RSSAlert: Obama’s $845 Billion Global Poverty Act Could Be Passed this Week
Carolyn Hileman - The Voice* | July 7, 2008
According to Lee Cary with the conservative blog AmericanThinker.com, Senator Barack Obama’s $845 billion United Nations-inspired give away of your hard-earned money may be coming up for a vote SOON:
“The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) is coming up for a Senate vote sometime after the July 4 recess, according the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Once Harry Reid and the Democrat leadership put it on the calendar, we could have as little as a week to prepare for the vote.” [Emphasis Mine]
Cary wrote that report just days ago on June 26th. And while we have not yet been able to confirm his report, we HAVE seen a renewed SURGE of activity by groups on the far-Left to push a vote on the Global Poverty Act.
On June 25th, Cliff Kincaid wrote of these efforts in an article titled: “Proud Pagan Witch Backs Obama’s Poverty Bill.”
Kincaid wrote:
“While Senator Barack Obama struggles to keep the public in the dark about the nature of his pro-U.N. Global Poverty Act, a recent ‘Bay Area Interfaith Leaders’ Luncheon’ was held to lobby for Senate passage of the bill, whose cost has been estimated at $845 billion.”
But that’s not all.
In addition to this gathering of far-Left “religious leaders” in the San Francisco area, Kincaid also shared a letter he received from a concerned parent in New York which could be an indication that a wide-spread campaign is taking place throughout the country:
“Meanwhile, a concerned parent alerted us to the fact that a Christian preschool in Long Island, New York was handing out a coloring page for children which included a plea for Congress to pass Obama’s Global Poverty Act. ‘Dear Parents,’ said the letter that was sent home. ‘We would like to join efforts with the congregation of St. David’s to stop world hunger. You and your child can help by coloring and signing the enclosed sheet. This sheet will be sent along with many others to our representatives in Washington…”
“The [enclosed] sheet said ‘Dear Senator: At Preschool, I learned to thank God for the food I eat. I also collect coins to help those who don’t have enough. Today, I ask you to help, too, with more and better aid for the world’s poorest countries. We want Congress to pass the Global Poverty Act. Please cosponsor S. 2433. Thank you.’ The child’s name and age were supposed to be filled in.
As we have stated before, eradicating global poverty is a noble goal. But if history is any guide, we know that just throwing the money of hard-working Americans at the problem does not work.
In fact, it is unlikely that foreign aid would ever make it to the actual struggling people of recipient third world countries. Rather, it will more likely end up lining the pockets of those nations’ corrupt leaders.
And, enlisting children in the effort to pass the Global Poverty Act is simply sick!
Is it possible that our elected officials are gearing up to pass the Global Poverty Act while our backs are turned… while they think we are distracted by the holiday?
If so, we can’t let that happen. WE MUST LET THEM KNOW — RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW — THAT WE ARE WATCHING!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush and each and every one of the Republican leaders of the Senate.
Tell them you sincerely hope that reports of the Global Poverty Act coming up for a vote right after the 4th of July are premature and unfounded. Tell them that when the American people say DO NOT pass the Global Poverty Act, they mean just that. Tell them it DOES NOT mean, pass it when you think no one is looking!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactvibe.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not appear to work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into the address bar (the very top bar) of your Internet browser.
You Remember the Global Poverty Act
That’s the bill that could pave the way for putting the entire planet on U.S. taxpayer-funded welfare.
The bill’s main sponsor, Senator Barack Obama — along with the other sponsors, including a group of Republicans-In-Name-Only (RINOs) such as Senators Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, and Richard Lugar — probably hopes you have forgotten.
There are legislators on both sides of the aisle who would love nothing more than to slip it by the Senate one sleepy, summer day.
This bill has already passed the House by voice vote and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by voice vote. That means your legislator can tell you he is “against it” even if he shouted out “Aye” at the top of his lungs.
As author Edward Cline explains: “This is a stratagem adopted by legislators who fear that a bill is so outrageous that it is better that no record be kept of those who endorsed it. S.2433 was passed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the same manner - by voice vote, without public hearings, to protect the identities of the guilty.”
What’s it about? Vincent Gioia, writing in Right Side News, says:
” The Global Poverty Act (S.2433) would require the United States to spend $845 billion ($845,000,000,000.00) on welfare to third-world countries. This amounts to a tax of over $2,000 on each man, woman and child in the United States. The foreign aid budget now stands at $300 billion; the Act would add the additional expenditure to the already huge amount allocated to assist the world.”
