Well, I know I wouldn’t… but I’m just one person. From what I can tell, about 50% of Democrats would like one (our economy has a spare $800 billion, right?)! What am I talking about? Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act, of course! What’s that? You mean you haven’t heard of it? Well let’s take a look!
The official page of the bill can be found here:
S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007 (Sponsor: Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL])
It was introduced on 12/07/2007 and here is the brief summary:
Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, 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 United Nations 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.
Well, that doesn’t sound too bad, right? I mean, you know all about the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and such, correct? You say you don’t? Wow… hasn’t Mr. Obama explained it all in his speeches? I kinda assumed that’s what he does when he has all those people’s attention captured. Anyway, let’s take a look at these goals.
The official page for the goals can be found here:
The United Nations Millenium Goals
Now I admit, this is a very noble cause, but it also doesn’t really say anything about cost or what it entails (including that we’d also be joining into the United Nations Millennium Declaration… it’s a fine read). Well, here is some info from you, taken from an article written by Cliff Kincaid.
The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion - or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.”
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.
The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.”
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.
Did you catch that? Yep… an estimated $845 billion dollar tax that we, as Americans, won’t see a penny of. Sounds great… where do I sign up? For those who don’t want to read the whole article from Sachs, here is the part they’re referring to:
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. Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity’s climate-deforming overuse of fossile fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods. No better time to start than as the new millennium begins.
So I’m sure a few of you are surprised and many are wondering why you haven’t heard about this. Well, according to Accuracy In Media, it was covered up, and while I don’t want to go that far, it does seem odd that no one I’ve spoken with has heard of it. Here’s what AIM had to say in their press release:
Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the major media’s cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media’s desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a “hold” on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.
The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Kincaid’s column notes that the official in charge of making nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.
Is it true that it was covered up? That’s hard to say… the Conservitives seem to think so, and while I don’t want to agree, I do find it odd that I never heard about it. I mean, it seems something like that would be brought up again and again.
Now, the one thing I will say, is I’m all about fixing America before trying to fix the problems of the rest of the world. We’re not living in some Utopia here, we do have a lot of issues. This is one of the reasons it bugs me that not only is this bill a pet project of Obama’s, but it shows that he cares more about other countries than America. Did you know that he actually did sponsor a bill that became law? It’s true! He sponsored the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, & Democracy Promotion Act… here’s the summary:
Obligates a specified minimum amount for each of FY2006-FY2007 under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and the Arms Export Control Act for bilateral assistance programs in the DRC.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of State should submit budget requests in FY2008-FY2009 that contain appropriate bilateral assistance increases for the DRC if progress is being made toward accomplishing the policy objectives.
States that the United States should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the DRC.
There’s more, but that really sums it up. So, why is Obama so concerned with life outside the US, when our life isn’t as good as it could be?
I guess the big question is, would poor hard working Americans (black, white, and other) really want to spend that much money, time, and effort helping people outside our borders? I know I don’t. I say fix America first, deal with other countries later. We have plenty of broken stuff here to keep us busy. The may sound cruel, but if you’ve checked out our economy lately, I don’t know if we can afford to spend any more, especially if it’s not going to help us out. Now if you’re the type of person who likes to hear their articles, check out this YouTube link from CNN’s coverage of this whole thing.
So, remember, when it comes to electing a President it’s just like a used car… “Buyer Beware.”
