It is a bleak reflection.
At any time of year, but perhaps especially at this time of year, the electorates of the wealthy developed world are not in a generous mood.
Here in the United Kingdom, polling suggests that roughly two thirds of voters believe that spending on foreign aid is excessive, though it is not clear if it is widely understood how little is actually spent.
In the United States, polls consistently suggest Americans believe that foreign aid consumes 25% of the federal budget.
It is, as it is in the UK, comfortably less than 1%.
Ebenezer Scrooge himself might suggest that these particular purse strings could be loosened somewhat.
The problem, perhaps is that foreign aid is misapprehended as charity, akin to dropping coins into an insistently rattled bucket.
It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be.
Foreign aid is better understood, ideally as an investment which ultimately benefits donor as well as recipient.
A country sends money, expertise and or technology and receives influence opportunities and the enhanced security that comes from living in a generally more prosperous and orderly world.
Nevertheless, hacking at foreign aid remains a depressingly easy win for cynical governments.
The UK's previous Conservative government government cut foreign aid spending from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5% in 2021, blaming COVID 19.
The UK's current Labour government has said it will restore foreign aid to 0.7% but hasn't done it yet.
Why should wealthier nations be more generous?
Why won't politicians stand up for foreign aid?
And how might sceptical voters be persuaded that foreign aid can be a win win?
Prop.
This is the foreign desk.
We have a moral obligation, but also it's in our own interest to deal with problems overseas.
That's what it all boils down to.