And Phyllis Schlafly wrote recently:
“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 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…”
WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media as saying:
“[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years… would amount to $845 billion ‘over and above what the U.S. already spends. The plan passed the House in 2007 because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.”
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush and each and every one of the Republican leaders of the Senate.
Tell them you sincerely hope that reports of the Global Poverty Act coming up for a vote right after the 4th of July are premature and unfounded. Tell them that when the American people say DO NOT pass the Global Poverty Act, they mean just that. Tell them it DOES NOT mean, pass it when you think no one is looking!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactvibe.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not appear to work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into the address bar (the very top bar) of your Internet browser.
What Are Our Elected Leaders Thinking?
Do they believe that a consortium of third-world dictators and despots can help solve the problems of the world better than the United States of America!
We are the greatest benefactors of the world’s poor because we have an economic system that creates and generates wealth. And apparently Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Hagel, Snowe and Lugar want to CHANGE all that.
But this scheme to supposedly alleviate global poverty did not originate with Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Hagel, Snowe and Lugar.
It was part of a scheme — hatched in the United Nations — called the Millennium Development Goal, and the Global Poverty Act references the Millennium Development Goal throughout.
Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist, is monitoring the Millennium Development Goal.
In his 2005 report to Kofi Annan — based on the research of 265 “poverty specialists” — Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty.
And he has basically stated that the only way to force people to commit money to the alleviation of global poverty is through the imposition of a GLOBAL TAX.
Specifically Sachs said:
“We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes. A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin.”
In other words, let’s tax energy at a time when the American people are struggling to pay their energy and gas bills?
We should have learned a lesson from the Oil-for-Food scandal.
As David Asman of Fox News summarized it:
“It began as a United Nations humanitarian aid program called ‘Oil-for-Food,’ but it ended up with Saddam Hussein pocketing billions to become the biggest graft generating machine ever and enriching some of America’s most forceful opponents at the United Nations.”
Even Kojo Annan — son of former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan — got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and a mouth full of sugar crumbs.
But you know something? Our federal legislators have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the greatest swindle of all time.
Here they are, once again trying to cram billions and billions of dollars into the hip pockets of terminally corrupt dictators, all of whom support the United Nations plan.
We can’t let that happen again! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush and each and every one of the Republican leaders of the Senate.
Tell them you sincerely hope that reports of the Global Poverty Act coming up for a vote right after the 4th of July are premature and unfounded. Tell them that when the American people say DO NOT pass the Global Poverty Act, they mean just that. Tell them it DOES NOT mean, pass it when you think no one is looking!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactvibe.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not appear to work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into the address bar (the very top bar) of your Internet browser.
The Global Poverty Act Is Part of a Much Larger United Nations Scheme
By the way, the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goal — proclaimed in 2000 — contains plans for additional assaults on your wallet. Among its other stated goals are:
a “currency transfer tax,” that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency;
a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources”;
and “fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”
You see, the Global Poverty Act is not only bad public policy in and of itself, it’s also the first dangerous step toward adopting all of the provisions outlined in the Millennium Development Goal.
We must stop this bill, and we must stop it now!
Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush and each and every one of the Republican leaders of the Senate.
Tell them you sincerely hope that reports of the Global Poverty Act coming up for a vote right after the 4th of July are premature and unfounded. Tell them that when the American people say DO NOT pass the Global Poverty Act, they mean just that. Tell them it DOES NOT mean, pass it when you think no one is looking!
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/globalpovertyactvibe.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlink does not appear to work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into the address bar (the very top bar) of your Internet browser.
Yours In Freedom,
Contributor's website: http://thevoice.name
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
28 Responses to “Alert: Obama’s $845 Billion Global Poverty Act Could Be Passed this Week”
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
Wow…perhaps the shoddiest analysis of a piece of legislation I’ve ever seen. Virtually none of this is true. Way to go!
So I’ll take it your blistering critique of this is a hardy “NUH-UH!”
what about the starving and needy in this country.I am not talking about the I am to lazy to get a job so the government has to pay me every month while I sit on my butt and complain that my check isn’t big enough……why doesn’t the news media show the tarvation going on in this country,and the limited support of the elderly…………………
OK…a long time has past but I’ll response to that, Moderator. Some of the falsehood in the above piece:
1. It says the bill would cost $845 billion. False - the bill does not authorize or appropriate any funding level whatsoever.
