Out of My Mind

The Wall Street Journal has the latest act of anti-democratic power accretion by the America-haters who lead us. The whole article is here because it's important, off-limits to non-subscribers and will be unavailable except for a premium in a couple of weeks. The WSJ of all media outlets....

Battle Over Foreign-Aid Spending Heats Up

Bush's Plan to Centralize Efforts Runs Counter to Long-Held Congressional Oversight

By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and DAVID ROGERS
June 7, 2006; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration and Congress are headed for a clash over how to spend U.S. aid for the developing world.

President Bush's decision to consolidate billions of dollars in foreign-aid programs under the State Department puts him at odds with Congress's age-old prerogative of earmarking foreign-aid funds for favorite issues, such as immunizing children or encouraging sexual abstinence for AIDS control.

"Both Congress and the executive branch want to decide where the money goes, and there's a struggle between the two," says Steve Radelet, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank.

The brewing storm over foreign aid is the latest fight this year between a weakened White House and congressional Republicans eager to show independence going into November's elections. Lawmakers can't be too assertive, since lobbying scandals have called into question the practice of inserting earmarks into spending bills. But because foreign aid helps define the U.S. image overseas, Congress believes it must retain a major say.

At the center of the struggle is Randall Tobias, a former Eli Lilly & Co. chief executive who is now the country's first director of foreign assistance. With marching orders from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Tobias is remodeling $16.6 billion in U.S. foreign-assistance programs to give the State Department more power to use aid to further American foreign-policy goals.

Under Ms. Rice's plan, State Department officials in Washington will identify their strategic priorities -- such as fighting terrorism and promoting economic growth -- in the 154 countries that receive U.S. aid. The U.S. ambassador in each country will determine which projects the U.S. will fund to achieve those goals. Mr. Tobias plans to have ambassadors in 35 countries test the approach this summer.

The administration is "trying to ensure we're bringing all U.S. government foreign aid into a strategic package," Mr. Tobias says. Right now, he says, foreign-aid decisions seem almost haphazard, a product of mandates from Congress and on-the-ground judgments by half a dozen U.S. agencies and departments.

Lawmakers, however, are loath to cede control. Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.), a member of the Appropriations Committee, is drafting legislation that would require the administration to spend 50% of aid to Africa on such items as water wells, immunizations and teacher training. Mr. Brownback says he became disenchanted with how the administration is delivering foreign aid during a December trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"It was like you were just taking a lot of money and scattering it around, and there was nothing real at the end of the day," says Mr. Brownback, who is part of a growing pro-aid movement among American Christian conservatives.

Mr. Tobias's team recently assembled a two-page internal analysis of spending patterns in U.S. aid, which jumped to $27.5 billion in fiscal 2005 from $10 billion in fiscal 2000. The patterns, they found, imply that the five major priorities of American policy are promoting security interests in the Middle East, fostering post-Cold War partnerships with Eastern Europe, fighting AIDS in Africa, countering narcotics in the Andes and providing humanitarian relief.

Mr. Tobias and his team say that while those issues are important, together they don't seem to reflect a coherent strategy of leveraging aid into foreign-policy achievements. "Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, our foreign-assistance priorities haven't changed at all" since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, says one administration official. Mr. Tobias says the solution is to concentrate more authority with the executive branch. The administration's overarching goal, according to State Department documents, should be "helping to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system."

The administration's approach has rattled the private charities that distribute much U.S. aid in the field. While officials at the charities are careful not to appear opposed to the idea of overhaul, many were upset that Ms. Rice didn't seek their views.

Behind the charities' concern is a suspicion that the administration might direct more aid to foreign allies in the fight against Islamic extremism, and away from the world's neediest. "Poverty alleviation and long-term development approaches should not be the casualties of shorter-term strategic objectives," says Todd Shelton, director of public policy for InterAction, an umbrella group representing more than 160 development charities.

Meantime, prominent lawmakers continue to force the administration's hand by earmarking aid money. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) helped set aside $200 million this year to be used for drinking-water supply projects, at least $50 million of which must be spent in Africa. Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) has set aside money for matters such as human-rights and refugee causes in Burma, as well as a small Kentucky-based nonprofit, Voice for Humanity, which has received millions of dollars over the years and is represented by a former McConnell aide.

The practice is a bipartisan one. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), had a hand in setting aside $15 million for "neglected diseases" that get less attention than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Mr. Tobias, who gets good marks from both parties, says he will gradually win Congress over as he did in his last job, running the president's huge AIDS initiative.

"My hope is Congress will see this strategic approach as a good substitute for a number of the earmarks we're dealing with today," he says.