Here’s something our mainstream media have decided is not worth making much of…that, if you ask me, should be a major story, complete with investigative analysis.
From Michael Austin’s article at westernjournal.com:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered some shocking data points about American foreign aid spending before the Trump administration reformed the system.
During testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, the top diplomat revealed that the White House discovered a foreign aid regime that was distracted and inefficient.
Only 12 cents of every dollar spent by USAID reached recipients.
“That means that in order for us to get aid to somebody, we had to spend all this other money supporting this foreign aid industrial complex,” Rubio said, per a State Department transcript.
In other words, while a mere 12 cents went to recipients, the other 88 cents was pocketed by third parties.
“We’re going to find more efficient ways to deliver aid to people directly, and it’s going to be directed by our regional bureaus, and it’s going to sponsor programs that make a difference, and it’s going to be part of a holistic approach to our foreign policy,” he told lawmakers.
Is that so? was just 12% of the USAID money actually used to help anyone?
If so – and I’m not seeing anyone dispute Mr. Rubio’s claim – is there any doubt at all that getting rid of USAID, to be replaced by implementation of more efficient ways to deliver aid to people directly, makes all the sense in the world?
Could it just possibly be that this explanation of why USAID was done away with – which reflects positively on the Trump administration – is why our wonderful “neutral” mainstream media essentially gave it the one-day-and-out treatment?
You tell me. And then tell me why we should trust these people for honest reporting of anything other than the sports scores.
