Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Trump’s USAID shutdown is a win for America and a blow to the globalist agenda

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Steven Mosher

USAID’s promotion of DEI, gender ideology, and population control around the world, along with its efforts to undermine democracies in Europe and Latin America, have greatly damaged America’s standing in the world.

The closure of a corrupt government agency is always cause for celebration.

Not that it happens very often. As President Ronald Reagan once remarked, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.”

In the case of the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development, its shuttering will save U.S. taxpayers some $54 billion a year.

But Trump’s closure of the rogue agency is about far more than reducing the size of government or balancing the budget. We are not even talking about simply ending waste, fraud, and abuse, although there were bucket loads of that going on.

READ: Trump’s dismantling of USAID is his biggest blow against the Deep State yet

Under its former director, Samantha Powers, the agency had been transformed into a slush fund for woke fever dreams. No project was too wacko to throw money at.

You want funding to convince Peruvian girls they were born into the wrong body, or to promote LGBT activism in Serbia? USAID had a check for you.

You need money to fund sex changes in Guatemala or to open a transgender surgery clinic in India? You had but to ask.

But as corrosive to the sensibilities of normal people – and to America’s image overseas – that this reckless promotion of DEI and gender ideology was, our overseas aid agency was engaged in far more nefarious schemes.

An estimated 90 percent of our aid to Gaza ended up in the hands of Hamas post-October 7, 2023. Without the constant infusion of U.S. funds, it is doubtful that the terrorist organization would have survived.

Equally egregious is USAID’s undermining of democracy. As Marjorie Taylor Green just noted at a congressional hearing, “What we have learned is that USAID has been used by Democrats to brainwash the world with globalist propaganda to force regime changes around the world.”

Roughly half a billion dollars went into one organization alone. It was called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and billed as a global network of investigative journalists. But it had as much to do with promoting globalist narratives and undermining populist politicians as it did with exposing corruption, perhaps more.

If you want to know why populist Jair Bolsonaro is no longer president of Brazil, why the conservatives lost in Poland, or why the democratically elected president of Romania – another populist – has now been arrested, look no further than USAID’s massively funded propaganda campaigns against these and other anti-globalist politicians.

As in Xi Jinping’s China, where the Chinese dictator has been purging his political enemies under the guise of an “anti-corruption campaign,” USAID’s anti-corruption campaign was ultimately not about corruption at all.

Like Xi, who was, as the Chinese say, “hanging up a goat’s head, but selling dog meat,” the agency was motivated by a hidden and deeply corrupt purpose – undermining democracy in order to promote globalism.

Victor Orbán of Hungary, whose government has survived years of similar onslaughts, is now vowing to crack down on all of the foreign-funded NGOs operating in his country. He will find that his opposition was chiefly funded by our tax dollars, judging from the many trips to that country that Samantha Powers took over the past few years.

As ruinous as all this is for America’s standing in the world, there is even worse news. Many of the tens of billions of dollars that the agency was flushing down the toilet didn’t go overseas at all, but was spent in and around the Washington, D.C., swamp.

And almost all of this – well over 95 percent – went to Democrat-controlled groups.

How much of the incessant lawfare against Trump that began as soon as he announced his candidacy for president in 2015 was funded indirectly by our tax dollars?

How much of Kamala’s $2 billion campaign coffer came from our own pockets, laundered by USAID through well-connected NGOs and leftist politicians?

Despite the mounting evidence of corruption, there are still those who claim that USAID does much good and should be reformed, not shuttered. “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” one recent headline read.

The problem is that USAID was never primarily about feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty or, for that matter, saving babies. In fact, from the very beginning it was designed to be an instrument of population control.

Its stated goal was “population stabilization.” To this end, it busied itself reducing the number of babies born, all in the name of fighting “overpopulation,” “eliminating poverty,” and, more recently, “saving the planet.”

This is spelled out clearly in Richard Nixon’s National Security Study Memorandum 200, which made it clear that foreign aid was to be used to bribe or bludgeon countries into reducing their birth rates.

