovative Financing for Development, which addresses a variety of tax options on currency transactions, financial transactions or big banks as a way to raise money for development and global health programs. At the same time, Congress is fighting over the budget and while taxes aren't really part of the fight, they actually are.
On that note, I want to make a few points
1. We do have a budget problem, and we do need to work to balance it
2. Cutting from the "non-defense discretionary budget" will not balance the budget. Even if we eliminated the entire "non-defense discretionary" budget, we'd still have a deficit
3. Some programs absolutely cannot be cut
4. The proposals put forth in HR 1 would be like pulling the safety net out from under a tightrope walker. People all over the country (and the world) live day to day, week to week, and do not have a secure financial future. The proposed cuts take away any safety net they have.
5. There are other ways to balance the budget than just cutting spending (hint: look at the title of this post).
So here's my recommendation, and before I continue, don't get your hopes up, this isn't a complete solution, and I'm not going to go into a ton of detail because I haven't studied the numbers very carefully, but I have enough to present a basic idea.
MY RECOMMENDATION: raise taxes (shhh...don't tell the rich beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts that I said this).
I'm not saying to raise taxes on everybody. In fact in most cases I wouldn't even say raise taxes, I'd simply eliminate tax cuts to the wealthy. Along with that, we need to close corporate tax loopholes. There are far too many deductions, shelters and other tax-reducing tactics that big businesses use to avoid paying their fair share. I'm not going to propose a solution to our tax problems right now, but we need to work on our tax policies. Americans expect services from the government, but we don't want to pay for them. Take a look at most European countries. They pay far higher taxes than we do, yet we expect most of the same services, that's unrealistic. We need to take a good hard look at what we expect from our government, and what we are willing to pay to get it.
I'm thinking I'll need to come back with a more detailed post on this later, but this is all I have time for now. Remember, I'm not saying we should raise taxes on everyone, but we do need to at least have taxes on the table as we seek to solve our budget issues.
On that note, I want to make a few points
1. We do have a budget problem, and we do need to work to balance it
2. Cutting from the "non-defense discretionary budget" will not balance the budget. Even if we eliminated the entire "non-defense discretionary" budget, we'd still have a deficit
3. Some programs absolutely cannot be cut
4. The proposals put forth in HR 1 would be like pulling the safety net out from under a tightrope walker. People all over the country (and the world) live day to day, week to week, and do not have a secure financial future. The proposed cuts take away any safety net they have.
5. There are other ways to balance the budget than just cutting spending (hint: look at the title of this post).
So here's my recommendation, and before I continue, don't get your hopes up, this isn't a complete solution, and I'm not going to go into a ton of detail because I haven't studied the numbers very carefully, but I have enough to present a basic idea.
MY RECOMMENDATION: raise taxes (shhh...don't tell the rich beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts that I said this).
I'm not saying to raise taxes on everybody. In fact in most cases I wouldn't even say raise taxes, I'd simply eliminate tax cuts to the wealthy. Along with that, we need to close corporate tax loopholes. There are far too many deductions, shelters and other tax-reducing tactics that big businesses use to avoid paying their fair share. I'm not going to propose a solution to our tax problems right now, but we need to work on our tax policies. Americans expect services from the government, but we don't want to pay for them. Take a look at most European countries. They pay far higher taxes than we do, yet we expect most of the same services, that's unrealistic. We need to take a good hard look at what we expect from our government, and what we are willing to pay to get it.
I'm thinking I'll need to come back with a more detailed post on this later, but this is all I have time for now. Remember, I'm not saying we should raise taxes on everyone, but we do need to at least have taxes on the table as we seek to solve our budget issues.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Just So We're Clear...The Truth About Foreign Aid
With the new budget out, and the FY 2011 budget still being debated with the Continuous Resolution and whatnot, I wanted to clear things up a bit on foreign aid, and make it clear how mis-informed the American public generally is. If you're part of this group who believes some of the statistics I'm about to mention, don't be insulted, just allow yourself to be educated.
WorldPublicOpinion.org, an affiliate of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, recently did a poll regarding American public opinion on foreign aid. The most obvious conclusion was that Americans vastly overestimate the amount of money that we spend on foreign aid. When asked how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, the median estimate by the general public is 25%. Asked how much they thought would be an appropriate amount the median response was 10%.
