Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
What Would Santa Do?
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
I'm an American Worker and I'm Tired of Getting Screwed
Rick Kepler
Democracy and Elections:
Consensus Builds for Universal Voter Registration
Project Vote
DrugReporter:
Beaten, Tortured and Sentenced 25-to-Life for Minor Drug Offense
Randy Credico
Election 2008:
Obama's Latino Mandate
Steve Cobble, Joe Velasquez
Environment:
How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth
Herve Kempf
ForeignPolicy:
Leading US Peace Advocates Arrive in Iran, Under Ahmadinejad's Invitation
Linda Milazzo
Health and Wellness:
Meditation May Protect Your Brain
Michael Haederle
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Border Fence to Carve up Nature Reserve
Enrique Gili
Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck Wonders Why He's Resented as a Bigot
Steve Rendall
Movie Mix:
Honeytrap Lies and Women Spies
Rosie White
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
The Push to Appoint Women to Obama's Cabinet Is Threatened
Allison Stevens
Rights and Liberties:
In Stunning Ruling, D.C. Judge Orders Release of Five Gitmo Prisoners
Sex and Relationships:
Is It Wrong to Talk About Michelle Obama's Body?
Tamura Lomax
War on Iraq:
Theater of War: Portrait of a Homeland Security State [Photo Slideshow Included]
Lindsay Beyerstein
Water:
The Tide Is Changing on Bottled Water
Wendy Williams
The Bush administration has just announced cuts of an estimated $100 million to one of our most critical aid initiatives: helping the poor and hungry around the world feed themselves. Despite enough food produced in the world to make us all chubby, the United Nations recently announced that hunger is on the rise again. Already more than one in seven people in the world go hungry.
Addressing hunger's root causes has never been more urgent.
The administration blames this cutback on unavoidable budget belt-tightening, but the excuse is hard to swallow. This administration has always been able to come up with resources for food and agriculture – only not for poor farmers in other countries, but for the richest in ours.
The figures aren't yet in for 2004, but assuming the past years' pattern holds, a total of $68.3 billion will have been given away in domestic farm subsidies since President Bush came into office, according to research by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit.
That comes to more than 600 times the announced aid cut.
Since 1995, the top ten percent of our nation's largest farms have received nearly three-quarters of these federal subsidies. For the bottom 80 percent of U.S. producers who received subsidies, their average was just $768 per year. Two-thirds of our nation's farmers get no subsidies at all.
But here's the double scrooge: Our agricultural subsidies at home directly undercut the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers abroad who can't compete against them.
All this does make sense, though. Since the presidential elections in 2000, agribusiness has lavished 72 percent of its campaign contributions to the Republican Party, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research organization, with their contributions in the past three election cycles adding up to nearly $114 million.
Those five to seven million people in developing countries who aid workers estimate will be directly hurt by these cuts probably didn't contribute quite as much.
The United States is by far the largest donor to the United Nations food programs, as Elizabeth Becker notes in her recent New York Times article about these cuts. That sounds generous, but U.S. foreign aid as a percent of GNP lags well behind other industrial countries.
It's not that the American people don't want their country to share the wealth. Polls show Americans believe we are giving away 20 percent of our GNP in foreign aid (or 143 times more than we actually give in official development assistance). They think 10 percent would be about right. So, given the facts, Americans would support a large increase in our giving.
President Bush's choice to cut this particular aid is tragically short-sighted. Throughout the world, people increasingly perceive America as isolated, out of touch with the suffering of others. Now is the time when the administration must demonstrate we understand that helping create strong, self-reliant communities is essential in finding our way beyond fanaticism and violence to security and democracy at home and abroad.
If not, Santa, I fear, will zoom right past the White House.
Anna Lappé is the co-author of 'Hope's Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet' and a Food and Society Policy Fellow, a national program of the WK Kellogg Foundation.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
| More Opinion: | ||
|
Arab Americans Should Be Worried About Rahm Emanuel ForeignPolicy: Emanuel's history and positions give plenty of cause for concern. By Remi Kanazi, AlterNet. November 20, 2008. |
The Bitch and the Airhead: Blatant Women-Bashing Makes a Gut-Wrenching Comeback Reproductive Justice and Gender: Change may well be coming to Washington. But the public discourse about women has taken several steps backward. By Daphne Merkin, The Daily Beast. November 20, 2008. |
Memo to Obama: Closing Guantanamo Can't Wait Rights and Liberties: If President-elect Barack Obama truly plans to make good on his promise to close the American gulag, he should start by heeding this advice. By Andy Worthington, AlterNet. November 19, 2008. |