The Land of Cheapskates?

A few words from a stingy American

by Heidi Parent
01/16/05

A recent conversation with a friend highlighted four of their main complaints for me:

#1 – President Bush didn't respond to the disaster quickly enough, opting instead to callously continue his Christmas vacation. Further proof that he is just another heartless Republican who cares little about anyone who doesn't belong to a country club.

The White House did issue an official response the day of the disaster, but I agree the President should have read a public statement sooner. Not because it would have made one hill of bean's difference in the lives of the survivors. I mean, were they all breathing a little easier after George W. Bush read his statement? Is their grief eased even one iota because the President of the United States offered his condolences? Of course not. To make a real difference, show the money. Put boots on the ground. And the US has done that.

But in today's world symbolism is valued more than substance, especially by the elite media. And by not personally responding sooner, President Bush made it very easy for his critics to portray him as heartless. But in reality it is substance that, of course, matters more that symbolism. So while President Bush may have lost the PR war, he is winning the substance war.

#2 – Our initial pledge amount was a pittance. It only increased after the rest of the world “shamed” us into giving more.

Question: How does one determine how much disaster aid is necessary? Answer: By considering the size of the disaster, which is what we did. No country came out of the gate with $300 million. Our initial pledge was based on the size of the disaster, as it was known to be at the time. And the pledge increased as the size and scope of the disaster increased. But more importantly – and this is something that is conveniently overlooked by our critics – we did respond immediately with manpower aid. And in those first few days and weeks, when it is still possible to find and rescue survivors, manpower that can support rescue missions is more important than pledging money that will take weeks if not months to actually materialize. But unfortunately in a world governed by emotions, saying you will give X amount of money translates into how much you care. (Note to President Bush and all future Republican presidents: When disaster strikes anywhere else in the world – but particularly in the Third World – promise to break the bank. Take every last penny and divert it to foreign disaster aid. This will be a sign of how much you care. And there's an added bonus: it could spell an end to every silly, liberal social program here at home. Now there'll just be silly social programs abroad. That should put American liberals in quite a box.)

#3 – We are a rich nation. Is $350 million the best we can do?

First off, I find it unbelievable that anyone would scoff at $350 million. After all, I haven't heard Sandra Bullock called stingy because she only donated $1 million compared to Steven Spielberg’s $1.5 million.

The truth is, the US ponies up more aid --- both government aid and through private donations (Let's not forget those. Somehow private donations are conveniently overlooked when critics discuss our meager response.) --- than any other nation. By far! For example, we make up only 6% of the world's population yet we provide about 60% of the world's food aid and 40% of international humanitarian aid. We also give more funding than any other country to the UN, the World Bank, and to the International Monetary Fund.

We also recognize that trade is more effective than international aid when it comes to helping a region compete on the world stage. That's why we invest over $100 billion a year in emerging market economies. It's also why we buy a substantial amount of goods from these developing countries, which provides jobs and incomes for millions of workers.

But perhaps more important than our international aid and investment is the fact that we provide protection for most of the world. Charles Krauthammer put it best, “We are the fire department for the world, ready to send our hooks and ladders anywhere they're needed.” And that’s what we've done after the tsunami. As of this writing, we have 20 ships, 28 cargo planes, 48 helicopters, and over 13,000 troops on the ground in the disaster area. Not only are our troops aiding the search and rescue, they are also providing much needed food and water to the survivors. The USS Abraham Lincoln alone can filter 400,000 gallons of salt water a day, providing the fresh water survivors so desperately need. Of course the critics who so eagerly pooh-pooh our “meager” contribution consider none of this. So the next time you hear someone discount our $350 million, remind him that we invest $500 billion (that's billion with a "b") annually in our defense budget; a defense budget that provides protection, as well as disaster relief, to other countries. Name another country that does this. I’ll save you the time; there isn't one. So our sailors sit in the Indian Ocean, “Meanwhile,” as Victor Davis Hanson said, “we await the arrival of the Charles De Gaulle and its massive fleet of lifesaving choppers.”

#4 – Our “meager” response just gives the world another reason to hate us.

Those who hate us will hate us no matter what we do or how much we help. In the last four years we've liberated 50 million people from oppressive regimes. The cheers from the human rights crowd are deafening, aren't they? We're providing $15 billion over five years toward AIDS relief in Africa and the Caribbean. Have you seen all those special segments on the nightly news praising President Bush's efforts to save lives? Me neither. The truth is no other country is doing what we're doing on the level we're doing it, and still it's not enough. It's just further proof that the Blame America First crowd can find ammunition in any situation.

For too many, this tsunami has somehow turned into a story about America and how her leaders continue to fail the world. But for the rest of us, we know otherwise. We understand this is not about America and it's not about President Bush. It's not even about Europe or the UN. It's about the victims, the survivors, and their families. It about helping put a region back together. And that's just what America intends to do. No matter how much her critics complain.