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 ([email protected]) is a pre-med sophomore majoring in biology.