2. It says the bill would require the US to devote 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid. False - the bill does nothing of the sort (by the way - it was President George W. Bush who committed the US to doing this, when in 2002 he signed, and endorsed in several speeches since then, the Monterrey Consensus, which pledges “to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of GNP as ODA.” [ODA being official development assistance.]
3. What evidence is there that anyone is trying to pass the bill under a veil of secrecy? If members of Congress don’t know what’s in the bill, that’s a shame - it’s barely 2 pages long and takes all of 2 minutes to read.
4. The piece quotes Vincent Gioia as saying: “” The Global Poverty Act (S.2433) would require the United States to spend $845 billion ($845,000,000,000.00) on welfare to third-world countries.” False - as I said before, the bill includes no funding level whatsoever.
5. The piece quotes Phyllis Schlafly as saying: “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 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…” False - the bill does not include any language that could possibly be construed as committing the US to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid.
6. The piece quotes Cliff Kincaid as saying, [T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years… would amount to $845 billion ‘over and above what the U.S. already spends. The plan passed the House in 2007 because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.” False - nothing in the bill substantiates this.
7. The piece above completely misconstrues the Millennium Development Goals, inaccurately referring to it as the “Millennium Development Goal” throughout. ONE of the Millennium Development Goals is to reduce by half the number of people worldwide living on less than $1 per day. The legislation would make it official policy to “promote” the achievement of that goal, chiefly by requiring the executive branch to develop a formal strategy for aligning part of US foreign assistance efforts toward achieving this goal.
8. The piece says the “Millennium Development Goal” includes the following:
a “currency transfer tax,” that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency;
a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources”;
and “fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”
This is false. Nothing in the Millennium Development Goals include these words.
And so on…
WOW! It took you a whole month to come up those talking points?
First of all you expect people to believe that money grows on trees. Asking for debt relief inherently has a cost associated with it. So right there it has to cost something.
You say that the claim that it would cost a certain amount is false because there is no funding level specifically mentioned in the bill. However that does not mean it does not “cost” something to forgive debts and do other things that the bill calls for which it specifically does.
You claim the bill is “barely 2 pages long and takes all of 2 minutes to read” which is true. But please note that it also references UN acts which are also longer and add to that. In fact it has an entire website dedicated to it.
You claim that Barack Obama’s bill mentions nothing about 0.7%. While technically accurate, you are forgetting to read what his bill references.
It says that it’s goal is “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”
Part of that goal is indeed 0.7% commitment of GNP. You can read that here.
So basically what I am getting at here is that your rebuttal, which took you almost a month to come up with is full of half truths and misleading statements designed to omit that which is objectionable and vilify someone for daring to stand against you and the truth.
Cliff’s article is still a great reference.
I’m at work so will come back to this later, but in the meantime I’ll agree with you on one point: Cliff Kincaid does stand against both me and the truth.
In the meantime, can you pleas show me where in the Millennium Development Goals it includes the following, as claimed above:
- a “currency transfer tax”
- a ““tax on the rental value of land and natural resources”
- “fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”
- or the 0.7% figure.
…as your piece claims.
Here’s the website to the Millennium Development Goals: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
For your piece to be accurate, you’d have to show how the legislation requires the US to adhere to these goals, keeping in mind that they’re not even in the Millennium Development Goals.
And then, you’d have to show how the legislation authorizes or appropriates funding to achieve these.
In running this piece, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I’m simply calling attention to the falsehoods your piece contains.
By the way - the website you directed me to regarding the 0.7% figure substantiates what I was saying. The 0.7% figure goes back originally to the 1960s and was reaffirmed in the Monterrey Consensus in 2002, as I stated. It’s not included in the Millennium Development Goals. The bill makes no mention of the Monterrey Consensus.
I also suggest you check out the Congressional Budget Office’s cost estimate of the bill. Here’s the link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9082/s2433.pdf
It’s less than a page, and here’s the key quote:
“Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2433
would cost less than $1 million per year, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts.”
Note that last line too…it bears repeating:
“Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts.”
