According to a Media Matters for America report, ABC and NBC have devoted no evening news coverage to the controversy since the story broke, despite the fact that the LIBOR is “a benchmark to set payments on about $800 trillion worth of financial instruments.”

The letter stresses that corruption within the banking system has severe consequences for the poor and vulnerable, and calls upon news executives to immediately begin in-depth coverage of the banking scandal that makes clear its impact on “average Americans and poor people around the world.”

In a strongly-worded letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Bishop Richard Pate of Des Moines–the Chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on International Justice and Peace–articulated the Church’s displeasure regarding possible military action:

“Iran’s bellicose statements, its failure to be transparent about its nuclear program and its possible acquisition of nuclear weapons are serious matters, but in themselves they do not justify military action. Discussing or promoting military options at this time is unwise and may be counterproductive. Actual or threatened military strikes are likely to strengthen the regime in power in Iran and would further marginalize those in Iran who want to abide by international norms. And, as the experience in Iraq teaches, the use of force can have many unintended consequences.”

This language matches the record of Pope Benedict XVI who throughout his pontificate has implored world leaders to avoid unnecessary conflict in Iran, most notably in separate meetings with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2006.

It is notable that Benedict’s predecessor, Blessed John Paul II also spoke out often against unnecessary military strikes, including the war in Iraq, a prophetic message that was sadly unheeded by American politicians.,

Oxfam America, an international aid group that works alongside many of these U.S. initiatives, is fighting back with a new ad campaign to put a real face on the effective, important results they achieve. The ads highlight individual women who are making real changes in their home countries with the partnership of U.S. aid.

Check out the billboards, which are currently running in Washington’s Reagan National airport:

As pro-life evangelical Christian leaders committed to caring for our poorest neighbors around the world, we are called to protect them from cuts to programs that make a difference between life and death. The call for cutting “foreign aid” by several presidential candidates at last night’s debate undermines our nation’s moral commitment to humanitarian investment and is not in keeping with our values.

International development programs, which represent less than 1 percent of our federal budget, are practical and compassionate investments in global health. Minimal resources go a long way by providing malaria nets that save children’s lives in Africa, AIDS medication to tens of thousands who would otherwise die, and clean water to people in the poorest regions on Earth. Treating this critical aid as unaffordable is factually inaccurate. Viewing it as expendable is morally wrong. We call on all candidates for political office, especially the presidency, to protect life by preserving these crucial programs. The most vulnerable must be protected from irresponsible cuts, not imperiled in the name of political expediency.

The letter is signed by Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action; Rev. Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor of Northland, a Church Distributed; Rev. Gabriel Salguero, President of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition; Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, Co-Chair of the National African American Clergy Network; David Gushee, Board Chair and Co-Founder of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good; and Richard Cizik, President of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.

The event, organized by the agency’s Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and hosted by World Vision–a Christian humanitarian organization–was part of a broader effort by USAID to engage faith-based communities as allies against humanitarian crises, such as the Horn of Africa Crisis. Administrator Shah spoke to the importance of these partnerships in addressing the critical need in developing countries:

We want to enable Kay Warren’s 14,000 foot soldiers to go into communities like the Nairobi slums and provide healthcare services. We want to support your activities to build local capacity in local institutions with counterpart organizations from Uganda, to India to Latin America. And we want to make sure that if there’s a church group, a faith-based organization somewhere in this country that wants to learn about development, that wants to engage on this tremendous mission, that we offer a platform that is inviting their engagement and supporting their efforts to learn.

This matches what Shah said last January at the Center for Global Development:

I’m proud to know that USAID is one of [Catholic Relief Services'] largest supporters, but I’m also proud to know that we support a wide range of faith-based organizations from Samaritans First to the American Jewish World Service. Faith-based organizations not only express the moral values of millions of Americans. They also provide some of the most dependable support systems for millions of people in the developing world. In Kenya, for example, 30 percent of all health-care services are provided by Christian hospitals.

Our success depends on listening to these groups actively, connecting with them deeply, leveraging the trust and the partnership they’ve nurtured in communities where they’ve practiced for a very long time and supporting the vital work of organizations of faith around the world.