FACT: Total percentage of the federal budget that goes to foreign aid is actually ONE PERCENT (1%). In fact, foreign aid represents only 2.6% of the discretionary portion of the budget.
So what does that mean? It means that when Congressmen say that their constituents are calling for cuts in foreign assistance, and when Congressmen themselves say that cuts need to be made to foreign aid, we need to make sure that everyone is educated. Last Thursday I was with InterAction, distributing our Foreign Assistance Briefing Books (FABB), a policy book on foreign aid that we give out to all the members of Congress every few years. A staffer at one office told us that they were pushing for cuts to foreign aid because their constituents kept calling saying they wanted cuts to the budget. That makes sense if they believe that 25% of the budget goes to foreign aid. However, based on the facts, the general public is actually advocating for an INCREASE in foreign aid. After all, they said 10% would be an appropriate number, and that would be an increase from just by 9% of the budget.
So Congressmen, when your constituents call saying we need to cut foreign aid, it is your responsibility to make sure they actually know the facts on the foreign assistance budget and can make educated inputs.
FACT: Total percentage of the federal budget that goes to foreign aid is actually ONE PERCENT (1%). In fact, foreign aid represents only 2.6% of the discretionary portion of the budget.
So what does that mean? It means that when Congressmen say that their constituents are calling for cuts in foreign assistance, and when Congressmen themselves say that cuts need to be made to foreign aid, we need to make sure that everyone is educated. Last Thursday I was with InterAction, distributing our Foreign Assistance Briefing Books (FABB), a policy book on foreign aid that we give out to all the members of Congress every few years. A staffer at one office told us that they were pushing for cuts to foreign aid because their constituents kept calling saying they wanted cuts to the budget. That makes sense if they believe that 25% of the budget goes to foreign aid. However, based on the facts, the general public is actually advocating for an INCREASE in foreign aid. After all, they said 10% would be an appropriate number, and that would be an increase from just by 9% of the budget.
So Congressmen, when your constituents call saying we need to cut foreign aid, it is your responsibility to make sure they actually know the facts on the foreign assistance budget and can make educated inputs.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Panel Discussions and Thoughts on Foreign Aid
This has been a busy week as far as meetings go, and it's only Wednesday. Yesterday I went to two meetings that between the 2 of them took up the entire day. Today I spent my whole morning at another panel discussion.
The first was a panel discussion on Global Cooperation on the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), hosted by the Brookings Institution. Among the speakers were the United Nations Under-Secretary General/High Representative for LDCs, a chief economist from USAID, the president of Rural Restoration Nepal (RRN), and a research fellow at the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development Program. I guess I'll summarize that meeting by saying that it was quite interesting, pretty informative, and smart people (or people who think of themselves as smart) like to talk...a lot.
The second meeting yesterday involved a few other aid/advocacy organizations (such as Oxfam) us (InterAction) and the World Bank. The purpose of the meeting was for the WB to show us what they had done with feedback we'd given them on a report for IDA16 - the next round of funding replenishment for the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA). Last year the same thing had happened, but they never showed how they used our feedback, so this year we said we wouldn't do it unless they committed to show us how they used our feedback. So they reported on it, and they had included significant changes to their report based on feedback we had given them. Interestingly, they seemed very hesitant to publicize the fact that they had received feedback from NGOs. Also, while reading the report I felt like I was reading a UN General Assembly resolution. Most of the words didn't actually DO anything. There were words like "encourage, support, promote, recognize, and hope" rather than "commit, mandate, and promise."
This morning I attended a panel discussion on Innovative Financing and the Global Health Funding Gap. It was hosted by the UN Foundation, and on the panel was a representative from African Leaders Malaria Alliance (ALMA), a director of Standard Bank, a program manager from the World Bank, and an Executive Director from the UN Foundation. The keynote speaker was an Administrator for Global Health at USAID. This panel was actually very interesting, and spoke somewhat on issues familiar to me, somewhat on issues entirely new to me. The general topic of global health is not something I have a ton of experience with, but I do find it very interesting.
