I was puzzled when the media reported that former President Obama’s administration had used its final moments in the White House to send $221 million to the Palestinian Authority. Throughout his presidency, I didn’t generally agree with Obama’s decisions. However, I could recognize that legislation such as the ACA, despite being essentially written by insurance companies in order to protect their interests, were rooted in the idea of making the lives of the American people better. I was also aware that Obama was much more than just another president for many Americans, as my colleague Frederick Bell wrote, “He made me want to be a leader.” With all of this in mind, I could not understand why he chose to let this decision be one of his last in the oval office. Why not spend that money in a way that directly benefited the American people?
After a little research, I discovered that the funds were never meant to benefit Americans; the money came from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency whose sole purpose is to send American money overseas. In 2012, the USAID released its annual financial report. “Delivering Results: From the American people, for the American people” is proudly displayed on the cover page of their report. However, results are not what the agency specializes in. Instead, the agency delivers tens of billions of dollars from the American people to other countries. How exactly is money sent outside of our country for the American people? When 15.9% of our country’s population (48.8 million Americans) lived in poverty that year, perhaps the best way to spend the American taxpayers’ money would be to help Americans.
Foreign aid only accounted for roughly 1.2% of the Obama Administration’s proposed 2017 budget proposal, so maybe it’s not such a big deal. Whether or not it’s a big deal to you depends on if you think $50.1 billion could make a difference in the everyday lives of Americans. $50.1 billion amounts to two-thirds of Bernie Sanders “College for All” plan. The money also amounts to nine times the necessary funds for Sanders’ youth jobs program which would “create 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans.”
While there are many great causes supported by US foreign aid, such as vaccinations and clean water projects, global non-governmental organizations could pick up the slack if the US were to completely stop foreign aid. NGOs and developed countries are already dependent on each other, and in countries with transparent, diverse societies, like in the US, both parties tend to thrive. If the government were to transition from its role as financier to a role where it provided oversight to prevent “briefcase NGOs” and other forms of corruption it would still be providing a great service to the world without taking on such a financial burden.
If the government were to stop playing middleman between the American people and foreigners in need of aid, then the aforementioned causes would still be able to receive funding. Except this time, instead of having their tax dollars thrown to the governments of developing and developed countries, Americans could decide to give to NGOs such as Amref Health Africa, Doctors Without Borders, and the Thirst Project.
The government, with all of its resources, believes it can help the global community better than its citizens and logic would lead many to agree. However, this is not the case. For example, in 2015 US agencies collectively sent a whopping $3.1 billion to Israel, a country USAID labels as a “High Income Country.” In the same fiscal year, US agencies sent nearly $212 million to Malawi, a country USAID considers to be a “Low Income Country.” I must admit, I’ve never been to either country, but based off of the facts that 53% of Malawi’s citizens live below the poverty line, the average life expectancy in Israel is 29 years more than it is in Malawi, and Israel’s GDP per capita is nearly 32 times that of Malawi — I find it safe to assume that Malawi needs our money more than Israel.
Our government should stop sending taxpayers’ money to countries across the globe and acting like it truly cares about the global community. If our government truly cared about the world, would  our most recent president have bombed seven different countries? Would our military spending be so high? Of course the American people want diseases to be eradicated and the world to have clean water, but why do we rely on our government to decide who gets our money? A prosperous American populace will undoubtedly reach out to those in need, and a prosperous American populace starts with a government who takes less from us and allows us to dictate where foreign aid goes. Hopefully our new president will follow through on his promise to put America first, because rest assured, the American people will not forget about the rest of the world, unless there’s a new episode of The Walking Dead on.
Matthew Hutchins is a 20-year-old petroleum engineering sophomore from Birmingham, Alabama.