In a previous thread, it was pointed out that foreign aid to Africa doesn't always get the job done that was intended, having an uncomfortable tendency to wind up fattening the Swiss bank accounts of whatever Feareless Leader happens to be in charge at the time.

Well, columnist and "economist" Paul Krugman is unhappy about this attitude. This column appeared in the Mercury News under the title "Bono Still Looking for Hearts of Gold." The New York Time title, "Heart of Cheapness," is a bit blunter.

The basic gist of the column is that if those rich American bastards would just hold that bowl under their slit jugulars a bit longer, we could save all those sweet little African babies.

Tunning through the whole thing, of course, is the standard premise that the government's power of taxation is the sole wellspring of compassion in this world. But that's no big surprise. Also no surprise are his accusations that conservatives are heartless sons of bitches compared to the gigantic bleeding hearts of those liberals like himself, who probably have to carry the huge hemmorhaging organs around in wheelbarrows while they tap other people's lives and property to fund their "generosity."

A blatant leftist statistical lie that is really starting to get old is repeated here:

By the way, the United States currently spends 0.11 percent of G.D.P. on foreign aid; Canada and major European countries are about three times as generous. The Bush administration's proposed "Millennium Fund" will increase our aid share, but only to 0.13 percent.

A little look at the real statistics shows how this actually works, which most of us would suspect anyway. Percentage of GDP is not really a valid baseline.*

The table shows U.S. development assistance (which is not the entirety of foreign aid by any means) was $10.88 billion in 2001. Japan was second at $9.68 billion. The most generous European nation on the table, Germany, came in at $4.88 billion, less than half that of the U.S. U.S. aid is about 21 percent--almost a fourth--of the total aid given by all nations on the list.

The Bush Millennium Fund proposal will raise the U.S. spending to $15 - 16 billion by 2006.

Krugman knows that the percentage argument is misleading. He knows that the United States is the most generous nation on Earth. But that doesn't sound good when he's throwing his little digs at America's wealthy, does it?

*I have seen this trick used other places, as in "As a percent of GDP, our government spending levels/tax levels/etc. are really modest compared to other countries."