Next Wednesday, Barack Obama is scheduled to address a United Nations summit calling for a “small global tax” on the U.S. economy and hundreds of millions more dollars in U.S. aid — and some of his advisers do not believe that is enough.
Obama will speak to the UN Summit on Millennium Development Goals, a global “anti-poverty” blueprint that calls for $845 billion in foreign aid from the U.S. before 2015. But the UN and several foreign nations will use next week’s conference to push for “small global taxes” on airline tickets and financial transactions that could net $30-$35 billion a year. The new UN tax will deposit the money collected from developed Western nations into a “Global Solidarity Fund,” which will then redistribute the funds to other nations. The president told the UN last year, “We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.”
An undisclosed portion of this will go toward “climate change mitigation” — that is, advancing the global socialists’ Green agenda. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has no plans to keep the international slush fund small, insisting properly saving the world from greenhouse gases “would require financial assistance of perhaps an additional 1 percent of gross domestic product of rich countries in 2015.” (Emphasis added.) That would haven taken $143 billion out of the U.S. economy last year alone, a debt he deems “a small sum compared with the likely costs of inaction.”
It is a small sum compared to the plan advocated by Barack Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who has spent the last 30 years calling for a UN tax ten to twenty times that amount.
Obama’s top science adviser advocated the global transfer of wealth in the 1977 book, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with anti-population extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. This author was the first journalist to report Holdren’s decades-long advocacy of a “Comprehensive Planetary Regime” overseeing everything from “compulsory abortion” to “wealth redistribution” to regulation of “all international trade,” all carried out under the watchful eye of a world army. The book stated the “de-development of overdeveloped countries…should be given top priority” (p. 926), and such nations — e.g., the United States and the developed West — should “divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them” (p. 931). In startlingly similar wording to that used by Ban Ki-moon, Holdren and company suggest “the rich nations devote 20 percent of their GNPs for ten or fifteen years to the task of population control and development of the poor countries.” The trio deemed this global socialism “not only justified but essential” (p. 925, emphasis added).
Two decades later, Holdren continued to advance this proposal. In 1995, he reiterated:
[C]ooperative effort needed to create the basis for durable prosperity, and hence durable security, for all the world’s people would require an investment equivalent to 10 to 20 percent of the rich countries’ GNPs, sustained over several decades. In 1995, these figures do not seem far wrong, but they are said to be politically unrealistic: nothing approaching them has ever been seriously contemplated by the world’s governments. Until this changes, a world free of war…will remain just a dream.
Holdren was lead author of a February 2007 report again offering his vision of a global-powered IRS overseeing a substantial carbon tax, or a global cap-and-trade program. Holdren wrote the final plan must contain a “means for transferring some of the revenue produced by carbon taxes upon, or permits purchased by, countries and consumers with high incomes and high per capita emissions to countries and consumers with low incomes and low per capita emissions” (pp. 70-72, emphases in original).
Earlier this week, after suggesting global warming be renamed the more threatening-sounding “global climate disruption,” Holdren pledged he would promote the “de-development” of America “through the free market economy.”
American GDP in 2009 totaled nearly $14.3 trillion. The man Barack Obama chose to be his closest adviser on science policy counsels world peace demands that the government transfer $1.43 to $2.86 trillion of that amount to Third World countries every year for several decades. Under the best circumstances, that would collapse the U.S. economy — which is precisely the outcome many on the Green Left desire. As I have noted, Holdren has mused about reducing “GDP per person” (your wealth) to lower consumption and insisted increasing the cost of gasoline is “actually a good idea.” Holdren and the Ehrlichs dubbed themselves “neo-Malthusians,” enthusiasts of the British economist Thomas Malthus, whose philosophy can properly be described as anti-human.
The global elites are busily promoting the environmentalists’ radical agenda. George Soros donated $50 million to launch the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET). At its inaugural conference in April, British professor Kate Pickett expounded, “we must raise the standards of living and the wealth of the developing world while sort of contracting the consumption and wealth of the developed world.” She concluded “a bit more poverty” for “the rich, developed economies” would be “a very good thing.”
Pickett pales in comparison with Holdren. He condescended to a CNSNews.com reporter who asked about his book, “If you read it and you have a problem, you’re misreading it.”
Yet it seems clear Barack Obama is about to address a summit dedicated to creating the first, “small” economic component of a socialist world government, and Holdren is disappointed it will not cause Americans enough pain.
1. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment.(San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977).