These important coalitions are in critical danger right now, however, as elected officials–gripped by austerity mania–search for “easy” budget cuts. Members of Congress on the House Foreign Affairs Committee have already sent a letter to the supercommittee trying to stave off further cuts. And asked about their opinions on foreign aid last night, none of the GOP presidential candidates spoke up in defense of the importance of these humanitarian assistance programs.

Last April, Administrator Shah testified in Congress that the cuts in the proposed GOP budget would lead to the death of 70,000 children. That budget didn’t pass, but if those proposals return it would be terrible news for the government’s faith-based development partners and the people they serve.

UPDATE: Added quote from yesterday’s event and corrected date of original quote.

Photo: Administrator Shah in Sudan Credit: USAID, Flickr

They will, however, have an enormous impact on the lives of vulnerable people around the globe. In response to a budget with similar reductions proposed in April, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah testified to Congress that the cuts “would lead to 70,000 kids dying” because they depend on the malaria control programs, immunizations, and skilled birth attendants the aid helps provide.

The story quotes Jeremy Konyndyk, the director of policy and advocacy for the international aid group Mercy Corps, who puts it succintly:

The amount of money the U.S. has or doesn’t have doesn’t really rise or fall on the foreign aid budget…The budget impact is negligible. The impact around the world is enormous.

But the most troubling part of the article for me was a quote from Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign affairs, explaining why she supports the cuts:

She recalled a State Department envoy’s informing her of $250 million in relief to Pakistan after last year’s devastating floods. “I said I think that’s bad policy and bad politics,” she said in an interview at her office on Capitol Hill. “What are you going to say to people in the United States who are having flooding?”

How about “we can help you too”? Telling international flooding victims there’s nothing we can do because it would expose the cruelty we show to our own citizens in need represents a real low in “austerity” justifications.

While insufficient to address the scale of such a disaster (which is roughly equivalent to the entire state of Ohio being on the brink of starvation), it’s important to highlight how essential emergency aid from the U.S. government has been, providing over $580 million dollars to help more than 4.6 million people.

The crisis reminds us just how irresponsible it is to propose cuts to foreign aid. As Catholic Relief Services and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made clear in a letter to Congress, foreign aid makes up less than one percent of the federal budget, but this modest investment literally saves lives.

USAID administrator Rajiv Shah explained in testimony to Congress in April that proposed cuts to development programs would lead to the deaths of 70,000 children.

What’s more, as former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson has pointed out , such suffering is completely avoidable. “From a fiscal perspective, cuts in global health and poverty programs are inconsequential. From a moral and humanitarian perspective, they would be tragic. America does not have a debt problem because it spends too much on AIDS drugs or bed nets.”

It’s good to see government partnering with private charities to help address the current crisis in Africa. And donations from the public are also crucial, though not an adequate substitute for government action.

As the CNN segment points out, though, this lifesaving common-ground program is now threatened by conservatives in Congress eager to make budget cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility (how they defend budget-busting tax cuts at the same time is another story). Watch it:

A Washington Post story today about the future of PEPFAR points out that the program dwarfs the other global sources of funding for AIDS prevention and treatment in developing countries. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, (to which the US also contributes) provides only $1.6 billion per year, compared to PEPFAR’s $6.7 billion. This fact suggests that other sources of funding are not at the ready to pick up the slack if the U.S. scales back its commitment to fighting this pandemic. In other words, countless lives are in jeopardy.

Also at stake is who we are as a nation. As we decide how to address our long-term budget and debt problems, saying that we can’t afford effective, lifesaving programs like PEPFAR while we lock in historically low tax rates for millionaires and billionaires reflects greed and cruelty we should be deeply ashamed of.

We stand looking forward to a century which is full of promise and full of peril. Human beings are confronting the question of how to use wisely a power that has been given to us through the discoveries of the last century. We shall not be converted to the promise of the future by more knowledge, but rather by an increase of loving wisdom and reverence, for life, for the earth and for one another.

Such a message is pertinent not only to the newlyweds and the audience of millions, but also to political leaders. The United States Congress, for example, faces a moment full of promise and peril in the current budget debate. If politicians increase their loving reverence for life, and for the earth, and for one another, real progress will be made towards passing a budget that reflects our morals.

Bishop Chartres closes with a prayer written by the royal couple themselves: “In the business of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy. Strengthened by our union help us to serve and comfort those who suffer.”

Here’s hoping Washington heeds the call from Westminster to fight for the common good.