The United Nations: Get Out or â€œShare the Sacrifice!â€
By: Michael John McCrae
A recent article from â€œBloombergâ€ entitled: â€œU.S. Decries Salaries, Staffing in New UN Budgetâ€ by Bill Varner and Flavia Krause-Jackson – Sep 29, 2011 begins: â€œThe Obama administration told the United Nations that too few of its 10,307 workers are being cut and average salaries, currently $119,000 a year, have risen â€œdramatically.â€
I will admit that I had no idea the â€œaverageâ€ salary of a worker in the anti-American United Nations was so grand, ($119 grand that is) but you can do the math for the â€œ10,307 workersâ€. Too, I had no idea Barack Hussein Obama had input concerning personnel cuts and salary caps for those UN employees.
I will admit that I know the United Nations is a sham organization. Ever since the lid was blown off on the â€œOil for Foodâ€ fiasco with Saddam Husseinâ€™s Iraq I had been hoping the United States would close the doors on that largely socialist, quasi-world, pretend governmental body of duplicitous diplomats. Yet, being the globalist President Barack Hussein Obama is I am sure he is largely in tune with United Nations idealism.
From the article: â€œThe U.S. ambassador for UN management and reform, Joseph M. Torsella, said today that the proposed $5.2 billion UN budget for the next two years would scrap only 44 jobs, a 0.4 percent reduction. After an â€œonslaughtâ€ of add-ons, the 2012-13 budget would rise more than 2 percent to $5.5 billion, he said.â€
Now, the article doesnâ€™t indicate what those â€œ44 jobsâ€ would be, but I can guarantee you none of the jobs cut will be the higher salaried positions. As is, the overall UN budget is going to rise anyway. Have we known any government budget for anything ever getting smaller? Torsella is quoted further: â€œThat is not a break from â€˜business as usualâ€™ but a continuation of itâ€¦How does management intend to bring these numbers and costs back in line?â€
Well, if that is left up to the foreigners who are currently running the shop the answer to Mr. Torsellaâ€™s question might be: â€œWhat numbers? What costs?â€ followed by some doe-in-the-headlights-stare and a shrug of collective UN shoulders.
The article tells us that U.S House Republicans have â€œintroduced legislationâ€ that would â€œwithhold a percentage of [U.S.] contributions until at least 80 percent of the UN budget is voluntary.â€ That might be a beginning to some type of reform, but reading on: â€œWhile pressing for savings in the UN budget, the Obama administration is opposed to withholding U.S. funding. That approach to forcing UN reform is â€œfundamentally flawed in concept and practice, sets it back, is self-defeating, and doesnâ€™t work,â€ U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said on Sept. 13.â€
How can anyone say something â€œDoesnâ€™t workâ€ if it has never been tried? The United States pays the lionâ€™s share of the UN budget and gets very little in return for those billions except more demands for peacekeeping support. From the article: â€œThe U.S. pays 22 percent of the UNâ€™s regular operating budget and is assessed 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. U.S. payments totaled $3.35 billion in 2010, of which $2.67 billion was dedicated to the 16 peacekeeping operations worldwide, from South Sudan to Haiti.â€
There are 193 nations in the UN membership. One might think the organizationâ€™s funding could be a bit more equitably distributed. A suggestion might be for each country to pay 1.93 percent of the suggested operating and peacekeeping budget. We could charge each country 1.93 percent as sort of a â€œmembership feeâ€. You have to pay, to stay or walk away! As countries walked away, the percentage would simply decrease (although the dollar amount of the percentage would slightly increase). Seems like a win-win situation. For one country to pay a quarter of all costs is unreasonable. It is certainly not â€œSharing the Sacrifice!â€
The article addresses the costs of UN personnel: â€œTorsella also complained about receiving the UN budget proposal in a â€œpiecemeal fashionâ€ with â€œtoo little financial analysis.â€ He cited, as an example, not knowing how much the UN spends on health-care benefits for its employees. Calling personnel the â€œlargest and most important driver of long-term costs,â€ Torsella said those expenses increased to $2.4 billion in the 2010-11 budget from $1.4 billion a decade earlier.â€
Much of this increase is probably due to â€œObamacareâ€ but the article does not admit to that. It also does not admit to Union money-laundering operations. It also does not say whether all these â€œemployeesâ€ are Americans but for the sake of argument we will assume they are. I donâ€™t know too many third-world nationals making salaries averaging $119 thousand a year.
Then, assuming they are all Americans we have to ask why they are not all on TRICARE? The United States Military (all forces) are receiving their medical attention through TRICARE HMOâ€™s. If TRICARE is good enough for the volunteers who fight and die for Americaâ€™s security; TRICARE should be good enough for all government employees; including Senators, Congressmen and the President of the United States! Can you imagine the billions of dollars that could be saved if every government worker actually paid a portion of their health care (just like the United States Military)? But I digress.
The solution to the United Nationsâ€™ budget is simple. Everybody pays the same percentage. If any country complains about the costs, then perhaps true reform will take place. Right now all the monetary pain is being assessed to American taxpayers while anti-American countries enjoy the bounties of UN membership as beggar nations. If the anti-American countries want to be in a United Nations, let them start and pay for their own communist, socialist or fascist organization!
To be truly â€œunitedâ€ every country should share the UN budgetary sacrifice.