Ronald Reagan “Cut and Run”

1982. The Invasion of Lebanon. President Ronald Reagan decided to support the Israeli offensive and invade Lebanon. After a horrible car bomb killed 241 American Soldiers in Beirut, Reagan “cut and run” (or that’s what I think many neo-cons would be calling that kind of troop withdrawal today).

Today, we can all learn a lot from what Ronald Reagan wrote afterward concerning that incident and the Middle East in general:

“Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.” (From his autobiography)

Ronald Reagan is often seen as the role model of a “strong foreign policy” – Yet in retrospect he advised “neutrality” in the Middle East. We need to take a lesson from our past, President Obama.

Seriously… Arabs don’t attack because you leave them alone

Most conservatives today would say that withdrawing troops from the Middle East is nothing short of cut and run – abandoning the mission and admitting defeat. To that I say: so what? An important part of growing up is knowing that sometimes you shouldn’t fight.

One lesson to learn from the Lebanese invasion of 1982 is that afterwards no terrorists attacked us at home. Terrorists don’t attack us because they think we’re weak; usually they see themselves as defending their homeland.

Image you’re a typical jihad recruit: a young, zealousness, poor Muslim man. Which motivation is more likely to motivate you:

• “See the American on your back door! Defiling your home land! Go attack.” OR
• “The Americans are leaving us alone. They’re afraid. Go to a foreign land and kill as many as you can.” ?

Seriously, it’s ridiculous to think that radical Muslims will more zealously attack us in our own country just because we leave them alone. Ronald Reagan’s expedition into Lebanon is evidence to that point.

The Principle of the Matter

The best advice on the subject of foreign relations was given by George Washington in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. …It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…”

For all their talk, “Conservatives” don’t seem to follow the founding fathers on this point. Do you think Republicans today are walking in the Reagan legacy? Or are they repeating all the mistakeshe told us to rethink? My rule is “…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…“

Previous post on the topic: How Bush would have been against the Iraq War before he got elected.

Why quoting an expert isn’t evidence

Thanks to everyone who made this weekend’s Advanced Debate Camp a success!

At the camp I taught three classes: on evidence, the constitution, and counterplans. Here are the slides (powered by Prezi) for my class “Why Quoting an Expert Isn’t Evidence: Using Science and Stories”:

Teaching highlights

It’s important to know how to prove something for yourself. You shouldn’t be dependent on quoting a bunch of other people and let them do the thinking for you. This class was designed to answer a basic question of: “how do you prove something to a judge?”

• Don’t say “I have a piece of evidence.” This phrase means nothing to a new judge and is code for “now it’s time to doze off” to an experience judge.
• Use more interesting descriptive words like quote, study, example, story, investigation, etc.
• Believe it or not, there is a template for good stories. There are three common categories for good stories: Challenge, Connection, and Creativity plots. All of these formats work by giving something unexpected; the way they are unexpected is what distinguishes them from each other.
• Good story writing isn’t as creative as you might think. The template for the plot of a good story is pretty standard: introduction, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. “Who, what, where, when, and why” is a really boring format. Use it to only check a story once you’ve created it using the 5-step Freytag’s plot.
• Science is both a process and a way of thinking. Science is not ruled by scientists; it is ruled by the scientific method. The mark of a good scientist is not having all the answers but actually knowing the limits of the conclusions.
• The development life cycle (the process): is the engineer’s version of the scientific method. Before a product is ready for production (or use as a case), it goes through several steps: analysis, design, implementation, testing, and evaluation. Notice that implementation comes before testing. A debater that has an expert who says “technology A is ready for implementation” doesn’t mean that it’s error-free or ready for the market. It often means that it has not been tested yet. It’s still in “beta.” (Example: Smell-o-vision in the 60s. Believe it or not, they made a Smell-o-vision movie.)
• Error margins (the way of thinking): mathematical ways to show how uncertain a result is. The easiest way to look at them is in the polls, but they also represent a greater idea: it’s important to not just know an expert’s opinion, but to also have some idea how sure they are of that opinion. So ask the other team for an error margin: how sure are the conclusions? They can’t be 100% sure of anything, can they?
• Best example to take away from this talk: is the before and after Debate Story. In this example, I took a seemingly boring quote on “foreign aid frangibility in India” and turning it into a creativity plot that could actually hold someone’s attention. Combining science and stories is a potent combination and can turn an article into evidence for your judge.

