House Republicans introducing Legislation to restrict United Nations Funding
The Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will introduce legislation today to require the United Nations to adopt a voluntary budget model which will restrict funding on a selective basis instead of the formula funding that is now in place. This legislation would enable countries to selectively fund U.N. agencies and would limit the use of U.S. funds to only purposes outlined by Congress. Currently the United States (that's you and me) fund 22% of the annual operating costs of the United Nations.
The intent of the legislation is to create competition between the U.N. agencies for funding which in theory would require a sound organization structure, tight fiscal controls and stated objectives that could be measured. In other words they will have to adopt a business model rather than throwing our money at the wall to see what sticks.
The bill will also suspend funding for peacekeeping operations until management changes are made. As you recall there was similar legislation introduced in 2006 as a result of the graft and corruption at the U.N. That legislation failed to pass but the level of corruption and waste persists in the U.N. The bill will also end funding for Palestinian refugees. There has been tremendous criticism regarding the U.N. agencies work in Gaza and the West Bank as facilitating the perpetuation of hate among the Palestinians.
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=1902
The bill also could withhold funding for the UN Human Rights Council until the State Department can certify that none of the members of the Council are subject to Security Council sanctions or are states that sponsor terrorism. That will keep countries like Libya, Syria, Iran etc off the Human Rights Council. That makes sense to me!
This legislation is certain to meet stiff resistance from Senate Democrats and President Obama. The President's so-called alliance building and appeasement foreign policy require limited accountability and no results.
So what are your thoughts on selectively funding the United Nations based on the proposed legislation? Is it a good idea? Should we be funding the United Nations at all? Should we take the gloves off and come out swinging for this piece of legislation?
News Source for Forum:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-30/republicans-to-unveil-bill...
Tags: Obama, foreign, funding, nations, of, policy, relations, the, united
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Wolf on -
Well... ' bout damn time!!! Maybe. They should suggest the U.N. move their headquarters somewhere other than New York, too.
-
Permalink Reply by David E. Kline on
-
The UN should be thrown out of the USA and all funding they receive from us should cease!
-
Permalink Reply by emilio portelli on
-
Let's go for it, nothing ventured nothing gained. The UN is anoither one of those expenses that we can do without.
-
Permalink Reply by Donald Vastlik on
-
The legislation of selective funding is a good idea but if dosent pass then all funding should stop. With 22% of all funding coming from the U.S. we carry a big stick and should us it.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlotte Hendershot on
-
I'm aware this is sidestepping the issue, but yesterday I came across this site. Patriot Friends, we are screwed royally.
It's quite lengthy but go to the write up of FDR and onward. Check out the dollar bill he designed.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/uspresidentasmasons.htm
-
Permalink Reply by Ashley Leonard on -
Being a Freemason myself I find those websites entertaining and funny. They are written by the most ridiculous conspiracy theorists that ever existed. I know that none of that baloney on those websites is true. One of my co-workers asked me if the Freemasons were going to take over the world. I told him if we did we'd all be a lot better off. His reply was, "Of all the masons that I know and how they are you're probably right." If you want to know about Freemasons talk to one about them. There's probably one, or has been one, in your family lineage somewhere.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon O. Weiss on
-
My only question on this one is why the hell did it take so long to decide to restrict (and why not cut off completely) the funding to the UN. There are currently 196 countries in the world. The U.S. should be paying 1/196th of the cost of the UN or approximately .06% of the UN budget, no more. Surely not the 22% that we are paying. The UN is a luxury for other nations that the U.S. can no longer afford.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Wilson on
-
The UN is a total waste of time, money and real-estate. It holds no clout with anyone but left wingnuts who strive for globalization of everything, and expect the United States to be nothing more than its police force. The US shouldn't only limit the funding, we should cease funding and let it move to Tehran, Tripoli, Cairo or some other "Progressive thinking" city.
-
Permalink Reply by Joyce Barrett on
-
how is this possible ? The House is out on break ? When was this actually introduced and when will it be voted on ?
-
Permalink Reply by Ashley Leonard on
-
I think congress ought to sell the land the U.N. sits on to Donald Trump and let him knock it down and build something useful on the property. But hey, this is a start.
-
Permalink Reply by Ashley Leonard on
-
Or congress could just knock it down for the sake of going "green" and build a park and greenway on the land. That would also be better and more useful than what is there now.
-
Permalink Reply by Philip E. Peebles on
-
Get out of the UN totaly. Charge them rent on the building, or move toanother country. Also cut all foreign aid.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
