Letter from My Congressman

Posted by Rachel on: 04.02.2007 /

The following is part of a letter I recently received from my Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

Dear Ms. Stanton:

Thanks for your message expressing concerns about funding for international HIV/AIDS and anti-poverty programs in 2007. I appreciate hearing from you…

Regarding funding for international HIV/AIDS programs, I have tried for years to redirect U.S. foreign assistance away from military aid and toward humanitarian assistance. As you know, many nations are witnessing the destruction of entire generations of their citizens through disease epidemics, poverty, famine, and poor education. The U.S. should assist in combating such problems.

Currently, our foreign aid priorities are awful. Around one-quarter to one-third of the money the U.S. will spend on foreign aid this year will go toward military, not humanitarian, assistance. It’s hard to see how selling an F-16 fighter aircraft to an impoverished nation will assist in treating one AIDS victim, providing a single meal, or educating one child.

I will continue to do what I can to reverse America’s skewed foreign aid priorities. The U.S. must redirect our foreign assistance away from military aid and toward humanitarian aid. And, the U.S. should stop pushing corporate-driven globalization policies that inevitably leave behind the world’s most vulnerable citizens, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Peter DeFazio
Member of Congress

What do you think of Congressman DeFazio’s assessment of America’s foreign aid priorities?
Do you agree that the U.S. should assist in combating global problems such as disease and poverty? Why or why not?
Do you agree that the U.S. should stop pushing “corporate-driven globalization policies”? Why or why not?

3 Responses to "Letter from My Congressman"

Comment by: Benjamin Ady
1 04/4/07 1:04 PM | Comment Link |
I think Mr. DeFazio’s assessment is right on, although he fails to touch on the fact that selling weapons to other nations exacerbates the problems by creating more long term destruction.
Yes of *course* the U.S. should assist in combating global problems like disease and poverty. The main reason, in my mind, for having money/power is to give it away to those who have less or none.
I want to know more about these “corporate driven globalization policies”. Is that kind of like the rich making sure that they stay reach no matter what happens to the poor?
Comment by: Staci
2 04/4/07 3:30 PM | Comment Link |
As always, I appreciate Congressman DeFazio’s honest and straightforward style as well as his commitment to people rather than money. It is also refreshing to receive a letter that actually addresses the topic you wrote about.

I think it is just bizarre that military sales to country would in any way count as aid to that country. Selling something isn’t aid. Why would it be included in that category? To artificially inflate the number to look like the US is more generous than it actually is?
Comment by: Rachel
3 04/4/07 4:23 PM | Comment Link |
I think it is just bizarre that military sales to country would in any way count as aid to that country. Selling something isn�t aid. Why would it be included in that category?

Staci, here is some information from an article I found on Commondreams.org.

The largest U.S. military aid program–known as Foreign Military Financing (FMF)–grew by 68 percent from 2001 to 2003, the latest full year for which data are available, rising from $3.5 billion to nearly $6.0 billion.

Under FMF, recipients get outright U.S. grants on condition they use the money to buy U.S. weapons systems. The foreign countries get nearly-free weapons (they incur the operating costs and additional expenses for parts and in some cases, training) and the money is churned back into the U.S. defense industry.

So I guess it is “aid” because the US government gives the countries a grant and it is “selling” because the grant is used to buy US made weapons. The military-industrial complex at work.