Credits

Big thanks to PHD Comics and xkcd for providing some spice to this teaching. (and some insight, too) Also thanks to Bible Art and stock.xchng for helping me find some great clip art.

Let me know what you thought about the camp or about this material in the comments below. Got a good example of a boring scientific paper that become an exciting story? Let me know.

NCFCA Debaters: Check out the Advanced Debate Camp

What have I been up to this summer? What has been so important that I’ve ignored my blog? Well, apart from working at Castle Media Group, attending NCFCA Nationals, and Patriot Academy, I’ve been volunteering for the Austin Rhetoric Club, and I can’t help but give a shameless pitch for the Advanced Debate Camp:

Calling All NCFCA Debaters! You have one more week to register for the most intensive two days of debate training to hit Austin! Meet the Advanced Debate Camp. Coming to Austin, Tx August 19-20.

Daniel Gaskell, Alex MacDonald, Thomas Umstattd, Shaney Irene, yours truly, and many other names you might recognize will be lending their expertise. You are going to learn a lot from these experienced instructors; they are some of the best NCFCA alumni and coaches.

But this is a camp; not one long lecture. The whole philosophy behind the Advanced Debate Camp is to 1: learn from experience (teachers) and 2: learn by experience. That means you’re going to grow through hands-on practice and coaching. In fact, one of the goals of this workshop is to put together a student-created sourcebook. Cool, hu?

Interested? Go ahead and register today. This is literally the best debate camp you’ll find for the price.

“Determined more”: the missing LD key

Anyone who has debated the NCFCA LD resolution has run into the same problem: what in the world is “legitimacy?” The biggest problem is that even if both teams agree to a definition of “legitimate government” they can still disagree about how to apply it. Looking for a way to get around bad wording? This is the post for you.

Resolved: A government’s legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.

Legitimacy

…is usually defined as “conforming to high standards”, “meeting the original purpose”, “widely accepted”, or sometimes simply “good.” The problem is how do any of these allow you to clearly distinguish legitimate from illegitimate governments?

So, I was thinking about this road block and trying to find a detour in the resolution. I was walking to the fridge when the most random insight hit me. There’s a loophole! One specific word in the resolution…

MORE

I asked a simple question: is it possible to answer “is ___ more important?” without answering “what is ____?” I came up with yes. Here’s the skinny:

Something is more important that something else if it doesn’t have a substitute.

Imagine you’re baking a cake (not something I do often…) and now imagine you’re an LDer or a philosophy major and you’re into answering useless questions (like this year’s resolution). The question is: what ingredient is MORE important to the cake?

In this scenario, we have the same problem: what do you mean by “important?” All the ingredients are important! But the one that you need least is the one that you could substitute. You don’t desperately need to get a carton of milk if you have powdered milk in the fridge. Simply put, the irreplaceable ingredient is the most important not matter what idea of “importance” you’re using!

Excited? Because I was pretty excited about this. Ok, now back to how it relates to LD…

Does popular sovereignty have an alternative?

I think that you could easily say “no” (as affirmative) by arguing the word “respect.” There’s no way to respect the “will of the people” without respecting it!

Application: before the American revolution, the English elites had the idea in their head of “virtual representation.” Namely, even though we didn’t get a voice our taxes, the mother country understood the colonists and had their best interests in mind. That seems pretty stupid, doesn’t it? Needless to say, we had a revolution over it and rejected England’s legitimacy over us.

On the other hand, the British did it right in other cases. Entirely without democratic elections, the empire created rules in Hong Kong that made it one of the most prosperous and least corrupt cities in the world. So, by pointing out the complexities of the “people’s will” (there’s more than just one), you could easily argue (as Negative) that there are ways to do what’s best for people (and what they arguable will want) without caring about popular sovereignty.

Is there an alternative to individual rights?

Yes. If you haven’t yet, every LDer needs to read Frederick Bastiat’s The Law. His idea is that if Individual Rights are the point of government, then people will gradually demand more and more rights until they start taking rights from others.

That’s why he believes in negative law. Instead of saying “you have a right to life”; the law says “you don’t have a right to murder.”[*] Debaters facing this idea on negative might say: a little nit-picky?

