I've blogged several times before (here, here, here, here, and here) about Barack Obama's bill to combat global poverty with your tax dollars. The rubber has now hit the road, and the bill is going to be debated in the Senate in the near future. Check out this story from WorldNetDaily (excerpts):
The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.Now, let's take a look at reality. We've been fighting a 'war on poverty' here in America for decades. Guess what? It hasn't worked. Take a look at the history of combating poverty according to Duane Lester at All American Blogger:
The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.
S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.
Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."
The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."
Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety of treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"So, let's recap what this bill would do. It would send almost $1 trillion of YOUR money (equaling roughly $2,500 per person, not household!) directly out of the country, where it would be spent on an utterly useless attempt at raising the standard of living for the entire world. I recall hearing that the total amount of money the U.S. has spent on its own 'war on poverty' is upwards of $6 trillion, and, according to the statistics above, it has accomplished exactly NOTHING! Now, let's apply some common sense...
He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."
Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said Lester.
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.
If $6 trillion accomplishes nothing in a country of 300 million people, 95% employment, extreme wealth, and unlimited opportunity, what is $1 trillion going to accomplish for an entire planet of 6 billion people, rampant unemployment, extreme poverty, and brutal thug dictators that stifle all grass roots prosperity?
Let's be real, please!
On the other hand, during these uncertain economic times, a $1 trillion expense added to America's bottom line is going to hurt, as is the $2,500 punch ($5,000 for married couples) in the wallet of every taxpayer in this country!
To add insult to injury, this bill would force America to bow to the economic and legal whims of the United Nations, which is the most corrupt bureaucracy ever to disgrace the face of this planet. It would allow other nations to sue Americans and America itself, it would put American liberty under the jurisdiction of foreign enemies who are hostile to us, and it would subject American prosperity, advancement, and leadership to the corrupt fist of the U.N. It would force ridiculous burdens and regulations on America for everything from global warming to the thought police. It would disarm American citizens. It truly doesn't get any worse than this bill!
How does the Global Poverty Act sound now? Not quite so innocent or benevolent, is it?
If you think it can't happen, you're dead wrong. This Congress is spending your tax money more frivolously with each passing month, and you can bet there will be a lot of 'for-the-poor-children' sob stories to support this bill. It's going to take some strenuous grass roots pressure to get this bill stopped, so get busy!
Call and e-mail your Senators, and demand that they understand what's in this bill before they take a vote on it. Then feel free to educate them to the less savory points found in the bill while they're listening to you. Then demand they oppose the bill, and tell them you'll be watching how they vote. Then do it all over again the next day...and again...and again...
This Congress is atrocious, and it will take action as blatant as this to get this measure stopped dead in its tracks. They should have named this the Make America A Slave To The World While Robbing America Blind Act - that's the effect it will have. Its sole objective is to shackle America and force it to bow at the throne of the U.N.
Sounds like something Barack Obama would sponsor.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
While I agree with your assessment of the UN and its ability/inability to get things done on foreign aid and combat of world poverty, I disagree with your perspective on how unfair it is that the USA should have to bear a dollar amount in helping aid SOME attempt at foreign relations.
Your statistics for the US poverty rates clearly indicated that unemployment in America have been severely attacked by many congressional and presidential sessions over time, and though the numbers are not as staggering as we would hope, the overall percent is in a downward direction over time.
That said, the US, coupled with many other "Rich Nations" have all failed in foreign aid on the large scale to meet promised goals at UN and EU meetings. Take a look at the following link for detailed information as to where the US measures up in the aid of foreign nations
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#RichNationsAgreedatUNto07ofGNPToAid
Thats right, as of April 2008, DEAD LAST!!! That appauling. No wonder with US PR and reputation is at an all time low and no matter where we might vacation or "ehrm" WAR we look like a selfish nation bent on only our own sucess.
Now with all this said, I dont feel that the UN is the best "elected officer" for the foreign relations patrol, but the US does need to step up its game in aiding poverished countries. Perhaps not to the tune of $2500/person, but somethings should be done in order to turn this Self-Centered America reputation around. As of now, thats about all we are living up to with respect to foreign relations.
Obama is no godsend. Bush's war has been a less than appropriate use of funds as well. This is a war that started as 9/11 retaliation, then WMD and Saddam's removal and has now changed to a spread of freedom to Iraqi people. Its out of shear luck that it has actually worked out in the positive in terms of an overal success. It has done nothing but negative to further tank US reputation as a Self-Centered, oil hungry, capitolist driven society.
We have freedoms yes, and iy came with a price, but I dont believe that foreign relations should be viewed as Darwin views creation, a survival of the fittest.
The next president must have a plan for foreign relations, foreign aid and improving the dirtied US reputation.
There's my nickel's worth
Thanks for your comments! I'll respond in a post.
Post a Comment