Mr. Kolbe started by speaking about the inevitable cuts we will be making to many different pieces of our upcoming federal budgets. But, in light of those cuts, he told us, “At a time when we’re cutting back on our military commitments, more than ever, we need to make commitments to the non-military side, the development side.”

Mr. Kolbe continued, “I think it’s instructive that the new conservative government in Britain, headed by David Cameron, came into office and their first budget they presented to the Parliament has massive cuts… except for one area, and that was in the international affairs budget, which actually got a significant increase. Wisely, Cameron and the Parliament recognized that at a time they’re cutting their military budget, they have to be willing to increase this side of their budget.”

Mr. Kolbe also made sure to clear the air about how much the US spends on its international affairs budget. After a back-and-forth with the audience about how much people think we spend on international affairs, Mr. Kolbe told us, “Just about one percent of our budget goes to foreign aid. When the American people are told that it is one percent, they’re shocked. They think 20 percent of spending goes to foreign assistance. When they learn it’s one percent, the reaction is, ‘That’s not enough for our international affairs! We need to be spending more.’” It’s clear that Northwestern’s students agreed: After our discussion with Mr. Kolbe, the members of the Political Union overwhelmingly rejected the resolution presented, “the United States can no longer afford to maintain its international leadership through foreign aid.”

One of the most important ways the US can continue its international leadership is by promoting childhood health and disease prevention. New vaccines can help prevent 4 million child deaths by 2015, but only if we commit to supporting their distribution. Speak out now to ask our leaders to fund proven, effective measures that protect children around the world.

But for a few key anti-poverty accounts, the outcome is troubling and will have consequences for US efforts to promote stability and economic growth in a number of areas of the developing world.

Millennium Challenge Corporation: The MCC, a core global development initiative of the Bush administration, is funded at $900 million, only slightly more than the smallest appropriation in its eight-year history. The MCC now faces difficult choices whether to delay, trim back, or eliminate programs planned in Cape Verde, Zambia and Indonesia. And if deferred to next year, other countries, like Ghana and Georgia, will be squeezed, and so forth on into the future. My friend, Paul O’Brien at Oxfam America, makes a compelling case for why this could lead to essentially budgeting the MCC out of existence.

African Development Fund: As the concessional arm of the African Development Bank supporting 40 of the poorest African countries, the AfDF is particularly important to financing transport, energy, water and other infrastructure projects that are so important to sustained economic growth on the continent. Yet, the African Development Fund is cut 29 percent below the FY2010 level and is one of only a few accounts the final appropriation that fall below HR 1 and its Senate counterpart bill. This will place the US further in arrears with the Fund and prevents the US from fully meeting its current pledge. This is particularly important as we look forward to the FY2012 budget when donors begin funding a new multi-year replenishment in which the US commitment to increase funding by 25 percent will grow to 77 percent compared with the FY2011 amount.

USAID Operating Expenses: Funding for any agency’s salaries, expenses and other operating costs are frequently the target of appropriation reductions, and USAID did not escape without a trim. The Agency will have $35 million less for it operational needs in FY2011 than the year before. Although the cut will not trigger a furlough or worse, it will put the breaks on many cost-saving and efficiency reforms underway at the primary US development agency. After several decades of decline, USAID is undergoing a revival under the leadership of Administrator Raj Shah, putting in place systems that will drive a results-based, impact-motivated approach to development investments. USAID staff are the ones that ensure American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and achieve their intended goals. And ironically, it will require USAID to use more contractors to manage its programs –- individuals that cost 12 to 15 percent more than direct agency staff -– and slow the growth of development experts for the agency, an initiative begun by President Bush.

We now enter an even tougher debate over the FY2012 budget and the prospect of a more comprehensive and possible multi-year package. Most global development programs maintained their current funding levels, although even for some of those, such as Feed the Future and maternal and child health, plans to scale up this year are now on hold. The 2012 budget battle will be another test of how committed the administration and the Congress are to preserving the long-term interest of the United States in reducing global poverty.