Perhaps. There’s some room for interpretation. Can denying someone rights be “respect for individual rights”? Does “respect” carry over the “and”? There’s some room either way. But there will still be clash! That’s what makes debate fun.

So, the whole concept of this post is that you can answer the resolution by talking about more determined and not legitimacy. Hope some of you take this idea and run with it. If you figure out how to do something with this concept, let me know in the comments. I’d love to see this idea actually become something. It might make a good affirmative (or maybe a negative…) case.

[*] Alexander Hamilton argued the same thing in the Federalist 84: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. …Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Why you shouldn’t use a Table of Contents

Too many people treat their speeches like term papers. Great recipe for putting your audience to sleep! In the odd case the you aren’t a sleep therapist and have to speak to people at some point in your life, you might want to read this post.

Don't like boring speeches? (Courtesy of Shilly Shallys World on Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Don’t give the punch line away

Your introduction is important. The first 30 seconds is when the audience decides whether to listen or tune you out. If they already know everything you’re saying, they’ll stop listening. If you reveal everything you’re going to say… well, would you listen for ten minutes when you already know everything in the first minutes?

Your speech is not a book. You don’t need a table of contents. Think of it this way: when was the last time you were deciding whether to read a book from the table of contents? Seriously; your introduction should look like the back cover of a book; not the table on page xii.

Don’t bury the lead

Anyone who knows anything about journalism knows this is key. Don’t bury your lead. Taking too long to get to the meat of the argument also puts your audience to sleep.

The trick is to give your audience just enough to want more. Use a good murder mystery as your guide. Good authors always give you just enough to ask questions (“whose the killer?” “who is going to find him?” “is the victim telling the truth?”) but not enough to guess the end. Sometimes it’s even useful to mislead the audience in order to bring to light and shatter some misconception they may have.

Make your audience ask questions - like it's a mystery. (Image from Gregory Wake - used under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

“Say what you’re going to say, say it, and then say what you said.”

Probably the worst advice for a speech you want people to listen to. Definitely the most boring.

Still, can’t really blame those who give this advice. I mean, repetition is good. It’s the root of learning. Instead of saying the same thing over and over and over, come up with different example, application, and phraseologies. Keep hammering the same point, just use a different hammer. Say it a different way each time. (get my point?)

Don’t…

just take it from me. Go read Beth’s the three points of death.

This is a big ‘ol list of “don’ts.” To hear about the “dos” of making ideas interesting, my recommendation is Made To Stick by the Heath brothers.

He’s The Almighty!

I helped some behind the stage of this project and know all the main faces behind the music and the acting you see above. Through various stages, I’ve been a doubter. I wondered secretly if this would come out as another cheesy Christian music gig. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

WOW guys. I am supper impressed with what God has done. He put together all these people who each were gifted in different ways, and this is what they did. The video leaves me spell-bound every time.

What do y’all think? Do you agree that this is a great mix of quality and message? Sure, it’s not perfect; it’s better than perfect in my opinion. It’s beautiful. It’s… God-breathed. If you are impressed and God puts it on your heart, please share this.

For more information, check out the website: Almighty Music Video [dot] com

He's in the Whisper

1 Kings 19: (NASB)

11So He said, “Go forth and stand on the mountain before the LORD ” And behold, the LORD was passing by! And a great and strong wind was rending the mountains and breaking in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.

12After the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound [whisper] of a gentle blowing.

13When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave And behold, a voice came to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

Where are you?

Are you in a place were you could hear God if he came in a whisper? Or will he have to bring an earthquake into your life to get your attention? Maybe if you’re waiting for the booming voice of God, you should start listening for a gentle blowing.

I know I haven’t reached that place. Lord Jesus, give me the power to listen, not just talk.

Something to think about.

Is Summer Rusting you Debate Skills?

What you need is a little lubricant. I know everyone has tons and tons of extra time on their hands this summer. (hehe… yes, I know… me too.) BUT without lubrication, your speaking skills will get rusty, so I recommend you devote a little time over your summer to make sure you’ve still got it. So, here are some of my tips:

1) Read Made to Stick

My Debate Club has officially decided to make Dan and Chip Heath’s Made to Stick required curriculum for next year. I’d recommend using your summer to get a head start. Here’s the website: http://heathbrothers.com/madetostick Complete with the first chapter (for free) and a link to buy the book (not for free).
Made to Stick has to have been the most useful book to me in my entire debate career, and that includes books like Introduction to Argumentation and Debate, so it comes highly recommended.

