Posted by
Lisa on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:55:14 AM
Investor's Business Daily is brave enough to go there
-- calling Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act suspiciously similar to a
government redistribution of US taxpayer wealth. Well, technically
they use the 's' word. Socialism. That's a heavy charge, and it's one
that needs to be backed up with specific examples. This op-ed makes a
convincing case that the Global Poverty Act could qualify as a
socialist proposal.
While I know that one example of bad policy wouldn't brand someone
like Barack with the socialist label, it's troubling that this Global
Poverty Act would redistribute our wealth to those in other countries.
We wouldn't even benefit from all this increased spending, unless
international good will can be bought with this high price. That
premise is highly questionable. If the world's affection can be bought
with enough foreign aid money, we should have the receipt for it
already.
Here's how Investor's Business Daily first described this bill:
Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S.
2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global
Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross
domestic product on foreign handouts, which is at least $30 billion
over and above the exorbitant and wasted sums we already give away
overseas.
The bipartisan bill would require the president "to develop and
implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy
objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination
of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people
worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
To say that the United States government has far exceeded its
Consititutional mandate would be understating the case. Charity
shouldn't (and doesn't) begin and end with the federal government.
Americans are generous people. Through non-profit charitable
organizations and our own churches, we are reaching out to people here
in this country and around the world, and it's having an impact. This
shouldn't be a role of the federal government. That's the flaw in this
legislation -- requiring United States taxpayers to subsidize some
mandate thrown down by the U.N. and the international community. The
financial obligation of the federal government should be first and
foremost to the citizens of the United States -- not to the world
community or the U.N.
So how much would this boondoggle of a foreign kiss-up effort cost you and me? Here's some numbers(with bold text added for emphasis).
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project,"
says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in
increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.
Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for
Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the
U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
If Barack Obama wants to religiously follow the U.N. Millenium
Development Goals, and could get something even half this bad passed
through a Democratic Congress, it will destroy our economy. If we are
struggling with high energy costs and high gas prices now, imagine how
hard it will be to afford energy when we have to pay additional taxes
to fill up our cars and heat our homes. Forget for a second that
something like this would allow the U.N. to control a part of US tax
policy, which is completely unacceptable. It is also politically
tone-deaf in this country, when we want solutions that increase supply
and reduce costs for energy.
All we hear these days from the Democrats is how much the average
American is struggling and how bad the economy is. But not to worry,
fellow citizens. They haven't forgotten about us. Senator Obama has
new spending programs to cover the needs of each and every American,
all paid for by your friendly neighborhood federal government. When
will we learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially
on the federal tab? And now we will be required to help finance the
U.N.'s new war on poverty? Count me out. If that makes me an ugly
American, I am proud to be one.