 |
The Global Poverty Act: Cover-Up or Apathy? |
 |
Last year, Barack Obama was part of a bipartisan effort to introduce what is known as the Global Poverty Act of 2007.  This bill, which passed in the House in February of this year and is currently under consideration in the Senate, seeks to develop a strategy for reducing world poverty. Specifically, the Global Poverty Act would make it the official policy of the United States to work for the achievement of the UN’s Millenium Development Goal. This would mean, among other things, reducing by one-half the number of people worldwide who live on less than $1 a day.
Not surprisingly, the Global Poverty Act has received strong support from some groups, who see it as a humanitarian imperative; and stiff opposition from others, who call it a “global tax” and warn that it gives the UN control over American foreign aid.
What is surprising, though, is how little mainstream media coverage this bill has been getting. I must admit I had never heard of it until this week, when I decided to research Obama’s Senate record. But this bill is huge! Whether or not it passes addresses many of the critical questions to be answered in the post-Bush era. How are we going to respond to the startling gap between wealth and poverty in the world? How are we going to work with the UN? How will we try to repair the damage that has been done to US credibility around the world? What is the role of the federal government vs. private institutions in the fight against poverty?
The fact that a presidential candidate is sponsoring such a momentous and potentially controversial bill speaks volumes about where his true convictions lie. Yet the popular media thinks that what his former pastor or his wife has to say (or what he wears on his lapel, for cyring out loud!) is more worthy of their coverage.Â
What is fascinating about the lack of coverage on the Global Poverty Act is that it’s the right-wingers who are crying foul. They believe that the media is pro-Obama and is protecting him from a conservative backlash.  They would like to see him excoriated in the press as a tax-and-spend liberal who is recklessly committing the United States to something that is not in our best interests. Media bias, it seems, is truly located in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps, though, the bias that is really at work is the profit motive. The mainstream media is not talking about this bill because poverty is not a topic that sells. Local news obsesses on violent crime and rarely covers poverty, even though poverty affects 25 times as many Americans. Its the same when it comes to world news. War and natural disasters dominate the headlines, but the fact that billions of people are scrounging each day just to find food is largely ignored. If only starvation were sexier, perhaps this bill would get the attention it is due - and perhaps we would get a better understanding of where our candidates’ hearts truly lie.
Can somebody get this kid a better self portrait? Honestly? I just can’t trust information from some kid wearing a 1986 Braves hat with a smile on his face that looks like Dateline NBC should be knocking at his door. I’m sure you know your shit man but the picture says otherwise…..
Wow, you read this article and all you noticed was his picture?
I’m deeply disappointed that there wasn’t some discussion in this article about the particulars of the bill. How exactly do they plan on reducing poverty? With the corruption in the UN, I’m not expecting much progress, and I am sorely tired of the empty platitudes that pop up every election year. Give me substance, or shut up.
Outraged that the press isn’t covering the bill? Then cover it.
This bill does put our Humanitarian aid in the hands of the U.N. I support reducing poverty, but i also believe that we can not live anymore outside our means than we already are. This bill gives those countries the ability to sue us for the aid if we don%u2019t give it to them. What about our crisis at home? Granted i do believe that we are far better off than those in other places. I know because I%u2019ve been to 13 hardship countries and its awful, but this allows our economy to be put in the hands of people who are more worried about their gain than the stability of the U.S. booooo on Obama for this.
(I saw your question so I just copied and pasted my comment here it wasn’t directed towards you)
Joey, thanks for illustrating Jim’s point. Rather than paying attention to the substance of his argument, you’re distracted by his fashion choices.
Would you rather be part of the problem or part of the solution?
Hey! It’s not my fault if I’m 35 and still get carded most of the time. Experience has taught me that a naive, youthful appearance allows me to sneak up on people.
It’s interesting to consider how co-opted our media is. Newspapers will delay running articles if it hurts a politician near their reelection (Bush and NYT). Networks will marginalize people they don’t like (Ron Paul) and will consistently give incorrect information (Hillary wins Texas, WMD) at the whim of the War Machine. The internet is starting to become targeted by major organization to prevent “exposure” of things they don’t like (Wikipedia edits by corporations and government, Wikileaks being sued, O’Reilly claiming DailyKos is attacking him). It is my opinion, that saying the public doesn’t want to see it is simply a spin to make sure the agenda is followed.