The Senate passed the 2011 US budget compromise by a margin of 81-19. This vote came just hours after the House passed it 260-167. We were very pleased to learn that this budget preserves nearly all key funding for programs fighting poverty in the developing world. Here’s a breakdown of how these programs fared in the FY11 budget:

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria– no cut, funded at $1.05 billion

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) — no cut, funded at $4.6 billion

Feed the Future Initiative (agriculture) (bilateral) — no cut, funded at about $813 million

Feed the Future Initiative (agriculture) (multilateral) — received $100 million appropriation for the first time

Development Assistance — no cut, at FY10 level of $2.5 billion (contains ag, ed, microfinance, water, etc)

GAVI – hard to determine, but most likely to be flat at $78 million, perhaps better

World Bank IDA — no cut, at $1.235 billion

As you know, ONE has been advocating for months now to maintain the aforementioned key programs at current funding, delivering a petition of over 150,000 signatures, making over 16,000 calls to members of Congress, and arranging hundreds of in-district meetings.

We anticipate that the 2012 budget fight could be even more intense that this year’s, and there’s no doubt we’ll once again need ONE members to step up to the plate and advocate for these important programs that are saving millions of live in the developing world. Stay tuned to the ONE Blog for further analysis and breaking news.

“The federal budget should protect human life and dignity, make the poor a top priority and promote the common good of all during tough economic times…

“A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.”

While the bishops expressed their appreciation towards the FY 2011 budget, which is scheduled for a vote this week, they also offered three moral criteria to guide budgetary decisions:

“1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects of threatens human life and dignity.

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.”

To read the full text of the letter, visit the USCCB site.

On the eve of an ever more likely government shutdown, Raj Shah reminds us of the millions of people around the world who count on the support and assistance of the US government.

In his first 2011 Annual Letter released last week, the USAID Administrator reflects on the many accomplishments and advancements in US foreign assistance over the past year. From innovative relief efforts in Haiti, to election assistance in Sudan, to development assistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan, USAID is working along with the State Department and the military to help ensure the safety and security of citizens. Additionally, US investments in key initiatives such as Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative are fighting hunger and deadly diseases, and giving people a chance to lead healthy, prosperous lives. And all of this for less than 1 percent of the entire US budget!

For those who may be skeptical of what foreign assistance can achieve, Shah highlights some of the outstanding successes in global development over the past decades:

In order to keep delivering on these important successes and ensure that every dollar of our foreign assistance goes further, the US has introduced a number of advancements to USAID and global development efforts. Beginning in September when President Obama laid out the US global development policy at the United Nations, USAID followed by introducing key reform efforts in the way it does business, including new models for partnership, a greater focus on development results and monitoring impact, greater transparency efforts like the foreign assistance dashboard, and a spotlight on innovation and science and technology to achieve new gains and efficiencies in development.

But despite all of the accomplishments over the past year, and the decades of progress that have come before, future advancements in development are threatened by diminishing resources. Congress is currently debating funding for the remainder of FY11 that could cut between 10 to 40 percent from critical programs that help the poorest countries. And a new budget resolution from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan for FY12 would cut as much as 27 percent from the total US international affairs budget (and if you don’t include foreign assistance for frontline states like Afghanistan and Pakistan, the cuts are as much as 37 percent!).

While cuts like these may only reduce the budget deficit by a mere percentage point, they would have devastating consequences to those who depend on life-saving antiretroviral treatments for AIDS, insecticide treated bednets, and immunizations against preventable diseases. At a recent House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Raj Shah told committee members that cuts in the bill passed by the House for FY11 could result in the deaths of 70,000 children in developing countries, a “conservative” estimate in his words. So while Congress faces difficult decisions to rein in spending and control the budget, we must also face the difficult consequences that would arise from cuts in the critical 1 percent of our budget.

To read more about the progress we’ve made, check out these incredible videos and stories on ONE’s Living Proof website.

Photo courtesy of USAID.

