Obama’s Global Tax Sham
A nice sounding bill called “The Global Poverty” (Global Poverty Act (S.2433) is currently in the Congress, co-authored by Senator and CFR Presidential nominee Barrack Obama and is often called the “Global Tax” because of its relationship with the UN. The bill aims to spend in cohorts with the United Nations $850 billion dollars or .07% in this nation’s GDP to provide welfare to foreign countries around the world through “aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs” according to Mr. Obama’s website. While everyone is all for helping out their fellow man, this bill goes about it the wrong way.
Before people start accusing me of advocating against charity, having no moral code, etc. etc. let me set a few things strait. I believe charity should be preformed through voluntary means only. Any forced charity I see as theft of one’s property (their money) no matter how worthy one may perceive a charity to be. For example if I steal someone else’s money and giving it to a charity, it doesn’t make it any less of a theft no matter where the money may go. Also one should be given the choice of charity if one chooses to give to charity, then they could assess the legitimacy of a particular charitable organization.
Why so much hate against government backed foreign aid? Isn’t it our duty to help out the worlds less fortunate citizens? Unfortunately what is not considered by many people who support government propped foreign aid is that the money seldom gets to the ones who need it most. Money often goes towards helping out foreign dictators and elites (remember Osama Bin Laden?) that spending money on contracts with US corporations. This means taxpayer money that goes to propping up well-connected US corporations and oppressive regimes that got these people to the poverty that we intend to help them from. Make no mistake foreign aid is another cover for political interventionism.
Let’s take a look at our own National Endowment for Democracy. The “aid” money it sends to foreign countries is used to fix elections overseas for that our supposed “favored” candidate wins the election in a “democratic” election. This does not favor the citizens participating in this election and often creates animosity towards the US and its allies. People trusting their vote would go uninhibited from outside sources.
On the other hand there are private charities, charities that are more bound to market forces that government propped charity. Individuals who give to charity tend to be more careful than governments in where their hard earned money is spent. When people hear a charity isn’t what they were told news flies quickly and people are quick to direct their aid in other directions. We all remember what happened several years ago when it was revealed that the top management of a major charity organization was paid extremely high salaries - people stopped sending money. The problem corrected itself just like in a market when a product is unpopular the company is forced to have a change in policies to survive. The problems fix themselves.
Think private foreign aid won’t amount to anything? Of the $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005 (the most current data available), $95.5 billion, or 79%, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, says the annual Index of Global Philanthropy.
Obama perhaps instead of looking toward government to coerce people into propping up your charities think twice. We should be happy to hear that Americans are willing to give so much to help those less fortunate in foreign lands. Why discourage it by forcing people into paying for your charities? Think about how much money individuals would give if they weren’t swindled so much out of their money with various taxes including your planned increase in capital gains taxes from us for your ineffective and wasteful foreign aid priorities.
Written by: John Lobel
I remember back in the ’60’s when all members of the Army was REQUIRED to participate in the United Way. A flag was given to the unit that gave the most, and the program was pushed by post and unit comanders to get the most. Don’t know if it was directed by the Army, but I do know we HAD to donate.
I also remember that we were paid in cash in those days. When you were finished with the pay officer, you had to walk a gauntlet of people wanting you to pay into the Red Cross, KP Fund, Old Soldiers Home ETC. All this was “voluntary”, but if you didn’t pay you were bound to show up on the First Sergeants “extra duty roster” that was kept hidden from the Inspector General. My pay at the time was $65.00 a month, and we still had to buy the hygene, haircuts, cigarettes (if we smoked) boot polish and other items for inspections.