Maybe corporate media dont want to bring attention to class issues when a suitable vehicle for dealing with them is in sight. For them (and their interests), it is better to cover stories that dont lead back home (to the doorsteps of exploitative producers of consumer goods). Because footage of a C130 dropping rice is alot more ’sexy’ to us and their advertisers, than opening a dialogue about the principles that work to fill up a Wal-Mart (and make us question). I dont know about anybody else, but I remember when exploitative manufacturers were the ’sexy’ issue in academia / the blogosphere, and I dont think that these issues have been tended to just yet. End corporate greed, because I know alot of people that would be 100% content making clothing in a west philly commune, for a living.
Oh, and to stay on track. Obama’s mother was an anthropologist, and I suspect that he’s got some pretty heavy principles. But in the mayhem of the MSM, Obama must play by the rules, because a true effing dialogue in this country will never get enough airtime, and unfortunately - there are still many people that arent on here chit chatting like us.
Cheers
Neatly 10 trillion in national debt, $4.3 trillion in unfunded social security obligations over the next 75 years, a struggling economy, falling dollar, monetary inflation, rising oil prices, etc…
Sounds like a good time to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign aid!
I think this bill could be paid for with the money we spend for a couple months in Iraq. Lets withdraw, save some cash, and we’ll even be allowed to be a bit more generous, too!
“Can somebody get this kid a better self portrait? Honestly? I just can’t trust information from some kid wearing a 1986 Braves hat with a smile on his face that looks like Dateline NBC should be knocking at his door. I’m sure you know your shit man but the picture says otherwise%u2026..”
Great another government/corporate employee spamming messaging boards trying to distract people from the issue at hand. If you don’t have anything to say about the post then keep your fucking mouth shut. No one gives a damn about the guys appearance/age/color/creed or anythng else. Rather people do give a damn about poor of this country who have been screwed by the congress and the corporate controlled media that buries every single story that goes against their empire agenda. I am sick and tired of this shit, and thank God for the internet so that information that would have never been heard is now freely exchanged through unbiased websites. Let’s hope that some reporter with a conscience out there goes against his bosses wishes and posts the stories that really effect the world and NOT Britney Spears latest endeavors.
How will more taxes and aid reduce global poverty? Can you point to some place in history where this strategy has brought a nation out of poverty and made them wealthy and prosperous? Study the inflationary practices of the federal reserve and other central banks. You’ll find an interesting correlation in the gap between rich and poor and rate at which central banks increase the money supply. If you want to understand why this happens, read Murray Rothbard’s “What Has the Government Done to Our Money?”. It’s available free from mises.org. They even have a free audiobook version.
Oh great. More redistribution of wealth, only on a global level. No thanks. I give enough already. I don’t need the government reaching any deeper into my pockets as I’m on the way to the poor house from all the taxes I pay.
Fascinating. I wonder why I had not heard of this bill until now? A President who endorsed such a bill would be awesome. If we could get the War Monger Bush out of office and stop his Global Dominatin efforts in Iraq, imagine the BILLIONS that could be used to HELP people. It will be interesting to see where and if this goes.
JJ
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
Woah, throwing our money at other countries is not a good idea when we have crumbling infrastructure and poorer and poorer education standards.
How much money is Obama going to spend and where is it coming from?
Housing Bailouts?
Universal Health Care?
Pumping money into poor countries?
Also its been more and more common to hear about the poor people receiving this money completely squandering it what they do receive after criminal elements take as much as they can.
Might as well be washing the money down the toilet.
Who pays for all of this?
How much of your income did you donated to ending global poverty last year?
If the answer is zero, then I suggest you re-evaluate your looter’s perspective.
I, for one, am more interested in my family’s and my friends’ well-being than those halfway across the world. Call me selfish, but I think we all harbor similar sentiments. Money is not free.
Juty,
Where does the moey come from?
CC,
Shouldn’t we be selfish?
