Expenditure of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars Is Up to Congress, Not the IMF

by Andrew C. McCarthy

As Patrick’s excellent post demonstrates, the State Department moves seamlessly from Obama’s fictional account of the Benghazi massacre to Obama’s fictional account of Egypt’s Islamist dystopia.

There is much to be said about Egypt in the grip of the Muslim Brotherhood — e.g., the lunatic lionizing of Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood hardliner, for mediating a ceasefire in which Israel (a) is placed on a par with Hamas, a terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, and (b) is now expected to ease its blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, a longtime Brotherhood goal; the latest Morsi power grab; the fact that challenging Brotherhood aggression has become much more difficult because of the Beltway’s bipartisan democracy fetish. I want to focus for now, though, on the insanity of American funding for Egypt’s virulently anti-American Islamist rulers.

As Patrick recounts, the State Department is vigorously defending Obama’s underwriting of Morsi’s Islamic supremacist regime — both direct American taxpayer assistance (through payments and debt forgiveness) and indirect American taxpayer assistance through the International Monetary Fund. American taxpayers foot 18 percent of the IMF bill — nearly three times more than the next highest contributor, Japan. To support Islamic supremacist governments like Egypt’s through the IMF, we thus pay six times more than Saudi Arabia, the leading global propagator of Islamist ideology.

So why doesn’t the administration use this financial leverage to pressure Egypt to turn away from repressive sharia and adopt real democracy? According to the State Department, because the conditions that can be placed on an IMF funding grant are primarily “in the economic arena … not the political arena.”

This, of course, is the problem with ceding sovereign decisions, such as which foreign governments to support, to international institutions rather than making them on our own as our Constitution intends. There is no global consensus about politics — to the IMF, ours is just another system, like China’s, Russia’s or Iran’s. Consequently, the internationalists tell us, the only strings on IMF loans should involve repayment arrangements and the like.

Wrong. The Obama administration would like you to think our hands are tied by international understandings. They are not. Our Constitution still controls our affairs and our government’s actions. Under our Constitution, Congress, not the IMF, gets to decide whether our grossly indebted government sends American taxpayer dollars to Egypt at all. It is also for Congress, not the IMF and not the State Department, to decide what conditions to place on any funding. Moreover, though it has become the fashion to allow the president to waive conditions imposed by Congress, there is no requirement that lawmakers permit this to happen. 

Congress can cut off U.S. funding to Egypt. Congress can also cut off, or at least slash, U.S. contributions to the IMF that are underwriting anti-American governments. Of course, Congressional Republicans will give you the usual song-and-dance about how they “only control one-half of one-third of the government.” But it happens to be the one-half of one-third that the Constitution makes supreme in the matter of raising and spending public money. Obama would have no money to give to Egypt unless Congress first gave it to him. 

As the Justice Department proved in court five years ago, the Muslim Brotherhood’s professed mission in the United States is to eliminate and destroy Western civilization. When will Congress insist that we stop putting American taxpayers on the hook to pay for this grand jihad?

The Corner

The one and only.