Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

When the international hoity-toity types spit anti-American bile first and get the facts second, can anyone doubt that the hatred and scapegoating of America has reached the status of religion in the circles of the global elite?

It’s not based on the truth, it’s not based on the details, it’s not based on research. It’s based on belief, often contradictory to actual facts.

Is there any point in trying to argue with faith-based hatred?

From the Washington Times:

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.

"It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become.

"There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy," he said, adding that politicians in the United States and Europe "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more."

Some quick facts on U.S. relief efforts, from the Washington Post:

The Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million in relief assistance and dispatched emergency relief teams and naval patrol aircraft to the region to conduct an assessment of the damage.

Powell, speaking to reporters at the State Department, did not say how much the United States is prepared to contribute to the relief effort but indicated that Monday's pledge would not be the last. "We also have to see this not just as a one-time thing," he said. "Some 20-plus thousand lives have been lost in a few moments, but the lingering effects will be there for years."

The Bush administration sent a team of 21 emergency relief experts to the region to help coordinate efforts to distribute aid and to repair sanitation and health systems, said Ed Fox, assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Fox said that U.S. embassies in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia and the Maldives have already distributed $400,000 in assistance. The United States is planning to provide $4 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The administration anticipates providing an additional $10 million in the weeks ahead, he said.

Also note that the Pentagon has dispatched nine patrol planes and 12 C-130 cargo planes packed with relief supplies to South Asia.

Additional perspective:

* In 2003, the U.S. contributed 57 percent to the budget of the World Food Program to help feed 104 million people in 81 countries.

* In 2001, President George W. Bush, accompanied by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Nigerian President OlusegunObasanjo, declared U.S. support for a global fund to fight the AIDS pandemic. At that time, President Bush made the first contribution towards the Fund, of $200 million. The United States remains the largest contributor to the Fund.

* The United States remained the International Committee of the Red Cross’s largest donor.accounted for 25.84% (CHF 231.7 million) of all contributions received and 28% (CHF 216.7 million) of the contributions received for field operations. The ICRC’s operational flexibility was enhanced by the fact that the US provided advance information on the level of funding and earmarked its contributions in a relatively broad fashion (mostly by region).

And as Powerline recently pointed out, citing a Foreign Affairs article by Carol C. Adelman, what is unique about America is that most contributions to foreign countries come from individual citizens and churches, not from the federal government:

Gauging national generosity solely by government giving ignores new economic realities. Until a decade ago, most international resources flowing into developing countries came from governments. But in 1992, foreign direct investment and financial markets took off in emerging economies. For the first time, developing countries were attracting the kind of private capital that creates and sustains development. As financial flows went private, so did foreign assistance. While ODA stagnated, private giving skyrocketed.

Europeans and the Japanese continue to give primarily through their governments, but the OECD's outdated measure fails to take into account how Americans now give abroad. In 2000, the last year for which comparative figures are available, U.S. ODA totaled $9.9 billion. This figure includes the budgets of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps, contributions to the World Bank, and some State and Defense Department humanitarian assistance. Together, these programs account for just over one-sixth of total U.S. assistance — public and private — to developing countries. Private giving makes up more than 60 percent. The remainder — $12.7 billion in 2000 — is government aid that, although not within ODA guidelines, is still foreign assistance. This includes aid to Israel, Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and central and eastern European nations and support for the National Endowment for Democracy and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund.

As Anne Malone observed, comments like Egeland’s are about wanting to see big numbers on budget items that the speaker likes, not about actually helping people.

By the way, over on Daily Kos, a commenter asks, “why do I get the feeling that the only major reason why Bush would want to offer any kind of aid is because it is being reported that six, count'em 6, Americans were among the 21,000+ that were killed?”

Thankfully, the next commenter observes that, “We offered aid last year to the Iranians, who are enemies and where no Americans were affected. Grow up and realize that a disaster of this scale transcends politics.”

Gut emotional reaction - the Washington Post site now has the death toll above 40,000, the New York Times is putting it above 44,000. I couldn’t get my head around the initial reports of 10,000 dead. About two-thirds of the Meadowlands during a sold-out game? Gone in an instant?

The mind reels.

UPDATE: Hmmm. Is it fair to wonder just how much Mr. Egeland gives to charity? And how his charitable contributions contribute to that of an average American?

Unsurprisingly, the United Nations isn’t very clear about its salaries, nor the charitable contributions of its members.

This Cato Institute report from early 1997 states that “An assistant secretary-general receives $140,256; the mayor of New York gets $130,000.” In addition, the Cato report states, “Salaries of UN diplomats are tax-free. Salaries of administrative staff include an "assessment'' used to offset tax liability in most cases, so many of the staff salaries are tax-free as well. In addition, UN employees receive monthly rent subsidies of up to $3,800 and annual education grants of up to $12,675 per child.

According to this PBS site, the Secretary-General's salary, which has not changed since 1997, is set at $227,253. So we can assume Egeland pulls home between $140,000 and $227,000 before the considerable benefits.

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Egeland is backtracking.

[Posted 12/28 12:00 PM]