The main topic of the panel was Innovative Financing, which is basically using financial tools (and banks) to guarantee funding on pledges made towards development (in this case health) projects. The "Pledge Guarantee for Health" (PGH) was launched as part of this panel, and you can read here (http://www.undispatch.com/pledge-guarantee-for-health-goes-live) about it's opening program. Basically the point is that in development, aid is often unpredictable, unstable, and limited. What the PGH does is serve as a way for the funds to be guaranteed and on time. When an organization or government makes a pledge to fund a program, the PGH serves as a guarantee, so through a bank like Standard Bank (the largest bank in Africa) provides the funding up front, before the pledge is actually fulfilled. This allows development projects to proceed on a much more timely basis, making them far more effective.
To use the example from the opening project of PGH, malaria nets were provided in Zambia. Normally, disbursal of these funds and procurement of the nets would take about 32 weeks. Through PGH, the funding was received in about 6 weeks, and 88% of the nets were delivered within 2-3 weeks of the project being announced, reaching the areas of highest need.
PGH, and other Innovative Financing methods, help make aid far more effective, and more efficient. Another aspect of this is results based finance, in which rather than provide all the funds up front and have disjointed inputs, if an organization (or in this case clinics) are successful at carrying out their program, then upon completion they receive some extra funding to further their programs. This doesn't cost anything extra, but rather makes more efficient use of funds already provided. It does this by creating a chain of actions for success rather than a bunch of separated, discordant inputs, by focusing on the outputs of the program.
It's tough for me to provide a very complete analysis of these programs, because this is really the first time I've encountered them, (so maybe I should be waiting on this post), but at first glance they seem like a really good idea. To be certain, they are no silver bullet, but I don't think there is any 1 silver bullet solution. I think that Innovative Finance probably is a good thing, and I hope to see it contribute to improved aid effectiveness.
more on this once I know more about it...
IN OTHER NEWS...
Did anyone see this (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50019.html#comments) story? Justin Amash (our US Representative) has voted "present" 5 times in the last week alone. Voting "present" basically means abstaining, because it signifies "present, but not voting." To compare, Vern Ehlers (please come out of retirement Vern!) voted present only 4 times IN THE LAST 8 YEARS! What exactly does Amash think he was elected to do? Sit around and enjoy DC? I don't think so. Oh, and his excuse "he wasn't given adequate time to read the bill." Well guess what, EVERYBODY ELSE READ IT (or there staffers did), so get with the program buddy, you got elected, now do your job (on second thought, maybe it's better that he doesn't vote, since I'd disagree with most of his votes anyways.
Time for Bible study...adios
The first was a panel discussion on Global Cooperation on the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), hosted by the Brookings Institution. Among the speakers were the United Nations Under-Secretary General/High Representative for LDCs, a chief economist from USAID, the president of Rural Restoration Nepal (RRN), and a research fellow at the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development Program. I guess I'll summarize that meeting by saying that it was quite interesting, pretty informative, and smart people (or people who think of themselves as smart) like to talk...a lot.
The second meeting yesterday involved a few other aid/advocacy organizations (such as Oxfam) us (InterAction) and the World Bank. The purpose of the meeting was for the WB to show us what they had done with feedback we'd given them on a report for IDA16 - the next round of funding replenishment for the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA). Last year the same thing had happened, but they never showed how they used our feedback, so this year we said we wouldn't do it unless they committed to show us how they used our feedback. So they reported on it, and they had included significant changes to their report based on feedback we had given them. Interestingly, they seemed very hesitant to publicize the fact that they had received feedback from NGOs. Also, while reading the report I felt like I was reading a UN General Assembly resolution. Most of the words didn't actually DO anything. There were words like "encourage, support, promote, recognize, and hope" rather than "commit, mandate, and promise."
This morning I attended a panel discussion on Innovative Financing and the Global Health Funding Gap. It was hosted by the UN Foundation, and on the panel was a representative from African Leaders Malaria Alliance (ALMA), a director of Standard Bank, a program manager from the World Bank, and an Executive Director from the UN Foundation. The keynote speaker was an Administrator for Global Health at USAID. This panel was actually very interesting, and spoke somewhat on issues familiar to me, somewhat on issues entirely new to me. The general topic of global health is not something I have a ton of experience with, but I do find it very interesting.