I haven’t eaten anything since Tuesday night and I’m not planning to eat until Friday. I’m joining Ambassador Tony Hall, New York Times columnist Mark Bittman, nine Members of Congress and more than 36,000 Americans in a fast to draw attention to proposed budget cuts to vital programs for those who suffer from hunger abroad and here at home. Congress is debating a budget for the remainder of 2011 and sadly, global hunger programs are on the chopping block. World Food Program USA, for whom I work, and 40 other organizations have united in support of this fast.

After almost two days without food, I’m not feeling well. I normally consume more than 2,500 calories per day and it hasn’t taken long to start feeling the effects of going without food. My stomach has been growling, at times I’ve felt nauseas, and my energy level is low. Despite being exhausted, sleeping last night was surprisingly difficult on an empty stomach. But I know in my case, this discomfort will be over soon. Tomorrow I will eat once again and I will eat well.

Unfortunately, for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, this is not the case. Proposed cuts to global hunger programs would eliminate emergency food assistance and school meals for 18 million people, most of whom are women and children impacted by natural disasters and conflict. Without this assistance, many of these people will die.

Proposed cuts to Feed the Future, the groundbreaking U.S. initiative to help eradicate hunger and malnutrition, would prevent between 11 and 14 million small-scale farmers from pulling themselves out of hunger and poverty; 4 million children would not have access to improved nutrition, resulting in lifelong physical and mental impairments.

There is no question that the long-term fiscal and economic health of our nation requires cuts to federal spending. We add approximately $4 billion to the federal deficit each day. But the world’s poorest people did not cause this problem and we should not attempt to balance our budget on their backs. Even if we do, it offers us a few hours of debt relief at a cost of millions of lives.

What can you do?

Please take action immediately and let your Member of Congress know you oppose cuts to global hunger programs. It only takes a minute but allows you to add your voice to thousands of others opposed to taking meals from the world’s hungriest people.

Please consider joining me and thousands of other Americans who are fasting. You can set the terms. Fast for two days, one day or even just give up one meal. Then you can blog about it, tell your friends, and spread the word that Americans are a generous people who care about the world’s poorest people.

If you decide to fast, consider donating the money you’ve saved from not eating to the World Food Program, through www.wefeedback.org. By not eating yesterday and today I’ve saved about $30, which I’m donating through www.wefeedback.org. $30 will purchase 120 school meals for hungry children.

Don’t stay silent. You have a chance to stand up and make a difference for millions of the world’s poorest people. They need our help now more than ever.

-Kevin Anderson, World Food Program USA

U.S. Foreign Aid: Setting the Record Straight from EGPAF on Vimeo.

This week, the buzz in Washington, D.C. and around the country is all about the federal budget and the possibility of a government shutdown. Some members of Congress are calling for drastic cuts to foreign aid – as high as $800 million to HIV/AIDS programs worldwide.

If approved, the impact of these cuts would be devastating for millions of children and women living with HIV around the world.

Recent studies have shown that Americans have many misconceptions about how much the federal government actually spends on these programs –- so we decided to set the record straight.

Take a look at this short video below to find out the myth versus the reality. You might be surprised.

And please click here, or on the link at the end of the video, to show your support for global HIV/AIDS programs.

The lives of millions of people depend on it.

-Evan Von Leer, EGPAF

“How much would you give to save the world? 15 percent of the budget? 10 percent? How about 1 percent?”

This is the message that was splashed on the front of today’s issue of Express, a publication of The Washington Post. The ad, sponsored by CARE, WWF and Oxfam America, went on to say, “Currently, only about 1 percent of the US budget goes to address global hunger, poverty, climate change, conservation and disaster relief.”

We know it might be a tad dorky, but over at ONE, we were pretty excited to see this message splashed across the front of our paper.

As you know, we’ve been pushing the message of “1 percent” for a while now in efforts to keep US funding for developmental aid. Although 1 percent certainly seems like a tiny fraction of our budget, we’ve been able to do remarkable things by putting it towards effective programs like USAID, PEPFAR and the Global Fund, which are making great leaps towards fighting extreme poverty and preventable disease.

