Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

Singer argues that we have the power to prevent the suffering of other countries or peoples without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance (232) by changing our way of life so that we are living only on bare essentials and donating any excess money to relief. I disagree with this idea for several reasons and I don’t think it would work if practically applied. Just throwing money into a problem does not work on its own and only serves as a short-term solution. It could also cause the country in question to only depend on that money instead of investing it into an actual solution. Moreover, the government would have to be free of fraud and corruption to ensure that the donations are used appropriately. In some cases, donating money hurts a country instead of helping it. For example, donations to Africa have only caused it to be poorer, more in debt, and so on (check out here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123758895999200083). In addition, Singer only considers physical distance, which he argues shouldn’t matter, but does not mention “cultural distance”. Western interference could not only exacerbate the problem, but also cause that country to lose its cultural way of life to Westernized solutions. Also, I disagree with Singer’s argument that we should live on only what we need and donate all excess money. Excess is what allows us to give in the first place, and putting ourselves in “nearly” the same position as poor Bengalis would limit our ability to give and put everyone at risk of being poor. Singer’s utilitarian morality would also be incompatible with Western ideals because it clashes with our conception of the pursuit of happiness, which is an unalienable human right mentioned in the “Declaration of Independence”.