Here’s an excerpt:

The US government has no business providing disaster relief to Myanmar, food relief to poor countries, or humanitarian aid of any kind. The purpose of government is supposed to be to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the people who form it. The fact that all governments eventually deviate from their stated purpose is irrelevant. And besides, there is a calculation problem here. How much aid should the US government provide? What type of aid should be given? What strings, if any, should be attached to the aid supplied? How long should aid be maintained?

Even worse is the use of the military to provide foreign-aid services. The purpose of the military is to defend the country from attack or invasion, not to deliver food and spread good will and cheer. Yes, it would be better if the US military delivered bread and butter instead of bombs and bullets, but that is not the issue.

There was a time in this country when it was recognized to be improper for the federal government to provide humanitarian relief even within the United States. President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill in 1887 that would have provided seed for farmers in drought-stricken Texas. In his veto message, he wrote that aid from Washington only “encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” The Texas farmers ended up getting ten times as much in private assistance as they would have received from Uncle Sam.

Read more here

In principle, Vance is right on the mark. Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as “positive grant.” In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.

Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is no authorization to pay for relief in Myanmar. There is no authorization to prop up dictators in places like Pakistan with your money. There is no authorization to spend your money on “military assistance” for other countries. There is no authorization to funnel money through the CIA to support regime changes. The Constitution was written in plain English – there is nothing there which authorizes the federal government to take your money and give it to foreign governments. For any reason.

But don’t take my word for it. Try reading the Constitution to see if you can find authorization to engage in such activities for yourself.

When I write my congressman or senator and ask them to please stop sending money to foreign governments, they write back to me as though I do not know what I am talking about. They “know” what is best for this country and believe the foreign expenditures are justified.

Then, they “thank me for writing”.

The American public is so disenfranchised it is pathetic.

I am convinced that if the US stopped sending money to foreign countries, we could balance the budget in less than 10 years. It is hard to tell, one cannot get the true amount sent to foreign countries.

Our nation needs a completely transparent government. One that has to post daily on the internet, all the monies collected by the federal government and all the monies spent by the federal government. This posting should be in detail so one can discern where the money is really going.

Maybe then, just maybe, the American public would see the truth and begin to send Independents to be their leaders in Washington.

Congress is poised to pass the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid.  The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President’s requested amount.

It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.

Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption.  Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds.

If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run.  For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change.

Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.

The obvious question remains:  Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ?  And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example – family planning facilities that perform abortions?

In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were.  They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.

Africans should decide what is best for Africa .  American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money.

Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.

The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems.  It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress.

It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.

These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided.  The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent.  The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom.

The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets.

Perhaps then Africa’s leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.

The interviews and discussions have involved some heated rhetoric about whether or not the “surge” is “working” in Iraq, but at the end of the day, this is just theater, and almost nothing will change.

US Senators are not generally inclined to stand up and oppose the opinions of a General – even if that general is little more than a politicians, like Dave Petreaus is.

I’ve already seen some powerful statistics on both sides of the issue. Everyone from Petraeus to MoveOn.org, to Talking Points Memo have analyzed the “results” of the war escalation.

Debates about this theatrical display will undoubtedly go on for some time. People from all viewpoints will take one side or the other – either the surge is working or it isn’t. Right?

So the politicians and the media present us with two choices. But all this back-and-forth arguing masks the real choice – the third one – the one that’s never talked about in on TV or in Congress.

What’s that, you might ask? Well, it’s quite simple. They never, ever discuss the role of the Constitution, and what it says about how American foreign policy should be conducted.

You see, the 10th Amendment clearly states that any power not specifically listed in the Constitution cannot be exercised by the federal government. Therefore, here’s a couple (of the many) key things that the federal government is doing that is unconstitutional.

• Occupying Iraq. This war was launched without a Congressional Declaration of War as required by the Constitution. Thus, it was illegal from the start, and any talk about troop movements, increases, or reductions is completely irrelevant. An illegal war is illegal – no matter how it’s waged.
• Maintaining Foreign Military Bases. The Constitution permits the “raising” of an army, but nothing, whatsoever, is mentioned about basing an army permanently in countries around the world. The entire US military needs to come home – to protect the United States.

Virtually the entire US foreign policy is in direct violation to the Constitution. It’s all wrong; whether it’s using “foreign aid” to prop up dictators and ruthless regimes, backing coups and assassinations, maintaining a military “presence” in 130+ countries, or waging wars that result in the deaths of millions…..and millions…

The messy bloodbath that is the Iraq war is simply a symptom – a symptom of a nasty disease that’s infected the US government for decades. Until we make some major changes to our foreign policy as a whole, we’re going end up in more and more bloody wars in (not-so-distant?) future.