Even today, USAID was – until a few weeks ago – promoting abortion in Malawi, doing abortion referrals in Uganda, and pressuring Sierra Leone to legalize abortion as a condition of receiving foreign aid.

Supporters of USAID argue that its programs create goodwill, but it’s hard to see how telling African women and men they would be better off sterilizing themselves and aborting their children accomplishes this end.

And how would Americans feel if China, say, were funding a program to vasectomize American men? Think about that for a second.

USAID’s promotion of DEI, gender ideology, and population control around the world, along with its efforts to undermine democracies in Europe and Latin America, have greatly damaged America’s standing in the world.

But the crime that calls for the complete destruction of the agency is that it was striking at the very roots of the republic itself.

Using the taxes paid by a free people to undermine their freedom is, by anyone’s definition, treason.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of The Devil and Communist China.

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Federal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The federal government could save up to $10.7 billion this fiscal year by ending eight ineffective spending programs, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Canada’s federal finances have deteriorated markedly over the last decade, largely due to a rapid run up in spending, deficits and debt,” said Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

“As previous governments have done before, a comprehensive line-by-line review of Ottawa’s spending is required to identify those programs or initiatives that are not fulfilling their purpose, or are not providing good value for tax dollars.”

The study, Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions to Federal Government Spending, highlights eight federal programs where government spending
does not appear to be accomplishing its stated goals, or where government funding is unnecessary:

– $1.5 billion — Regional Development Agencies
– $1.7 billion — Federal support for journalism
– $587.6 million — Federal support for electric vehicle production and purchases
– $340.0 million — Two Billion Trees program
– $3.5 billion — Canada Infrastructure Bank
– $2.4 billion — Strategic Innovation Fund
– $202.3 million — Global Innovation Clusters
– $530.0 million — Green Municipal Fund

Critically, eliminating these eight programs could reduce federal government spending by $10.7 billion in 2024-25: “Though just a starting point, a savings of $10.7 billion would meaningfully improve federal finances and help Ottawa put the country’s finances back on a stable footing,” Fuss said.

This study is part of a larger series of collected essays on federal policy reforms, Federal Blueprint for Prosperity, edited by Fraser Institute Senior Fellows Jock Finlayson and Lawrence Schembri.

The essay series, also released today, details federal policy reforms in health care, environmental and energy regulations, tax policy, immigration, housing, trade, etc. to increase prosperity for Canadians and improve living standards.

To learn more and to read the entire collected essay series, visit www.fraserinstitute.org.

 

Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions in Federal Government Spending

  • A marked deterioration in the state of Canada’s finances, driven largely by rapidly increasing spending, has created a need to review federal government spending to identify programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective. This study highlights eight spending areas that have easily identifiable problems, and should be a starting point for a more comprehensive review.
  • The eight spending areas identified are: Regional Development Agencies, Government Supports for Journalism, Federal Support for Electric Vehicle Production and Purchases, the 2 Billion Trees Program, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Strategic Innovation Fund, the Global Innovation Clusters, and the Green Municipal Fund.
  • These programs represent instances where government spending does not appear to be accomplishing the stated goals, and where government involvement is questionable.
  • For instance, despite research suggesting business subsidies do little to promote widespread economic growth, the seven regional development agencies report vague objectives and results that make it difficult for government officials or Parliamentarians to assess the efficacy of the spending.
  • Since the Canada Infrastructure Bank was first established in 2017, it has approved up to $13.2 billion in investments across 76 projects, but only two projects have been completed. These projects represent just $93.2 million (or 0.71 percent) of the total approved investments.
  • The federal government could save $10.7 billion in 2024–25 alone if it eliminated spending in these eight areas. This amount would be impactful in improving the state of Canada’s finances, and more savings could be achieved through a comprehensive review of all spending.
Continue Reading

Business

Musk vs. the bureaucracy vs. Congress: Who has the power to cut spending?

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The Trump administration’s all-of-Washington shake-up has resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and cries of a “constitutional crisis,” with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency at the heart of many complaints from Democrats.

