P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Conservatives_Stall_Obama/2008/02/25/75276.html
Conservatives Stall Obama Global Poverty Bill
Monday, February 25, 2008
Two conservative members of the U.S. Senate have anonymously placed a hold
on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) global poverty bill, Cybercast News Service
has learned.
The effort is an attempt to slow down the progress of a bill (S. 2433) that
conservative analysts say could eventually force the U.S. to increase its
foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog, said S.
2433 has been getting "a pass" from Congress. It received absolutely no
scrutiny in the House last fall, when it was passed on a voice vote, and no
scrutiny last week in the Senate, when the Foreign Relations Committee also
passed it on a voice vote.
"They never held any hearings on this bill in either body - none
whatsoever," said Kincaid. "They never heard from people like me, who
monitor the U.N. for a living, about what was in it and what it means. You
can be sure that people in the foreign aid lobby completely understand
what's in it."
Officially, S. 2433 declares it to be U.S. policy to help reduce global
poverty and eliminate extreme global poverty. It also commits the U.S. to
achieving the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme
global poverty in half by 2015 and directs the president to create a
strategy to help reduce global poverty.
The legislation had been languishing in the Senate, but Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) placed it on a fast-track in recent
weeks as Obama's presidential campaign started heating up.
The Illinois Democrat praised Biden and the committee's ranking Republican,
Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, for "moving so quickly." Obama is the chief
Senate sponsor of the bill.
"For years, America has committed to improving the lives of the world's
poorest people," Obama said in a statement.
"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," he added.
But conservatives say the legislation also pledges the U.S. government to
make available "additional overall United States assistance levels as
appropriate."
Ian Vasquez, director of the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the
libertarian Cato Institute, said that plan is troubling because the U.N. has
been after the U.S. for years to substantially increase the amount of
foreign aid it gives to impoverished nations.
"There has been a push for the past several years, which is a political
push, to double the size of aid going to the poorest countries, despite the
fact that most of the academic literature and the experience shows that
foreign aid is not a key to economic development," Vasquez told Cybercast
News Service.
The U.N.'s Millennium Summit - and its subsequent Millennium Declaration -
committed the world body to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.
In 2002, the International Conference on Financing for Development in
Monterrey, Mexico, established a benchmark for foreign aid to impoverished
nations - 0.7 percent of the gross national product (GNP) of developed
nations.
The U.S. currently contributes about $15 billion a year, which is around 0.3
percent of the total federal budget. To reach the U.N.'s benchmark, some
U.N. economists have called on the U.S. to increase its contributions by $65
billion a year.
Kincaid estimates the so-called "Monterey Consensus" could wind-up costing
U.S. taxpayers a whopping $845 billion or more by 2015, if the U.S. is
forced to up its aid to meet the 0.07 standard.
The only way to get the kind of money, he theorizes, is through some kind of
global tax - something that the U.N. has been trying to impose on nations
for years.
"The bill doesn't specifically mention a global tax," Kincaid said. "No one
is suggesting that Sen. Obama has officially called for the imposition of a
global tax. But the inevitable result of passing this bill would be to bring
on or to encourage a global tax - no question about it."
Not even "a wildly liberal Congress," he said, would voluntarily vote for
hundreds of billions more in foreign aid to fight global poverty, but a
global tax, if it is "sold" for that purpose, might be more acceptable.
Handing out hundreds of billions more in taxpayer dollars is not what the
U.S. should be doing anyway, according to Thomas Jacobson, United Nations
liaison for the Colorado Springs-based group Focus on the Family.
"That's the exact wrong strategy to fight poverty," Jacobson said. "What
typically happens is that nations that receive substantial amounts of
international aid don't find themselves climbing out of poverty."
It is also not something the House really considered when it passed the
identical House version, sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) last
September without opposition. The measure was co-sponsored by 80 other House
members, including Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who did not
respond to Cybercast News Service's interview requests.
A congressional source on Capitol Hill told Cybercast News Service that the
bill came attached to a mammoth 3,000-page piece of legislation at the end
of the legislative session, meaning that congressmen barely had time to even
read the overall legislation before voting on the bill -- and there was no
way to target specific line items.
Moreover, the bill "didn't cause a lot of controversy at the time,"
according to Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). It doesn't spell out any of the
problems that conservatives are concerned about.
"I didn't support the bill," Pence told Cybercast News Service. "I didn't
vote against it, but I didn't support it either, but I can guarantee that
House conservatives will be watching to see what happens to the Senate
version of the bill, which must still come back to the House.
"The amendment process in the Senate isn't finished yet. We'll wait to see
what they send us," Pence added.
Kincaid isn't surprised at the lack of scrutiny. After all, the cause is
apparently noble. "Who can oppose ending poverty?" he asked.
"They probably have never read the U.N. Millennium Declaration," Kincaid
said. "They probably didn't read the Monterey Consensus. They didn't
understand the references in the bill to timetables and goals. But they are
there."