2) Be your own judge

Sometimes, it’s had to get into your audience’s shoes and see your speeches from the judge’s perspective. Here’s my tip: grab an old video of you from last year’s competition, print off a ballot from http://ncfca.org and fill it out on your speech. Yes, you heard me right. Judge yourself.
This works especially for speeches, but you might also do it on one of your debate rounds.

3) Do Some Russian Reading

There may not be any assignments or any pressing cases, but you should still do a little reading over the summer. Specifically, you should focus on big picture information. Read up on Russia’s history or international relations philosophy. You probably shouldn’t bother cutting blocks or briefing just yet; work on having a strong foundational understanding.

For starters, head over to Wikipedia’s Russia article or go see what the Department of State has to say about Russia.
Oh, and if you learn how to say “please vote affirmative, judge” in Russian, you will get double coolness points from me.

4) Drills

Here are three great drills you should do before every tournament. Summer may be the perfect time to get in the habit!

Warm up your face: sometimes in the morning, my face looks like its been botoxed. You want your face to look natural, so a few overdone facial gestures may be good. Grab a mirror and see what creative facial expressions you’re capable of.

Smooth Impromptu: It’s really hard to speak smooth as an ice cream sundae. Sometimes you want a thoughtful pause or a rephrase or two, but you want to be were you don’t HAVE to use any verbal crutches. Get a totally random topic and instead of focusing on content or structure, just focus on speaking smoothly. Every time you make a verbal slip (a stutter, an um, a “like”, etc.) start over from the beginning.

Practice Reading: Debate involves a very different type of reading. You need to read out loud with precision and interest. The single most important ingredient is to develop a “reading buffer,” so that you’re read words and comprehend meanings before you actually speak them. The best way to practice the “buffer” is to read something you’ve never read aloud as fast as possible.
Need something to read? Head over to wikipedia’s main page and read about something random like Leviathan Melvillei or Hugh Capet. Reading about stuff you don’t care about and can’t pronounce is great practice for debate!

One last note: If you were preparing for football season, your coach might have you do push-ups. Why? You’re never going to do that in a game, right? Even so, a player who doesn’t do his push-up won’t be in shape for the season. Similarly, I want to encourage y’all to work up your debate “strength,” so to speak, even if it doesn’t seem like you’ll use these drills in a tournament.

Let me know if you try this out and what summer drills work well for you.

The Case that won Region IV 2009

Well, NCFCA Nationals is coming up, so I figured it was my duty to give every bit of advice I can to those moving on to this higher level of competition. Anyway… here’s the case that won finals at last year’s Region IV tournament.

A super extra lot of credit goes to my super awesome former debate partner Toni Maisano. Maybe she’ll share some of her wisdom with you on why this case worked as well as it did.

This was a long time in the making. If you’re interested, you can read an earlier version here. Maybe I’ll post a little later on why we made the changes we did. Three specific things I think were done well in this case (and made it interesting):
a) support: evidence; not solid quotes.
b) SHORT taglines.
c) stories.

Feel free to ask questions and let me know what you think.

Aff1.1 – FA006
Maisano/Morgan

Imagine that there’s a poor man on the side of the road. He informs you that he can’t feed his children and desperately needs money. You’re feeling generous, so you give him a hundred dollars, telling him to use it wisely. He assures you that he will, turns around, and takes off his brand new Porsche.

After investigating this strange character, you learn that only 5 out of the 100 dollars you gave him actually went to feeding his family. You also, to your dismay, discover that he owns shares in the mortgage on your home. Now, knowing just how apparently irresponsible your last decision was, I have to pose the question: The next time you go past his corner, will you give him another 100 dollars? Or will you take that money and use it toward paying that mortgage you owe that strange “poor” man?

The way our government hands out aid to India is very similar to this analogy, and it is why we must affirm: That the United States Federal Government should significantly change its policy toward India. Today we will be showing you the similarities, and presenting a plan to phase out our irresponsible program to aid India.