The main topic of the panel was Innovative Financing, which is basically using financial tools (and banks) to guarantee funding on pledges made towards development (in this case health) projects. The "Pledge Guarantee for Health" (PGH) was launched as part of this panel, and you can read here (http://www.undispatch.com/pledge-guarantee-for-health-goes-live) about it's opening program. Basically the point is that in development, aid is often unpredictable, unstable, and limited. What the PGH does is serve as a way for the funds to be guaranteed and on time. When an organization or government makes a pledge to fund a program, the PGH serves as a guarantee, so through a bank like Standard Bank (the largest bank in Africa) provides the funding up front, before the pledge is actually fulfilled. This allows development projects to proceed on a much more timely basis, making them far more effective.
To use the example from the opening project of PGH, malaria nets were provided in Zambia. Normally, disbursal of these funds and procurement of the nets would take about 32 weeks. Through PGH, the funding was received in about 6 weeks, and 88% of the nets were delivered within 2-3 weeks of the project being announced, reaching the areas of highest need.
PGH, and other Innovative Financing methods, help make aid far more effective, and more efficient. Another aspect of this is results based finance, in which rather than provide all the funds up front and have disjointed inputs, if an organization (or in this case clinics) are successful at carrying out their program, then upon completion they receive some extra funding to further their programs. This doesn't cost anything extra, but rather makes more efficient use of funds already provided. It does this by creating a chain of actions for success rather than a bunch of separated, discordant inputs, by focusing on the outputs of the program.
It's tough for me to provide a very complete analysis of these programs, because this is really the first time I've encountered them, (so maybe I should be waiting on this post), but at first glance they seem like a really good idea. To be certain, they are no silver bullet, but I don't think there is any 1 silver bullet solution. I think that Innovative Finance probably is a good thing, and I hope to see it contribute to improved aid effectiveness.
more on this once I know more about it...
IN OTHER NEWS...
Did anyone see this (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50019.html#comments) story? Justin Amash (our US Representative) has voted "present" 5 times in the last week alone. Voting "present" basically means abstaining, because it signifies "present, but not voting." To compare, Vern Ehlers (please come out of retirement Vern!) voted present only 4 times IN THE LAST 8 YEARS! What exactly does Amash think he was elected to do? Sit around and enjoy DC? I don't think so. Oh, and his excuse "he wasn't given adequate time to read the bill." Well guess what, EVERYBODY ELSE READ IT (or there staffers did), so get with the program buddy, you got elected, now do your job (on second thought, maybe it's better that he doesn't vote, since I'd disagree with most of his votes anyways.
Time for Bible study...adios
Thursday, February 17, 2011
US House Foreign Affairs - At least someone makes sense
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 17, 2011
On House Floor, Rep. Berman Condemns GOP’s Irresponsible Slash-and-Burn Tactics That Jeopardize Our National Security
Watch The Video Here: http://bit.ly/dWFJl3
Washington, DC – Congressman Howard L. Berman, Ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, delivered the following remarks on the House floor late last night during debate of H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. During his statement, Congressman Berman condemned House Republicans for their irresponsible slash-and-burn tactics to cut spending in a way that seriously jeopardizes our national security and hampers our country’s economic growth.
Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairman, it seems to me that in this frenzied competition to see who can cut the most and the fastest, we are losing all sense of reason and rationality. I am deeply concerned by what I see happening to the international affairs budget, which is contained in Title Eleven of the bill before us.
In past years, the State Department and foreign operations appropriation bill has passed with strong bipartisan support, often by an overwhelming margin. Members of both parties have understood how important diplomacy and development are -- not only to U.S. standing in the world, but to our country’s own economic growth, to American jobs, and to American national security.
They recognize that problems such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the spread of deadly disease cannot be resolved unilaterally. They know that, over the long term, the best way to create more jobs at home is to build more export markets overseas. They understand that we cannot defeat violent extremism by military means alone, and that, as Secretary Gates said last fall, “Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.”
Yet the process by which this CR has been produced makes a mockery of the responsibilities we have as Members of Congress to advance our economy and protect our national security.
First, the Republican leadership announced a plan to make $44 billion in cuts. Then we start hearing other numbers: $58 billion. $74 billion. $100 billion. Each time, it’s measured a different way, against a different baseline. And no matter how high the number goes, there are proposals to cut even deeper.
These numbers weren’t chosen because they looked at programs and said, “Here’s something that’s not working.” Or “Here’s something we don’t need to do.” No – the number was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a hat, and totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was actually needed and how much that costs.
