Government Spending, Polarization, and the Battle Over Waste
FILE - Oregon National Guard Soldiers receive and inventory a shipment of personal protective equipment (PPE) sent by USAID from Dubai, April 10, 2020. (National Guard photo by Sgt. 1st Class Zachary Holden, Oregon Military Department)
By Patrick Newton
As a two-party system, the U.S. often frames issues in binary terms, making it difficult to hear more nuanced perspectives. With political polarization at high levels, debates are frequently dominated by the most extreme voices. This is evident in the discussions surrounding government spending and foreign aid, particularly regarding recent scrutiny of USAID funding.
USAID provides “humanitarian assistance, economic development, and health programs” to countries worldwide. Many of these initiatives have helped families in crisis, such as those in war-torn Ukraine. Most taxpayers likely support funding that directly helps people in need, but concerns about government waste remain a valid issue. The key debate isn’t necessarily about whether aid should exist, but rather how efficiently it is being allocated.
Organizations like Braver Angels (braverangels.org) have studied how people on the Left and Right discuss political issues. A major finding is that both sides often conflate policy positions with moral values. In reality, many conservatives support humanitarian aid but differ in their approach to government spending. They may believe in helping people but argue for reducing bureaucracy, inefficiency, or corruption in aid programs. This distinction is often overlooked in polarized discourse.
What frustrates many voters is the perception that government funds are not always spent wisely, especially when they see economic hardship at home. While criticisms of how policy changes are implemented are important, it’s equally necessary to address legitimate concerns about waste and inefficiency. The debate should not be reduced to a simplistic battle between "helping people" and "cutting spending"—most Americans care about both.
At the same time, sweeping policy changes can have unintended consequences. If reforms are too aggressive, essential programs that genuinely help people may be eliminated. This is why the U.S. system of checks and balances exists—to ensure that no single branch of government wields too much power. While reducing inefficiencies is a worthwhile goal, it must be done thoughtfully, respecting the processes established by the Founding Fathers.
Moving forward, both parties should focus less on ideological attacks and more on offering concrete solutions. The real question is not whether to provide aid, but how to ensure it is used effectively. Instead of framing the conversation as a fight between opposing extremes, we should be asking: How do we balance fiscal responsibility with humanitarian obligations in a way that serves the best interests of both taxpayers and those in need?
