Consider what you’ve heard in the news over the past several weeks regarding the ongoing impasse over the nation’s debt ceiling.
You’ve probably heard a great deal about spending cuts, versus tax increases, versus any combination thereof. You’ve likely heard about the August 2 deadline for raising the limit, lest the United States default on its debts and risk an economic meltdown. In the midst of this, you’ve almost certainly observed a soap opera of political posturing and bickering among members of both parties.
But what you probably haven’t heard much about in the context of this debate is the group that stands to lose the most: the world’s poorest, who literally depend on U.S. foreign aid for their survival. Their direct involvement in this issue may not be recognized as part of the dialogue, but that does not mean that they should be forgotten.
Last month, the U.S. House proposed cutting the federal budget for international food aid by $650 million. That’s a 39-percent cut from the president’s request, and a 50-percent reduction from the average over the past 10 years for this account. If passed as part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, nearly 1,625,000 people — a population about the size of Phoenix, Arizona — would be affected.
Bob Zachritz, World Vision’s director for advocacy and government relations, said this week that “[providing life-saving foreign assistance] is not a right-left issue. It’s a right-wrong issue.”
There are five reasons why he’s correct:
- The International Affairs Budget is just 1.4 percent of the total $3.8 trillion in the fiscal year 2012 budget. Disproportionately cutting one of the tiniest line items won’t make a significant impact on the nation’s deficit — but it could be devastating to those whose lives are saved by the programs that this budget funds.
- World crises illustrate the need to preserve this critical funding. The UN declaration of famine in parts of Somalia — coupled with extreme hunger and malnutrition across drought-ravaged East Africa — is just a recent reminder that children, families, and communities around the world are suffering and continue to need U.S. assistance through this very modest budget.
- The national debt is a moral issue. So are life-saving programs for those affected by poverty. Preserving crucial assistance for the poorest of the poorest is in the national interest of the United States, and it represents the compassion and goodwill of the American people.
- The return on investment justifies the funding. The programs sustained by the International Affairs Budget are cost-effective. For the small price of a pill, a piece of bread, a bed net, or a vaccination, you can save a child’s life. There are few places in the U.S. federal budget where dollars translate so directly into lives saved.
- As Christians, we have a biblical mandate to care for the poor — even when times are difficult. We can’t understate the sacrifices that American families have had to make during these trying times; nor can we downplay the need for the United States to address its own challenges. But we should also remember what God calls us to do as His followers. By supporting the International Affairs Budget — with its insignificant size but immeasurable impact — we have the perfect opportunity to reflect our faith in the public sphere.
Please join us in our efforts to preserve international programs that fight poverty and save lives. Contact your members of Congress and ask them to oppose major cuts to the International Affairs Budget.
Maybe World Vision should withdraw it’s dependence on Government funds like similar NGO Oxfam does, and fully rely on God’s annual provision from whomever.
In Genesis, we are told the story of the 7 fatted calves and 7 tall grains followed by the 7 lean calves and 7 withered grains. We are told that Joseph led the people of Egypt to save during their time of plenty, setting aside for the coming recession/famine. In so doing, they were able to be a blessing to those around them during the years of strife that followed.
We did not do that. These cycles are nothing new and have been happening throughout history. During the recent boom economy we spent not only the money we earned, but much of the next generation’s as well, both as individuals (for too many of us) and as an aggregate society. Now, when we find our neighbors in need, we find we have to struggle to help or worse, use our ability to borrow against our children to be generous to our neighbor. This is the mistake that was made and is being made still. Wanting a balanced budget is not wrong! Indeed, contrary to the siren calls all around us that tell us doing so is oppressive to the poor, it is the only way we can possibly be a blessing to others in anything but a short sprint.
I believe there is nothing Christian about giving away another generation’s resources, yet, this is what you are asking. In addition to having to repay these gifts, we are expecting our children to pay interest for these gifts. As each successive generation borrows more from the next, the freedom of their children is reduced. Already today we are paying more for the interest on the national debt then on investments in education, research, infrastructure, exploration, etc. combined. In other words we are already spending more to pay for yesterday’s luxuries then we are investing in tomorrow’s opportunities. (The NYT has a visual diagram of the budget indicating what I have said.) Enough is enough. We need to pull ourselves together and fix this or we may soon lose the ability to help others. Then we will become like the 11 brothers who must beg from their younger brother in Egypt just to survive.
World Vision is speaking from a selfish political point of view rather than a biblical one. Their final reason given above to continue foreign aid is because, as Christians, we have a mandate to care for the poor. The U.S. Government is not a Christian. Nor is money confiscated from it’s citizens in the form of taxes biblically subject to Christian rules of stewardship. Jesus did not try to control how Ceasar spent his money. Nor did he run to government organizations to feed people. Jesus fed the multitudes twice with only a few fishes and loaves of bread. It would appear that World Vision believes that Jesus no longer has the means to feed the hungry unless Ceasar (the U.S. Government) buys all the food with money taken from struggling tax payers. I am ashamed of World Vision for this blatant exhibition of faithlessness in the God they claim to follow and their apparent deification of an impotent government.
Its most certainly true that we as Christians must help care for the poorest people in the world and do all we can to help them make a better life for themselves. However, our government and many in this country insist that church and state must be totally seperate. It is we as professing Christian who ALL need to tithe, then we would make a real difference in the world. Christians, put your money where your mouth is.
Having been in many of the countries that are effected by this famine, I know there is real need there; however, using debt to solve this is not biblical at all. The bible talks more about money than any other issue, and it talks a lot about being in debt. Shame on World Vision for playing the card that if America follows biblical principals than people in in other countries are going to starve. That is ridiculous to say the least. The more stuff World Vision publishes on this issue the more I am considering taking my funds to other aid agencies.