On Tuesday, the New York Times reported on page one that deficit and debt hawks in both parties are planning massive foreign aid cuts for the coming year.
Although foreign aid constitutes 1% of federal spending, it has long been a whipping boy for xenophobes and other pre-Pearl Harbor type isolationists.
Besides starving and abused women and kids in Africa don't exactly have a domestic constituency fighting on their behalf here in Washington. So, it's cut and slash and let 'em die.
In the words of the Times: "The proposals have raised the specter of deep cuts in food and medicine for Africa, in relief for disaster-affected places like Pakistan and Japan, in political and economic assistance for the new democracies of the Middle East, and even for the Peace Corps."
Of course, there is one foreign aid program that is not proposed for cutting in anyone's plan: not Obama's, not House Republicans or Democrats. And it happens to be the largest single foreign assistance program of them all $3.5 billion in aid to Israel. As the Times puts it, defending this particular program shows that "even in times of austerity, some spending is inviolable."
Actually, there is hardly another program in the entire U.S. budget that is deemed off-limits for budget cutters. Not aid to pregnant women and children here at home, not jobless benefits, not clean air and water programs, not social security and Medicare, not cancer research. Nothing. Everything is up for cuts either by the cut and slash supercommittee or through "sequestration" -- automatic across-the-board cuts if the committee cannot reach a consensus.
In fact, it does not matter who or what does the cutting: aid to Israel is exempt. And that is because preserving that particular aid package is AIPAC's #1 goal. Anyone suggesting cutting aid to Israel by even a dollar will be punished by AIPAC-directed donors.
It should be pointed out that AIPAC opposes any cuts to the foreign aid budget (except to the Palestinians, of course). It understands that it can't credibly support cutting aid to Africa while demanding full funding for Israel. But this is just a tactic. It knows the aid budget will be cut and it knows that preserving its piece of the pie means less for everyone else. It just doesn't care. Besides, it is not AIPAC's job to worry about the world's poor. That is the job of Congress which understands that more money for Africa means less for Israel and shrinks at the thought of hurting a donor's feelings.
There is no need to belabor any of this. I am not exactly breaking news when I write of this obscene injustice and pointing out that it exists because our elected officials put filling their campaign coffers over virtually everything else. Nonetheless, we should note their shameful behavior.
Maybe the next time one of your favorite progressives is passing through the neighborhood, you can ask how he or she justifies full funding for one of the most prosperous countries in the world while starving Africa.
Don't worry. Your legislator won't be embarassed. He will just pull out his AIPAC talking points and hand you the line. Believe me, your legislator loses no sleep over any of this. He is too busy worrying about raising that campaign money.