This bill isn’t about making government more cost effective or more efficient. It doesn’t promote the kind of reforms and streamlining that are needed to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it most. It’s simply a slash-and-burn process, hacking away with a machete without consideration for all the critically important work that is being destroyed or how it affects our national security.
The base bill itself might be laughable if it weren’t so appalling. Humanitarian programs to provide lifesaving assistance – food, water, medicine, and plastic sheeting – to victims of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and famines is cut by 50%. Do we really intend to stand idly by as innocent men, women and children starve to death? Will we turn off our television sets when we see people’s homes and livelihoods wiped away by an unexpected catastrophe?
It’s not just disaster aid that is affected: every other program that protects the poorest and most vulnerable people is savaged. Refugee aid. Food aid. Water and sanitation. Massive cuts in international efforts to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
Meanwhile, funding for the diplomats and aid workers who carry out these programs is also slashed. If there’s anything we’ve learned over the past few years, it ought to be that we don’t just hand over money to contractors and governments without adequate oversight and accountability.
Over the past month, we have all watched the incredible events unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt. The United States did not create these democracy movements and does not control them. But our diplomats did, and do, play a large role in helping to promote peaceful, negotiated solutions so that the will of the people can be heard. Our security assistance helped professionalize forces in both of those countries so that they did not crush the demonstrators with force, as has happened in so many other places. And yet, this bill and many of the proposed amendments would slash the kinds of assistance we provide to nascent democracy movements and human rights activists under other authoritarian regimes.
Somehow the draconian cuts in this bill were not enough for many in this body. Added on top of all these cuts, we now face amendments to remove ourselves completely from the United Nations, to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the U.S. Institute of Peace. They would prohibit us from taking action to address climate change and increase the availability of voluntary family planning for couples who cannot feed the children they already have. They would cut aid to countries whose support is essential to us in the areas of counterterrorism, intelligence, and non-proliferation, just because they don’t vote with us in the United Nations.
There’s one thing the authors of these amendments don’t seem to understand: Aid is not a gift. The United States provides foreign assistance because it serves OUR interests. Helping countries become more democratic, more stable, more capable of defending themselves and better at pulling themselves out of poverty is just as important for us as it is for them.
Madam Speaker, the cuts to international spending in this bill will not create a single U.S. job – in fact, they will cost jobs. One amendment would even eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or OPIC – an agency that helps U.S. businesses compete in world markets, and actually MAKES money for the U.S. taxpayer.
This is no way to legislate. This is an irrational process that is, quite frankly, a national embarrassment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in telling the leadership: “Enough already. It’s time to start over.”
Sunday, February 13, 2011
God Is Love
I heard a sermon today in Church that sparked in me the desire to write about it. It’s not something I haven’t heard before, but I think something that we often forget.
Since living in DC I’ve been going to a church that meets in the basement of a coffee house around the corner from where we’re living. It’s a fairly young church, with I think 4 or 5 other campuses around DC.
Today’s sermon was on 1 John 4:7-21 (click to read it). One of the points of emphasis of the sermon was that God is love. The pastor started out by reading the passage, then talked a bit about how we define love. She got us thinking by saying “what if we replaced “love” here with “nice?” Instead of “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.” It would be: God is nice. Whoever is nice lives in God and God in them. When we change that, it loses so much meaning, not to mention the implications it would have for our faith, and for God being a just God. See, if we really think about it, God is not nice. God is love. God is just. God is not nice. If God were nice he would not punish sin. If God were nice, Ananias and Sapphira would not have been struck dead. But God isn’t nice, He’s just. It reminds of a scene in “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.” You can see the video if you click here and start at the 6:00 mark. In the book it happens far earlier, and here is the text from the book (a bit more meaningful)
“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
Then, being typical me, I started thinking about how this applies to social justice. If God is love, and being born of God and knowing God means we must love, then shouldn’t we show the same love to others that Jesus showed to us?
John says that “whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen” (1 John 7:20). We see the poor and suffering all around us, yet we continue to allow them to suffer in their poverty, and we allow people all over the world to suffer in justices because we sit by idly and do nothing.
