Tom Coburn: Humanitarian

[Conan71]

So why does the U.S. always have to lead when it comes to disaster response or being the top cop on the planet?  We do this with such regularity that other countries expect it without hesitiation.  With our current debt situation, foreign aid is much like using your credit card to buy meals for another family when you are already spending more than you make every month. 

There was a point when (gasp) spiritual organizations provided most charity.  Amazingly, people didn't succumb to a pattern of learned helplessness in those days.  When government became involved in administering it, it's had the effect of creating laziness in what could be otherwise productive people.

Haiti is one of the more corrupt governments in the world, I don't think you can simply throw them a billion-plus dollars and trust it will wind up in the right places where aid is needed the most. 

[we vs us]

So why does the U.S. always have to lead when it comes to disaster response or being the top cop on the planet?  We do this with such regularity that other countries expect it without hesitiation.  With our current debt situation, foreign aid is much like using your credit card to buy meals for another family when you are already spending more than you make every month. 

There was a point when (gasp) spiritual organizations provided most charity.  Amazingly, people didn't succumb to a pattern of learned helplessness in those days.  When government became involved in administering it, it's had the effect of creating laziness in what could be otherwise productive people.

Haiti is one of the more corrupt governments in the world, I don't think you can simply throw them a billion-plus dollars and trust it will wind up in the right places where aid is needed the most. 

Found some info with some cursory googling.  From the USAID website:

   
You are here » Home » About USAID

The United States has a long history of extending a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country. It is this caring that stands as a hallmark of the United States around the world -- and shows the world our true character as a nation.

U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world. Spending less than one-half of 1 percent of the federal budget, USAID works around the world to achieve these goals.

USAID's history goes back to the Marshall Plan reconstruction of Europe after World War Two and the Truman Administration's Point Four Program. In 1961, the Foreign Assistance Act was signed into law and USAID was created by executive order.

Since that time, USAID has been the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.

USAID is an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State. Our Work supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting:

    * economic growth, agriculture and trade;
    * global health; and,
    * democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.

From looking through their website, it looks like 1) USAID is the portal for all humanitarian aid that the US provides, and the Haiti $$ would probably also funnel through, as well; and 2) they work with what looks like mostly NGOs to distribute aid, rather than with the government of a specific country . . . though I assume, too, that if it furthers the US's foreign policy goals, they wouldn't have qualms in using a given country's government as the point of aid distribution.

As to the larger question of "why," I think the statement above makes it's case pretty solidly:  humanitarian aid is both an American moral value and a practical political lever.  Especially if the aid is, as advertised, 0.5% of the federal budget, I'd say we get a whole lot of international clout and goodwill for relatively little investment.

[Conan71]

The aid is generally appreciated, but the goodwill is easily forgotten if you look at global attitudes toward the U.S.

As to the OP, Senator Coburn takes a lot of flak for holding up bills, but I'm seeing a pattern in these bills he holds up where there is a lot of duplicity being created into new or existing bureaucracies or where agencies start stepping on each other's feet in an effort for control.  

The food safety act makes for a great sound bite during an election year, but the truth of it is that it's a stupid gesture to spend around $1.5 bln for yet one more bureaucracy instead of simply taking the FDA and USDA, weeding out the dead wood, re-defining their roles, and determining if they are in fact too under-funded or under-staffed to do their respective jobs properly.  If the two bureaucracies set up to protect our food supply are failing, what are the odds for a third one to eventually fail?  Play the odds folks.

People keep holding Senator Coburn up as a self-serving idiot when in reality he seems to be the only person in Congress who is truly interested in taking an overall look at an issue and identifying areas of waste instead of being a rubber stamp for corruption.

We don't need more administration, we need better administration.

[Nik]

The bill in question has a clause that creates a new appointed title:  The office of Senior Haiti Coordinator.  This title comes with a Million Dollars a year funding.  That's why Senator Coburn has pulled the bill.  We already have an Ambassador to Haiti, Kenneth Merten who this responsibility falls under.  Coburn is against the creation of multiple government offices with duplicate responsibilities and massive taxpayer funding.