But before we can do this, we need to make sure we’re on the same page in:

1) Definitions

Sources and further definitions are available upon request. Here are a couple to get us started:

United States-”country North America bordering on Atlantic, Pacific, & Arctic oceans; a federal republic”

(“United States of America.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/United States of America )

Significantly-”Having or likely to have a major effect; important”

(American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/significantly)

Change-”to undergo a modification of “

(Merriam-Webster Online Dict. 2008, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change)

Policy-As foreign policy consists of ‘decisions and actions which involve to some appreciable extent relations between one state and others’, it can be defined as ‘the actions of a state toward the external environment and the conditions under which these actions formulated’.

(Prof. Mustafa Aydin (professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Political Science, Ankara University, Turkey; as well as at the National Security Academy, Ankara, Turkey; was Research Fellow at the Center for Political Studies, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor) 2006, “Turkish Foreign Policy at the End of the Cold War; Roots and Dynamics”, Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/dosyalar/MMTY/36 /1_mustafa_aydin.pdf)

Toward-”With regard to; in relation to”

(American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/toward)

India-”A country of southern Asia covering most of the Indian subcontinent.”

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/India)

Foreign Aid-”assistance (as economic aid) provided by one nation to another”

(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign%20aid)

In this case, we will be focusing on one goal. That’s the second point we want to make:

2) Goal: Responsibility

So, in this round, we would encourage you to look at our policy on foreign aid and see if it is truly responsible. We want to start by showing you two reasons that foreign aid is not a responsible policy in:

3) Harms

This case specifically addressed economic aid, both in cash and in kind. According to the Congressional Research Service, we are sending India $74.1 Million annually.

How is this money being uses irresponsibly? Our two harms are debt and waste.

Thomas Lum (Specialist in Asian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division). “U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia: Selected Recipients.” October 8, 2008. Congressional Research Service, RL31362. http://opencrs.com/document/RL31362

a) Debt

Interestingly enough, the Department of the treasury reported that while giving India foreign aid, we also owed them about $38.2 Billion in Treasury Securities.

Department of the Treasury/Federal Reserve Board. May 15, 2009. “Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities” http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

In other words, we’re donating to our creditor. Our children are the ones who will have to pay for it. This is anything but a responsible policy, especially when you consider that much of our foreign aid has been wasted in India’s system.

b) Waste

A team of three Indian researchers decided to see what kind of effect foreign aid had on their government. They used a computer generated model to predict government spending with and without aid, comparing it to real data. Their conclusion was published in the:

Vinaya Swaroop (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India), Shikha Jha (Ph.D. in economics, Development Research Group, World Bank), and Andrew Sunil Rajkumar (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India).
September 2000.
“Fiscal effects of foreign aid in a federal system of governance The case of India.” Journal of Public Economics 77.3 (2000): 307-330. Accessed via ScienceDirect.

Concluding:
“This paper models fiscal effects of foreign aid in a federal system of governance. Our main innovation is to incorporate the inter-governmental fiscal link in examining economic fungibility of foreign aid. The model is applied to the expenditure decisions of the central government of India. The two main findings are: (i) Foreign aid merely substitutes for spending that the government would have undertaken anyway; funds freed by aid are spent on non-development activities, and (ii) In passing earmarked external assistance to states, the central government makes a reduction in its transfers to states. These findings indicate that the central government’s expenditure choices are unaffected by external assistance. The implication for donors is that even though their development projects may be associated with very high rates of economic return, they could be assisting the central government in financing something very different at the margin. For the state governments, the finding indicates that they may not be reaping the full benefits of externally procured assistance.”

Non-development activities. So, major studies have shown that foreign aid doesn’t help India build roads or feed the poor; those projects have been done anyway. In fact,

The Financial Times.
January 23 2008.
“Western donors wrestle with the contradictions of rising India.” By Jo Johnson (B.A., M.B.A., Financial Times’ South Asia bureau chief). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3470229c-c9db-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.html

“India does little to solicit aid and, sometimes, much to deter it. Ahead of Mr Brown’s visit, Rahul Gandhi, a senior Congress party politician, hinted at the extent of corruption, claiming that only 5 per cent of development funds reached their intended recipients, down from 15 per cent when his father was prime minister.
“His warning coincided with the release by the World Bank of a report that found “systemic fraud and corruption” in a flagship health programme and “suggested that other projects had been similarly compromised”. The bank in the year to June 2007 provided $3.7bn in new loans to India, its largest borrower.”