At a time when so many political issues are related to the budget and there are talks everywhere about cutting spending, I wonder about how this applies to foreign aid and welfare spending. Republicans in congress claim that we need to cut foreign aid from the budget, and reduce spending on social welfare programs, yet I ask, in this, how are we showing love to our brothers and sisters? If we are called to love our brothers and sisters, and if God says that if we know Him, then love will flow out from us, how can we justify cutting programs that help those most in need?
Those are some thoughts for now. I’d love to see comments on this and have a conversation about it.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Closing Time
Closing time - time for you to go out, go out into the world.
So I'm sitting here at Opportunity International, for my last half-hour of my fall 2010 internship experience. It's been a good one, and I've learned a lot. I can't even say how thankful I am for this experience that I've had. The staff here have been so incredible, making sure all along the way that this was an educational experience for all of us interns. I learned so many things, developed many skills, and got to know what it's like to work in a non-profit organization.
We closed off today with the first ever Opportunity International Chili Cook-Off, hosted by the fall 2010 interns. It was a great time, and we raised over $120 for Opportunity South Africa. This group of interns was a ton of fun to work with, and we had a blast, while teaching and learning from each other all along the way.
Closing time - time for you to go back to the places you will be from...
I'm excited to go home tonight, back to Grand Rapids, back to my own house, to my own room, to my own bed. Mostly I'm just excited and thankful that I get to spend the next almost 2 months spending time with family and friends. It's been tough being away this semester, especially with the fact that I've been away from Kristen for most of the last 6 months now. I can't wait to get to just enjoy spending time with her this break.
Closing time - you don't have to go home but you can't stay here.
I'm not quite at the point of really thinking about DC yet, but at the same time I'm excited for the experiences I'll have living in DC and interning at InterAction. I'm confident that this internship at Opportunity has prepared me well, and I'm excited for all that I'll learn in DC as well.
God has been so good to me all of my life, but especially in this year as I've gotten to gain internship experience while living and learning in the great city of Chicago. Chicago Semester really was an awesome time, and I'm so thankful for all the friends I made and the great times we had.
So now we're closing up the semester, and we're all getting ready to head home, then graduate later this year and go out into the world. Some of us are going home, but others are going to be spread out around the world.
Goodbye to everyone at Opportunity, it's been great working with you. Goodbye to all my CS friends, it's been a blast. Goodbye to Grevengoeds, and thanks so much for having me live with you, you really were a blessing. Goodbye Chicago, I'll be back sometime.
Closing time - every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end...
So I'm sitting here at Opportunity International, for my last half-hour of my fall 2010 internship experience. It's been a good one, and I've learned a lot. I can't even say how thankful I am for this experience that I've had. The staff here have been so incredible, making sure all along the way that this was an educational experience for all of us interns. I learned so many things, developed many skills, and got to know what it's like to work in a non-profit organization.
We closed off today with the first ever Opportunity International Chili Cook-Off, hosted by the fall 2010 interns. It was a great time, and we raised over $120 for Opportunity South Africa. This group of interns was a ton of fun to work with, and we had a blast, while teaching and learning from each other all along the way.
Closing time - time for you to go back to the places you will be from...
I'm excited to go home tonight, back to Grand Rapids, back to my own house, to my own room, to my own bed. Mostly I'm just excited and thankful that I get to spend the next almost 2 months spending time with family and friends. It's been tough being away this semester, especially with the fact that I've been away from Kristen for most of the last 6 months now. I can't wait to get to just enjoy spending time with her this break.
Closing time - you don't have to go home but you can't stay here.
I'm not quite at the point of really thinking about DC yet, but at the same time I'm excited for the experiences I'll have living in DC and interning at InterAction. I'm confident that this internship at Opportunity has prepared me well, and I'm excited for all that I'll learn in DC as well.
God has been so good to me all of my life, but especially in this year as I've gotten to gain internship experience while living and learning in the great city of Chicago. Chicago Semester really was an awesome time, and I'm so thankful for all the friends I made and the great times we had.
So now we're closing up the semester, and we're all getting ready to head home, then graduate later this year and go out into the world. Some of us are going home, but others are going to be spread out around the world.
Goodbye to everyone at Opportunity, it's been great working with you. Goodbye to all my CS friends, it's been a blast. Goodbye to Grevengoeds, and thanks so much for having me live with you, you really were a blessing. Goodbye Chicago, I'll be back sometime.
Closing time - every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)