As we emphasized in a previous blog post, if the Global Fund loses its funding, up to 58,286 HIV-positive pregnant women will not receive treatments to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. About 6 million treatments for malaria will not be administered. 372,000 testing and treatments for tuberculosis will be halted. And 414,000 people living with HIV/AIDS will not be provided the antiretroviral medication they need to survive. As you can see, this is truly a matter of life and death.

As the cover of today’s paper says, “Cut now, pay later.”

ONE members, we know you’ve done a lot around our budget action. You’ve signed our petition. You’ve called your members of the House. You’ve called your members of the Senate. But now, it’s time for one more action: call President Obama and tell him to defend and protect funding for the world’s poor.

Two minutes of your time can make all the difference — and our time is running out. Pick up the phone and let President Obama know that you care about people living in the world’s poorest places. These people may not have a voice, but you do.

President Obama’s number is 202-456-1111. For talking points, fill out your name and email address on our call page, then report how it went.

You already know that just 1 percent of the budget accomplishes so much in helping the world’s poor. Millions of lives can be saved and so many futures can be built with just so little of the budget. If the proposed budget cuts go through, programs that fight HIV/AIDS, hunger and preventable disease will see devastating cuts. Cuts to the budget won’t improve lives in America, but they will cost the lives of countless people living in the poorest parts of the world.

Just last week, President Obama told the nation that “to brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings” would be a betrayal of who we are. It is our responsibility as a great nation and our moral obligation as human beings to protect our commitment to the world’s poor.

The foolishness I’m talking about is the federal budget debate. The current drama gripping Washington is whether the factions in Congress will shut down the federal government to spite each other, by failing to enact a stop-gap spending measure while they negotiate a longer-term budget deal. It’s a game of chicken, each side counting on the other to blink and give in.

Beneath these theatrics are serious questions about whether—and how—to cut government spending. These questions will be answered later in April and in coming months as Congress takes up next year’s budget and raises the government’s debt limit. Republicans in Congress generally want to cut spending. Democrats in Congress, generally, want to cut spending, but less.

The enthusiasm for cutting government spending and closing the annual budget deficit seems a bit unreal since Congress and President Obama agreed to extend large tax cuts just four months ago that made the hole in the budget much bigger.

April fools is for laughs and kicks. But the pranks should stop when it comes to cutting life-saving assistance. Photo by Antenna.

While all of this is going on, we are waiting to see what will happen to the tiny fraction of the federal budget that is dedicated to the life-saving international health programs, emergency aid, poverty reduction, and economic development assistance. (Side note: Oxfam doesn’t have an institutional interest in the outcome; we don’t accept US government funding.)

Cutting international assistance is a cheap talking point for politicians: “We have to take care of America before we send American money all over the world.”

In saying this, politicians perpetuate misperceptions about international assistance. And they should know better. According to recent polling, Americans think 27 percent of the budget is foreign aid. Thinking this, they want to cut it, dramatically, in half to about 13 percent. (The Washington Post Fact Checker provides polling detail here.)

The only problem is that less than 1 percent of the budget is foreign aid.

So cutting it in half—or even cutting all of it—wouldn’t do much for the federal budget deficit. But, that doesn’t stop politicians from making the foolish decision to cut it. Pretending to close the yawning federal budget gap with cuts to foreign assistance is a terrible prank to play on:

Even the threat of the government shutting down is disruptive and does damage. Important development and anti-poverty programs have already been put on hold due to the uncertainty; for example, the launch of an innovative food security program that is expected to include a focus on rice production in Cambodia has been indefinitely postponed.

Ironically, the foreign aid that Congress is threatening to cut is more transparent, more results-focused, more rigorous, and more empowering than before. Reforms over the past two administrations—Republican and Democratic—are making US investments more effective in fighting poverty than ever.

April fools is for laughs and kicks. But the pranks should stop when it comes to cutting life-saving assistance.

-By Gawain Kripke, director of policy and research at Oxfam America.