Why Bruce Bartlett is hopeless
I'm not sure what to make of this post from Bruce Bartlett, called "Why fixing the budget is hopeless"
He cites a survey where 848 Americans think 25% of the Federal budget is spent on foreign aid and 10% is given as the ideal amount.
He then points out that official bilateral foreign aid in 2009 was less than 1% of the Federal budget.
First, taking everything at face value, I am not sure why this means fixing the budget is hopeless.
Second, there is a hell of a lot more to foreign aid that "bilateral foreign aid". There's US contributions to multilateral aid agencies, then there's NATO, there's our military presence in Japan, South Korea, etc., there's whatever the heck we're still doing in Iraq after a second president has said "mission accomplished". I'm not saying it's 25%, but it's way way way more than 0.6%.
Why take a question where the definition of aid is not given and could easily be construed broadly and match the answer to a very distinct, narrow definition of aid?
Unless of course, you're hopeless!