Well, many people have tried being selfish: it doesn’t work. Cooperation makes people, countries, economies richer. By triggering entire population out of poverty traps, you help yourself.
By preventing poorer American from entering foreclosure, you avoid a housing market down-spiraling and save a lot of money.
Any economist will tell you: money doesn’t come from digging up gold out of the earth; Gold doesn’t produce anything if is sits in a vault. Money comes from trust that people have in one another — literally: check out a course on monetary macroeconomics.
A simple question - since when is it the US responsibility to reduce global poverty when the middle class in the country is being wiped out.
If he does find a way to fund this once he is President, I hope there are offsetting cuts in other programs. If not, then he lied his A_S off about wanted to be more fiscally responsible.
What a nice goal of reducing poverty. Let’s get everyone over the $1 per day goal. Unfortunately, the UN’s track record on humanitarian aid sucks. This amounts to little more than a $1 per day hand out, plus $3 per day in administrative overhead, kickbacks, bribes and graft. Assuming we limit this to $1 for actual aid, who is going to pay the $365/year tax per recipient? Again, the UN’s track record points to the USA for funding. I’ve got my own kids to feed.
What UN track of humanitarian record are you refering too?
Balkans are as safe as the rest of Europe, Africa’s Horn is increasing quiet, Ivory Coast is at rest %u2014%u2014 all that in spite of increasing Middle-East tensions. Are you blaming UN for not doing anything to stop USA’s pandemonium in the area?
Actually, by kick-starting a reduction of poverty, you reduce terrorism (violence always comes from depair, at all level) and you improve World’s economy: the new demand increase USA sales. USA tried it in 1946 with the Marshall plan and it worked really well so far.
Absolutely great point. We can do well by others and ourselves at the same time. It’s been done before.
Thanks to Jim for posting this and to whoever on reddit.com that flagged it for viewing.
I read the full text of the bill. Not only does it have bi-partisan support, but I didn’t see any direct references to taxation as the way to fund this bill. It seemed more towards focusing energy and awareness on poverty in order to amend trade agreements and other legislation in a way that would benefit these individual areas. I don’t normally read bills, though so I may have mis-interpreted something. If I did, I would appreciate a kindly worded response that educates me on where my logic is flawed. Thanks!
remember, a dollar is worth 50cents now…
There are no direct references to taxation.
I also found the bill lacking a comprehensive plan to fund the effort to give every one of Earth’s children free puppies and cookies.
Seriously, if you are really losing sleep over this world poverty thing, there are many highly effective private charities who will take your guilt-ridden, upper-middle class disposable income. In the meantime, I will keep working late here at my second job so I can keep the lights on at home.
The Global Poverty Act is a four page bill, with mounting bipartisan support, that simply gives a directive to US agencies and departments already engaged in foreign aid and poverty-focused development assistance. In that there is not one single point from which these funds are distributed, the Global Poverty Act would create a plan, with complete congressional and Presidential oversight to address the first Millennium Development Goal (there are a total of eight, by the way) of which the United States committed to work toward eight years ago.
The subsequent plan would not work through the UN, as many people have commented on its low quality work in humanitarian efforts, but rather would be an effort of the US government to keep a promise it has made to the global community.
No new funding is necessary for the implementation of this bill. Staff hours of departments related to the distribution of foreign aid and poverty-focused development assistance will be the only cost of this bill — and those hours have already been committed and will be paid for outside of the Global Poverty Act’s directives.
We must move from charity - which will only treat the symptoms of this crisis - to justice, by addressing programs that work outside of corrupt governments (i.e. Millennium Challenge Account) that are proven to be efficient and effective means to distribute US Aid. It is in our best national security interest to address cyclical poverty which prevents smaller countries from entering into larger economic markets.
I am guessing you are supporting this bill. This bill does put our Humanitarian aid in the hands of the U.N. I support reducing poverty, but i also believe that we can not live anymore outside our means than we already are. This bill gives those countries to sue us for the aid if we don’t give it to them. What about our crisis at home? Granted i do believe that we ae far better off than those in other places. I know because I’ve been to 13 hardship countries and its awful, but this allows our economy to be put in the hands of people who are more worried about their gain than the stability of the U.S. booooo on Obama for this.