95 percent of aid somehow gets sidetracked. It gets spent on “non-development:” activities that are nice, but don’t actually help people. Well, like what? For example, while millions are going hungry, India is working on a two billion dollar space program.

The Guardian.
22 October 2008.
“Over-reaching for the stars” by Randeep Ramesh (the Guardian’s south Asia correspondent). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/22/india-spaceexploration

Summarized it well:
“But with precocity can come a hubris that is hard to shake off in later life. Perhaps the country would do well to direct some of its remarkable talents to the more obvious, acute problems it faces on earth, rather than inventing reasons to reach for the stars.”

Our funding allows them to gloss over their people and keep their head in the clouds.

That man with a Porsche can feed his children, he’d just rather let others do it. India is the same way. A very similar analogy is used by

Professor Deepak Lal (D.Phil., M.A., B.A., Professor of International Development Studies, University of California, LA, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy, University College London, former consultant to the Indian Planning Commission, Economic Advisor and Research Administrator to the World Bank, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute).
April 6, 2006.
“Reply to Easterly: There is No Fix for Aid.” CATO Unbound. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/04/06/deepak-lal/there-is-no-fix-for-aid/

He adds: “[Professor William] Easterly clearly thinks that there might still be some form of escape from what will appear to the world’s great and the good as a defeatist and gloomy conclusion. But the very example he cites—the role played by accountability and evaluation in the Mexican Progressa education program as a prototype for future aid projects—shows up why foreign aid is unnecessary for such programs. This was a Mexican program not funded by foreign aid. In fact in all the currently fashionable “soft” areas—health, education, democracy, gender etc.—favored by aid donors, there is no need for foreign money. Countries which subscribe to the worthy objectives of the aid donors do not need foreign money to do the right thing; they today have enough domestic money for these purposes. It is the ineffectiveness of this expenditure in meeting these objectives that leads to the observed dismal outcomes. Thus India spends a fair amount on public education but as official report after report has documented, this expenditure is wasted as the teachers do not turn up to teach, the school buildings are not built, and there are no books for which expenditure has been sanctioned. It is the will to do the right thing that remains in question in achieving even these modest objectives favored by Easterly. Foreign aid will make no difference, for as the adage has it: “You can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink”.”

As Lal advocates, we will next propose a plan that will address these two harms by phasing out this wasteful program and using the money to pay off our debt.

4) Plan

Our plan is really pretty simple. Here’s the specifics:

the Agency and Enforcement: of this plan is the Federal Government of the United States. There are two mandates that this agency will implement:

Mandate 1: Phase Out. Current government non-military aid sent to the India will be phased out. Discretionary funds shall be terminated, contracts shall not be renewed, and no new commitments shall be made. According to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) service, this currently includes CSH (Child Survival and Health), DA (Development Assistance), and P.L. 480 Title II Grants (In-kind food aid).

Mandate 2: Funds Redirected. Funds freed shall be redirected to pay off Indian Securities.

Next, the Timeline: This plan will be phased in as possible over the next two fiscal years.

Finally, we reserve the right to clarify this plan as needed.

The fifth and final observation of this case is how this plan pays off and restores responsibility:

5) Advantages

a) Exponential Savings

See debt doesn’t just increase at a constant rate. It is also accumulating interest, so it grows exponentially, a lot like cancer. Consequently, we are able to save exponentially by paying it off. So, starting with just $ 74.1 Million,
-In 10 years, we will not save $ 741 Million, we’ll save almost a billion dollars.
-And in 20 years, we won’t save $ 1.4 Billion, with interest we’ll save 2.5 Billion.
Formula Used:
A_t=(A_t-1+P)e^^r
Where A is the amount after t years, P is the principle (74.1 Million), r is the interest rate (estimated to be 5% for the purposes of this calculation), and e is an irrational mathematical constant approximately equal to 2.71828…

The longer we save, the more we save. So now is the time to start making this long term investment. But there is anther reason to adopt this plan.

b) Responsibility

This policy is not only frugal on our part, but also promotes responsible policy on all sides. Let’s look at history to illustrate this point. In 1998, India tested nuclear weapons and, in response, the United States cut off foreign aid. So, did people die? Was the Indian economy thrown into turmoil? Interestedly enough, the exact opposite happened. At the time, an article was published in:

The Lancet (Leading Medical Journal, established 1828, currently ranked number two in general medicine).
June 13, 1998.
[Was entitled] “India to raise health spending to counteract foreign aid sanctions.” by Sanjay Kumar. The Lancet, Vol 351 (1998): p 1794. Accessed via ScienceDirect.

