I think we should end all foreign aid, with the exceptions of countries receiving aid from us for rebuilding from natural disasters or because the populace is starving...
Likely an unpopular view, but if it comes down to extreme foreign aid postures, I would suggest that the foreign aid be dispensed strictly with respect to national interests, not other matters that have no connection to the national interest. Of course, I do not favor extreme positions on foreign aid. I am comfortable with providing emergency assistance for natural disasters/humanitarian catastrophes.
From a larger budget perspective, I believe all items of the budget should regularly be scrutinized to determine the relative value that they provide, measure outcomes vs. expectations, etc. Value added (current and future) and concrete outcomes should be among the considerations in determining where investments will be made/expanded, expenditures sustained, and other expenditure/investment items reduced or eliminated. Mandatory spending programs, discretionary items, including national defense, and also tax rates/structure all should be examined as part of the overall budget exercise. Needless to say, one should be aware that the function of government is not merely economic/financial. There are social interests/objectives e.g., reduced poverty rate, among the broader range of responsibilities government performs. Tradeoffs, especially in this era of fiscal challenge, are inherent.
Finally, one cannot pretend that investments (expenditures that result in future value) can't be made in the present fiscal environment. Certain investments are vital.
Education is one example, even as better outcomes need to be emphasized. If the country falls behind in terms of education, the long-run losses from reduced productivity, innovation, and competitiveness will dwarf the short-term "savings" that might have been realized from paring such investments.
Energy is another. If the nation does not aggressively pursue investments aimed at broadening its energy supply/increasing conservation--and the bipartisan failure to do so continues despite bold campaign promises--the nation will only have less flexibility as competition for existing resources heats up, instability grips some of the volatile states in which such resources are disproportionately available, energy nationalism increases in some other states, etc. Already, one hears complaints about the rising gas price. In part, the gas price is rising because there are insufficient substitutes in the face of rising global demand for oil. And there are insufficient subsitutes, because the nation has yet to develop, much less pursue a credible energy policy and make meaningful investments aimed at broadening its energy supply. A policy of benign neglect deprives a nation of flexibility/choices to chart its own destiny and leaves nations "prisoners" of developments. Clearly, should prices reach more painful levels, policy makers will argue that the situation is "beyond the control" of the nation and "unavoidable." In reality, the great tragedy will be that those excuses had become reality only because, when the outcome was avoidable or could have been mitigated, the nation deliberately chose to maintain a comfortable policy of benign neglect. To date, the nation has forgotten each energy crisis (1973, 1978-79, 2008) and never made it a priority to reduce vulnerabilities that were exposed.
