Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Stories Posted |
»
|
|
Thursday, December 30, 2004
They’re All Mad Bar Thee And Me
What on Earth did someone put in Robert Rivkin’s coffee?
When United Nations humanitarian aid chief Jan Egeland, from Norway, suggested that “rich countries” were “stingy” when it came to international disaster relief, his comment triggered petulant denials by Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush. “The United States is not stingy,” Powell told CNN. Bush called Egeland “misguided and ill-informed.” Since Mr. Egeland did not specifically mention the United States, these defensive reactions were puzzling.
Of course, at the time Egeland made his statement, the United States had earmarked only $15 million as emergency aid to the Christmas Tsunami disaster victims. After his remarks, the United States did commit another $20 million, and deployed some elements of the U.S. military to help the stricken countries.
Considering that hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed over the next 10 or 20 years to rebuild the infrastructure in the 12 suffering nations, as well as the survivors’ lives, the $35 million in immediate disaster relief is merely a drop in an ocean of need. The private relief agencies cannot alone calm the waters of this ocean.
Why hasn’t the Bush administration shown some imagination in convincing the world that Americans really care and are prepared to make a small sacrifice to help victims of this astonishingly destructive natural calamity? In the wake of the administration’s default, why hasn’t the Democratic “opposition” proposed something that will demonstrate to the world that Americans want to help and are not “stingy”? Especially these days, a dramatic proposal to assist victims of mass catastrophe might also improve our country’s tarnished image in many places in the world.
Here’s a simple proposal that would capture the world’s attention, and which a majority of Americans would almost certainly support. President Bush should announce that because of the colossal losses suffered by millions of people in Southeast Asia and East Africa, he will make an exception to his promise not to raise taxes. Bush should propose a Tsunami Disaster Relief Surtax for 2004 and 2005, with very simple components that everyone can understand.
For example, the president could propose a flat $50 surtax applicable to every American tax return with an adjusted gross income of between $25,000 and $40,000; a flat $75 surtax on every tax return with an adjusted gross income between $40,000 and $80,000; $100 for incomes over $80,000, and so on. This small assessment for two years would produce many billions of dollars, which could be placed into a fund which would support infrastructure repair and development over a period of at least 10 years in the stricken countries.
Would someone please, please tell your Curmudgeon how this disaster, however tragic it might be, is properly a reason to tax Americans on pain of imprisonment? And when you’re done, would you please shoot him in the head? He really can’t take any more of this collectivist nonsense.
Mr. Rivkin might be the kindest, most decent person on Earth when he’s not bloviating about what the federal government ought to do to us. But any man who declares that our government has a moral warrant to use force to compel us to give our earnings to utter strangers in no way familially, socially, politically connected to us is millimeters away from outright villainy, no matter how badly those strangers are suffering. More, it’s as certain as sunrise that such a tax would be invoked precedentally, for ever flimsier and more distant reasons, as time rolled past; the American taxpayer would be permanently yoked to the relief of every condition anywhere that some muscular interest group found less than ideal.
Perhaps someone should forward this essay to Mr. Rivkin. Your Curmudgeon dare not; he’s too close to apoplexy as it is.
(Article reference provided by Tim of 4RWWS.)
Comments
I share your apoplexy so take this with a grain of salt: NO!
The effected countries should tax THEIR populations, if any taxing is going to be done. Just like WE do when we fund FEMA and state coffers with our tax dollars. Helping during this initial period of crisis with specialists and emergency supplies of medicine is one thing. Long term rebuilding? Fergetaboutit.
Charity requires that it be voluntary.
ARGH! I’m reminded of Herbert Hoover’s refusals to help out a particular state (can’t remember the disaster). When asked why he wasn’t sending relief he responded, “I can find nothing in the Constitution that gives me authority or permission to take Federal monies and give them to a particular state.”
We know people don’t follow that rule anymore with respect to the Feds giving money to the states, but my gawd, funding the world now? NO!
One of the side benefits of hard work and Capitalism is that you have wealth for these types of things. Hard lesson to be learned here, but perhaps there is no better silver lining to this tragedy.
Posted by Mrs. du Toit on 12/30/2004 at 01:49 PMI’m quite tired of the gimme gimme attitude towards the U.S. I’m sorry about the horrible disaster, but I’m limited in what I can do financially, of course our family will donate through the taxation they take from each and everyone of my husband’s paychecks. That’s all we can afford to give.
Posted by Heather on 12/30/2004 at 02:35 PMPerhaps the intent is correct. Just the method of implementation is at fault. (Hear me out before you toss verbal sticks and stones.) Why not *redirect* existing taxes collected in the next two years. In other words no one is paying any more rather (say 10 dollars for example at the low end and double the amount per bracket) if you end up *paying* 1000 dollars in taxes and are in the lowest bracket, 10 dollars of that will be *redirected* into a specific fund set up for the areas devastated.
