02.13.08
Obama’s Global Tax?
I’m not going to comment on the flag issue. It’s interesting to see that Obama’s supporters think of themselves as far-left extremists and I think it reveals a whole lot as to what sort of “change” Obama’s supporters may be hoping for (since Obama himself has yet to actually define any sort of legitimate “change”). However, while everybody’s wetting their pants over this asinine flag ordeal, something far more concerning is slipping through the cracks that should scare the hell out of everybody in this country.
Senator Barack Obama has sponsored a bill that is coming up for a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called the “Global Poverty Act.” While this sounds benign and helpful (after all, who wouldn’t want to address global poverty?), it is far from.
The bill could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States and has the support of many liberal religious groups. This bill makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Is this wise?
It’s no wonder the far-left global socialism wingnuts are rallying behind Obama!
According to the UN, we were supposed to have committed .7% of our Gross National Product to the UN for fighting global poverty, and was supposed to go into effect as of 2002 with an end-goal of 2015. Over those 13 years, we were to have given $845 billion. Since this hasn’t happened yet, and now the UN and Obama have a new plan: a global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
According to the UN “Millennium Project’s” Jeffrey Sachs:
“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.”
Uh huh. Did anybody else note the phrase “The U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay?” I’m glad to see that Senator Obama is willing to sell us out to the UN in the name of “global poverty,” the UN and global warming.
The House passed their version of the bill in a sudden voice vote that was deceiving in nature and didn’t highlight the fact that it committed us to donating hundreds of billions of dollars to the United Nations. According to Accuracy in Media:
“Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.”
OK Obama folks out there, this one’s on you. How is this OK? We know that in order to raise this money the American taxpayer will be held responsible - whether through direct taxation or via indirect “green” taxes. For years we have listened to the Dems bitch and whine about spending and the deficit, so what is it that makes committing hundreds of billions of American dollars to the United Nations acceptable?
If this is what Obama the Senator is willing to do to us, what will Obama the President do? I don’t think that this is the road we want to go down.
Be afraid, folks, be afraid.
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
Conservatives First
in2thefray said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Ryan the USA needs this thing if Obama man takes the Oval. His domestic policies will create massive new levels of poverty here in America. I for one will end up in the line of people looking for my daily ration sent to me from the benevolent 3rd world governments.
Ryan said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Yeah, and maybe if we’re lucky Mr. Chavez will share some of his oil money with us. Of course we’ll have to surrender our media and free speech to him, but it’s a small price to pay for a little globalism, right?
No Compromises said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Global warming, poverty, save the spotted willy worm, and statemens like, “this tax will create jobs” are all buzz words/statements for job security programs to keep government in business!
mpinkeyes said,
February 13, 2008 at 7:55 pm
This is the first I heard of this.
“If this is what Obama the Senator is willing to do to us, what will Obama the President do?”
That is a scary thought, isn’t it? As much as I have enjoyed watching Hillary crash and burn, an Obama presidency could be worse. There is no excuse for the United States paying any kind of tax to another entity, and Obama condoning this is indefensible.
You can’t ask Obama supporters how this is okay because Obama supposrters can’t even tell you what the “change” is that Obama is talking anout. If this is one of his changes, it is not a change for the better.
By the way, I am going to post tonight about the flag issue, I can’t help myself, it is too tempting to me.
Ryan said,
February 13, 2008 at 8:13 pm
What really worries me is that something like this has slipped through the cracks. Is the media covering for him, do they not know, or do they simply not think it’s worth noting?
I mean, if this wasn’t something “PC” or global friendly and proposed by a Republican, wouldn’t the media be tearing it apart? If hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were to be funneled into something else, would it get a free pass?
jenice said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:11 pm
You bet I’m scared. I’m just at a loss. Who do I vote for? Every past president has been flawed. So is our current president as well as any future ones will be flawed. Some more than others of course. But I’m sorry. I don’t agree with the billions we are spending on this war either. They all have agendas we should fear. We should all go hide in caves.
Ryan said,
February 14, 2008 at 7:11 am
I agree! Hiding in a cave somewhere sounds like a damn good plan.
Seriously though, this is why I am siding with Ron Paul right now. I am tired of spending billions on foreign affairs. The war, the UN, global warming etc etc.
I don’t want a president who is going to continue aggressive foreign policy, but I don’t want one who is going to spend that same amount (or more) on global humanitarian efforts either, and I sure don’t want one who is going to spend one red cent on global warming efforts!
So what’s the answer? We’re really stuck between a rock and a hard place here.
The Grand View said,
February 14, 2008 at 7:35 am
Respectfully, I disagree with your premise. I am a card carrying Republican and have voted that way every year that I was eligible to vote. This year, however, I am voting for Senator Obama.
For the first time in my adult life, I believe the issues mean virtually nothing. All elected officials tend to moderate their stances. If you don’t want to be a one termer, you have to.
