DOGE's gutting of Federal aid programs has exposed a lot of democratic abuse, fraud and waste. Democratic abuse in the sense that foreign aid programs should both serve the interests of the country that pays for it and respect the broad majority of views of the citizens who pay for it; programs such as lesbian puppet shows in deeply conservative Catholic countries were massively counterproductive with regard to both. Fraud and waste: a rampant system of multiple layers of subcontractors ensured that, often, less than 15% of the funds earmarked for a particular beneficiary reached that beneficiary.

That being said, there has been valid criticism to the effect of: don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Many foreign aid programs, we are told, save countless lives in the developing world, and do it with good value for money.

The totemic such program is PEPFAR. You may recall that PEPFAR stands for "the President's Emergency Program For AIDS Relief," that it was a pet project of President George W. Bush and since then has been cherished by many conservative Christians, that it has been acclaimed as one of the most effective aid programs in history for its entire existence. Furthermore, PEPFAR funds go to drugs for children who catch HIV from their mother's womb, which negates issues of morality or personal responsibility that one may have with paying for anti-AIDS drugs. Another very prominent critic of the cuts to PEPFAR and other programs has been Bill Gates, in his incarnation as one of the world's most prominent funders and influencers when it comes to aid and development programs.

We agree that PEPFAR was a very good program that served noble goals. However, there is something intrinsically absurd about the fact that a program that has "Emergency" in the name should be extended forever into the future, twenty-five years or so after its creation. This seems like a caricature of government misfunction. Like countless other government programs, it seems that PEPFAR has started from a good foundation and, over time, accumulated bloat and laziness.

Complaints about inefficiency, bureaucracy, and administrative overhead costs at PEPFAR predate DOGE. Sunset provisions are in general a very good idea precisely because in the public sector, even the best programs lose their way over time, and it's very healthy for them to have to justify their existence all over again to their democratically-elected funders or face extinction.

Even if there was no Trump and no DOGE, there would be a strong case for very stringently reevaluating PEPFAR, with a view to sunsetting it and handing over the valuable parts of the program to non-US government donors.

And indeed, we may take PEPFAR as a synecdoche for all the other do-goodery programs that the US government funds, or allegedly funds, which is that they pose the following paradox.

The paradox is this: if these programs save so many lives, and they do it in such an efficient and straightforward and measurable way, with tremendous value for money, then, they should have no problems finding alternative sources of funding.

Which means that the argument for continued funding of these programs is also an argument for sunsetting them.

And conversely, that if these programs cannot find alternative sources of funding, then it stands to reason to believe that they are perhaps not quite so efficient and not quite so life-saving as we have been told.

After all, the funders are out there: there is the UN, and its affiliated constellation of international aid organizations; the EU, and the various governments of Europe; and, of course, private foundations and individuals. Collectively, they spend many hundreds of billions of dollars per year on aid programs.

The American taxpayer is perfectly entitled to decide whether or not he would like to fund some sort of generous foreign aid program. It might be good for him to do it, it might be bad for him to decide to stop doing it, but ultimately it is his perfect choice and prerogative. And the American taxpayer, through its democratically elected representatives, has decided to stop funding most of its do-goodery work. Again: maybe this is a very bad idea, but it is a perfect prerogative for any taxpayer, any citizenry, to decide that it no longer wants to send money abroad at a time of budget difficulties and instead focus on priorities at home.

There is a very simple way to square this circle: the US government should provide these programs with bridge funding, with a hard deadline, for the explicit purpose of finding alternative sources of funding.

Which leads us to the modest proposal in this headline: President Trump should appoint Bill Gates as Global Goodwill Ambassador for Development Programs, with a mandate to reform these programs and raise alternative forms of funding for them.

Think about it: what better man for the job? He has the two main requirements: excellent domain expertise, and a rolodex and star power that means he can get to anybody in the world.

Imagine it: a year from now, a big gala in DC, jointly headlined by Bill Gates in his role and President Trump (and/or Secretary Rubio and Vice President Vance), attended by the relevant aid ministers of every OECD country, the heads of every international aid organization and large development foundation, and a hundred of the world's richest individuals, all to fund a rejuvenated, reformed, and privatized version of PEPFAR and every other worthy do-good US foreign aid program. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?

By definition, Gates's role as ambassador would itself have a sunset provision. He would have to agree to some basic ground rules such as no funding for contraception or abortion or other things that would shock the consciences of large numbers of Americans. And, of course, he would probably get 100 votes in the Senate.

Wouldn't that be good for everyone? Good for the American taxpayer, who gets to save money at a time when he badly needs to? Good for American soft power, showing that even if the US government downscales its aid programs, American civil society steps up? Good for President Trump, who gets to fulfill a key campaign promise? Good for Bill Gates, who gets to save all these programs that he believes to be so worthy and valuable? And good, most of all, for all these kids in Africa? After all, it's all about them, isn't it?

There's just no downside.

President Trump should enthusiastically and publicly make the offer.

We are sure that Bill Gates would jump right away on the opportunity to serve his country and to save all those kids in Africa. Because if he didn't, that would just prove that his criticisms of the Trump Administration are just political, and not about saving all those kids…