Posts
President Barack Obama has made one final contribution to the fight against global warming on his way out the White House door. On Tuesday, Obama transferred $500 million to the UN's Green Climate Fund, a key program set up to finance climate change adaptation and renewable energy projects in developing countries. That's on top of another $500 million the Obama administration had already given to the fund.
There are undoubtedly hundreds, if not thousands, of such examples of a politician spending other people's money for causes that he or she deems worthy. But I would feel a lot more comfortable if people were given the choice when it comes to "worthy causes." Government should never be in the business of providing charity, because charity is an activity which is best left to the private sector. First, let people keep more of the money they earn. Then let them decide which worthy causes they would like to finance with their private and voluntary contributions. If "worthy causes" fail to raise the money they need, then those same causes might want to rethink how worthy they really are.
9 comments:
Typo in this sentence:
"First, let people keep more of the money they earn. Then let them decide which worth causes they would like to finance with their private and voluntary contributions."
Noted and fixed, thanks
So you are against green initiatives, so for you that's not a good use of money. There are plenty of area of Federal spending on which I strongly disagree. Your argument is that everyone should make their own decision on a "common good" issues because you may disagree with the usage. Personally, I think the US should cut its military spending by 90% -- do I get to choose?
Secondly, and I call this the Perry Effect, many people have no idea what these institutions actually do. Understanding the world weather system is important (otherwise weather satellites are also a waste of money. Understanding what institutions is key to understanding why the get cash -- clearly Perry had no idea 8 years ago what the DoE's role really was (deals with the US nuclear arsenal...).
Handing over $500 million to the UN for the purpose of helping poor countries adapt to climate change by subsidizing green energy projects is not at all in the same category as military spending. Subsidies of any sort are basically handouts to favored groups and interests, and are not too dissimilar to charity. The federal government should not be in the business of making charitable contributions nor should it be giving out subsidies.
Sure it is. You just don't agree with it. Its not a crime, but you say: "Its important to spend hundreds of billion on weapon systems. I disagree, of course its the same thing -- the US government is handing its money to a third party...that it!
You're spinning your wheels arguing with FROZEN Scott. I agve up arguing with the left long ago. Like talking to a GD wall.
These "handouts" to foreign governments are for the most part foreign policy gestures, NOT charity.
For the largest example of this you must look at "needy" recipients like the State of Israel.
For what it's worth, the goodwill earned by the US when spent to help actually poor countries is a much better spend the throwing money at a country like Israel.
As for running the $$$ through the UN - probably not the best idea.
Great content.
Post a Comment