Community

In his book, Barcott writes, “The thought of my father prompted something more profound: At the core of our philosophy was the conviction that some of the poor have the solutions to the problems they faced. Many youth in Kiberia were eager to seize opportunities and lead the fight against poverty and violence. In the end, it was their fight, not ours. But we could help. If we quit, we failed them and we failed the vision.”

I am impressed with the broad, bipartisan support for our civilian-led agencies, particularly since 9-11 and how support for these programs has grown. Starting in the Bush Administration and continuing in the Obama Administration, the International Affairs Budget has been designated as national security spending. Even the recent bipartisan debt commissions agreed International Affairs is part of national security spending. Unfortunately, recent Congressional legislation breaks this bipartisan tradition, divorcing these vital programs from the rest of our security spending.

In a new policy brief released last week, John Norris, executive director of the Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Connie Veillette, director of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance program at the Center for Global Development, offer five steps to make U.S. foreign assistance more effective—saving $500 million annually by eliminating unnecessary regulations, with additional savings through the reform of earmarks related to foreign assistance programs.