Foreign Aid
As you correctly pointed out in your July 17 editorial,”Gifts That Pay Off Big for the Giver,” the members of the House who voted to severely cut U.S. foreign aid were not so smart.
In today’s interdependent world, the United States cannot afford to slash overseas aid. The destabilizing effects of economic deprivation quickly cross international borders, including those of the U.S. Desperate poverty abroad leads to environmental damage, international movement of refugees, the drug trade and the spread of numerous diseases including AIDS and tuberculosis. All are serious problems, with only very costly solutions.
It is much more cost-efficient to invest in foreign aid focused on development and prevention than to respond to crises after the fact. The U.S./U.N. military operation in Somalia cost the United States almost $2 billion--five times more than our country’s total development assistance expenditures in Somalia for the previous 30 years.
Development aid not only saves us money in the long run, but it also creates a lot of American jobs. Developing countries are one of the fastest growing markets for U.S. exports. Since 1962, over 24 countries that once received our aid are now independent trade partners. Every $1 billion in exports creates 20,000 new jobs in America.
Bread for the World, an anti-hunger organization of which I am a member, has launched a campaign to save development aid. When foreign aid legislation comes to the Senate floor, I hope that all our representatives support funding for international development programs.
DOUG SMITH
Los Angeles
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