Critics of the department say its on shaky legal footing and have questioned whether Musk’s role violates the U.S. Constitution, as higher-ranking government officials often must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The White House has maintained that, despite Musk being the public face of the department and seemingly directing its activities, he is only a “special government employee.” As such, he isn’t subject to a Senate confirmation.

But legal experts disagree on Musk’s role and authority within the federal government.

The Pacific Legal Foundation’s Michael Poon works for the foundation’s separation of powers practice group. Now that the White House has revealed the identity of the DOGE’s administrator as Amy Gleason, a healthcare technology executive who served under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Poon likened Musk’s role to that of a “DOGE czar,” or even the president’s chief of staff – neither of which are senate-confirmed positions. Because Musk isn’t the department’s administrator, he doesn’t seem to have any formal authority, according to Poon.

“Agency heads have the power to ignore him because he doesn’t actually have formal power himself,” Poon continued, “but they probably listen because Musk is understood to have the president’s confidence,” similar to other positions Poon mentioned, including Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who also isn’t Senate confirmed but works side by side with the Department of Homeland Security. whose secretary, Kristi Noem, is Senate-confirmed.

“This kind of arrangement makes Musk informally powerful, but the power comes from the expectation that the president would back him, not any power that is, sort of, inherent in his position,” Poon said.

While Poon doesn’t think Musk’s role violates any constitutional requirements, he does appreciate the sudden interest the public is taking in the role of unelected federal officials in general. But since their function in the federal government has developed over many decades, it’s unlikely that anything resulting from the DOGE-Musk controversy would go very far in solving the problem.

“It’s appropriate to be scrutinizing of unelected officials and the power that they wield,” Poon said. “But it’s a concern that has been put to the side for the last hundred years, over which both major parties have worked to weaken these protections against unelected officials.”

If Americans want less power and more guardrails for unelected officials, it will take time to achieve, according to Poon.

“I don’t think that, as the current case law stands, Elon Musk’s role contravenes the Constitution, but if we think those protections should be strengthened…  that’s something that takes a concerted effort and it can’t vary depending on who is in control of the executive branch,” Poon said.

Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, finds the lack of transparency around DOGE and Musk’s role troubling.

“I think there’s very serious concerns about what exactly is happening with DOGE,” Berry said.

A lot of concerns with DOGE have to do with the Appointments Clause, which is the basis for Senate confirmations of presidential appointees and creates a system of accountability.

“The Appointments Clause of the Constitution says that the final decision maker on a lot of issues needs to be either the president or someone appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate,” Berry said. “When the public perception is that Musk or anyone who’s not Senate-confirmed is making these decisions, you don’t have any elected person to blame.”

Even if the administration were to eventually reveal that the president approved all of Musk’s actions, the lack of transparency now is problematic for the public, according to Berry.

As for questions about Trump’s authority to establish DOGE and Musk’s role within it, President of the Liberty Justice Center Jacob Huebert thinks they’re unfounded.

“Article II of the Constitution gives all executive power to the president,” Huebert said. “As long as the president has ultimate decision-making authority here, I don’t see any problem with that.”

He applauds what he sees as Trump’s revision of the executive branch, bringing it closer to what it was intended to be.

“It’s the president deciding how the executive branch is going to run, which is very much the opposite of how it has long been run, where the bureaucracy is kind of leading things even though the bureaucracy doesn’t have any constitutional authority whatsoever,” Huebert said.

As far as Trump’s efforts to cut government spending through DOGE, Huebert’s unsure how it will play out, though he thinks it’s a valiant aim. The Constitution grants Congress power over the government’s purse, and some lawsuits are challenging the president’s attempts to cut spending that Congress has already appropriated. Even if DOGE were able to get federal agencies to cut their budgets and the courts ruled in their favor, Huebert thinks it will be difficult to motivate Congress to pass significantly smaller budgets.

“That to me seems like the biggest challenge for DOGE if part of the goal is to cut spending because Congress really likes to spend, including most of the Republicans in Congress, and the reasons that they’ve had to spend so much money have not gone away,” Huebert said. “All the incentives to spend, or most of them, are still there. So I don’t know how Trump or Elon Musk, if they want to bring it under control, can bring it under control.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X