U.N. subsidies: Get the ax
As Congress is in a deficit-cutting mindset, or so it says, now would be apropos to review just how much the U.S. pays for its "share" of United Nations operations.
And what propitious timing, too, as the U.S. Office of Management and Budget recently has compiled figures for 2010. The sum is an eye-popper.
Total U.S. contributions, including U.N. affiliated programs that receive funding through various federal departments, exceeded $7.691 billion in 2010, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis. That's $1.3 billion more than U.S. payments in 2009 (a whopping 21 percent increase) and $1.6 billion more than in 2008.
In fact, this is the third consecutive year that U.S. contributions to the U.N. have set new records, says Heritage's Brett D. Schaefer.
It's no wonder, as the U.N. regular budget has more than doubled from 2000-01 to 2010-11, from $2.49 billion to $5.16 billion. And the peacekeeping budget has increased fourfold, from $1.7 billion to $7.2 billion, over the same period.
But why should the U.N. care about its spending so long as the U.S. pays its "obligation" (22 percent of the regular budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget) regardless of how much the tab goes up?
This must end. If Congress won't pull the U.S. plug powering the U.N.'s culture of fraud, waste and corruption, it can at least stem the increasing gush of taxpayers' dollars into Turtle Bay.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.