Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal

By Jonathon Moseley, AIM

Barack Obama’s $65 billion-a-year “Global Tax” proposal is creating a firestorm on the Internet, sparked by articles by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media in February. In response, left-wing supporters of Barack Obama are feverishly striving to defuse the controversy, attempting to discredit, dismiss, or diminish the story first revealed by AIM’s Kincaid.

In what may be his only achievement in national politics, Senator Obama introduced S. 2433, the “Global Poverty Act,” in 2007. Then, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) rammed Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” through his committee as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-without any hearings. S. 2433 is expected to reach the full Senate floor for debate any day. A similar bill already passed the U.S. House of Representatives, making final passage a dangerous possibility. The pressure on President Bush to sign it would be intense, especially from Obama’s supporters in the media.

If the contents of legislation could be judged by the title dreamed up by spinmeisters, anything named “Global Poverty Act” would involve noble goals of alleviating poverty. However, we were taught from childhood not to judge a book by its cover. We must also not judge legislation by its title.

The Hidden Agenda

Obama’s Global Poverty Act is in fact a stunning and sweeping step toward socialism and one-world government. When we look beyond the seductive title, and read the actual contents, we discover that Obama and Biden are setting America up for imposition of a global tax, controlled by the United Nations. For the first time, the U.S. could be forced to adopt a global tax at the behest of an international body. The planned amount is 0.7% of America’s Gross National Product (GNP) or $65 billion per year, in addition to America’s current foreign aid budget.

Obama’s legislative record in this regard is so damaging that the left-wing blogosphere has gone into over-drive to muddy the waters. The left-wing “Media Matters” has gone on the attack, and others have taken up the chorus. When Senator Biden’s opponent for election, Christine O’Donnell, revealed Biden’s promotion of Obama’s Global Tax on Fox News, Media Matters attacked within minutes.

Rather than addressing the substance of Kincaid’s revelations, Obama’s defenders invent a straw man to knock down instead. Media Matters argues that S. 2433 does not directly impose any tax. But Kincaid never said that it did. As Kincaid revealed, S. 2433 is clearly intended to engineer, or lay the groundwork for, a global tax. Kincaid never suggested it would happen in a single step. Yet S. 2433 can have no other long-range purpose.

As Kincaid explained, the bill does not attach a dollar figure-and does not need to-because that is contained in the 2002 so-called “Monterrey Consensus,” which grew out of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, which is cited in the bill. Understanding this critical fact is a simple matter of reading the appropriate U.N. documents. The sponsors could count on the major media not to do so.

The Millennium Declaration, which was issued in 2000, specifically called for a “Financing for Development” conference, which was held in 2002 in Monterrey, Mexico, and produced the “Monterrey Consensus.” This document committed nations to spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP) on official development assistance (ODA), otherwise known as foreign aid. It says, specifically, that “We recognize that a substantial increase in ODA and other resources will be required if developing countries are to achieve the internationally agreed upon development goals and objectives, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration.” It goes on to call for “concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 percent” of GNP as ODA and proposes “innovative sources of finance” to pay for the increased foreign aid, a reference to global taxes.

The Price Tag

Jeffrey Sachs, who ran the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” which monitors compliance with and progress toward these goals, says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign-aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. “We are short by $65 billion each year, which may seem like a vast sum, but it represents just 0.5% of our GNP,” says Sachs.

As Kincaid, using Sachs’s figures, calculates it, over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the Millennium Development Goals, this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs himself wrote, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama claims that S. 2433 merely declares U.S. policy to fight poverty. But if that were true, then S. 2433 does nothing at all. The U.S. has already been fighting poverty around the world for many decades. Starting with the Marshall Plan after World War II, and accelerated by John F. Kennedy’s idealism, Americans have spent gigantic fortunes on ending poverty globally, for at least 60 years. Does Obama really not know what the U.S. has already been doing for decades on the world stage? Why would Obama propose what the U.S.A. has already been doing without him?

