http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

To be sure, it does make poverty reduction in Africa explicit government policy, but it doesn’t require any new spending or programs, and poverty reduction in Africa is already pretty clearly government policy anyways. All it really does is state that poverty reduction ought to be a goal of foreign aid to, and trade policy with, Africa. If we’re going to have foreign aid to Africa no matter what, you could do worse than setting an actual goal of poverty reduction for that aid. Otherwise you’re just propping up dictators.

In terms of foreign aid, all it says is that currently-existing foreign aid programs should continue, but it does not require any specific funding levels for those programs, just that the President continue US “participation” in those programs. It also contains a provision for debt relief “where appropriate,” but that doesn’t bother me at all – that debt is a sunk cost for us at this point anyways.

More importantly, though, it places a particular emphasis on something that I would think libertarians would support: freer trade with Africa via tariff reduction programs.

It also includes this statement, which ought to be encouraging in terms of Obama’s overall view of economic freedom:
“Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom.”

And doesn’t Obama decry that jobs are being “sent overseas?”

How can business help unless they can hire some of the poor people from overseas?

You’re right, though. Obama (and Clinton and McCain, etc.) thinks it’s the government’s money, not ours. I’m guessing that no matter who wins in November, we’re winding up with a big tax increase, even if it’s merely the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

I’m saddened that yet again it’s come down to the lesser of two, three, or four evils.