The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Private Giving

3.2.07 @ 12:01AM

INDEXES OF FREEDOM
Re: Shawn Macomber's Privately Generous:

As the recently returned to the private sector United States Executive Director at the World Bank, I read with interest your recently published article "Privately Generous." I want to commend you for spotlighting the Hudson Institute's Index of Global Philanthropy.

I made frequent references to the Index, and to the Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, in many discussions among the World Bank's Board of Executive Directors regarding aid strategies of specific countries and the World Bank's policies of general application. Many developing country representatives appreciate the role of remittances and private philanthropy for the reasons cited in your article. Most Europeans, however, resisted our insistence that remittances and private philanthropy be taken into account in keeping "score" regarding rich country generosity, probably for the reasons also cited in the article.

The results were sometimes ludicrous. For example, many annual meeting communiques extolled the virtues of European sponsored global airline ticket taxes to be dedicated to development and downplayed or failed to acknowledge the far more important roles of remittances and private charitable giving. In addition to different cultural perspectives, what this really boils down to is simple anti-Americanism and competition to curry favor with developing country governments.

The Institute should keep up the good work as it is a vital resource for those of us who agree with its rationale, and an important response to advocates of ODA (official government assistance) who claim that neither remittances nor private philanthropy should count when comparing relative anti-poverty efforts because they can't be measured reliably.
-- Robert Holland

AMNESTY STOPS HERE
Re: W. James Antle III's Immigration Word Games:

Hooray to you, Mr. Antle, in calling for what we still have not had; i.e., a real and highly specific debate, as opposed to breathtaking demagoguery and disingenuousness.

If I've written once I've written dozens of times, both to the White House and to proponents of greatly increased immigration (real or via "guest workers") in the Congress, simply asking that they lay out their case and support it with indisputable facts about the present, as well as reasonable assumptions about the future implications if they get what they want.

What are their economic arguments? (And no, "filling jobs that Americans won't do" is not an argument.) What specifically are the numbers behind the worker shortage? Show me how millions of low-skill but high social service-consuming workers and their families are a net positive for our economy? What will be the economic effect on us of having all those millions here in the event of a severe recession with massive job loss? If Social Security and Medicare are headed for bankruptcy now, will those programs not be headed for total breakdown with millions more on the rolls, many of whom would have contributed little to the so-called 'trust funds'?" Will America really be brought to its economic knees if lettuce becomes scarce or if the price of a head goes up 100%; if the price of a hotel room goes up 20%; and if the suburban lords of all the McMansions have to shell out for a riding mower and cut their own lawns?

What are their social arguments? How would allowing in tens or even scores more millions of poor, uneducated, unassimilating people from Third World countries make a positive contribution to our already frayed social fabric?

What are their cultural arguments? (And no, "America has always been a land of immigrants" is not an argument.) If the culture of this country is (still) largely Western European by tradition, and if a majority would like to see it stay that way, how to square that with a policy which would seem to suggest that in a couple of decades, if not sooner, there will be two Americas: one still largely rooted in the Western European tradition, and the other distinctly Hispanic and Latino?

What are the political arguments? Or more precisely, what are the political rationales? Does either side in this debate have the honesty to come right out and say that an unspoken part of it is simply a cynical, calculated attempt to pad their party's voter rolls?

As noted, I've already posed these questions, and more, numerous times to the White House. So far, no private response (other than the standard "thank you for contacting us" form reply) nor public response (in that unless I've missed it the president still has not addressed, at least not seriously, any of these questions).

Oh well, no harm in trying again, and so I'm copying the White House on this letter. I'll let you know if I hear anything back.
-- C. Vail

McCain and Kennedy have no clue whatsoever as to what goes on with illegal aliens. Nor do the rest of elected officials in D.C. They all have no clues as to how the illegals live in this country. They talk about the millions of uninsured people in this country. Well, if they take the illegals out of the country most all people in the U.S. would be insured. If all the illegal aliens' children were taken out of our schools, our schools would have all the revenues needed to educate our children. Very simple. It costs less to deport than to pay the price of supporting them. And tell our government to get some backbone and say no to these countries who are exporting their poor to America.
-- Tina Grace
Moreno Valley, California

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Health Care, Business, Islam, Law, NATO, Fascism, Immigration, Oil, Medicare