Which begs a question: How do explain the right-wing hysteria that’s cropped up around this bill? Could it be that you’ve swallowed unquestionably what that first-rate propagandist, Cliff Kincaid, has given you to swallow? Given that the Senate’s lead sponsor of the bill is a Democrat running for president?
“As my piece claims”? Excuse me there PJ but my name is not on it!
Let the record CLEARLY show that:
a) I am not the author
b) I have not defended the author nor called the piece accurate
c) I took issue with certain of your assertions
d) I provided evidence to back what I said about them
e) I refered to Cliff Kinkade’s piece as the authority on this because it is well documented by clickable links.
Might I remind you that you came on in here and claimed that the piece was wrong. You offered no evidence of that of course so at that point, yes indeed the burden of proof is indeed on you. I called you on that and you came back a month later with a series of talking points, some of which I disproved by a simple internet search and using the UN’s own site.
I will link to the citation of the 0.7% figure again from the UN’s own site (here) because you obviously ignored that for political expedience on your part. But that cannot possibly be true right? Because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived notion of the truth.
This is why we have a comments section. Because unlike liberals we actually do care about the truth here and like to discuss topics and claims. You did however call several things in the piece wrong which I later disproved with simple links.
As for this claim:
“By the way - the website you directed me to regarding the 0.7% figure substantiates what I was saying. The 0.7% figure goes back originally to the 1960s and was reaffirmed in the Monterrey Consensus in 2002, as I stated. It’s not included in the Millennium Development Goals. The bill makes no mention of the Monterrey Consensus.”
The site I sent you to is that of the Millennium Project itself. Deny it all you like.
You are claiming to be calling attention to “falsehoods” of the piece. All you have done however is claim that because a document which set forth the authority of the United Nations to start making plans as for how to reduce poverty (the answer to which is obvious – end tyranny and increase liberty which works every time) does not actually say how they will do this that therefore these plans do not exist. But many of them do, just like the 0.7% figure which I provided you clear evidence of.
So do not hold me accountable for everything that someone else has written. Only hold me accountable for that which I have shown you to be incorrect on.
Anything else you want to add?
Ok then, by PJs logic since Hitler didn’t write explicitly in Mein Kampf that the way he wanted to deal with the imaginary Jewish threat to Germany was to horde them onto trains, place them in prison camps, gas and burn them and then bury the bodies in mass graves and that because such an idea only came later would mean that Hitler never believed such should be done or that such never happened.
The entire “declaration” by the United Nations is mostly a bunch of soaring rhetoric like your typical Barack Obama speech. It contains no real substance. It says we resolve to do this and we resolve to do that but very little about the how and the devilish details.
The substance comes out of the committees that were formed by the United Nations to implement these grand schemes. As I believe LP showed well with the exact citation of the 0.7% figure which is on the Millennium Project’s own site. Sure the initial proposal says nothing about it, but it has been embraced by the plan and most certainly exists.
This is the danger of liberals. They say that something does not exist when it actually does – just not where they have directed you to look. Then when you dare to start poking your nose around beyond doors they don’t want you to look beyond, then give you a whack on the nose and say “bad dog!” If you keep snooping then they put a bullet in you.
It should also be noted that I have never said that everything in this piece is 100% accurate either and I agree with LP that this is why we have a comments section. But you PJ are abusing the purpose of it by accusing people of saying things that they did not say (attributing this post to LP when it is clearly not) and ignoring direct evidence to contradict some of your assertions (like the links LP provided).
Heaven forbid that your initial response of basically “No it’s not” was not accepted. I agree with LP. You say that and you better provide evidence.
I’m interested in knowing how the Obama and the United Nations would plan to do all these lofty goals if not by spending money. And doesn’t that money have to come from somewhere? And if so then exactly how much if you disagree with the estimates others have come up with?
You say that these are not in their plans to fund such things. So then tell us exactly how they will be funded and to exactly how much.
If it is not some magical, mystical money tree then it is a tax on someone. So let’s hear about it if these are not right.
Woah! Let’s back up this truck here a bit!
You guys are letting PJ here suck you in to a false debate! You are already debating what the UN treaty and Barack’s legislation approves of as solutions to a problem they have defined.
But first there is a fundamental question that must be answered. Can anyone show where in Article I of the Constitution the Congress (and Senator Obama) has the authority to combat global poverty? Or any poverty at all for that matter?
