OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Obama's Global Poverty Bill is Back

May 26, 2009 - by Donny Shaw

This time last year, with the presidential race in full swing, the RNC put out an aggressive fund raising pitch: “Good for America – or Good for Obama?”

“It seems the Democrats’ would-be president of the United States of America really believes that the rest of the world’s problems, and approval, trump the interests of Americans when it comes to how we live our lives and where our money is spent,” the RNC wrote in an email to their membership. They called out Obama on one bill in particular that he had introduced in the Senate, the Global Poverty Act of 2007, which they said “would raise the amount of American tax dollars allocated to United Nations’ redistribution efforts to $845 billion.” On his radio show Rush Limbaugh warned that the bill was “just the tip of the iceberg, should he win.”

The bill didn’t pass in the Senate last year. If it had, it would possibly have been vetoed by former President Bush. But with the Democrats’ expanded majority in the Senate this year and Barack Obama in the White House, the bill could easily become law. That’s why it’s big news that the bill has officially been reintroduced into the current session of Congress as the Global Poverty Act of 2009 by Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]. It is now on a clear course towards becoming law. As such, I want to take a minute to address some of concerns about the bill.

What would it do?

The bill would require the President to develop and implement through the Secretary of State a strategy to achieve a set of global poverty-reduction targets, including ones established at the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000. According to the bill’s summary, the strategy should be focused on “the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, the bill calls on the President’s strategy to include the following measurable targets and components: (1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries; (2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate; (3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate; (4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships; (5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and (6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs."

How much would it actually cost?

Associating the $845 billion figure with the Global Poverty Act, like the RNC and others have done, is a mistake. The figure comes from a United Nations recommendation that developed countries spend 0.7 percent of their GDP every year to in order to achieve the agreed on Millenium Development Goals. If the United States were to follow this recommendation, we would, in fact, spend $845 billion over the next 13 years. But, nothing in Obama’s Global Poverty Act would commit us to this spending, or, for that matter, hardly any increased spending at all. Although one of the bill’s stated goals – reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day – does come straight from the U.N.‘s Millenium Development Goals, it’s only one of 21 specific targets. And it’s just the target, not the strategy for achieving it, that is included in the bill.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan agency in charge of attaching budget numbers to bills in Congress, found that the Global Poverty Act would cost less than $1 million per year.

But couldn’t it lead to more foreign-aid spending?

Well, yes, it could, though any new spending stemming from the bill would have to be approved separately by Congress. Requirement (2) of the in the bill calls on the President to include in his strategy “making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.”

The key thing here is that the bill has no teeth; it would not actually make anything happen besides the creation of a report that would suggesting policies that would themselves have to be approved by Congress and other federal agencies before taking effect. The reality is that this is basically a feel-good bill that let’s the government say they are doing something to address global poverty without actually doing anything. That’s why, for example, the House version of the bill passed the House on a voice vote, meaning that there was so little opposition that neither party cared to challenge it or to even have the roll call data recorded.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.


becauseican 10/19/2011 2:25am

So…with our $16 trillion in national debt, we are contemplating funding a bill to fight worldwide poverty ?!?! Sorry, the U.S. taxpaers can’t afford it right now !
roof repairs carmichael

jrreich 09/22/2009 3:28pm

Look I agree we don’t need to increase foreign aid at all but all this bill says is the president, acting through Sec of State …

“shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

The only goal of the UN Millennium that worked towards is the reducing the poverty part, not the arms part. And as Donny stated, it has no teeth… funding would have to be voted on later. Although, I don’t like the wording “shall develop AND implement”. Which means more than just writing a report.

Anonymous 05/29/2009 5:18am
in reply to Anonymous May 26, 2009 1:49pm

I totally agree. It is bad enough that our own government wants to control every part of our lives but now they want to give power to to the rest of the world as well!

djtoth 05/27/2009 10:07am

We the people need to start taking care of WE THE PEOPLE. Foreign aid and trade has done more to harm us then help us. Former Steel worker who knows what foreign trade and aid has done to help her!

rizzo2am 05/27/2009 9:55am

The language of the bill just sets out to establish a strategy and really gives no specifics.

donnyshaw 05/27/2009 8:41am
in reply to Anonymous May 26, 2009 1:49pm

Those things are not in the bill:

Anonymous 05/26/2009 7:52pm
in reply to Anonymous May 26, 2009 1:49pm

Agreed. Anything that puts us even CLOSE to the Millennium Summit agreement is dangerous for America.

Anonymous 05/26/2009 3:31pm

Washington State thinks they’re going to get more foreign aid money for their Mercy Corps people,etc. and it ain’t happening. This is a foreign tax. Blair and Canada did this and it costs them 100s of billions.

We can’t stop foreign poverty, we can take care of our own LIKE GM. WE’RE BROKE

Anonymous 05/26/2009 3:28pm

This is a tax for foreigners. It will all go to foreign aid. We’ve tripled foreign aid, given it special budgets outside our regular budget, five year budgets and now WE’RE BROKE.

Obama was born outside the US and uses a 2 year Hawaii baby law. he should be impeached.

Anonymous 05/26/2009 1:49pm
Link Reply
+ -1

How about discussing he problems with the bill? Like the fact that it commits nations to ban small arms? That doesn’t fly with our second amendment but it would trump it due to the international agreement. It also sets up international court and demands to join the failed kyoto protocol. What do any of these things have to do with global poverty? Nothing. It is about government power and control over its citizens and citizens of other countries. This bill is junk, plain and simple.

rizzo2am 05/26/2009 9:08am

I think that there are some very compelling arguments for the U.S. to distribute more aid dollars abroad. For one thing it will foster a felling of “good will” and standing with the world community and the U.S. needs this right now. According to this article this would come at a very little cost. Also, it should be a goal for the U.S. to try to alleviate poverty worldwide. Many states that are plagued by violence, civil strife, and terror are so because there society is so poor it fosters such situations to exist. The U.S. can take a premptive strike against terrorism not through engaging in long, drawn out, and expensive wars. Rather it can do so by giving very cost efficient aid.

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.