Friday, November 16, 2007

Yea or Nay?

Several students in prior blogs have offered statistics as to how much money is spent across the world in different aspects of life, with some numbers being ridiculous to the point of humor, whether it be the $50 billion spent on cigarettes in Europe, the $12 billion perfumes, or the $11 billion in ice cream.
No person can reasonably argue that cigarettes or ice cream are exceptional for your health (especially the former); therefore, the current amount of money being spent on these items should be reduced greatly, perhaps even cut in half. Although this may cause discontentment among many smokers and ice cream fans alike, I am sure that the businesses (who would, at this time, be able to raise their prices due to the lesser amount of said products) would not complain, and a few hurt feelings are a small price to pay in exchange for healthier lungs, smaller waistlines, and even less pollution (due to the fact that less chemicals would be burned, either from cigarettes, or the matches/lighters used to light them).
All of the money saved by cutting this spending would, of course, be used to implement thorough and organized education in numerous developing countries, with the focuses ranging from simply basic literary skills for women, to family planning for both men and women. Furthermore, many (if not all) of the classes or programs used would be mandatory for the citizens of the developing countries, thereby ensuring that all the people are at least presented an opportunity and a means by which they can improve their own lives as well as the condition of their respective countries.
In addition, the United States loves to perpetuate an image of helping other countries (and their peoples), or that it is simply a good-natured, "Christian" nation. With this in mind, it is impossible to argue that acts of charity or simple kindness to others is not appropriate in any way. Sure, one can assert that it is not necessary to help others economically, but unless one is willing to delve into arguments of sub-conscious greed and self-satisfaction (which I sure as hell won't go into at this time), there is no plausible argument against charity. Also, if the United States is comfortable acting as a police force for the world, supposedly aiming to grant "freedom" to people of oppressed nations, then it should have no trouble seeing the present need for its intervention in countries where inhabitants lack freedom from fear or freedom from hunger (which the United States did advocate as a necessary freedom during WWII), and where inhabitants are oppressed by either social systems that disable women from improving their status, or by rampant diseases (HIV/AIDS).
Therefore, if a portion of our already-mandatory income taxes was to be utilized in providing education to people in developing countries, then with merely several years, a change would be seen, especially if said education was offered to the women of the countries in need. This "portion" of our taxes could simply come from the large amount being spent on military matters currently, as it is indeed the $780 billion used for military that dominates the world's overall spending, which is most definitely in stark contrast to a mere $6 billion in basic education across the world.
Also, let's face it: this would save everyday middle-class Americans the trouble of filling out any paperwork to donate to various charities -- our government would be doing it for us! Since it would be mandatory, one can expect that within several years, the citizens of the U.S. would accept it as part of their responsibilities (despite it in essence being forced kindness), and any dissenters would be dealt with just as the U.S. deals with dissenters today: IRS agents.

Voila.

(and thank you, John, for that useful page on globalissues.org)

2 comments:

Navdeep Singh said...

Well thought out and hypothetically implented plan. You told me that you were going to persue politics. When you do, don't forget some of the real issues this planet is facing.

Do something meaningful, Prewitt!!!

John Watson said...

I like the taxes idea.

The problem isn't that we need to cut spending on unnecissary items, it's that we need to increase spending on the important things (i.e. education of women, contraception, family planning, etc.).

It honestly wouldn't take that much taxation to increase aid used for population control (I think).

love,
John

ps - That "sub-conscious greed and self-satisfaction" bit really makes me happy I'm not the only one who thinks of such things.