I'm sure when the bill was written, Clyburn, Cantor, Rangle, and Camp had a fine lobbyist friend in mind for the position. 

So he's holding it up because he disagrees with how less than one half of one percent of it is being spent. Awesome.

[we vs us]

People keep holding Senator Coburn up as a self-serving idiot when in reality he seems to be the only person in Congress who is truly interested in taking an overall look at an issue and identifying areas of waste instead of being a rubber stamp for corruption.

We don't need more administration, we need better administration.

If Coburn's purpose was to actually get something done, there are all kinds of standard, above-the board ways he could do it.  The system is built to accomodate and encourage horse-trading. And I don't mean corrupt double dealing, I mean negotiation, which is a legit and legal process which has been used since the birth of the Republic.

But Coburn's hold was anonymous, hardly the method one would use to bring attention to a faulty bill. He was essentially putting his foot down without comment and without trying to fix either the system or the particular bill. 

That's some pretty straight up jack-assery in my book.

[Conan71]

If Coburn's purpose was to actually get something done, there are all kinds of standard, above-the board ways he could do it.  The system is built to accomodate and encourage horse-trading. And I don't mean corrupt double dealing, I mean negotiation, which is a legit and legal process which has been used since the birth of the Republic.

But Coburn's hold was anonymous, hardly the method one would use to bring attention to a faulty bill. He was essentially putting his foot down without comment and without trying to fix either the system or the particular bill. 

That's some pretty straight up jack-assery in my book.

This is, according to the Senator's web site how secret holds work and identifies means to get around them:

Holds are considered to be private communications between a Senator and the Leader, and are sometimes referred to as "secret holds." A Senator may disclose that he or she has placed a hold. Senator Coburn typically notifies the office of the author of a bill he is holding within 24 hours of placing the hold. Not all Senators provide the same courtesy and keep their holds anonymous, which is their right.

Is the Legislative Process Obstructed or Abused by the Use of Holds?

Some have argued that the Senate holds process has been abused and allows a single Senator to anonymously kill popular legislation. The reality is that there are plenty of tactical maneuvers to circumventing a hold, including a live UC, filing a cloture petition or simply offering a bill as an amendment to another bill being debated by the Senate.

It may actually be the system of hotlines in the Senate that should be reformed. Instead of requiring unanimous consent as required by the Senate rules, the current process in practice merely requires a lack of staff dissent to allow a measure to be considered as being approved by the Senate with unanimous consent.

The Senate should not routinely pass legislation that spends millions or billions of taxpayer dollars without any debate or opportunities for Senators to offer amendments. Under this current practice, the lack of a phone call from a staffer constitutes unanimous consent of the 100 members of the Senate.

Because bills that are passed by unanimous consent via the hotline deny Senators the right to offer amendments of debate the merits of a bill, these practices deny Senators - and the citizens they represent - the right to suggest changes or improvements to legislation.

Every time the Senate passes legislation without full and open debate, the American people are done a disservice. It is wrong to pass a new bill if its text, purpose, and budget estimate are not available to the general public. Taxpayers and the media should have the right to read and analyze legislation prior to its passage. Senators, likewise, have a responsibility to know the contents of legislation prior to granting consent for its passage. Senators are within their rights to object to hotlining or secret passage of bills without debate or that may violate a Senator's principles without providing an opportunity for amendments.

Dr. Coburn's Criteria for Holding a Bill

Most bills that are introduced expand the power, authority and cost of the federal government. This is very concerning since the U.S. national debt, which now exceeds $13 trillion, is nearly insurmountable. This ever growing red ink threatens both the long-term solvency of important programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, as well as the future standard of living of our children and grandchildren.

