"Politics...it's about governing"

Henry Clay once said: “Politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it’s about governing. And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern.” For his role in helping reach an agreement on the Nullification Crisis and slavery, Clay was dubbed "The Great Compromiser." Now, on the brink of a government shutdown, it looks like we could use another "Great Compromiser."  As I look at our government right now, I see one side that absolutely fails to compromise and another side that is really bad at compromising. 


As we approach this shutdown, Tea Party members of Congress are refusing to budge on the budget. They absolutely refuse to compromise at all. (I will note that a number of Republicans seem to want compromise, but are being pressured by the new Tea Party members to refuse any compromise)


On the other side, the Democrats are really bad at compromising. Up to this point the Democrats, led by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were giving all the way.  It seemed as if compromise to them meant give in so that a deal can be made. In all the "compromises" so far, it seems as if the Democrats gave in and the Republicans held strong. 


Now, as a shutdown looms, Democrats have changed their game, deciding not to give in anymore.  The problem is that since they've given and given all this time, they have little to work with. Compromise is about having something to offer that the other side wants, and them having something you would like in return. 

Webster's dictionary defines compromise as: "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute."  The problem for the Democrats right now is that they don't really have bargaining chips, and the Republicans (guided by the Tea Party) refuse to give anything up. 


I think if Henry Clay's quote could be revised today it would be something like this: "Politics SHOULD NOT be about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it SHOULD BE about governing.  And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern."  The problem is that politics right now is entirely about ideological purity, not about governing. Rather than compromising in order to actually govern the country, our politicians on both sides are fighting for their ideological purity.  


What has happened? Why are we unwilling to compromise?  


I think part of it has to do with the fact that we have become so focused on a single issue. Rather than saying "We have a budget problem and we do need to address it, HOWEVER, we also have a country to govern," the Tea Party is saying "We have a moral crisis that has led to overspending, and if we don't address this now, our country will collapse." 


I agree that we need to cut back on spending, but we need to be responsible about it. The more I look at proposed budget cuts (including Paul Ryan's proposed FY2012 budget) I see cuts across the board, with little thought as to what is actually being cut.  This leads to trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. It's fairly clear that those who will be hurt most by the proposed budget cuts are those who rely on government services and a social safety net for their livelihood.  Now if we want to say that these programs need to be fixed so that people aren't dependent on them and can support themselves I'm all in and I'll jump right in and help.  However, what I'm hearing sounds more like "these programs need to be fixed so they don't cost us so much...so we should cut them."  


I feel like I'm starting to ramble, so I'm going to try to end this soon, but I just can't get over the fact that the House of Representatives seems to be ignoring the fact that these budget cuts have real human impact.  People are actually affected by these cuts, and people will suffer if these cuts go through. 


We need to fix the budget. Blind slashing is not the way to fix it. Let's be responsible about this.  Start by cutting programs that we don't need (such as fighter jet engines that the military doesn't even want).  Then let's look at fixing programs what we need, but aren't working right. This won't happen immediately, but if we take our time to do it right our future will be much better than if we rush to slash the budget. 

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.

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

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.” 

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.