“Defying the sanctions placed on the Indian economy in the wake of nuclear test explosions, the BJP[Hindu nationalist]-led government has proposed large budget increases for health care, education, and public welfare. The central health and family welfare budget for 1998–99, now being debated in parliament, is proposed to increase by 34% above last year’s allocation. The education spending would rise by 50% and welfare by 91%.”

So, when we stopped funding irresponsible politics, India released that they really did have money for healthcare. Looking back, the CATO Institute points out that this historical president shows that:

CATO Institute.
Cato Handbook for Policymakers. 7th Edition (2009). Ch 63. “Foreign Aid and Economic Development.” pg 660. http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-63.pdf

“Far more effective at promoting market reforms is the suspension or elimination of aid. Although USAID lists South Korea and Taiwan as success stories of U.S. economic assistance, those countries began to take off economically only after massive U.S. aid was cut off. As even the World Bank has conceded, ‘‘Reform is more likely to be preceded by a decline in aid than an increase in aid.’’ When India faced Western sanctions in 1998 in response to nuclear tests there, the International Herald Tribune reported that ‘‘India approved at least 50 foreign-investment projects to compensate for the loss of aid from Japan and the United States’’ and that it would take additional measures to attract capital. In the end, the countries that have done the most to reform economically have made changes despite foreign aid, not because of it.”

To recap this case, you could just use one sentence. We don’t have the money for a wasteful program when there are valid alternatives to it. History shows that when we stop propping up their irresponsibility, India will rise to the challenge. Similarly, Americans can donate to worthy causes through effective charities, who aren’t in the same financial predicament as our government. It is the time to do the responsible thing.

So we urge you to vote affirmative. Thank you.

Counting on the Republicans to tackle the deficit? Think again.

If you look at the speech, they’re against debt and believe in balanced budgets. If you look at their plan, they’re spend-a-holics who get sober just in time for election. There is, unfortunately, a growing gap between the words and the actions of the GOP. Especially when it comes to the deficit.

GOP.gov is the website for Republicans in Congress. It outlines their plan on debt like this:

Under the President’s [Obama] budget the national debt exceeds 100% of GDP in 2030. By contrast, the Republican plan gains control of the debt, by never exceeding 75% of GDP over the next 75 years.

The way one of my friends put it after I said this was: Sooo… do you want to be killed by four bullets or three? Your choice. Whether you choose the donkey’s or the elephant’s plan, your children have to pay for our mistakes. And that is just wrong.

Wordy bill syndrome? Republicans got it, too!

Many complained about the great length of the Health Care Reform bill that passed recently, and with good reason. I would contend that bills with such volume are the main reason we’re in debt right now. They’re just so much space to slip in a little money here and there. It’s death by a thousand cuts.

In fact, the House’s version of health care rationing is the longest bill ever heard (or not heard) in congress. There’s definitely a veil to keep the bill’s actual action obscure. The problem is that the Republicans can’t remove the veil while standing on it. Open Congress’ report on “How Long is Long?” speaks the truth.

Over the last 10 years, half of the top ten longest bills were proposed by Republicans. Simplicity: out the door!

Tea Party Response

Independents and loyal Republicans can turn around the status quo both by working loyally and by turning on their precious party.

In a rare moment, I got a bit of insight from a report in the Huffington Post. The point made in this article by Bill Lucey is how the tea party has made a major impact on the party by defeating incumbents. Both republican and democrat, that is.

While many people credit independently-minded tea partiers with Scott Brown’s victory, they can also take credit for Bob Bennett, R-Ut. He would have been on his fourth term, but seniority means nothing to principle-first voters. This block kicked out this TARP and Obamacare loving RINO. May his political career R. I. P.

Unless we want to face our children and tell them that they’ll have to pay for our mistakes, we need to vote on principles before party.