The US government is now giving your tax dollars to the Mexican government so that government can improve its ability to tap telephone calls and emails.

From the Los Angeles Times report:

Mexico is expanding its ability to tap telephone calls and e-mail using money from the U.S. government, a move that underlines how the country’s conservative government is increasingly willing to cooperate with U.S. on law enforcement.

The expansion comes as President Felipe Calderon is pushing to amend Mexico’s constitution to allow officials to tap phones without a judge’s approval in some cases.

The fact that the US federal government continues to support countries that violate liberty should come as no surprise, considering similar such violations domestically too. Although such a program would obviously be considered repugnant by people who love liberty, simply opposing this measure alone only scratches the surface of the real problem.

As the wise saying goes, “it’s not the abuse of power that we should be concerned with, but rather, the power to abuse.”

So how does this apply to this situation?

The principle here is quite simple. When the state is allowed to use the wealth of the people as “foreign aid,” politicians will always be liable to abuse that power. Thus, it’s not merely the funding of a spying program that we should be opposing, but rather, the concept of foreign aid as a whole.

Foreign aid is a system by which the American taxpayers are forced, in the name of national security or defense of the “free world,” or charity, or whatever the politicians tell us, to subsidize US export companies and prop up client states that are often ruled by dictators.

Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as “positive grant.” In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.

Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is no authorization to pay for spying in Mexico. There is no authorization to prop up dictators in places like Pakistan with your money. There is no authorization to spend your money on “military assistance” for other countries. There is no authorization to funnel money through the CIA to support regime changes. The Constitution was written in plain English – there is nothing there which authorizes the federal government to take your money and give it to foreign governments. For any reason.

But don’t take my word for it. Try reading the Constitution to see if you can find authorization to engage in such activities for yourself.

And, if Constitutionality is of no concern to you (obviously it’s of no concern to the politicians), there are still plenty of good, practical reasons why the government shouldn’t take your money and give it away as foreign aid.

One that I consider to be quite good is that forced “charity” is really not charity at all. It’s theft. If someone takes your money at the point of a gun and gives it to a good cause, it’s still stealing.

As a whole, American foreign aid has been a massive failure. Why? There’s plenty of reasons, but one of the main ones is that the countries that receive the money are corrupt. Even when money is sent out for a good cause, the local bureaucracies often eat up so much of it that very little good actually comes out of it.

What is not mentioned by proponents of foreign aid is that it very seldom gets to those who need it most. Foreign aid is the transfer of US dollars from the treasury of the United States to the governments of foreign countries. It is money that goes to help foreign elites, who in turn spend much of it on contracts with US corporations. This means US tax dollars ultimately go to well-connected US corporations operating overseas.

A 2003 report from a leading Bangladesh university estimated that 75 percent of all foreign aid received in that country is lost to corruption. Northwestern University political economist Jeffrey Winters estimated that more than 50 percent of World Bank aid is lost to corruption in some African countries. President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria announced in 2002 that African leaders “have stolen at least $140 billion from their people in the decades since independence.”

Such a system is little more than a gigantic racket.

You’d think that logic would prevail in such a situation, right? A rational person would likely argue that failed programs should be ended, but not in Washington D.C. The politicians claim that failure means they just need even more money, which inevitably fails as well, and the cycle keeps repeating.

We simply do not have the billions of dollars to keep this going. This policy of endless spending has sunk the country into massive debt. A recent report by USA Today stated that the deficit was $1.3 Trillion – for 2006 alone! The federal government literally will have to borrow or print the money to cover this. There’s absolutely no way that we as a people can continue to pay for this.

Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on you and every other American, but this yearly attempt to buy allies, and influence policy around the world incites hatred and has actually driven people to attack the United States.

This madness needs to stop.

Foreign aid is not only unconstitutional, but also extremely foolish. It draws this country into the worst kind of “entangling alliances” that the founders warned us about. It creates hatred and resentment, and makes us less safe.

If you’re concerned about high taxes, a tough job market, debt and the like, I recommend you start calling on the US government to start looking more closely at how the US government is spending your money. It is absurd, and completely immoral to take your money and give it to foreign countries. The money should be spent only on Constitutionally-authorized functions or, better yet, returned to you.