Conservatives Stall Obama Global Poverty Bill
Monday, February 25, 2008
Two conservative members of the U.S. Senate have anonymously placed a hold
on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) global poverty bill, Cybercast News Service
has learned.
The effort is an attempt to slow down the progress of a bill (S. 2433) that
conservative analysts say could eventually force the U.S. to increase its
foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog, said S.
2433 has been getting "a pass" from Congress. It received absolutely no
scrutiny in the House last fall, when it was passed on a voice vote, and no
scrutiny last week in the Senate, when the Foreign Relations Committee also
passed it on a voice vote.
"They never held any hearings on this bill in either body - none
whatsoever," said Kincaid. "They never heard from people like me, who
monitor the U.N. for a living, about what was in it and what it means. You
can be sure that people in the foreign aid lobby completely understand
what's in it."
Officially, S. 2433 declares it to be U.S. policy to help reduce global
poverty and eliminate extreme global poverty. It also commits the U.S. to
achieving the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme
global poverty in half by 2015 and directs the president to create a
strategy to help reduce global poverty.
The legislation had been languishing in the Senate, but Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) placed it on a fast-track in recent
weeks as Obama's presidential campaign started heating up.
The Illinois Democrat praised Biden and the committee's ranking Republican,
Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, for "moving so quickly." Obama is the chief
Senate sponsor of the bill.
"For years, America has committed to improving the lives of the world's
poorest people," Obama said in a statement.
"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," he added.
But conservatives say the legislation also pledges the U.S. government to
make available "additional overall United States assistance levels as
appropriate."
Ian Vasquez, director of the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the
libertarian Cato Institute, said that plan is troubling because the U.N. has
been after the U.S. for years to substantially increase the amount of
foreign aid it gives to impoverished nations.
"There has been a push for the past several years, which is a political
push, to double the size of aid going to the poorest countries, despite the
fact that most of the academic literature and the experience shows that
foreign aid is not a key to economic development," Vasquez told Cybercast
News Service.
The U.N.'s Millennium Summit - and its subsequent Millennium Declaration -
committed the world body to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.
In 2002, the International Conference on Financing for Development in
Monterrey, Mexico, established a benchmark for foreign aid to impoverished
nations - 0.7 percent of the gross national product (GNP) of developed
nations.
The U.S. currently contributes about $15 billion a year, which is around 0.3
percent of the total federal budget. To reach the U.N.'s benchmark, some
U.N. economists have called on the U.S. to increase its contributions by $65
billion a year.
Kincaid estimates the so-called "Monterey Consensus" could wind-up costing
U.S. taxpayers a whopping $845 billion or more by 2015, if the U.S. is
forced to up its aid to meet the 0.07 standard.
The only way to get the kind of money, he theorizes, is through some kind of
global tax - something that the U.N. has been trying to impose on nations
for years.
"The bill doesn't specifically mention a global tax," Kincaid said. "No one
is suggesting that Sen. Obama has officially called for the imposition of a
global tax. But the inevitable result of passing this bill would be to bring
on or to encourage a global tax - no question about it."
Not even "a wildly liberal Congress," he said, would voluntarily vote for
hundreds of billions more in foreign aid to fight global poverty, but a
global tax, if it is "sold" for that purpose, might be more acceptable.
Handing out hundreds of billions more in taxpayer dollars is not what the
U.S. should be doing anyway, according to Thomas Jacobson, United Nations
liaison for the Colorado Springs-based group Focus on the Family.
"That's the exact wrong strategy to fight poverty," Jacobson said. "What
typically happens is that nations that receive substantial amounts of
international aid don't find themselves climbing out of poverty."
It is also not something the House really considered when it passed the
identical House version, sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) last
September without opposition. The measure was co-sponsored by 80 other House
members, including Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who did not
respond to Cybercast News Service's interview requests.
A congressional source on Capitol Hill told Cybercast News Service that the
bill came attached to a mammoth 3,000-page piece of legislation at the end
of the legislative session, meaning that congressmen barely had time to even
read the overall legislation before voting on the bill -- and there was no
way to target specific line items.
Moreover, the bill "didn't cause a lot of controversy at the time,"
according to Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). It doesn't spell out any of the
problems that conservatives are concerned about.
"I didn't support the bill," Pence told Cybercast News Service. "I didn't
vote against it, but I didn't support it either, but I can guarantee that
House conservatives will be watching to see what happens to the Senate
version of the bill, which must still come back to the House.
"The amendment process in the Senate isn't finished yet. We'll wait to see
what they send us," Pence added.
Kincaid isn't surprised at the lack of scrutiny. After all, the cause is
apparently noble. "Who can oppose ending poverty?" he asked.
"They probably have never read the U.N. Millennium Declaration," Kincaid
said. "They probably didn't read the Monterey Consensus. They didn't
understand the references in the bill to timetables and goals. But they are
there."