This year, I believe, is about finding a leader with integrity, who has character, who inspires, who unifies, who listens. If that person is Hillary Clinton or John McCain for you, so be it. But I believe, that I can only think of two presidents in my lifetime that had those qualities, JFK and Ronald Reagan. Obama will be the third.
Jason said,
February 14, 2008 at 8:29 am
The U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay
I agree that Obama’s plan is pretty scare, but that above phrase gave me a bit of chuckle. How can the U.N. force the U.S. to do anything? By putting blue helmets on half of the U.S. military forces and have them fight the other half?
I’m sure politicans would be more than willing to fork over the money, especially Democrats, but the idea that the U.N. can force anyone to do anything is laughable. Anyway, foreign aid is pointless. Might as well have sponsor a bill to flush that much money down the toilet.
Ryan said,
February 14, 2008 at 11:41 am
While I agree that we need somebody of integrity, I do not believe that Obama is that man. It’s not so much that he is lacking in integrity in the sense that he is truthful and at least as honest as any politician can be; but I do not find his views on government to have any integrity to them. His politics of envy, class warfare rhetoric is worn out and all together dishonest. His views on global warming leave something to be desired, his globalist views are the worst of their kind… Perhaps his most insidious views are those on group rights over individual rights, which I am vehemently opposed to.
To possess integrity in my book, a politician has to stand for equality and politics of envy and redistribution of wealth - especially on a global scale - is not equality. Group rights is not equality. Global warming legislation is not equality.
His calls for “change” are not in the best interests of the people of this country. He may sound slick and appeal to people thanks to his demeanor of integrity, but what he stands for his not in the least bit good.
Gary said,
February 14, 2008 at 11:45 am
For my take, we should just end involvement in the UN. I’ve had a relative that worked for them and from the insider’s view, UN is a joke and all hot air. Save the money, kick them out and rent out the office space.
I do think Obama is going to take this election though. The best avenue IMO is for conservatives to offset his plans with loading up the House and Senate with a sizable conservative base. Neutralizing any outlandish concept could be done through the standard political processes.
We should take that foreign aid and ’spend’ it where it should belong. Reduction of debt owed. I would like to see the numbers of revenue generated via the Income tax vs. the amount shelled out to foreign countries.
ChenZhen said,
February 14, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Well, first, I’d like to point out that this bill has nine cosponsors, which include a couple Republicans:
Maria Cantwell (D) (WA)
Chuck Hagel (R) (NE)
Joseph Biden (D) (DE)
Chris Dodd (D) (CT)
Dick Durbin (D) (IL)
Russ Feingold (D) (WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D) (CA)
Dick Lugar (R) (IN)
Bob Menendez (D) (NJ)
Second, reading the bill, I’d say that your take on it (or Sachs’)is pretty serious spin. I didn’t see any section of the bill that “committed us to donating hundreds of billions of dollars to the United Nations”. Am I missing something?
in2thefray said,
February 14, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Chen…What Republicans ??? No really which ones on the list are Republicans seriously ?
ChenZhen said,
February 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Fine, ignore the RINO’s. The list was posted simply to clarify that this wasn’t a one-man mission anyway.
in2thefray said,
February 14, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Chen..Not a dig at you brother.I don’t like anyone on that list except Biden. The MP has been minimally embraced by others and not super officially by the US.There’s reasons for that.Thwarting sovereignty is something the UN is hungry for and I for one don’t think we should do anymore of that than we have already.
in2thefray said,
February 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Oops premature comment submission. The UN mandates .7 by 2015. That’s wher the BBB-billions come from.
ChenZhen said,
February 14, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I didn’t read anything about .7% of GNP anywhere in the bill. Are we referring the same bill?
in2thefray said,
February 14, 2008 at 5:45 pm
It is my understanding that the bill acknowledges the UN program. The UN program is graduated at x (don’t know of the top of my head) .44 then .7 in 2015.
Tex Taylor said,
February 14, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Nobel Peace Prize Winners 1988
THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES New York, NY, U.S.A.
16 years later…
UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES 2004
U.N. Says Its Workers Abuse Women in Congo
Report Laments a ‘Significant’ Incidence of Pedophilia, Prostitution and Rape by United Nations Peace-Keeping forces.
And this is who we want running our country, huh? Yes sir, Obama’s a man of change!
ChenZhen said,
February 14, 2008 at 7:32 pm
i2tf- The way I’m reading the bill, it lays out a strategy (including things like debt forgiveness and leveraging trade policies) for achieving the UN Millenium goal of cutting the proportion of the global population that lives on less than $1 a day in ½ by 2015. It says nothing about a UN mandate of increasing a % of our GNP, and certainly nothing about giving money to the UN itself (as Ryan is suggesting).
Again, here’s the actual bill…you tell me:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433:
It’s hard to debate this stuff if we’re using different facts, after all.
