Researcher Cliff Kincaid has devoted his life in recent years to studying what is happening at the United Nations. He fortunately has a strong stomach. This amalgamation of nations which continually is envious of the prosperity of the United States convenes to debate new ways that we can be taxed for their benefit.
A few months ago the UN had its sights firmly on the Internet. Thanks to Kincaid and others these designs were exposed early on and the UN was forced temporarily to back off taxation of the Internet. The retreat is only tactical - one step back to take two steps forward.
Kincaid has discovered a meeting at which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered a major but virtually unreported speech to a UN Conference at the end of February and the first of March 2006 at which he challenged delegates to have the courage to levy international taxes. The meeting was hosted by that great friend of America French President Jacques Chirac.
Among the $200 billion in new taxes which the UN is proposing to levy are: Taxes on air transport: this tax, Kincaid reports, was said to make “economic sense.” Taxes on aviation fuel: this tax was sold on the basis that it would have a positive impact upon the environment. Taxes on airline tickets: this tax, according to the UN, easily could be implemented because there is no legal obstacle, and it would generate $8 billion per annum.
The UN also seeks an indirect tax on air-flight corridors, which should generate $10 billion per annum, to be followed by an indirect tax on passenger transportation, to raise $20 billion per annum. An international currency tax would generate $60 billion. A tax on carbon emissions which at five cents per gallon of gasoline would bring in a whopping $130 billion per annum. There you have it: the UN proposal to tax us for the first $200 billion.
If the UN were not blocked in this clear usurpation of power the $200 billion would be only the beginning. The United States takes in about $2 trillion in taxes. Surely the UN can figure how to duplicate that amount.
The Chirac-Annan conference was titled “the Paris Conference on Innovative Financing Mechanisms” and apparently behind the back of the United States Government the UN is planning its taxation schemes almost immediately.
The matter was raised with GOP House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), who was instrumental in causing the House to go on record against UN taxation of the Internet. He said he was confident that he could stop the implementation of any of these new taxes. Fine. What would happen after November if the Democrats were in control and they accepted these taxes as part of their budget resolution? George W. Bush would veto that, you say. In the sixth year of his Presidency, he has vetoed nothing. Let us say he would veto it.
Let us also suggest that after the end of Bush’s term a Democrat were to occupy the White House. The odds favor that. The only reason George H. W. Bush was elected in 1988 was because Ronald W. Reagan concluded his term in very popular fashion. Bush was seen at a third term for Reagan. If Bush ’43 should conclude his term on a note of unpopularity it would be highly unlikely that he would be succeeded by another Republican.
At some point these UN taxes very likely will be imposed upon this country. When that happens we would completely lose our ability to control taxation. President Bush’s tax cuts have generated billions more revenue than was projected. He and a handful of other “supply siders” believed this would happen. There is no way that you would be able to convince the UN to cut taxes so additional money would be generated. No, the UN will keep taxes high. Given the types of taxes proposed, the levies will be next to invisible. Not many of us look at an airline ticket to break down the amount of taxation reflected in the price of that ticket.
Annan made it clear that the money generated by taxation will not replace dues money or other forms of aid raised for various causes. The UN Secretary told the UN Conference “Innovative sources of financing should not be seen as a replacement for traditional forms of aid. Rather they are meant to generate even more money for development and to channel resources more effectively. And there are some very promising possibilities on the table.” For example, a nation wants to develop an industrial park to promote business and industry. The money thenceforth would come from the UN and not from traditional investments.
The list of US participants appears to have been nominated by the far-left NATION magazine. The United States delegation was composed entirely of liberal globalists. Who named them? How did they get there? Is this something John Bolton can tackle as Ambassador to the UN?
Numerous nations already have begun to implement the various taxes called for at the Paris Conference. The Old Media soon will begin to pressure the United States to pay “our fair share” by implementing these taxes. We fought a revolution in part over “no taxation without representation.” Who has represented us at the UN? Ambassador Bolton is doing an excellent job there but is he on top of this? When I met with him recently the subject was not mentioned although he covered the waterfront.
The UN cannot be trusted. The UN continually is looking to shift assets from those who have achieved to those who have not and often to those who would not know how effectively to utilize those shifted assets.
This coming Presidential election will be unique. For the first time in half a century no President or Vice President will be running. Both parties are wide open. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the favorite Democrat but who knows if she will run. So every voter of every political stripe should ask candidates of all political parties where they stand on UN taxation. Once this enquiry starts there will be no end to it. While we are at it, we need to support Cliff Kincaid at America’s Survival Inc. (Kincaid@comcast.net) We need him as our watchdog, informing us about the latest UN outrages. If he were not on top of these developments we might never know about them in time to act.