Politics, News & Issues >
Political Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Congress approve Obama's "end global poverty" bill with the $845 billion price tag?
Results so far:
| No | 68% | 80 votes | Total: 118 votes | |
| Yes | 32% | 38 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAs is often the case when considering proposals pushed by our lawmakers, many among us have resigned themselves to asking the wrong questions. Instead of pontificating the so-called merits of an 845 billion dollar expenditure, we should be asking ourselves: what have we wrought?
Despite the efforts, of many, to muddy the waters, the Constitution is relatively clear as to its intent with regards to the powers granted within. On those questions in which intent appears somewhat difficult to discern, we must as instructed by the framers themselves turn our attention to the thoughts expressed by the people making the law (and those ratifying the law in question). It is through such research that we can obtain the reasons specified for the passage, or consideration, of the potential law.
While there is a great deal of evidence that the framers often disagreed as to the best manner for governing the newly formed nation, there is no viable evidence in support of actions such as the one being discussed. Nor do we find supporting evidence in the often heated discussions which took place during the ratification of our Constitution; in fact we find evidence to the contrary, with members vehemently opposed to the concept of redistributing wealth from one group to another. Such ideas were thought to run counter to the basic tenet of freedom.
In fact if we search the Constitution, there is no granted power which allows Congress the ability to take your tax dollars and submit them to the will of a foreign body. Such subversion is not only an example of extremely poor governance: it's a violation of Constitutional law.
The United States has long been an extraordinarily generous nation; we lead the world in contributions and have done so for many years. Donations made out of free will, and the desire to help others, is one thing: taxes yanked out of our pockets for the whims of a foreign body are something entirely different.
Senator B. Hussein Obama, along with co-sponsors, has proposed spending an additional 845 billion dollars of your money. That works out to be roughly $2816 for every man, woman, and child currently in the United States; a vast sum of money that will be ripped from our checkbooks and "given" to the United Nations to spend as it sees fit. This expenditure is over and beyond the monies already sent to the U.N., by the U.S. Taxpayers.
As bad as that is; this bill goes further, much further: it institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the official benchmark for U.S. Expenditures. In addition to purporting to fight global poverty, the (UN) declaration requires committing nations to ban 'small arms" and "light weapons', ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention Rights of the Child.
In effect, U.S. Law would be subservient to the whims of the United Nations in a host of areas; including the Second Amendment, parental rights, and energy policy. Not only that, but the question of where that money will come from is now being considered. Of course a 'carbon tax' is the most likely prospect, with some suggesting that a $1 (per gallon of gasoline) tax be implemented on a global basis, just to pay for this illegal boondoggle.
On the face of it, this feel-good legislation might, at first, appear to be an opportunity to do some good for the impoverished peoples around the globe. But reality hits hard and this time is no different; as the dictators and thugs - who compose the majority of UN membership will be deciding which of your rights are now null and void. Best of all you'll be paying them to do so.
Instead of wringing our hands and openly wondering if we ought not do something "nice" for those less fortunate, around the globe, we might want to consider asking our elected representatives especially those voting in favor of such a bill why they deserve to hold office at all. The short answer, of course, is that they don't deserve to hold the office. We would be well advised if we recall that, come this November.
Learn more about this author, Mike John.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Historically, the United States has been the country with deep pockets when it comes to aid for other countries facing disaster. In addition to what our government coffers provide, other privately funded US groups give billions of dollars in relief, but we're behind in our efforts. Senator Obama is sponsoring a bill that will cut global poverty in half by the year 2015.
On the surface, this sounds like a great humanitarian effort and one that we subscribed to in the year 2000. Five countries are meeting the goal of paying .07 percent of their Gross National Income, but the United States is coming up short. Keep in mind this bill does not reflect the total global aid for disasters that we've provided since the year 2000 but applies only to the UN declaration.
The UN is charged with administration of the global poverty program, and the rumor from some reports is that they plan to "force" the countries, that are behind in the schedule, to pay up on their promises. The recent UN scandal involvement in the Oil for Food program (2003) left a bad taste in the mouth of many Americans and the word "force" doesn't cleanse our palates.
Some of us see the UN as not trust worthy, and we can't help but question the final destination of the funds, but there is more to the UN mandate than global poverty and while I cannot address it in this article, I invite you to read it.
S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007
The background for the senate bill can be found in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000). http://www2.ohchr.or g/english/law/millen nium.htm
The estimated cost for this bill is $845 billion dollars based on the US Gross National Income (over and above what the US already gives in aid) The funds are requested to cover the next seven years in order to meet the UN mandate.
Some critics believe the bill could result in an imposition of a global tax on the US and place the US in a submissive position to the UN in terms of US foreign aid.
Most of us will agree that helping others is a humane act and the right thing to do. What we may also agree upon is that we have poverty and needs right here in the US that are not being addressed. However, since our country agreed to this global poverty program, there is little we can do about our own rising costs and added burden on the citizens of the United States, except to bring it to the attention of all concerned.
Although our commitment to reducing global poverty is a done-deal, with or without the senate bill, it might be wise to examine our own US citizens needs and thoughts in the United States that are largely ignored by our congressional lawmakers.
We have US citizens that live in poverty from generation to generation and crime-ridden areas where hope is nonexistent and help is sparse. Who among you would allow your child to go without food or clothing in order to fund a grand dream of eradicating poverty for others? Would you not feed and clothe your family first and then look outward to meet the needs of others?
Is the US government of the people, and for the people of the United States?
Will the $845 billion be spent wisely?
Does humanitarian aid reach the people who really need it? Is it a responsible act to turn humanitarian aid over to an organization whose past records show that their own members compromised humanitarian aid in taking kickbacks and oil vouchers from the people the program was designed to help?
If and when we become a passive and subservient tool to UN spending regarding foreign aid, it appears that we've given up a portion of our freedom as a sovereign nation. Is that the fork in the road for the US?
Final thoughts on the bill:
The senate bill is not in its final form and s 2433 is subject to riders that can be added in mark-ups to the bill. $845 billion dollars is said to be about 1.1 percent of the US Gross National Income over the next seven years that will allow the US to meet the original commitment. What else will be added to it?
Where the funds will come from is not specified, but I don't think Santa will be making special runs over the next seven years.
Sources:
http:/ /www2.ohchr.org/engl ish/law/millennium.h tm
http://www.aim.org /aim-column/obamas-g lobal-tax-proposal-u p-for-senate-vote/
Learn more about this author, Mona Gallagher.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