Ryan said,
February 15, 2008 at 7:25 am
Chen, you need to read between the lines, I know you well enough to know that you are smart enough to understand how politicians work. Obama is smarter than to simply out and out sponsor a bill that dedicates money to questionable causes. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t in the bill.
If you’ve ever had to write official military or government documents, you know there are certain words that are very important - one of which is “shall.” The bill includes the word “shall” when referring to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal and the “Declaration of Policy” defines this as part of America’s policy.
Now with that in mind, you need to look at what the Millennium Development “consensus” actually called for… And one of the things it calls for is .7% of GNP between 2002 and 2015 which equates to the $845 billion. Also to note is the fact that the MDG calls for an elimination (cancellation) of debt to impoverished countries, which is another economic folly that we shouldn’t be roped into.
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/core_mdgs.htm
totaltransformation said,
February 15, 2008 at 10:49 am
How I wish stuff like this surprised me.
ChenZhen said,
February 15, 2008 at 11:40 am
Ryan said,
February 15, 2008 at 11:51 am
Oh hey, you’re right. I don’t know where the links went. I did have the references linked…
here:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
http://mirror.undp.org/unmillenniumproject/press/qa4_e.htm
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidinthenews/articles/sf9108.html
Ryan said,
February 15, 2008 at 11:52 am
That much aside, the point still remains that if we are to meet the MDG goals, which the bill says we “shall,” that would mean that we would be required under the UN’s declaration, to provide .7% of our GNP
ChenZhen said,
February 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Re: “shall”
From the bill (via ctrl+F):
“shall develop and implement a strategy”, to me, sounds like we’re coming up with our own strategy. i.e. Not being subservient to what the UN dictates. The U.N.’s involvement doesn’t go beyond our use of that specific benchmark as the finish line. So what about this strategy? Well, it…
Kinda sounds like it’s on our own terms, doesn’t it? Believe it or not, the bill goes on to outline the actual components of our strategy.
So how do we know if our strategy is workable? Well…
Wait a second, the report doesn’t go to the UN? hmmm…they’re not going to be happy with that, given the fact that they’re supposedly “forcing” us to do stuff. Anyway, the report…
So, the report would detail whether our strategy is working (or to what extent). Also notice that this section clearly makes the distinction that what we’re doing here is using our strategy to cross a specific UN finish line.
So, going forward, how do we determine that our strategy is actually making progress toward the aforementioned finish line? Well…
OK, that’s all the “shalls”. No one would know who the POTUS would be in 2015, I suppose, but he/she would presumably get a report on our progress at that point. I don’t see where all the hysteria is coming from, frankly. In fact, this bill doesn’t have a whole lot of teeth to it, as it really just outlines an statement of principles and the intention to track the progress. It certainly doesn’t bind us into any kind of contract with the UN.
in2thefray said,
February 15, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Chen we seem to be butting heads here.For me this isn’t so much an Obama issue although one could make the case that it would look good on his light resume and further that it is textbook Obama populism.
The US has had involvement in the Project and has passed various items relative to it*. Bottomline though (for me)is NO matter who gets the check the check will be written. I’m against the check being written.
I’m also against encouraging the future (near future) revenue grabs.
* side note/closing note whatever…Debt forgiveness. I agree w/ G8 debt forgiveness. I laugh at those that think it did anything since many of the nations are strapped down to the WTO IMF screw table and are getting new debt heaped on them. Malaria relief. This is laughable. Anyone who wants to help with malaria issues should stop punishing those affected countries who are trying to get their hands on the thing they need and want - DDT. No let’s pass out netting instead yeah. AIDS/HIV.This is another area I agree with.The private entities like ONE and RED are examples of good ideas.Ultimately though the demographics and geographics of sub Saharan AIDS is colossal and since the cultural issues are unfortunately and stupidly beyond reproach it’s like putting water in a can that has a hole in the bottom. A big hole.
Reading this you may be saying “Gee Fray is a jerk that wants Africans and others to die”.I say no. I say lets not throw money into a pit. Let’s fund targeted actions under US control and oversight to address these problems.Like the USNS Mercy and Comfort tours providing medical and agricultural services in Latin America and S.E Asia.I blogged on those for example.We should not fund international bureaucracies and third world corruption.Sorry Ryan for the length
ChenZhen said,
February 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I don’t think of it as butting heads fray. In the very least, Ryan has brought the bill to my attention, so I have to thank him for that. But this idea that there will be a global tax or that the bill makes us subservient to the UN is a leap that I don’t feel is supported by the text of the bill itself. I could be wrong though.
micky2 said,
February 17, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Wouldnt it be something if this wealth started getting redistributed to Somalia or the Sudan.
Or Kenya where his brother and cousin are kicking up Islamic extremism?
Angel said,
February 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Youre spot on..and not it is NOT a road we want to be coerced to go down!
Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Bill Put on Hold in the Senate « Wake Up America said,
February 26, 2008 at 7:16 pm
[...] much about this bill in the mainstream media. The only place I have even seen it mentioned was in this post at Pro [...]