In Monday's Wall Street Journal article on the Millennium Challenge Account budget crunch, I was quoted as saying "There are very few champions [on Capitol Hill] and, I think, dwindling support." MCC folks weren't too happy with that quote, interpreting it to mean that noone liked the MCA. Not what I said. Indeed, I thought Mike Phillips' article did great justice to the MCA, essentially noting that, when needed, public support from neither the Adminisration nor Congress (particularly now with Congressman Kolbe's departure) was there. And, worrisome, recent debate on the Hill around the MCA appears to be leaning toward insituting earmarks to demand social sector programs in what is supposed to be a country-driven program development process.
And then, in a State of the Union Address lean on foreign policy save for Iraq, the President asks Congress to fund the MCA. He asked for $3 billion in FY06 and got $1.77 billion. He asked for $3 billion again in FY07 but the continuing resolution will likely carry all programs through (in the best scenario) at the prior years' level. So, another $1.77 billion for the MCA. The President is ikely ask for $3 billion again in his FY08 budget. MCC CEO Danilovich brought much-needed energy and diplomacy to the program resulting in a stepped-up pace in getting countries to the compact signing point. The MCC's FY07 budget justification showed they could spend $3 billion on the current trajectory of countries in the proposal queu. And I'm sure they can show that again in FY08. I want to see the MCA continue to get broad, bipartisan support from the Hill -- it's design is indeed innovative and its grounding principles embody American values. That said, 2007-2008 are going to be years that the MCC needs to put more attention on implementation and delivering tangible results on the ground than on just getting countries to the signing table. And it needs to curtail its engagement with currently eligible countries that are not serious about playing by the MCA rules. For that, a tighter budget might be just what the doctor ordered.
Disclaimer
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
Commentary Menu