Through out recent history the United States has been a generous contributor to the aid of developing and third world countries. The Lend Lease Program saved Great Britain and the Soviet Union, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. The Berlin airlift saved the Capitol city of Germany from starvation after the Russians blockaded the city.
We have always sent hard earned tax dollars to foreign countries in need, but they still don't like us. Many will say it is our involvement in Iraq, but i say rubbish! They dislike us for our power, our standard of living and our freedoms. The basic evil of jealousy is the root cause. Still we send money to alleviate hunger, disease and suffering because it is the Judeo-Christian way!
Congress approved $4.8 billion in foreign aid for ambitious projects in 15 countries in Africa, Central America and other regions.Not a small sum for the tax payers to give to people who basically don't like us.
Now Senator Barrack Obama, the most probable Democratic nominee for president, has sponsored a “Global Poverty Act” that would require the United States to increase foreign aid by approximately $65 billion per year. This on top of all the tax payer funded Socialist programs he has promised the voting public!
If the Senate passes this bill, it will be Mr. Obama’s first significant legislative accomplishment in Washington since he was elected! .I doubt President Bush would sign the bill if it reaches his desk, but for the sake of argument I offer this.
The "Global Poverty Act", if passed, would be a hugely expensive mistake. The act fails on realistic grounds—it simply would not accomplish its stated goal of considerably reducing poverty.The distribution is too unreliable, and local corruption has often obfuscated the dispersion.
Stalwart Leftist politicians in Washington are so consumed with redistributing Our Country's wealth, that they never bothered to learn the most important economic lesson.: How to create wealth. Welfare like governments never creates wealth! It tends to inhibit the wealth earners.A good example is the 40 year failure of the Great Society!
Nowhere in the world can we point to a country that has escaped poverty through foreign aid—in spite of more than $2 trillion of foreign aid spending so far. Tragically, in some African countries that have received billions of dollars in aid, standards of living have deteriorated rather than improved in recent decades. As they have in the inner Cities of the United States where welfare programs are most prevalent.
Unfortunately, too often foreign aid gets siphoned off to service old debts, pay for expensive consultants, fund emergency humanitarian relief, or to Swiss bank accounts of "dignitary's" involved in the giving or receiving of the aid.
Why does foreign investment so often succeed where foreign aid fails? Primarily because investors are more careful and prudent with investments because they bear the losses when investments go sour. Bureaucrats don't!
Consequently, they are more diligent and successful at seeking out investments that will be profitable and that will actually create value in the targeted economy. Public “servants,” by contrast, don’t run the same risk. If a government “investment” fares poorly, the politicians or bureaucrats who made the investment suffer no personal loss. They are protected by the government they serve either by union affiliation, as in the United States, or because of patronage from and by the leader of their government who control his/her employment.
They simply go back to the public treasury for more funds and more failures. Private markets have proved far more efficient, of scarce capital than any government or multilateral taxpayer-funded institution.
Senator Obama's proposed legislation is troubling in that it relates to people outside the United States. Obama seems more interested in foreign peoples welfare than he proclaims to be concerned with the Americans he courts for their vote.
It would convince me that Obama is concerned about the people he wants to vote for him if he would introduce a bill that concerns the inability of the USA being able to access oil reserves in Canada.
The country with the largest oil reserves is not Saudi Arabia, Iran or Venezuela, but Canada.
Canada has an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of oil on its territory. Saudi Arabia has an estimated 270 billion barrels. But much of Canada’s oil is locked in tough-to-excavate tar sands in the province of Alberta.
Canada’s government recently sent U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates a letter warning that it might not be able to sell the U.S. any of the oil America needs for national defense, according to the Financial Times of London.
The reason: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was passed with self-righteousness by the Democratic Congress,” Source: Investor’s Business Daily
Under the Act, tar sands are considered an alternative fuel, and the law requires oil sold to the U.S. government from alternative sources to emit fewer greenhouse gases than oil produced from conventional sources.
Estimates by geologists indicate that removing the coagulated oil found in tar sands produces up to five times the amount of greenhouse gas as pumping from a conventional well.
“Classifying the oil sands as a unconventional fuel would unnecessarily complicate the integrated Canada-U.S. energy relationship,” said Tristan Landry, a spokesman for Canada’s embassy in Washington.
We have a neighboring Country with the world’s largest oil supplies, and we’re going to tell them no thanks? This is the equivalent of legislative malpractice.
But We’ll have to get used to that if, as many hope and expect, we elect a Democratic President(Hillary or Obama) and increase the Democrats’ hold on the two houses of Congress.”
America, awaken to the threat we face!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment