Steve Valk's Open Salon Blog

What I needed to learn to change the world

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:06:30 -0400

This Tuesday will find me on Capitol Hill once again, talking to members of Congress or their aides about what we can do to end extreme poverty in our world. I’ve been doing this nearly every summer since the 1980s as a volunteer with RESULTS, a little-known but highly effective advocacy organization. Many might see my quest as an exercise in futility and me a latter-day Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

But I know better.

I first got involved with RESULTS at a time in my life when I was an angry young man who was on his way to becoming an angry middle-aged man, leading eventually to being an angry old man. I was angry about the great injustices and problems of the world and at the people who had the power to fix things but didn’t.

A young woman who would later become my wife introduced me to RESULTS. I didn’t think much about it when she tried to explain it – something about creating the political will to end hunger. I said I was glad there were people like her doing that, all the while thinking I couldn’t waste my time on something so hopeless and destined for failure. Six months later, my curiosity overcame my resistance, and I went to a meeting.

It was a conference call where we listened by speaker box to a former substitute music teacher and founder of RESULTS named Sam Harris. Hundreds of volunteers across the country were connected. At the end of the call, there was roll call for all the groups to announce how many were in the room and how many letters they would write to their representatives or how many newspapers they would call to pitch an editorial. Listening to all the cities – from Miami to San Francisco -- announce their numbers, it suddenly struck me that I was not alone. There were others like me, a conspiracy, if you will, to make the world a better place. I thought: “This might actually work.”

My newfound faith in my ability to change things was quickly tested.

In January of 1985, as famine threatened the lives of millions in Ethiopia (Remember “We Are the World”?), an emergency spending bill was introduced to provide food aid. We managed to get a meeting with a newly elected member of Congress, a conservative Republican named Pat Swindall. We asked him to support the emergency appropriation. We were dumbstruck by his response:

“I don’t think the government should be doing this sort of thing. This is something that the churches and private groups should do.”

He was unmoved by our protestations that churches and non-governmental organizations couldn’t match the resources the U.S. government could provide and that millions would perish if we failed to act.

True to his word, when the bill reached the House floor, Pat not only voted against it (one of only 15 to vote nay), he made a speech on the floor about why he opposed it. We hung our heads in shame that Pat Swindall was our representative. My first exercise in citizen lobbying was a dismal failure.

A few weeks later, Sam Harris called to check in with our group. We told him about our disappointing effort with Pat Swindall. My feeling was that if the guy wouldn’t vote for famine relief, there was little point in talking to him about anything else. Best we could hope for was that somebody else would get elected to his seat two years later.

“Well, yeah, you could do that,” Sam said, “but in the meantime there’s 40,000 children dying in the world each day from preventable causes. Are you sure you want to wait that long?”

“I get your point,” I said. “So what can we do?”

Sam said there was a group in Texas struggling with a similar situation. They had written a prayer for their congressman designed to change their view of him from one of contempt and resignation to one of respect and optimism, to see him as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. We adapted the prayer for our own use and recited it aloud when we were together.

At first, we didn’t sound very convincing, especially when we got to the end: “Help us to find the next expression of love for Pat.” There was an unspoken but palpable “yeah, right” the first couple of times we said the prayer. But the more we said it, the more we came to believe it, and eventually our view of him shifted. It was time to see him again.

Every month or so, Swindall would show up at a public place – a book store or hardware store – to talk to constituents. These small, informal gatherings were dubbed “Chat With Pat,” but they often turned into “Spat With Pat.” Folks would introduce themselves and speak their minds for a couple of minutes, some of them getting very confrontational with Pat about something he’d said or done, voices raised and fingers wagging. These exchanges agitated Pat and put him on the defensive, and he gave as good as he got. These folks clearly had something to get off their chest, which they succeeded in doing. But ten minutes later when they walked out the door, the question had to pop into their head: “What, exactly, did I accomplish in there?”

When Pat would come around to us, our hand was extended, and we greeted him with a smile instead of a scowl. We thanked him for taking the time to make himself available. We could see by his expression and body language that he was much more at ease. He was also ready to listen intently.

Our mission was to simply educate him on issues (a request would come later). We did this through a technique in RESULTS called the “laser talk,” which relates an issue in one to two minutes, making it clear, concise and compelling. We started telling him about a Bangladeshi economist named Muhammad Yunus who was making small loans to destitute women so they could start small businesses and lift themselves out of poverty. He loved the concept. We shared more about it each time we saw him.

Early in 1987, RESULTS helped draft and introduce the first microcredit legislation considered by Congress. Called The Self-Sufficiency for the Poor Act, the bill authorized funding within the foreign aid bill for micro-lending programs throughout the world such as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Generating the political will for this required a great number of co-sponsors. It was time for an office appointment with Pat Swindall.

As the four of us prepped for our meeting, I turned to my wife and said, “I’ve got a feeling he’s going to say yes to co-sponsoring this bill, and when he does, I’m going to ask if he’ll do a piece for one of the papers about why he’s supporting this.”

“I don’t know,” Sara said. “You might be pushing your luck with that.”

“There’s nothing to lose. I’m going to ask him.”

We poured into Pat’s office, hauling in a TV and VCR with us. Our mood and our attitude had changed remarkably since that first office meeting in 1985. We knew in our hearts that Pat didn’t want to see people suffer and die needlessly any more than we did. We had a powerful solution to offer, and he was in a position to move that solution forward. We all spoke our laser talks flawlessly, and when it came time to watch the video, Pat sat on his desk, knees propped under his chin. When the video was over, I made the pitch for our request, finishing with the big question:

“Pat, will you co-sponsor the Self-Sufficiency for the Poor Act?”

There was no “I’ll have to take a closer look at the bill” or “Let me see who else is supporting this” or any of a number of things a congressman might say to wiggle out of making a commitment.

“I’d be delighted to co-sponsor this bill,” he said without a second’s hesitation.

It was all we could do to keep from jumping out of our chairs. Two years ago he had voted against famine aid. Now Pat Swindall was co-sponsoring the first microcredit bill.

With my head swimming, I struggled to gather my thoughts and make the second request, the one about publishing a column on his support for the bill. As the words were forming in my mouth, he beat me to the punch.

“You know, this is the kind of thing the public should really know about. Tell you what. I’ve got a column that runs in the DeKalb News-Sun every couple of weeks. Do you think you could write something up about this and give it to my staff to look over and then submit as my column?”

I turned to my wife with a grin so wide it hurt. Then I turned to the congressman.

“Pat, that’s a great idea. I think we can do that.”

My feet never touched the ground from Pat’s office to the car. I was now ghostwriting for a member of Congress who, two years prior, had voted against aid to keep people from starving. My view of the world was forever altered. It was no longer a world of us versus them, of good guys versus bad guys (bad guys being people who didn’t share my views). It was now a world of greater possibility.

The Self-Sufficiency for the Poor Act garnered more than 100 co-sponsors. The bill never came up for a vote, but because of all the support it generated, money was set aside in the foreign aid appropriations bill for microcredit programs. The United States quickly became the leader in funding micro-lending programs around the world, with billions now invested in this innovative strategy.

Ten years after this legislation was introduced, the first Microcredit Summit was held in Washington, DC, where 2,900 participants committed to extending microcredit to 100 million of the world’s poorest families. Ten years later, that goal was achieved, and Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for providing loans to the poor.

So much for windmills. These are real people being given ladders to climb out of life-crushing poverty. And I’ve had a hand in making that happen.

So on Tuesday I will walk up to the Hill again and sit down with people who don’t share my party affiliation. And with a gleam in my eye I’ll look at them and, in so many words say, “Let’s talk about what we can do to change the world today.”

For some, being right is all that matters. Me? I’d rather make a difference.

Supplemental passes with strings attached to IMF funding

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:06:00 -0400

After delaying it for a week of arm-twisting and head-counting, the House leadership brought the $106 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan up for a vote Tuesday. Previously, 51 anti-war Democrats voted against the bill, but by the time the final vote was taken, that number dwindled to 32. Apparently it was easier for some to vote against the war-funding measure when their votes were meaningless.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi needed those votes for passage, as House Republicans voted against the measure because it included $5 billion to extend the International Monetary Fund’s line of credit by $100 billion. In the end, however, five Republicans voted in favor of the bill, making the final tally 226-202.

The Treasury Department, which is the real power behind the IMF, thought it could slip IMF funding through by attaching it to a supplemental spending bill destined for quick approval. Going through the back door would also thwart any substantive debate about the IMF’s policies, which have been a disaster for the poor since the early 1980s. The maneuver surprised IMF critics, who were able to find a champion at the last moment in Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Brown managed to gain approval for an amendment on IMF funding to exempt health, education and nutrition from IMF-imposed budget caps (check out Brown’s speech on the Senate floor).

According to RESULTS Legislative Director John Fawcett, the Brown amendment was retained in the House-Senate conference report. The big disappointment, though, was that other IMF reforms did not make it into the final bill. These provisions were sought by 41 House members who signed on to a letter initiated by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). There were four concerns voiced in the letter:

Use the Stimulus Money for Stimulus, not Contraction. In conference, we urge inclusion of language to ensure that the funds allocated by Congress for global stimulus are used for stimulatory, and not contractionary, purposes.

Resources for Low-Income Countries. In conference, we urge inclusion of language requiring the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF to ensure that some of the revenue from the planned gold sales and/or other sources of income will be used to provide at least $5 billion in non-debt-creating assistance to the world’s poorest countries – either via debt relief or grants.

Democratic Process. In conference, we urge inclusion of bill language requiring the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF to ensure parliamentary approval of all IMF loans. This would help to ensure greater democratic participation and transparency, as well as a safeguard against corruption.

Transparency. In conference, we urge inclusion of language to ensure greater transparency and public availability of documents within a reasonable time period.

While anti-poverty advocates did not get all the reforms they sought, the Brown amendment is an important first step toward reining in the IMF’s harmful policies. For the provision to make any difference, however, requires cooperation from Treasury to have the U.S. director at the IMF oppose any loans that don’t exempt health, education and other safety nets from budget caps. Congress will need to keep an eye on Treasury to make sure it complies with the spirit and letter of the law. I’m betting there are several advocacy groups willing to help out with that oversight.

Odds look long for IMF funding in supplemental bill

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:06:11 -0400

Funding for the International Monetary Fund, which the Obama administration wants included in the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, is looking like an extreme long shot at this point.

If Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) – a.k.a. the “conscience of the House” – is any kind of bellwether, the odds for IMF funding are very long, indeed. Lewis was one of 51 anti-war Democrats who voted against the supplemental bill last month. With most Republicans supporting the bill, however, it passed overwhelmingly.

But that was before the Senate passed a version of the spending bill that allows the IMF to extend its line of credit by $100 billion (actual cost to the U.S. is estimated at around $5 billion). Republicans in the House say they’ll vote en masse against the bill if IMF funding is included. As Democrats hold a solid majority in the House, this would normally be an idle threat. With the 51 Democrats who previously voted nay, however, the bill would be defeated. The Democratic leadership would need to flip 18 of those votes for passage. Lewis indicated Tuesday he’s not inclined to do that.

“My opposition to war is very firm,” Lewis said in an e-mail response. “Few if any of our objectives have been met, even though thousands of Americans have died, millions of Iraqis and Afghans have died, millions have been displaced, hundreds of our wounded have returned home, and trillions of taxpayer dollars will be spent before this war is over. Those trillions would be better spent on resolving our financial problems here at home and on diplomatic solutions to our problems abroad. The conflict in Iraq is one of the greatest tragedies of our time.”

In a political scenario that would make Machiavelli’s head spin, here’s what has happened:

At the G-20 Summit back in April, President Obama pledged that the U.S. would contribute funding for the IMF to help countries currently struggling through the economic crisis, appointing the IMF, in effect, to be a financial fireman. The Fund has a history, however, of being more of an arsonist when it comes to economic and social development in the world’s poorest countries.

Advocacy groups like RESULTS have long been critical of the IMF’s draconian policies, starting with its structural adjustment programs in the 1980s and ’90s. Under structural adjustment, many poor nations were forced to require user fees for health and education, putting those services beyond the reach of the poor at a time when AIDS was laying waste to Africa. Though no longer requiring user fees, the IMF now imposes budget caps on nations, preventing them from hiring more health workers and teachers, another way that the poor are denied access to these services.

When the U.S. House passed its supplemental spending bill last month, IMF funding was not included. A week later, the Senate passed it’s version, including a package worth $108 billion for the IMF. Thanks to an amendment from Sen. Sherrod Brown, along with pressure from a number of anti-poverty advocacy groups, the IMF funding includes language calling for health, education and other social safety nets to be exempt from IMF-imposed budget caps.

Meanwhile, back at the House, Rep. Maxine Waters circulated a letter calling for serious IMF reforms to be attached to new funding for the Fund. The letter, signed by 41 House members, was sent to Rep. David Obey (D-WI) and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), leaders on the Appropriations Committee. It calls for the IMF to stimulate, not contract, the economies of troubled nations. It also calls on the IMF to provide debt relief for the poorest countries, and to make the IMF’s dealings more transparent and participatory. Congressman Lewis is one of the signers on the Waters letter.

“It has been well-documented that the debt Third World nations are carrying is a back-breaking load to those economies,” Lewis said. “In some cases a large portion of the gross national product of many nations is diverted to debt payments instead of providing services to their citizens — like building roads and houses, investing in job development, agriculture, and education.”

Any hope for the IMF funding would lie with inclusion of reforms set out in the Waters letter and Senator Brown’s amendment. The Waters letter includes 19 signers who originally voted against the supplemental. The big question, of course, is whether they would all flip their votes in order to get IMF reforms into the bill.

In the case of John Lewis, at least, that won’t happen. He sees the stand against the wars as principled and unshakable, even if it means passing up, for the moment, a chance to change the IMF’s harmful policies.

“There are those who believe the IMF issue does not require coupling with the supplemental in order to pass,” Lewis said. “We may see this again as a stand-alone bill. I feel fairly sure there will be other opportunities besides this one to vote on this issue.”

It’s likely there are others among the 19 who feel the same way.

If IMF funding in the supplemental is dead in the water, the Obama team will have to find another vehicle to move it through Congress, one that won’t provide as much cover as the current supplemental spending bill. The IMF and its policies could be the topic of hot debate on the Hill next month, providing more fireworks than the Fourth of July.

Without reforms, IMF funding in war bill might be doomed

Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:06:07 -0400

That funding for the IMF that's attached to the Senate’s supplemental spending bill is stirring up quite a hornets’ nest in Congress right now and could be dropped from the final bill. Democratic leaders might ultimately find that their best chance to save IMF funding will be to include much-needed reforms in IMF policies.

Just before the House and Senate adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, the Senate approved emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Included was funding to extend the IMF’s line of credit by $108 billion, though the actual outlay for the U.S. is expected to be about $5 billion. Thanks to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the IMF funding in the Senate bill contains a provision to roll back harmful IMF policies that place spending caps on health, education and other social safety nets.

In the House-Senate conference on the supplemental bill, which was scheduled for Thursday, it was hoped that the Brown amendment would not only be preserved, but also strengthened with additional language from concerned members in the House. (More on that in a minute).

As the conference committee prepared to iron out differences in the two spending bills, however, things got very complicated. House Republicans, led by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) threatened to vote against the bill if IMF funding is included. “Let’s be clear: a troop-funding bill should found our troops, period,” Boehner said in an Associated Press article.

With Democrats possessing a solid majority in the House, such a threat might seem idle, except for one thing: 51 anti-war Democrats voted against the supplemental bill the first time around. Should all Republicans vote against the bill and the 51 renegade Democrats stick with their original vote, the bill would be defeated.

All this uncertainty prompted leaders on the conference committee to postpone deliberations until next week. They will no doubt want to get a more accurate head count before deciding whether to include IMF funding.

I spoke to RESULTS’ global legislative director, John Fawcett, about developments this week on the Hill. His sense was that if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is looking to win back some of those Democrats, her best bet would be to include language in the IMF funding that would bring long-overdue reform to the Fund’s counter-productive policies. Many of the anti-war Democrats who voted against the supplemental bill recently signed a letter, initiated by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), calling on Appropriations leaders to include such language with IMF funding.

Here’s the proposed language in Rep. Waters’ letter:

IMF Policy Approach to Countries in Economic Recession/Depression:
The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund to oppose and vote against any loan, project, agreement, memorandum, instrument, plan, or other program of the International Monetary Fund that
(1) does not exempt increased government spending on health care, education or social safety nets from national budget caps or restraints, hiring or wage bill ceilings, or other limits sought by any international financial institution;
(2) does not authorize countries to spend all foreign assistance in the year it is received, for the purpose for which it was designated;
(3) in case of a country experiencing an economic downturn, does not maintain prior levels of spending on health care, education or social safety nets;
(4) in case of a country experiencing an economic downturn, includes contractionary conditions, including direct or indirect interest rate increases or other monetary tightening, or government spending cuts or other contractionary fiscal policy, unless the IMF can show quantitatively that such adjustments must begin immediately in order to avoid a more severe adjustment in the future, and cannot be postponed or implemented more gradually.

