February 20, 2008

HOPE TURNS OUT TO COST A PRETTY PENNY:

Does Obama Want a Trillion-Dollar Global Tax? (James Pethokoukis, 2/20/08, US News)

Back in December, Obama sponsored the "Global Poverty Act," a bill that proposed the following (Efharisto to the American Thinker for spotting this one):

To require 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 [U.N.] 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.

What this bill would do, in short, is commit the United States to the U.N. declared goal that industrialized countries should spend 0.7 percent a year of their gross domestic product on foreign aid. Over the next decade or so, that would work out to around $850 billion. When the bill passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Obama said that "as we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere."

How to pay for our penance? Economist Jeffrey Sachs, an advocate of this idea, has a suggestion:

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 fossil fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods.

So not only does Obama want to raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 a year and eliminate the $102,000 wage cap on Social Security taxes, he perhaps wants to tack on another trillion dollars in taxes to pay for dramatically increased foreign aid.


Posted by Orrin Judd at February 20, 2008 3:49 PM
Comments

The funny thing is that if we instituted such a tax, and actually gave the money directly to the individuals in need (small businesses, small local non-profits, actual people) in $1000 increments...

...it would be a brilliant policy.

We could pay for it by firing every school superintendent and assistant principals & superintendents across the nation.

Giving to the needy by taking from the greedy.

Posted by: Bruno at February 20, 2008 5:40 PM

America's standing is fine, especially in the impoverish aids stricken Africa, and former Krelim satellites. It even stands up in the "Continent", where both the Brit PM and the French president tried to claim to be America's best friend.

Gosh, I already miss GWB

Posted by: ic at February 20, 2008 6:12 PM

"Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity's climate-deforming overuse of fossil fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods."

I didn't know that filling the pockets of kleptocrats worldwide, and especially at the UN, was a public good. Learn something new everyday.

Posted by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 21, 2008 10:41 AM

Tithing to the UN? I don't think so.

Posted by: Genecis at February 21, 2008 12:21 PM
« YELTSIN TO PUTIN'S GORBACHEV?: | Main | FIDEL WHO?: »