OPINION & EDITORIAL
Squabbling over some numbers
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by S. Kyle Pauly:
- Abusive lawsuits reflect on society (March 9, 2005)
- Squabbling over some numbers (February 4, 2005)
- Playing God with lives of innocents (December 7, 2004)
- Proud to be an American (November 16, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Blogs prove powerful web hubs (February 17, 2005)
- Tsunami relief money must be donated cautiously (January 17, 2005)
- Stingy states of America (January 17, 2005)
- Boxer's objection counterproductive (January 17, 2005)
by S. Kyle Pauly
Friday, February 4, 2005
How much money is too much? How much is too little?
These are the questions we seem to be bombarded with from the media and certain liberal-leaning individuals on a daily basis. When word first broke of the devastating tsunami, many countries scrambled to give aid. Bush began by pledging $35 million, only to be quickly ridiculed by many as insensitive and stingy.
Shortly thereafter, the pledge was increased to $350 million. In fact there are some media facets, such as Time magazine, which still seem to want to incriminate Bush’s money spending policies by portraying his spending in a skewed manner. In an article of theirs, in the January 17th issue, they listed nine major countries and the amount they donated, not only in dollar amounts, but also in % GDP. So naturally, the United States, being the economic leader of the world, is going to look much less impressive in the regard of % GDP, yet when strict dollar amounts are listed we are among the top countries to have donated.
What the media should be focusing on, but isn’t, is the fact that we had helicopters and troops sent over almost immediately to the devastated areas. We supplied fresh drinking water and food and water purification systems to help stop the spread of disease and to help those who survived. This was a major operation, and one in which we should take pride. However, in keeping with their usual tendencies, the media reported little of this and instead more of what Bush has done wrong.
Furthermore, the amount of private donations was not even considered in this aforementioned data table, nor any other I have come across, and yet the amount donated by private parties in the United States has far exceeded even that of governmental donations.
Is it even a bright idea to be giving such large amounts of money to the UN? The UN that was involved in the notorious oil-for-food scandal?
Do we really trust them to ensure that the money will be well spent on tsunami relief? Or is it really more inefficient to be transferring money from one government to an international body instead of directly to those who need it?
In all reality, we gave a large donation to the organization that turned its back to us during our time of war, so maybe Bush was correct in the beginning when he gave them just $35 million. The best bet would have been to donate the large lump sum to the private organizations that are actually on the front lines.
This leads me to the next big issue of media: did President Bush spend too much on his inauguration ball during a time of war? This question is in itself poor, for Bush spent not a single cent on his inauguration. The money spent comes solely from private donations, none of which can exceed $250,000.
Taxpayer dollars had no role in his ball. In addition, to those who say the money should have been used to armor vehicles or better supply troops, this is not an option. Because the money comes from private donors, for the purpose of the ball, Bush cannot spend it as he chooses; it must be used to fund the ball. If he wished to not spend it on the ball, it would have to be returned to the donor party. And, as I would guess many of those who complain out there have not taken the time to look into, if one was to compare Clinton’s inauguration ball with Bush’s and account for inflation, one would find that Clinton’s cost more.
However, I do agree with the general point that too much is being spent on these balls. Our country as individuals and in terms of government must start to check how we spend money, as we appear to be doing so more frivolously each day.
So really, the question of how much money is too much or too little is a bad question in itself if one is not properly informed, and before making such statements I urge you to look into every issue that you can instead of blindly following popular media.
S. Kyle Pauly (spauly@badgerherald.com) is a pre-med sophomore majoring in biology.
Josiah (February 4, 2005 @ 6:55am):
Dear S. Kyle Pauly,
Well, I think you have done a great job of reputing those nasty liberals and thoroughly confusing yourself. Overriding theme: Don't Question Bush.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 7:22am):
"The money spent comes solely from private donations, none of which can exceed $250,000." FYI, there are loopholes to get around this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5058-2005Jan12.html
"In a few instances, both the parent company and its subsidiaries have donated. Marriott International Inc. delivered $250,000 to the committee, as did each of two units: Marriott Vacation Club International and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.