The whole section of the Constitution is a pretty short and concise list of the limited powers of the federal government and nowhere can I see the justification for any of this.
So before we can even debate the details of the U.N. resolution and this legislation that would make us abide by policies spread over several websites, first it must be shown that such legislation is allowed under our Constitution.
I’d like to add one more thing: I appreciate the moderator and the administrator for hosting a debate like this. If this were Free Republic, my posting privileges would have been yanked by now.
HA! As usual you are correct Jeff. There is no such authority.
Nor can a treaty or act of the United Nations of Congress modify our Constitution or expand the powers contained therein. That can only be done by the prescribed amendment process. That has not been done.
So you are right. There is no authority for the proposal by Barack Obama and thus all arguments beyond that are a moot point.
There is one problem with the link you give PJ and that is that it contains no methodology just like Obama’s bill contains no methodology. It simply says that they wave their hands and poof here is a number! Since Obama’s bill does not spell out the how of this plan there is really no way anyone can put a number on how much it costs.
Section 4 is like it was generated from the Dilbert Mission Statement generator. It sounds like it gives you the how, but it is very vague, sets no spending levels and so on.
The report you site is also vague. It says “The strategy should include, among other things, more effective forms of development assistance, coordination of efforts with other countries and
international organizations, and continuation of existing initiatives to reduce poverty and
disease in developing countries.”
Again, like Ron pointed out this is just rhetoric and blather. No specifics.
I can say that though “more effective forms” of saving that next month I will increase my bank account by 20% but would you believe me if I didn’t give you a specific?
On the issue of this program it sounds like they are trying to make us believe that all they want to do is solve poverty by talking about it and throwing money at it. That would be utterly meaningless and most likely not productive as most true poverty (especially in Africa) is the result of tryanical governments with their boots on the necks of the people. Neither of those “solutions” solve the problem.
And please note that I refer to “true poverty” and not the American version of poverty which includes a house and two cars in the garage.
That last remark of yours reminds me of one of your quotes Jeff!
“It is very easy to start debating liberals on their own level and forget that their level cannot be reached because there are no steps leading to it.” – J.J. Jackson
Yes, I do keep a list of quotes of yours I like to bring up again!
LibertarianPrince (Moderator) on July 29th, 2008 7:50 pm:
“There is one problem with the link you give PJ and that is that it contains no methodology just like Obama’s bill contains no methodology.”
Very good point LP. Always beware of the “black box” from which springs a conclusion. Always demand to see inside the box itself.
Back to Jeff’s glaring point about the elephant in the room which is that Congress has no authority to do this, the act states:
“Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).”
I would love to hear where this is under Article I of the Constitution.
As to LPs point about the Dilbert Mission Statement Generator I agree especially with this one!
“Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.”
That sounds like this that I made a couple years ago from the random generator at Dilbert.com and hangs in my office:
“We will leverage synergistic partnerships to enhance participation in our business model and further our relationships.”
OMG! PM that quote has got to be what? 10 years old? I forgot about it!
That one is going in the book!
J.J. Jackson (Admin) on July 29th, 2008 7:06 pm
“Woah! Let’s back up this truck here a bit!
You guys are letting PJ here suck you in to a false debate! You are already debating what the UN treaty and Barack’s legislation approves of as solutions to a problem they have defined.
But first there is a fundamental question that must be answered. Can anyone show where in Article I of the Constitution the Congress (and Senator Obama) has the authority to combat global poverty? Or any poverty at all for that matter?”
You are always here to bring us back to reality. The debate over the specifics of the bill becomes moot once you realize the bill itself is not a viable function of our Congress.
That’s why I defer to you so darn much.
I totally agree with you that some of the language of the bill is totally vacuous. So how, out of this vacuous language, does one conclude that it will require the US to spend $845 million?
The point of the bill is this: All US foreign operations are based on amendments to the 1963 Foreign Assistance Act. You can imagine what happens to a bill as it’s amended over 40 years. The legislation is enormous and not focused. This bill simply attempts to direct some of US foreign assistance toward a goal that it’s supposed to be addressing anyway: reducing poverty. It does this by requiring a strategy for reducing poverty, setting benchmarks, and requiring progress on this strategy to be reported to Congress, so there’s accountability. It tags this strategy to the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by half the number of people living on less than $1 per day by 2015. It does this for the expediency: it’s a pre-existing goal the US has already committed to working toward.