For too long, Congress has simply borrowed more and more money to pay for new spending. In the real world, families can not follow this example and must make difficult decisions and set priorities on how to spend their limited financial resources. Paying for a child's college education or the medical expenses of a loved one compete against purchasing a new car or taking a vacation. Americans want Congress to live within its means, using the same set of common sense rules and restraints they face everyday.

To this end, before Senator Coburn gives his consent to a unanimous consent request or agrees to allow a bill to be considered, the measure must meet the following list of principles.

1.If a bill creates or authorizes a new federal program or activity, it must not duplicate an existing program or activity without de-authorizing the existing program;

2.If a bill authorizes new spending, it must be offset by reductions in real spending elsewhere;

3.If a program or activity currently receives funding from sources other than the federal government, a bill shall not increase the federal government's proportion of the costs of the program or activity;

4.If a bill establishes a new foundation, museum, cultural or historical site, or other entity that is not an agency or a department, federal funding should be limited to the initial start-up costs and an endowment shall provide funding thereafter.

This is not an exhaustive list, and Senator Coburn may also object to legislation that oversteps the limited role of the federal government enshrined in our Constitution by our Founders or that violates his own personal convictions.

Read the letter Dr. Coburn sent to his colleagues notifying them of his intention to hold bill that do not meet this criteria.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=HoldingSpending

I don't really see anything sinister nor abusive here... but that's just me.

[we vs us]

I guess this is going to be one of those foundational disagreements, then.  It looks to me as if he's decided to make it Government-by-Coburn, and subject the running of government to his own personal credo.  It's cool if you agree with him, but absolutely uncool if you don't. 

FWIW, I'm not opposed to the anonymous hold process, but believe it should be like abortion:  safe, legal, and rare. 

[Conan71]

I guess this is going to be one of those foundational disagreements, then.  It looks to me as if he's decided to make it Government-by-Coburn, and subject the running of government to his own personal credo.  It's cool if you agree with him, but absolutely uncool if you don't. 

FWIW, I'm not opposed to the anonymous hold process, but believe it should be like abortion:  safe, legal, and rare. 

Unfortunately there are too many shitburgers being served up as legislation in this day and age.  I'd have a problem with him stalling legislation if it weren't for bill authors carving out bits of our tax money to hand over to associates, supporters, and pet projects which are unrelated to a bill or creating entirely unecessary new layers of bureaucracy. 

Our government does not need to become so complicated to the point that people become numb to how much a billion dollars really is, nor how much additional rules, regs, and departments curb our liberties.

[Cats Cats Cats]

So he's holding it up because he disagrees with how less than one half of one percent of it is being spent. Awesome.

Sounds like a waste of money to me.  So just a million dollars (plus the interest we have to pay to loan in out) for the next, what?  100 years?  That million is going to turn in a few hundred billion by then.

[Smokinokie]

Sounds like a waste of money to me.  So just a million dollars (plus the interest we have to pay to loan in out) for the next, what?  100 years?  That million is going to turn in a few hundred billion by then.

It's only a MILLION. A MILLION here, a MILLION there. It's not like it will add up to any substantial amount. I mean, come on. Don't we all have a few MILLION laying around?

[Gaspar]

It's only a MILLION. A MILLION here, a MILLION there. It's not like it will add up to any substantial amount. I mean, come on. Don't we all have a few MILLION laying around?

Who's gonna miss it?

[Townsend]

Who's gonna miss it?

The 4 star without his 18k toilet seat.

[Conan71]

What the hell, it's not like it's my money!

[guido911]

The aid is generally appreciated, but the goodwill is easily forgotten if you look at global attitudes toward the U.S.

You sure nailed that one. Remember this U.N. bozo's comments following the Thailand tsunami re: U.S. aid:

The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people, although the United Nations' humanitarian-aid chief called the donation "stingy."

"The United States, at the president's direction, will be a leading partner in one of the most significant relief, rescue and recovery challenges that the world has ever known," said White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy.

But U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/28/20041228-122330-7268r/