What does an investigation look like to you? Unilateral funding embargo? Or measured investigation with research and findings of fact? Are you not impressed with the lack of actual investigating going on. The many misrepresentations coming out of doge have been a bit unhinged. Seems very haphazard for an “investigation.”
Great question. I've never seen a macro-level fiscal audit that doesn't start with something like DOGE. With such large amounts of capital involved, there's no way that the initial fact-finding stage could possibly follow any specific protocol. It's a bulldozer stage, just like any large-scale demolition effort.
In picking up the pieces of the colossal mess of spending that both parties have created over decades, there will inevitably be spending items that are worthwhile and should be reimplemented once the dust settles.
Quick aside. Did you notice any non-wasteful spending in the usaid budget, or is it all bad in your opinion?
I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's "all bad," but it's pretty clear that USAID was going well beyond the scope of its mission statement to "promote and demonstrate democratic values abroad, and advance a free, peaceful, and prosperous world." Spending tens of billions of dollars on military weaponry/supplies for war is not really a promotion of peace and prosperity. It's just the newest way in which we've engaged in policing the world and warmongering rather than focusing on our own common defense.
But that's beside the point, because the central question to me isn't whether or not budgetary items are "good or bad" based on their intent. A more relevant question is whether we should be spending our taxpayer dollars on foreign issues in the first place, when many of those countries are not our allies, when we have so many unresolved issues for our own citizens.
Just because we
can doesn't mean we
should. First of all, there's no limiting principle whatsoever on our current approach to foreign spending. Secondly, there's absolutely no evaluation of whether or not the money we're handing out is EFFECTIVE at addressing whatever issue is being targeted. Thirdly, we almost always place no conditions whatsoever on the aid, which means that once it's out of our hands, we have no control over the use of it, and we gain very little to nothing from it most of the time. This has led to many abuses of our generosity from foreign governments, many of whom act like entitled trust fund kids in response to our efforts. And lastly, we have chosen to meddle in affairs that should be a global effort, and we do this so we can engage in militaristic and economic abuses of other countries on a global scale. We definitely should have a role, but this assumption that the USA should "take a lead" on global efforts rather than engaging in equal collaborative efforts with every other country around the world is self-defeating.
If our aim is to create a peaceful and prosperous world, then why is our top priority always about creating a global hierarchy in which we are at the very top both economically and militaristically? This strategy is completely at odds with that stated mission.
By the way, thank you for discussion-oriented post. If I'm reading it correctly, you're probably in disagreement with a lot of my views, but I appreciate that you approached possible disagreement in a friendly way.
