How about cutting spending (federal agency donations) to the United Nations as a start to getting our house in order?
Posted March 20, 2011
The United States Congress is working to see what can be cut from the national budget, so that our children and grandchildren won't have an overwhelming debt to repay.
Here are a couple of areas that should be reviewed - and you might consider contacting your congressional representative to cut this kind of spending:
From REPORT TO CONGRESS ON U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM by the U.S. State Department in 2010, some $6,090,242,000 (that's over $6 BILLION) has been "donated" by various U. S. federal agencies, Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Interior, Department of Labor, Department of State and Other International Programs, Department of Transportation (FAA & NHTSA), Department of Treasury, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, United States Postal Service, Other Organizations: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Peace Corps. (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/137490.pdf)
One example is the "initial" contribution of $125 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/02/156497.htm) Historically, we have already seen how money "disappears" when given to the UN, yet the US continues to "donate" to this organization when our own nation is deep in debt.
This is in addition to the debt owed to the United Nations, according to Wikipedia:
| + U.S. debt to the United Nations, from 1995 to 2005 | |||
| Year | Regular budget | Peacekeeping | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31 December 1995 | $414 million (73%) | $816 million (47%) | $1.231 billion (56%) |
| 31 December 1996 | $376 million (74%) | $926 million (57%) | $1.303 billion (61%) |
| 31 December 1997 | $373 million (79%) | $940 million (60%) | $1.313 billion (64%) |
| 31 December 1998 | $316 million (76%) | $976 million (61%) | $1.294 billion (64%) |
| 31 December 1999 | $167 million (68%) | $995 million (67%) | $1.170 billion (67%) |
| 31 December 2000 | $165 million (74%) | $1.144 billion (56%) | $1.321 billion (58%) |
| 31 December 2001 | $165 million (69%) | $691 million (38%) | $871 million (41%) |
| 31 December 2002 | $190 million (62%) | $536 million (40%) | $738 million (44%) |
| 31 December 2003 | $268 million (61%) | $482 million (45%) | $762 million (48%) |
| 31 December 2004 | $241 million (68%) | $722 million (28%) | $975 million (33%) |
| 30 September 2005 | $607 million (82%) | $607 million (28%) | $1.246 billion (41%) |
Then there are the federal government programs that aren't working (according to reports from the federal government). There are many, according to the White House's own website, which are absolutely ineffective or designated as "results not demonstrated", which according to their website, means " indicates that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing."
Included are the Departments of Agriculture (12 different programs), Education (48 various programs), Department of Health & Human Service and others. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/notperform.html
Thanks to Allen Toepfer for forward much of this information.