In addition, Ameriquest, a mortgage company specializing in financing housing purchases in heavily minority neighborhoods, gave $250,000, along with $500,000 from two subsidiaries, for a total of $750,000."
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 9:14am):
Yeah. Although goddamn little countries with their piddling GDP's making our donation look bad! And we had the goddamn troops there and Clinton and Bush Senior looking all serious on the talking box telling us to give money! How dare anyone question our generosity, our Christian values, and for godsakes, $40 in non-taxpayer money for BALLS! That's our god given right, to parade about Washington D.C. in enough fur to coat the Iditarod, with enough security to keep us all safe from the limo bombs and ....security cost what? $10 million dollars? Wow....that's a lot. And where did that money come from? Oh...I see. Not private donations. But from the homeland security bill for Washington D.C.? Wow, wait. What did they spend it on? Building grandstands for people watching the inaugaration? Jesus, that doesn't sound like a good way to spend taxpayer money. And no president has ever made the city of Washington D.C. pick up the tab for their inaugaration before? Man, that makes President Bush kind of a prick. What! 80% of D.C. didn't even vote for him! Shit, he's really giving to them balls deep, isn't he?
Man. President Bush is kind of cocksucker. Cheap, gaudy, cocksucker. Oh wait. That makes him an American. A Texan Christian American. The best kind.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 9:15am):
Yeah. Although goddamn little countries with their piddling GDP's making our donation look bad! And we had the goddamn troops there and Clinton and Bush Senior looking all serious on the talking box telling us to give money! How dare anyone question our generosity, our Christian values, and for godsakes, $40 in non-taxpayer money for BALLS! That's our god given right, to parade about Washington D.C. in enough fur to coat the Iditarod, with enough security to keep us all safe from the limo bombs and ....security cost what? $10 million dollars? Wow....that's a lot. And where did that money come from? Oh...I see. Not private donations. But from the homeland security bill for Washington D.C.? Wow, wait. What did they spend it on? Building grandstands for people watching the inaugaration? Jesus, that doesn't sound like a good way to spend taxpayer money. And no president has ever made the city of Washington D.C. pick up the tab for their inaugaration before? Man, that makes President Bush kind of a prick. What! 80% of D.C. didn't even vote for him! Shit, he's really giving it to them balls deep, isn't he?
Man. President Bush is kind of cocksucker. Cheap, gaudy, cocksucker. Oh wait. That makes him an American. A Texan Christian American. The best kind.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 9:18am):
Yeah. Although goddamn little countries with their piddling GDP's making our donation look bad! And we had the goddamn troops there and Clinton and Bush Senior looking all serious on the talking box telling us to give money! How dare anyone question our generosity, our Christian values, and for godsakes, $40 in non-taxpayer money for BALLS! That's our god given right, to parade about Washington D.C. in enough fur to coat the Iditarod, with enough security to keep us all safe from the limo bombs and ....security cost what? $10 million dollars? Wow....that's a lot. And where did that money come from? Oh...I see. Not private donations. But from the homeland security bill for Washington D.C.? Wow, wait. What did they spend it on? Building grandstands for people watching the inaugaration? Jesus, that doesn't sound like a good way to spend taxpayer money. And no president has ever made the city of Washington D.C. pick up the tab for their inaugaration before? Man, that makes President Bush kind of a prick. What! 80% of D.C. didn't even vote for him! Shit, he's really giving it to them balls deep, isn't he?
Man. President Bush is kind of cocksucker. Cheap, gaudy, cocksucker. Oh wait. That makes him an American. A Texan Christian American. The best kind.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 10:29am):
Wow. A triple post. That's new.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 11:48am):
If youre going to make an argument about the ridiculousness of an argument, you can at least be comprehensive. Aside from the fact that your lack of good journalistic writing skills would get in the way of even the best argument against "liberal" attacks on your beloved president, there are a few points lacking in your argument.