S. 2433 is clearly setting the stage for a global tax, by backing the U.S. into a corner. Once the U.S. commits through international diplomacy to the goal of contributing 0.7% of its GNP and the Congress enforces this goal through Obama’s legislation, the U.S is on the road to accepting the global tax to pay for it.

This is the critical point: S. 2433 mandates that the president actually implement these goals and not merely discuss them. A future president- possibly a liberal like Obama himself- would be obligated to actually “make it happen.” Obama’s bill does not just declare policy. It mandates actual implementation of the $65 billion-a-year “contribution” to foreign aid by the next president. If the U.S. has already agreed to this through Congress, the final step in international negotiations over implementation of a global tax will become difficult, if not impossible, to resist.

No Hearings

Disputes about the real meaning of Obama’s legislation might have been avoided if Joe Biden hadn’t slipped the bill through without any hearings. If the goal were innocent, Obama and Biden would have wanted maximum publicity-even campaign “photo ops.” Instead, they quietly slid the bill through unnoticed, in a hurry. Why?

Of course, the United States is already the most generous nation on Earth. S. 2433 is not needed to declare U.S. foreign policy to fight poverty. Helping poor countries is why the U.S. government priced U.S. manufacturers and exports out of the market with a strong dollar policy and encouraged imports of products from poor nations.

Unfortunately, projects to develop Latin America, for example, turned out to be like plowing the sea. The cause of poverty was not lack of U.S. funding, but their socialist governments and unjust legal systems. We must export the real causes of our success, not just send money. Certainly, the United Nations will be part of the problem in this, not part of the solution. But Obama seems to trust the United Nations.


An interesting contribution to Barack Obama’s campaign shows up in the records of the Federal Election Commission. Casey Kauffman of Al-Jazeera, who lists his occupation as a journalist in Doha, gave the Democratic candidate $500 in February.

Al-Jazeera, which most U.S.-based cable and satellite providers have rejected for airing because of its terrorist links and anti-American programming, probably won’t be playing much of a role in the American presidential campaign. But the contribution is indicative of the bias that infects the media here and around the world.

The depth of the deception that is now underway can be understood by analyzing the significance of Obama’s “I love America” anti-communist foreign policy speech in Berlin, Germany, in view of the fact that the candidate and his media acolytes continue to conceal the central role that a Stalinist Communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis played in his upbringing.

In Berlin, Obama almost sounded like Ronald Reagan, who became a strong anti-communist by fighting them in Hollywood. “And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city,” Obama noted. “They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin. The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin. And that’s when the airlift began-when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.”


Obama sounded like a veteran anti-communist. But in his record has he ever shown hostility to communism? His remarks were completely at variance with what we know about him. Obama closely associated with communists for much of his life and career. We’ve heard about some of them, including communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. But one communist that few in the media want to talk about is Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure. Davis actually wrote a poem in honor of the Soviet Red Army that Obama denounced in Berlin.

The “Red Army” poem goes beyond hoping for the communists to beat the Nazis in World War II and hails the Soviet revolution. It says:

“Show the marveling multitudes

Americans, British, all your allied brothers

How strong you are

How great you are

How your young tree of new unity

Planted twenty-five years ago

Bears today the golden fruit of victory!”

Obama refers to Davis as just “Frank” in his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, but does note that he was a contemporary of black authors Richard Wright and Langston Hughes. What Obama doesn’t mention is that “Frank” stayed with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) while Hughes and Wright broke from it. In fact, Davis was so extreme that he accused Wright of “treason” for exposing the CPUSA.

Davis’s influence over Obama is demonstrated by the fact that Obama left Davis in Hawaii, attended socialist conferences and picked Marxist professors as his friends in college, went to Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church with his children, and then launched his political career in the home of Ayers and Dohrn.

Dohrn’s Bloody Hands

While Ayers gets most of the attention, it is Dohrn who is more important. She refuses to deny credible reports that she planted a bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman. The whole story is detailed in our last AIM Report. But is anybody in the media willing to ask Obama about her terrorist activities?

While Ayers and Dohrn and their comrades took instructions and advice from Hanoi and Havana and even Cuban and Soviet intelligence operatives, Davis was even more notorious.