The argument that could be made to balking Democrats is this: “The spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan will be passed one way or another. You have a chance to change IMF policies that bring misery to the poor in developing nations by voting yes to a bill that contains these reform provisions. By voting no, you ultimately get nothing. What’s it going be?”

Of course, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership would have to come through with the language in Rep. Waters’ letter. It’s the tastiest carrot they have to waive in front of the bucking Democrats. If they don’t, it’s likely that IMF funding will be doomed in this go-around.

Don't touch that dial, this show just got very interesting.

For 72 million children, school is always out

Thu, 28 May 2009 08:05:41 -0400

Children at school in Tanzania.

School will soon let out across the nation for millions of American children. For most, the start of summer vacation brings a sense of liberation. They have the freedom to put down their books and spend time with more leisurely pursuits, be it swimming at the pool, camping in the mountains, playing sports or just sitting and playing video games until their eyes are bloodshot.

For many children around the world, however, school is always out, a circumstance that is hardly liberating. If anything, their lack of access to education holds them captive to a cycle of perpetual poverty, unable to improve their station in life.

If knowledge is power, there are at least 72 million kids who are absolutely powerless. They are denied a seat in a classroom for a variety of reasons, but it all boils down to one underlying cause – their families can’t afford it.

In many developing nations, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, governments started charging fees for health and educational services in the 1980s and 1990s. They didn’t want to charge fees, but that was one of the conditions the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank imposed as the price for restructuring their debts.

It’s a policy that has crippled the long-term development of many impoverished countries. Faced with the dilemma of putting food on the table or sending a child to school, the poorest families have little choice than to opt out of the educational system. In families that can afford to send some – but not all – of their children to school, it’s most often the girls who lose out.

And that’s an opportunity squandered, as the benefits of educating girls are tremendous. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that a woman’s wages in developing countries increases 20 percent for each year of education she receives beyond grade three or four. Studies also show that women who are educated are less likely to get infected with HIV/AIDS and their children are more likely to survive beyond the age five.

But the girls – and boys – who live in poor families find themselves in a “Catch 22” scenario: Education provides a path out of poverty, but destitute families can’t afford the fees and other costs associated with sending a child to school.

Breaking this horrific cycle requires a bold and innovative strategy. Such a plan is already under consideration.

During his campaign last year, President Obama pledged support for a Global Fund for Education, with the U.S. contributing $2 billion annually. Nations struggling to improve their educational systems – especially access for the poor – could apply for assistance from the fund. Their proposals would include measurable goals for which they’d be held accountable. Such assistance could allow more countries to eliminate fees and other barriers that keep the most vulnerable kids – especially girls – out of school.

I know the President has a lot on his plate right now, but he’s shown a remarkable ability to multi-task, and this is one task certainly worth adding to the mix.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the goal of universal primary education is more than an altruistic pursuit. An educated populace contributes more to the global economy, which ultimately improves the U.S. economy. Education also promotes health and prosperity within nations teetering on the edge of instability. Extremists often find a welcome mat in places where poverty and ignorance flourish. As we’ve learned from recent history, nations that descend into chaos become havens for America’s enemies.

Should Obama pursue the Global Fund for Education, he might well find an ally in my senator, Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who believes strongly in the power of education to transform lives. He’s consistently supported increased resources for basic education in the foreign aid budget. Any legislation to support a Global Fund for Education would also have to move through the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, where Isakson sits. How about it, Senator?

As the global economic crisis unfolds, we see that trillions of dollars have been lost in bad investments. Educating all children can be achieved for a small fraction of what we’re spending to bail out financial institutions. It’s an investment guaranteed to pay big dividends for our world in the future. More importantly, it will restore hope for the millions of children who currently lack it.

You can be part of the solution by sending a letter to the editor of your local paper and urging President Obama to make good on his pledge to create a Global Fund for Eduction. If your letter gets published, send copies to the White House, your senators and your member Representative.