We have not, nor for most practical purposes have we, ever had control over where our tax monies have been spent. And this way the government would also have to some degree feel the *pinch* (if you will) of redistributing *its* income…and it may be the counterbalance from allowing this being a long term situation.This allows for a couple of things to happen. First off it makes our legislators literally put *their pork barrel projects* where their mouths are. Second, the economic as well as the moral high ground gained (yes we do it as an individual, for concern for our fellow men. But the cynics and pragmatists in the gov are going to be looking for other reasons , then the altruistic ones), by doing so might be a good thing in the long run in that region of the world.
Posted by GuyS on 12/30/2004 at 05:49 PMWhat in the… ?
So when did forien aid become our “obligation” to rebuild every place that’s had a natural disater, as opposed to it being something America does because it can and wants to?
Screw that, Guy. This crosses over the line of Rivkin suggesting we could give more aid, and into the area of Rivkin demanding we pay *tribute*.
If a “representative” of mine were to initiate something like what you’re suggesting as a method of placating the world’s Rivkins - in effect paying Weirgeld - I’d take it upon myself to do everything I could to making sure they were unemployed come next election. No matter what party they belonged to.
Giving aid is simple decency. Paying weirgelt in response to political/editorial blackmail is something else. It is a truly nasty precedent to set to begin paying Danegeld - you never get rid of the Danes.
Posted by Ironbear on 12/30/2004 at 07:01 PMWhat I was suggesting was because we are *the greatest country on earth* and in fact we have no direct control over how our taxes are spent (yes, by all means we have the duty/obligation to kick the rascals out if they do not consistently follow the will of those who elected them in the first place), could not some of the monies taken in be directed to providing aid where it is needed? We already have a set precedence of doling out foreign aid for reasons that boggle the mind….let alone monies spent on any number of dimwitted and foolish boondoggles proposed by our senators and congress critters. I am NOT saying we should impose a new tax or increasing the taxes already collected. We all know once a new tax is imposed it is never rescinded. And a tax increase is hardly ever removed (the current administrations actions excepted). Why not show the rest of the world our government (and indirectly, our way of life/standard of living) affords us the opportunity to do this?
Are we *obligated* to do this,(Morally some might want to argue that point…I won’t) because we are the biggest and strongest kid on the block. And, yes, I would agree this might send a message to the world that every time a disaster strikes or (by extension) any time a group of peoples/country falls on hard times we will be there to drag them out. I would argue *the world* can think or feel how ever it wants, but in the end we will do as we feel. All I am saying is we have the ability to *as a nation* to set a standard that others could only look upon with awe.
This is not the same as personal giving and doing what you may feel is right in your heart and ability of your wallet to back it up. I agree the government has no right to dig in there and take what it wants, regardless of the reason for doing so.
Sorry for the long windedness Fran, and if I am missing the point somewhere along the line…please feel free to use the clue-bat.
Posted by GuyS on 12/30/2004 at 07:33 PMWe already DO that, Guy. Here’s what it takes to get to what you are suggesting: That Americans, ordinary Americans, do not and will not support worthwhile efforts around the world (or on our own streets) without someone holding a gun to our head.
That’s what you’re saying, even though you didn’t say it that plainly.
If Americans, individually, believe that there is merit to helping these countries rebuild, then that person can contribute to the efforts. Americans are “the greatest country on earth” not because of what its government does, but because of the heart and soul of each individual American. We don’t need a stinking collective entity to make us great—that will destroy the very spirit that has enabled us to be what you think we are.
Right now we’re looking at coping with a disaster—not rebuilding. In a couple weeks or months, after the initial crisis of gory details are dealt with, who do you think is going to be on the doorsteps of those governments with money helping to rebuild? Now, chances are also good that it will be investment capital, not outright donations, but there is nothing wrong with investments. That means that the people in that area can decide to deal with Americans on American terms OR NOT. They can’t say “we want your money but you can’t have anything in return for it.” Well, they CAN say that, but I think we know what the answer will be.
The best way to rebuild anything is with money where all parties benefit. Rebuild tourist destinations and villages with hope of a profit? It’s what we do! And everywhere we do it the lives for the people get BETTER.
In every single thing the government touches, it screws it up! The private sector handles these things with PRIVATE donations. Their ratio of overhead to benefit is enormously superior. Government giving becomes an entitlement, in every case you can find since the beginning of time. It’s a HUGE mistake. Once you create the mechanism for tax collection and the trough it needs to fill, it NEVER stops. Plus, it has the effect of the “I gave at the office” mentality. People not only have a desire, but a RIGHT to decide how and where their charitable contributions should go. People begin to hoard rather than share when it’s forced. Did anyone call for the Swedes to raise THEIR taxes?
The problem with these comparisons is that they’ve only shown the actual cash outlays by government entities. Was the cost of the US Flag aircraft carriers in the region included? What about the transport planes, military pilots, and the private donations included? NO! And that’s the problem. These stingy remarks are comparing ONLY what governments give—not what the people give. Remember, 40% of ALL aid last year was paid for by Americans. If you want to stop that outpouring of support and charity, put the government in the exclusivity position.
Posted by Mrs. du Toit on 12/30/2004 at 08:12 PM*ugh* What a mess. NO. There is no sanity in taxation of Americans to benefit other countries. None. Zip. Zero. Ziltch.
I am against taxes being used to support the nations own welfare system to begin with. Federally enforced charity, my ass. It’s an outrage.
People who can give, WILL give. According to their desire and ability. It should not be forced nor coerced out of them.
Posted by Deb S. on 12/30/2004 at 08:18 PMThere is no sanity in taxation of Americans to benefit other countries.
God damn, I’m pleased people are saying this. Finally, we can ask for our money back from those goddamned Iraqis. Let them overthrow their own dictators and build their own democracies, ungrateful bastards.
Posted by McDuff on 12/30/2004 at 09:32 PMNo fair! You have sent my spouse to argue agin’ me *grin*.
Seriously, I am not saying in any way shape or form we should increase taxes. Nor am I trying to say we need to increase our governments level of aid because we were *bullied* in doing so because of some dim bulb from the UN calling us stingy.
What I was saying that as a government and being the largest kid on the block we could call the worlds bluff and show them what real charity is like.
Also, I would agree we at the federal level don’t need to get into *rebuilding* programs. There are as Connie has stated more then enough private contractors who can fill that mode. (which, if they get said contracts will open up more jobs so the economy here will benefit as well)And I wonder if the administration could have had someone figure out in dollars and cents just how much our sending the fleet over there and other items not given as dollar amounts would bring our total amount of aid to?
I think where the difference is….is the federal/government *aid* is non-specific in nature. The various charitable organizations often times are targeted to a specific area of a given country and or a specific group that benefits from their charity (ie: Save The Children).
And finally (before Fran sends me the bill for hogging bandwidth). Connie makes one point that I would have to concede to. Yes, the government is appalling in how it handles most programs/projects, especially those of a social nature. If for that reason alone, your argument is capable of arm wrestling mine to the table.
Posted by GuyS on 12/30/2004 at 10:11 PMA better proposal: let the monies that would otherwise go to support the parasites at the U.N. be directed toward relief for the next ten years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/31/2004 at 01:02 AMHold on there, John, I thought we were against giving people US tax dollars? If we give the unpaid debt to the UN away, that’s about $750M, by my calculations! You sure you want to be throwing that sort of money around when treasury’s showing a multi-trillion dollar deficit and a trade deficit to match? I say, keep as much of that in the country as you can.
Posted by McDuff on 12/31/2004 at 01:35 AMTook this theme today as well at just about the same time .
Freaking me out! Francis.
Maybe we could just alternate days and have some time off.
Posted by Gerard Van der Leun on 12/31/2004 at 03:02 AMI am a reasonable man, McDuff. We can—and should—certainly debate on the amount to be allocated as tzedakah. Even so, assuming that we reach a compromise on the amount, the way in which it is to be given also needs debate.
Whatever the amount may be, giving it through the U.N. is probably the worst way of all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/01/2005 at 12:48 PMHere’s some stats from a recent series in the Washington Times on American Popular Culture:
==
Clipped from http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041227-122825-4234r Saturday, January 1, 2005:Spirit of giving
The same reliance on private forces and individual initiative is evident in American patterns of giving, which also deviate markedly from the rest of the world.
The U.S. government ranked 22nd among the world’s developed nations in 2003 in foreign aid on a per-capita basis, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, offering one-sixth the amount of aid per citizen offered by Norway.
But private philanthropy in America is one of the most powerful and effective aid programs on earth, concludes a new study by researchers at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.
American private charities are set to spend more than $200 billion this year, and more than half of U.S. adults will work on volunteer projects, putting in an estimated 20 billion hours in donated time.
One study by the Washington-based Philanthropy Roundtable found that the average American household contributes seven times as much to charity as its German counterpart, and Americans are six times more likely than Germans to do volunteer work.
“In short,” researchers Alexander Karp, Gary A. Tobin and Aryeh Weinberg write in the journal Philanthropy, “American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard and the reason is that America herself is exceptional.”
==Posted by Gerard Van der Leun on 01/01/2005 at 01:27 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
