> It is ironic that the foundation has a reputation for a hard-nosed focus on results, and yet many people are cynical about the government aid programs we partner with. The foundation does a lot to help these programs be more efficient and measure their progress.
It's not ironic. Some people value government charity spending less than they value private nonprofit spending. Gates implicitly acknowledges that government aid has weak points (poor focus on outcomes, inefficiency, and lack of good measurement). Aside from that, there are also principled concerns about using tax dollars for aid projects.
> there are also principled concerns about using tax dollars for aid projects
Are you using the typical "let the church handle it logic" not specifically religious entities, but that if the government didn't waste money on aid then people would make up the difference?
Because if that is what you are saying it is based on the flawed logic that aid is a zero sum thing. It is certainly not at this point.
I can guarantee that the US stopping foreign aid would reduce available foreign aid by nearly the entire amount it currently spends, given that the total budget is around 0.1% and no one would notice an increase of 0.1% of their income.
This is not to say that the US should increase their aid, just saying that some level of aid makes sense since it has a significant impact for a nearly negligible cost on the total scale.
I didn't say those things. I was saying that it's not ironic and pushing back against a particular straw man in the letter.
1. Government aid has its problems.
The fact that the Gates Foundation helps government programs implies that private organizations execute better, at least in some aspects. Gates later admits that government aid has its problems, so it's odd that he dismisses objections in this way.
2. Philosophical objections should be acknowledged and addressed.
At another point in the letter, Gates hypothetically asked, "Imagine that the income tax form asked, 'Can we use $30 of the taxes you’re already paying to protect 120 children from measles?' Would you check yes or no?"
Many people would have no problem with that arrangement but do have a problem with not-optional line items in the federal budget. The point is that right now donations are enforced by the IRS, which is an odd form of charity, and I think it's reasonable (and certainly not ironic) to have philosophical problems with that and to prefer more democratic forms of aid.
Perhaps the benefits are worth overruling the drawbacks (point 1) and philosophical objections (point 2), but calling reservations about government aid ironic is either sloppy or disingenuous.
It's not ironic. Some people value government charity spending less than they value private nonprofit spending. Gates implicitly acknowledges that government aid has weak points (poor focus on outcomes, inefficiency, and lack of good measurement). Aside from that, there are also principled concerns about using tax dollars for aid projects.