First off, the UN is not the enemy here. If one misappropriated program can mark you as corrupt for life, Gonzales wouldn't be confirmed, we wouldn't have a Secretary of State or of Defense, and George W. Bush would still be on probation for cocaine use and side stepping federal law as governor of Texas.
Second, to call justified critics of Bush's foriegn policy, whether it be about a war that we created for our own national interests overseas or about much needed humanitarian relief for the tsunami, wrong because there's no real difference between 35 and 350 million dollars is plain stupid.
Third, a fanatic loyalty to the most controversial and arguably unintelligable president in American history is not a license cast judgment on the media--because unfortunatly that's what you are a part of.
I'd stick to biology.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 4:25pm):
Hey,i thought that playboy was the only publication that could use the word "ball" five times in a paragraph (9) ?
You have proved me wrong.
Bravo
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 4:48pm):
I guess we know what she has on the mind; and that would be two and a half men...
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 5:54pm):
Here are the numbers:
1. Including private contributions, the United States contributes 2.2% of its GDP to global causes every year. That is more than twice of the percentage GDP than any other nation on the planet gives. (The next highest is Finland at 0.92%.)
The American government provides 35% of all world relief aid.
2. 73% of all Americans made donations to charities in the last 12 months compared to 44% of Germans and 43% of French.
3. The average sum of donations over 12 months for Americans was $851; Germans, $120; French, $96.
4. All the aid other countries gave would be useless without a means of distributing it, and that means is the U.S. military.
5. While the U.S. government gave a mere 350 million dollars to tsunami aid, private citizens contributed 400 million dollars. The number is rising.
6. While Catholic Relief Services (established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) usually obtains 40 thousand dollars in charitable donations per month, it received 100 thousand dollars per hour on its website for tsunami relief.
The litany goes on and on. America the stingy? No. America the generous.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 5:58pm):
I'd like to add something to what I just posted. While the columnist may love GW, it is obvious that all these Bush-haters on the forum are as closed minded as they come because they will never accept any fact that challenges there pessimism and hatred for the President. They are bigots. Plain and simple. And given their posts, they seem to be woman-haters too.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 6:14pm):
Bush spent no money on his inauguration ball because it was an inaugur*al* ball.
Anonymous (February 4, 2005 @ 8:31pm):
THe list of statistics posted by the anonymous three comments up is interesting. How about some sources?
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 11:20am):
"THe list of statistics posted by the anonymous three comments up is interesting. How about some sources?"
For starters, http://www.usaid.gov
Next, search the UN Development Program's pages.
Then search the UN's home page -- despite Republican calls to withhold all monies from the UN, the US still covers 25% of all costs incurred by all UN programs. That means we pay for 1/4 of everything the UN does -- that alone makes us the biggest donor country in the world.
Anonymous (February 5, 2005 @ 10:24pm):
"They are bigots. Plain and simple."
YOU'RE NOT TOLERANT OF MY CLOSED-MINDED BIGOTRY. THEREFORE, YOU ARE A BIGOT.
The logic is impeccable.
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 9:38am):
Great article. Thank you for bringing some balance to our university.
You have stirred up the pot and have people thinking. Don't let the personal attacks get to you. Personal attacks come from the weak. Remember that.
A wise person contributes, a fool attacks...
Anonymous (February 6, 2005 @ 10:23am):
Drive-by aphorisms... brilliant technique, my friend!
Too bad such maxims don't also apply to BH columnists (Spain is a nation of cowards because their president is actually following the will of the people and withdrawing troops; all TA's should be fired for daring to protest John Gard's politcal scapegoating, etc... ad nauseum), some of whome occasionally base their columns on false, incorrect data and assumptions and resorting to personal attacks.
Anonymous (February 8, 2005 @ 2:08am):
The UN has only one misappropriated program?
The critic who wrote you should learn more about the UN before writing such naive comments. That guy does not have a clue! Obviously he is not a student, OR, they have dropped standards here...
Anonymous (February 8, 2005 @ 2:11am):
The government aid program is wrong. Money should go directly to the organizations that can help. Money should not go to the UN nor directly to a government. Too much money is wasted in AID. It never reaches those it is intended for.
