Yesterday, I posted on the new Obama-sponsored bill being rushed through the Senate by Joe Biden. In the post, the bill was referred to as a "Global Tax" bill, and the claim was that it "could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. "
To be truthful, though, I wondered to myself, is this really a "global tax"? Because, if it is, what right does the Congress have to levy such a tax, and do we want a President who would assume such a right?
Well, let's look at what is being said about the bill today:
The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year 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.
According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”
The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the 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.” 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.
So, to me that sounds like an international tax. However, apparently, this is a committment that we agreed to 35 years ago. If so, then the original mistake is an old one, and was committed by Richard Nixon?!?!?
Let's face it, the minute we open ourselves up to such a tax from the UN, they will find more reasons and ways to tax us.
Here are some other questions to ponder at the same time, though. Is not the paying of any due to the United Nations also a tax? Where do taxes begin, and committments end? Is a temporary committment a tax? Is it worthwhile to make temporary financial committments to various countries around the world as part of our foreign policy? Can these committments aid us in our own self-interest? Is so, are they then to be considered taxes, or bargaining chips?
Let me know what you think.
To be truthful, though, I wondered to myself, is this really a "global tax"? Because, if it is, what right does the Congress have to levy such a tax, and do we want a President who would assume such a right?
Well, let's look at what is being said about the bill today:
The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year 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.
According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”
The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the 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.” 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.
So, to me that sounds like an international tax. However, apparently, this is a committment that we agreed to 35 years ago. If so, then the original mistake is an old one, and was committed by Richard Nixon?!?!?
Let's face it, the minute we open ourselves up to such a tax from the UN, they will find more reasons and ways to tax us.
Here are some other questions to ponder at the same time, though. Is not the paying of any due to the United Nations also a tax? Where do taxes begin, and committments end? Is a temporary committment a tax? Is it worthwhile to make temporary financial committments to various countries around the world as part of our foreign policy? Can these committments aid us in our own self-interest? Is so, are they then to be considered taxes, or bargaining chips?
Let me know what you think.
1 comment:
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 WTF? the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Doubt Nixon had anything to do with all this additional stuff. The International Criminal Court Treaty is in direct conflict with our constitutional rights to have counsel provided, confront witnesses, and no double jeopardy. Then look at the ICC judges, handpicked by leftists extraordinaire!
Must find blood pressure meds STAT
Post a Comment