Posted on 03/25/2002 2:04:25 AM PST by JohnHuang2
With far more political acuity than critics expected, President George Bush disarmed world government proponents while promising more aid to developing nations. The U.N.'s High Level Panel on Financing Development concluded its four-day conference in Monterrey, Mexico, without explicit authorization for U.N. taxes on currency exchange, fossil fuels and a host of other tax targets.
The conference, publicized as a poverty-reducing initiative, was, in fact, another effort by the U.N. to gain taxing authority. Ernesto Zedillo, head of the U.N. panel, issued a report on June 28, calling for the new taxing authority. U.S. delegates to the conference made it clear that the U.S. would not support any document that included U.N. taxing authority.
The final "consensus" document was toned down substantially, and reference to taxing authority was removed. When the conference opened on March 18, however, delegates from Germany, Britain and other European countries tried to reinstate language to authorize global taxation. Again, U.S. delegates, with help from Japan, blocked the effort.
Then Vincente Fox, president of Mexico, renewed the call for U.N. taxing authority when he spoke to the delegates. The U.S. stood firm, and U.N. taxing authority was excluded from the final document.
Had Al Gore been elected president, the outcome would have likely been different. Gustave Speth, a member of the Clinton-Gore transition team who then was appointed head of the U.N. Development Program, was a strong advocate of U.N. taxing authority, and promoted the scheme during his U.N. tenure.
Bush did even more to confuse the world government crowd. He diffused the anticipated criticism of U.S. aid by announcing a sharp increase in foreign aid over the next three years. European nations made a similar commitment, leading conference officials to claim victory before the conference even convened.
When he spoke to the delegates on Friday, however, Bush made it clear that U.S. aid would no longer be poured down the U.N. rat-hole as it has been in the past. U.S. aid will be placed into a special "Millennium" account, not simply handed over to the U.N. The U.S., not the U.N., will establish the criteria that must be met by developing nations before receiving U.S. aid.
Bush told the delegates that no longer can poverty relief be measured simply by the amount donor nations give. The real measure of poverty relief must be based on the achievements produced by the aid.
Bush made it clear that U.S. aid will go only to countries whose governments exist with the consent of the citizens, that commit to open markets, and that promote the principles of freedom.
U.N. conferences are not accustomed to hearing this kind of talk from a U.S. president. Bill Clinton told the Millennium Summit in 2000 that the time had come for national sovereignty to take a back seat to U.N. activism. Bush invoked U.S. sovereignty by defining the conditions upon which U.S. aid will be granted. And he did it with a smile, and without confrontation.
Castro, on the other hand, spoke to the delegates in his usual "fatigues," with his usual dictatorial bluster, calling U.S. policies "economic genocide."
The Bush administration is clearly changing gears with its U.S. aid. U.S. aid will now be aimed at helping nations build the infrastructure to create wealth, rather than on programs that simply feed global poverty – and enrich those who administer the programs.
This change will not be welcomed by the U.N. bureaucracy, nor by the IMF, that is building a new $250 million palace in Washington to house its expanding bureaucracy in anticipation of becoming the chief administrator of anti-poverty wealth redistribution.
The U.N.'s quest for global taxing authority will not go away. Even though this effort has been thwarted, temporarily, the U.N. can be expected to continue its efforts to get out from under the control of the United States. The World Summit on Sustainable Development, which will convene in Johannesburg, South Africa, next August, will likely hear sharp criticism of the U.S., and more calls for financial independence for the U.N., among the many other agenda items.
For now, at least, the world has dodged a bullet, thanks to the Bush administration. Those who believe national sovereignty should be superior to any scheme of global governance cannot rest easy, but instead, must keep a vigilant eye on both the U.N., and the U.S. government. There are plenty of people in the U.S. who do not agree with Mr. Bush's determination to advance the principles of freedom.
This is true in the fact that he allowed many, many liberal bills to become law as well as breaking many campaign promises like they all do. But, you also have to add the disclaimer that all Presidents have to deal with the politics of their office and it's give and take. Too bad many here don't understand this?
As for our dues to the UN, they're just that, dues to be part of a club. No tax there, either.
So true, unfortunately. (I'm still ticked about HR1885,though, even though I am a certified Bushbot.)
There's no way to argue that W could manage Congress the way Reagan did. The tax cuts passed with Reagan there to sign them haven't been repeated. W's shell game tax cut will amount to diddly in the end, as everyone who got a refund from the IRS will find out. That $600 check comes right off the top of a refund. W will be history before any of it that amounts to much will come due and Congress will scrap it all as soon as he's back in Crawford pretending to be a rancher again.
He is empowered to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, not to tell a bunch of penniless con artists that he'll hand them $5 billion dollars. Bush doesn't have that authority unless he's talking about his own money. I doubt he has that kind of money, myself.
Oh, the subject you raised, not the subject of the article. ok
As for {{giving}} aid being Constitutional, I don't know, never thought about. But either way, our voluntary gifts or loans to other nations and our club dues to the UN are NOT taxes. Lecture over.
Hope I keep reading stories that start like that, particularly on NOV 7-8!
The "Millennium Challenge Account" described by George W. Bush is a new account of new money to be given gratis (i.e., not a loan) by United States taxpayers to unspecified-in-advance underdeveloped nations through the United Nations, and is on top of UN dues and other expenses already paid by the U. S.
Does anyone think a single underdeveloped nation has to demonstrate "reform" before more U. S. taxpayers' money is extracted and poured into the "Millennium Challenge Account" for the UN?
Does anyone think that the most destitute nations in Africa which do NOT reform themselves because they are run by ruthless dictators who don't care a whit for their subjects will be satisfied when they get NO MONEY from the U. S.?
Since most of the underdeveloped countries are that way because they are under lawless dictators and their plantation serfs have no experience with and no conception of democratic government, there is absolutely NO CHANCE that these nations will undergo genuine reform.
Does anyone think that all the people in the UN who hate the U. S. will be content with a "Millennium Challenge Account" set-up controlled SOLELY by the U. S.?
That, simply, is not the way the UN works.
But meanwhile the American people are being brainwashed into thinking we "have to give more money to the UN".
And all the countries that already want more formal global taxation will continue their agitation for this as strongly as ever.
There is no way to make a valid comparison between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush when it comes to tax cuts. Reagan was dealing with income tax rates that were very high, which meant that the government would easily generate additional revenue by cutting the top rates. When the rates are low (relatively speaking), the positive impact of cutting them (in terms of generating higher revenue) isn't so certain. It should also be noted that cutting tax rates is NOT the same as cutting taxes. The 1986 tax reform reduced the income tax rates and simplified the tax brackets, but it also included the elimination of many tax deductions. Ironically, overall personal Federal taxes (per capita, including all taxes) were probably higher when Reagan left office in 1988 than they were in 1981.
Because tax rates in the U.S. are probably close to the ideal tax rates (again, in terms of generating the maximum amount of revenue), the only real tax "reform" you will find these days amounts to nothing more than encouraging certain types of personal behavior or encouraging certain financial transactions. What do you think has driven the growth of IRAs and 401(k) plans over the last decade?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.