<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/211462_tsunamifunds10.html">Bush nearly triples request for tsunami relief</a> tells me that Bush <iq>increased [the US] pledge by another $600 million</iq>. When the shock of the disaster was fresh, this administration was moved to donate $15 million. Now, that figure is up to $950 million. What changed? The article takes care to justify the charity by noting that <iq>the massive U.S. aid has helped this country's image across the Muslim world</iq>. Some questions: <ul> Are we helping them because they need and deserve our help and we are a magnanimous country or are we helping them because it's a smart investment? Is this about <iq>image</iq> or about substance? Is helping people just a side effect of building image? Because we help Muslims in an uninteresting (resource-wise) part of the world, does that somehow balance out our stomping them flat in another part of the world? </ul> None of these questions is the right one to ask. Notice that <iq>[t]he new aid request will be part of an $81 billion supplemental budget request</iq>. Oh my God, which one might that be? Could that be the one for Iraq? Why the fuck are they allowed to get away with submitting a budget that doesn't include Iraq in the first place? Why isn't it just in the budget for 2005? Why is Iraq supplemental? It's not like it's a surprise or anything. Imagine running a business like that: "here's the budget for the year and, oh yeah, here's a supplemental request for the employee salaries." If we're honest, we're now forced to ask the tough question; why is tsunami relief mixed in with the funding for the war on Iraq? <ul> Is it so Bush and his media minions can start calling it the disaster relief package? Is it to prevent any high-minded representatives from voting against the funding bill? Is it so Jeb can accuse his opponent of having voted against disaster relief when he runs for president in 2008? </ul> Not a pretty picture. Look a bit further and you see that <iq>$339 million [is] for rebuilding roads, schools and other critical facilities</iq>. Maybe it's all in one budget so we only have to write one check to Halliburton. Maybe Bush only approved money that he knows is going to be spent on crony companies. Maybe he didn't "get it" at first and is now, in typical fashion, going to town with the idea of corporate welfare. It's not like we're just sending the cash to these countries by Western Union, to spend as they see fit. Oh no. That money is most definitely already earmarked for American business, in a glorious money-laundering scheme that converts tax dollars into dividends. Perhaps it's not fair to question motives when talking about charity. Perhaps we should just be happy that <i>some</i> people will be better off because of our charity. On the other hand, with this administration, one always has to question motives and, in the end, results. Until the money and/or services are actually donated, more-or-less corruption-free, nothing is for certain. Just ask New York City about the $40 billion it was promised after 9/11.