He not only belonged to the CPUSA when it functioned as an apologist for Stalin, but Davis took the Stalinist line when Stalin made common cause with Hitler. The Germans at Obama’s speech might be interested in this aspect of the story. So might an American audience.

We already knew Davis was a Stalinist. NAACP member Edward Berman testified that “comrade Davis” tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii “for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

But veteran anti-communist researcher and author Herbert Romerstein has now brought to our attention even more damaging information. He points out that Davis was one of the signers of a statement issued by the League of American Writers in June of 1941 during the Soviet-Nazi Pact.

It said in part, “We have warned that America must be defended not by involvement in this war, or by steps toward dictatorship, or by pursuing a course of imperialist expansion, but by preserving peace and expanding democracy on the economic, political and cultural levels. Today, we must ask whether the present policy of the administration and the program of big business are not leading us toward war and fascism in the name of resistance to war and fascism.”

In other words, as long as the Nazis and the Soviets were allies, Davis didn’t want the U.S. to go to war against the Nazis.

The statement asked a number of questions, including, “How best as writers can we resist the drive toward war and reaction which threatens our democratic culture?” The statement is printed on page 973 of Appendix IX of the Special Committee of Un-American Activities in 1944.

Romerstein comments that “This is clear support of the Soviet-Nazi Pact by Davis a short time before June 22, 1941, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union and the Communist Party line changed from peace to war.”

The point bears repeating: once the Soviets came under attack, the CPUSA line, which was adopted by party member Davis, turned into one supporting war on the Nazis.

This is the man that Obama’s white grandfather selected as the future candidate’s role model and mentor.

And yet in Berlin, Obama declared himself on the side of those who opposed Davis. “When you, the German people, tore down that wall-a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope-walls came tumbling down around the world,” he said.

Davis was an apologist for that tyranny. He read his “poems” to a teenage Obama and advised him that his white grandmother had a right to fear black people and that black people had a reason to hate white people, which certainly helps explain why Obama would eventually end up in Wright’s church.

Has Obama truly broken with the forces of international communism, which had so much influence over him? If the media don’t ask the question, the increasing numbers of those who know about Davis, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn and other questionable Obama links and associations will see the media coverage for what the McCain campaign labels it-a love affair with Obama. In short, the pro-Obama media bias may backfire in a big way. There is evidence it already is.

Professor Paul Kengor, author of a book about Reagan’s anti-communism, examined the work that Accuracy in Media has done on the Obama-Davis relationship and concludes that the evidence must not be ignored. Yet liberals and “progressives” in the press and elsewhere ignore, distort or downplay it. Some reporters, like Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, have treated it as a laughing matter.

Giving Davis A Pass

Kengor wonders what the press would think “of, say, a John McCain mentor who had toed the line for Hitler? I can tell you that I, as a conservative Republican, would be pretty darned disappointed and would demand some answers. I would not turn it into a joke. And if McCain did not absolutely, convincingly repudiate it, I absolutely would not vote for him.”

But when it comes to Obama, Kengor notes that “The end result is that the bad guys on the communist far-left, such as the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, continue to get a pass long after they’ve departed this world, as will those who consider them mentors. These were extreme leftists who hurt liberalism-who hurt some of the dearest liberal causes. Davis, in death, is protected, his dirty work covered up, by a press who must now protect their anointed one.”

Obama, of course, is the anointed one, for the U.S. press as well as reporters for the Arab government-funded Al-Jazeera. Now we witness the latest phase of the love affair as Obama, with the help of the media, portrays himself as an anti-communist in the Reagan mode who truly understands the battle between Soviet tyranny and human freedom and came down on the right side. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The good news is that a Rasmussen poll finds that many people aren’t buying it. It found that 49 percent of voters think that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November.

The Findings

A July 21 release from the firm declared that “The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago. Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.”

It also found that 45 percent say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win.

What could that information be? Could it have something to do with Frank Marshall Davis? Or Bernardine Dohrn? Are there more red skeletons in the closet?


Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: