Currently in New York, there is a United Nations summit taking place. A lot of the attention about this summit is focused on the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is speaking at the summit, but there is much more going on than just that. The main goal of the summit is for these global leaders to reaffirm their commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were agreed on some ten years ago. Not only do they want to reaffirm their commitment to these goals, they want to address how they can better achieve them by their self-imposed deadline of 2015. It seems some of these leaders do not feel the achievement is progressing fast enough, so they want to speed things up. That is part of what I want to address in this post, but let us first look at what these goals actually are, taken directly from the United Nations website.
- Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
- Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
- Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
- Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
- Goal 5: Improve maternal health
- Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
- Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
- Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development
I am sure we can all agree, these are wonderful and lofty goals. Some of them may be a bit on the grand scale side of things, but there is no harm in dreaming and working towards these goals. What I do have a problem with is how they plan to meet some of these goals. For all intents and purposes, some of them will be financed on the backs of the American taxpayer. According to a draft “outcome document” that was released before the summit convened, global leaders are looking at “innovative financing mechanisms” to provide the funding for meeting these goals.
While it may seem like I am barking up a stump here, consider this. Jeffrey Sachs, who advises the U.N. Secretary General on such matters, is working the halls of the U.N. during this summit, trying to find ways for the United States to fund the efforts of other countries to meet these goals. According to NPR, he failed in some aspects of this effort, but he hasn’t given up, not yet.
Sachs says he failed to persuade the Obama administration to tax the bonuses of Wall Street bankers who received bailouts in order to raise more money for development aid. So he is hoping the U,S, will find other ways to fund programs to help countries reach their millennium development goals by 2015.
Just one question here. With the amount of money we spend each year on foreign aid, why should the American taxpayer be asked for additional money for other countries? This especially true when you consider the fact that these “innovative financing mechanisms” will be the tools of the U.N. and other international organizations. I know we are living in a world that is more global oriented every day, but giving such organizations the right to tax our citizens just doesn’t sit right with me.
As a conservative, I have a problem with taxation without representation and taxation that is excessive. Throw in the fact that the taxation may not be coming from our own government, but rather a global organization such as the U.N. or the World Monetary Fund (WMF) and I have a real problem with it. For instance, they are looking at placing a tax on airline tickets that will be used to finance access to essential medicines. They are also considering a tax on international currency transactions that would raise $35 billion a year. Again, this sounds like a wonderful plan, but should the burden of financing such an effort be placed on the backs of an unwilling consumer?
What troubles me even more is the fact that President Obama is a very strong supporter of these goals and has already endorsed the “outcome document” I linked to above. Not only is he wanting to raise taxes on the citizens of America, he wants to allow global organizations to do the same. I thought he was supposed to be standing up for Americans in the world, but it appears he is selling us out to the U.N. and any other group who wants America to finance the solutions for most of the troubles in this world. I don’t mind telling you, I have a problem with that.
You and me, both, buddy.
It occurs to me that both of these things — 1) subjecting the U.S. to more “oversight” by the U.N. and 2) giving yet MORE U.S. money to these less-developed nations (noble though the projects may be) — jibes well with the anti-colonialist mindset that Dinesh D’Souza claims is Obama’s driving force. The first helps to take power from the “evil” exploiters (i.e., the capitalist U.S.). The second redistributes American wealth to the less fortunate who, of course, at some point and in some way must have been unfairly exploited by the U.S. and/or its capitalist friends. Just sayin’…
Thanks for your comment, Sirrahc. I have written more than once about the danger of giving the U.N. any oversight of the affairs of the United States. Frankly, I think it is none of their business and I personally wish they would take their headquarters to another country. I am all for helping other countries, but with the U.N. at the center of this movement, I find it very hard to believe in and very easy to distrust.
Good post Larry. The underlying question I suppose is whether supporting this effort is in the best interests of the US and therefore to our benefit and worth paying for. I confess I can see some but not overwhelming support for that view. In a utopian world we all would reach into our wallets and willingly help all those in need but it’s simply not possible and we have problems of our own that need to take first priority. On one point, however, I will take issue: a tax on international currency transactions is part of the overall financial transactions tax that I have written about and strongly support. I am open to how that money is allocated but this actually seems an ideal use of those funds since they are definitely global transactions and therefore merit a global use…at least in part.
Thanks, Mike.
Like I said in my reply to Sirrahc, I have nothing against helping other countries. However, as you point out, there comes a time when our own problems have to be taken care of, a time when they must be given priority.
I can see your point about the international currency transactions, but it makes me wonder what they will want to tax next. Sooner or later, these taxes have to stop.
I agree Larry, with the shape the economy is we should be focusing on our own problems first. We already give billions of dollars to poorer nations every year, and now they want more and they want an outside organization to be able to tax us? I can’t even fathom that thought!
I couldn’t agree more, Steve. We have plenty of our own problems to deal with before we start funding the solutions to the problems of other countries.
Those are some “nice” lofty goals. They are worthwhile, but how will they be achieved? That is the real point. Will these be top-down controlled efforts, which usually fail? Will the funds for these programs be mostly eaten up by bureaucracy and graft? Or will some banana republic dictators build more mansions while their people starve?
We should have learned from history that these programs fail, and often fail hard.
I had not thought of that, Matt, but you are right to point it out. These kinds of programs do usually fail and a lot of that has to do with how the money is managed from the top down. By the time it reaches the people it is supposed to help, there isn’t much left to do the helping. Great point.