5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
Someone remind me why American taxpayers keep propping up the United Nations:
Here’s the killer-diller part of the piece, though:
Needless to say, shareholders (and often, the police) took a dim view of such activities—and as (unwilling) shareholders in the horrible United Nations, I dare say that we should take a similar dim view.
Okay, let me not mince words here. If the United Nations manages to get approval for this little license to steal, we should start cutting their funding.
I know: we should be doing that anyway, along with relocation of the whole ghastly enterprise to Sierra Leone or Kuala Lumpur. But this is a serious issue. No senior executive, of any enterprise, should be able to open the corporate checkbook and dispense funds without some oversight. It’s a basic tenet of business.
The problem with the United Nations is that they just don’t see it that way.
The United Nations Development Program, the U.N.’s anti-poverty agency, which systematically ignored its own financial rules and regulations while funneling millions of dollars to North Korea, wants to give its chief operating officer the right to make out discretionary checks of unlimited amounts, without normal budgetary approval.
That’s up from the current limit of $50,000 which can be dispersed without regulatory oversight.
UNDP argues that the new ability to write such checks without normal authorization would only bring its discretionary powers into line with those currently exercised by other U.N. programs, like UNICEF and the World Food Program (WFP).
My response would be to reduce the amount paid without oversight to fifty dollars ($50), but that’s just me.That’s up from the current limit of $50,000 which can be dispersed without regulatory oversight.
UNDP argues that the new ability to write such checks without normal authorization would only bring its discretionary powers into line with those currently exercised by other U.N. programs, like UNICEF and the World Food Program (WFP).
Here’s the killer-diller part of the piece, though:
The discretionary money is known in technical parlance as “ex gratia” funds, which UNDP describes as “payments which are made where there is no legal liability to UNDP, but the moral obligation justifies making such payments, which are in the interest of UNDP.” The question of what defines that interest is left to top administrators to decide.
This was known as “fleecing”—where the top dogs get to vote on the appropriateness of their own actions, without any oversight.
Needless to say, shareholders (and often, the police) took a dim view of such activities—and as (unwilling) shareholders in the horrible United Nations, I dare say that we should take a similar dim view.
Okay, let me not mince words here. If the United Nations manages to get approval for this little license to steal, we should start cutting their funding.
I know: we should be doing that anyway, along with relocation of the whole ghastly enterprise to Sierra Leone or Kuala Lumpur. But this is a serious issue. No senior executive, of any enterprise, should be able to open the corporate checkbook and dispense funds without some oversight. It’s a basic tenet of business.
The problem with the United Nations is that they just don’t see it that way.