Debate Desk
Is Foreign Aid a Waste of Money, and Do Conservatives Agree on It?
Foreign aid is about one percent of the federal budget; some programs serve American interests and save lives, and others fail, so each deserves scrutiny.
The claim
Many Americans believe that foreign aid takes up a large share of the budget and lines the pockets of corrupt governments while problems at home go unmet. Ending it, say critics, would save a great deal and cost little.
The answer in three points
- The share is small. Foreign assistance is roughly one percent of the federal budget, far less than most people think when asked. Cutting it all would not close the deficit, and the major drivers of spending lie elsewhere.
- Some aid is a bargain and some is not. Conservatives have defended programs such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, begun under President George W. Bush in 2003, and the Marshall Plan as investments in stability and friendship. Other programs have failed to reach their goals or been captured by corrupt officials.
- The test should be results. Programs should have clear aims, independent evaluation and an end date, and aid to hostile regimes should be reexamined. Conservatives disagree about where to draw lines, and the debate is worth having.
A simple rule helps: every program should say what it is meant to achieve, how it will be measured and when it ends. Programs that meet the test deserve support, and programs that do not should be wound down without apology.
The numbers
- The Congressional Research Service reports that foreign assistance accounts for roughly one percent of the federal budget in recent years.
- The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief was launched in 2003 and has been credited by the State Department with saving millions of lives.
- The Marshall Plan, enacted in 1948, provided about $13 billion in assistance to Western Europe over four years, according to the State Department's Office of the Historian.
What they will say next
"Charity begins at home." It does, and the budget is large enough for both. Aid is meant for our interests as well as compassion.
"Aid props up corrupt governments." It sometimes does, and that is a reason for tighter conditions and direct support to people and local groups.
"Private charity could do it." It already does a great deal and should be encouraged. Some functions, such as emergency response and support for allies, are public tasks.
"USAID wasted money." There were real failures and abuses, and reviews by inspectors general found them. Reform and oversight are sensible, and conservatives differ on how far to go.
Spend what serves America and its friends, and hold every program to account.
"Aid is a tool of influence against China." It can be, and many policy experts say that a retreat from development aid leaves a gap that rivals fill. Whether a given program advances American interests is the kind of question Congress should ask in each budget, and conservatives differ in the answer.