Why $48 Billion for AIDS Funding Can't Buy You Love

The House of Representatives recently passed a bill to triple the money we give to foreign countries in their fight against AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. That legislation calls for a total of $48 billion dollars over a five-year period. The Senate is expected to pass the bill, and the president has said he will sign it. After all, he broached the idea during his 2003 State of the Union speech when it came to increased funding in the fight against AIDS. Rep. Ileana Rose-Lehtinen, R-FL, said that the giveaway program has enhanced the U.S. image abroad. Enhanced our image abroad? Would $96 billion double our favorable image abroad? How stupid have we become to think that people will like us if we just give them more money? For starters, we have to accept the fact that we will always be the Great Satan to many parts of the world, regardless of how much money we throw at them. Many countries resent our culture, business sense, hard work ethics and standard of living. It seems with these countries that no matter what we say or do, their opinion of us will not change, so get over it. If sacrificing our young men and women during combat operations in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention saving thousands of people from exposure and starvation during the great tsunami, the 8.2 earthquake in Pakistan in 2005 and countless other disasters around the world, doesn't demonstrate our commitment to helping others, no amount of money will. But the biggest problem I have with such programs is that we simply cannot afford them. In light of the economy being on the verge of a recession and our being involved in two costly wars, the country cannot afford to just give money away to other nations, regardless of how worthwhile the cause. Think about this: Every dollar of foreign aid we give is borrowed money. That's like you going to your local bank and receiving an increase on your credit card limit since you’re maxed out. You take a cash advance and immediately give it away to a stranger in the hope that person will come to love and admire you. Anyone who did that in real life would be committed to a mental hospital. You know that you can't afford to borrow the money, but because you have a rich uncle named Sam who covers your wasteful and frivolous expenses – no problem! Well, in reality, the U.S. taxpayer is Uncle Sam, and he can't afford the government’s extravagance. If the country had no debt, and a surplus beyond the fiscal year’s budget expenditures, then I could understand being generous. But since we don't, forget about it. But if Congress still feels compelled to spend money like drunken sailors (my apologies to drunken sailors), then why not spend it on something that will benefit Americans for a change? According to the Black AIDS Institute, in some parts of the country, the U.S. black community rivals some African nations in its severity of AIDS cases. Why aren’t we helping these AIDS victims? I can think of a whole host of worthwhile projects the money could fund, but I would much rather it not be spent at all. That $48 billion comes to $160 for every one of this country’s 300 million citizens. Am I a Grinch because I won’t share my good fortune with others? No. I’m just being practical. The government shouldn’t borrow money that will obligate my grandchildren to pay for its generosity – that’s irresponsible. Sort of like members of Congress who have never seen a spending program they didn’t like. Many countries would take necessary steps to fund their own AIDS, malaria and TB medications if the U.S. and other donor nations didn’t provide it for them. They may not have much to spend, but preventing fatal diseases among their populations seems like a priority to me. They shouldn’t rely on a debtor nation like the U.S. to provide that preventive medicine for them.