It simply makes it US policy to “promote” the achievement of that goal.
It leaves it up to Congress to set funding levels in other bills.
The cost of implementing the bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is less than $1 million per year. The bill is 2 pages long.
In other words, it’s not anything remotely close to what Cliff Kincaid et al are making it out to be.
This really isn’t very complicated stuff.
I’ve posted a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal, twice. Rather than counter it, both times you removed it.
Hypocrites.
“PJ on July 29th, 2008 8:11 pm
I totally agree with you that some of the language of the bill is totally vacuous. So how, out of this vacuous language, does one conclude that it will require the US to spend $845 million? ”
On the flip side of that, how does one assume that a bill which is not specific about what it will spend conclude that it will not? Because a bureaucrat tells you so?
And even if you are given specifics today (which are not in this bill), what is the odds that it will remain at those levels. We have a plethora of government programs that started “small” and became huge money sinks. Programs like Social Security and Medicaid and Welfare just for starters. They all began small and all told are now 60% of our federal budget.
The point still remains there is no authority under Article I for this however.
“PJ on July 29th, 2008 8:18 pm
I’ve posted a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal, twice. Rather than counter it, both times you removed it.
Hypocrites.”
Ok, you know what. That’s rude. You’ve tripped our spam filters which you would have known about if you would have read “the rules” to which there is nice link right next to the submit comment button.
It states:
“# In order to aid the moderators, this site employs a series of complex filters through which all comments, pingbacks and trackbacks are run. These filters are designed to weed out both automated and human input spam. Certain things that will trip these filters are, but not limited to:
* Comments containing links outside of the provided link field.
* Comments containing certain “spammy” words from our vast list of spammy words.
* To discourage thread campers, frequent comment posting (defined by a super secret formula) in the same thread over and over again over a short period of time.
Note that some actions result in the software banning you outright while others only result in your specific comment being eaten. Other actions will only put you in the queue for moderation and a look at by human eyes. So please be aware that you might get banned by our software if you are naughty!”
I’m was sitting here going through the logs to pull your posts out of the sin bin but because you instead decided to pull that piece of crap statement out of your but you know what? You can sit in purgatory for a while.
Maybe next time before hurling an accusation you’ll think twice.
Great, now you’ve gone and pissed off a moderator. Way to go PJ!
Classless PJ. Classless. Why would you even think that considering everything we have let you say, and rebutted?
And I for one am not going to mess with a Marine so you are on your own on this one! You’re only hope is to plead your case to PinguMama, our Sr. Moderator, or Mr. Jackson the site Admin so I suggest you get to pleading.
“PJ on July 29th, 2008 12:55 pm
In the meantime, can you pleas show me where in the Millennium Development Goals it includes the following, as claimed above:
- a “currency transfer tax”
- a ““tax on the rental value of land and natural resources”
- “fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”
- or the 0.7% figure.
…as your piece claims.”
Please refer to this information from Jeffrey Sachs. Who is Mr. Sachs?
“The Millennium Project was commissioned by the United Nations Secretary-General in 2002 to develop a concrete action plan for the world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people. In 2005, the independent advisory body headed by Professor Jeffrey Sachs” (source)
He specifically calls for a carbon tax as a possibility for achieving these goals.
“We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes. A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin.”
Now you can keep on saying “but that’s not in the document I linked to” if you like but when the guy running the project speaks of the possibilities I certain listen considering, as has been pointed out at length, that the document itself is vague and sets no limits or standards.
Kincaid’s article mentioned by LP previously is well sourced and contains various links to back up his conclusions. And most of those links are to the words of those at the UN, not opinions posted by others.
As for the other issue above about your little tantrum … don’t come crawling to me. You plead with Ron PJ. He was the MIC here at the time so his authority stands.
What PJ is falling for (or perhaps actively promoting) is a typical liberal strategy wherein they pass a rhetoric filled resolution and then set up committees and sub-committees to fulfill the mission they have defined. Then when people start to dig into what those running these committees and publicize what they are proposing the response is to say something like, “That does not appear anywhere in the proposal. Why are you lying about it?”
Then they link to the proposal which lacks any explanation of how these things will be done and try to paint those blowing the whistle as liars or kooks.
It works with some people. Not with most people here though.