In 2000, 189 nations signed up to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by the year 2015. The goals encompassed:
Progress was made, prompting Bill Gates to refer to the following slide as "the most beautiful chart in the world," because of the direction it was moving by lifting 137,000 people from extreme poverty (subsisting on less than $2.00 per day) each day over the past 25 years.
As pointed out by America Magazine, the Jesuit Review:
"The world could be on track to end abject poverty, defined as individuals subsisting on less than $2 a day. The wealthy and the powerful merely need to surrender a fraction more of the privilege most inherit by the good fortune of birth or geography; the world's advanced economies need only to continue an arguably meager commitment of just .7 percent (yes, less than 1 percent) of their gross national income to development assistance. (Though among the world's largest overall donors, the United States has struggled to give anything more than about .2 percent of its annual G.N.I. (Gross National Income) away in foreign assistance.)"
However, in May of 2017 President Trump proposed cutting 32% in spending on diplomacy and contributions to international organizations that do humanitarian relief in anti-poverty programs. In conflict and war-torn Africa, aid would be reduced in 2018 from $8 billion to $5.2 billion.
Catholic Relief Services, Bread for the World, Mercy Corps, the International Rescue Committee and Oxfam, organizations listed as part of People's Lobby's American World Service Corps National Service (AWSCNS) Congressional Proposal, objected to the proposed cuts. According to a statement released jointly by those organizations, "The deep and disproportionate cuts... will have life-and-death consequences today and will also undercut America's--and the world's--ability to address tomorrow's global threats."
If you have experienced how a billion people suffer living on less than $2.00 a day you may, for at least a few minutes, have an empathetic response to how the US and its citizens should respond.
What would you do if you were offered legislation that would involve a million Americans a year in the opportunity to address dire world and domestic needs empathetically and constructively through already proven service corps?
What if that legislation offered America's 600 billionaires the opportunity to invest in a million Americans a year making such AWSCNS groups as those above dramatically more effective?
This power point of People's Lobby's American World Service Corps National Service (AWSCNS) Congressional Proposal includes a fresh and unorthodox funding method to benefit all the inhabitants of Mother Earth and help soothe its angry Mother Nature.
Each year around October Forbes Magazine publishes its Forbes 400 Richest Americans issue. People's Lobby uses that pinko-leaning magazine as the basis for its unorthodox funding mechanism that Pope Francis and Jesus would celebrate at the magazine stand.
Here are some spreadsheet breakdowns that reflect what percentage and amount of money just the Forbes 400 would have to invest to make the world a safer place if the AWSC legislation were implemented in 2003, 2015, or 2017.
Note how much richer 400 super-rich Americans have become. Could they afford to invest in 21 million Americans doing good at home and abroad, building good will, helping families recover from disasters, stifling terrorist recruitment, erasing the next seven-trillion-dollar war, etc., over 27 years?
In 2003, 2015, and 2017, if the Forbes 400 alone donated 2.5% of their wealth into an account escrowed to cover the full-time volunteering of AWSC corps members, the peace-building investment would have totaled respectively $30,696, $75,214, and $86,786 per volunteer.
Funding these peace builders and sustainability extenders is a lot cheaper than funding another million-dollar Star Wars-clad warrior.
A bevy of generals like McChrystal, Zinni, Clark, etc., support having more Americans cost-effectively serve like this, because it builds the good will that erases the killing fields their soldiers must clear.
How does PLI propose inducing the Forbes 400 to donate less than 2% of their wealth to saving the world?
We add a column to the Forbes 400 spreadsheet that lists the amount each listed individual donates to the escrowed AWSC account.
We make this a public web page, so the world sees who donates what.
To lower the average Forbes 2% investment, we add America's 200 other billionaires to the list. Then we reproduce Forbes spreadsheets for America's top jocks, stars, CEOs, and corporations that paid no taxes.
With the additional public spreadsheet donations from those financial blessed above, the Forbes 400 may make less than a 1% solution to reach a lot more MDGs, and dramatically reduce worldwide terrorizing.
If the AWSCNS proposal existed and the aforementioned spreadsheets were public, would you send voters to note who gave and who didn't? Might that influence some mega-rich to give who otherwise might not have?
Imagine how many more MDGs could be reached, how much smarter America, and how much more appreciative the world would be if 21,000,000 Americans served country and world peacefully for a generation.
Imagine if such a robust force existed how many other smart nations might develop similar service corps. What a world it could be if we gave big peaceful service forces a chance to keep our military forces in training and avoid the blood and hatred of future wars.
Many complain about failing to think outside of the box, about the world of unmet needs, about inequities... When outside-of-the-box solutions are offered, how many do something to implement the answers? What do you do? Do you believe the solutions offered here are too far outside of the box?
Why not go outside of the box to find out who among the super-rich is willing to spare some pocket change to involve more Americans in peacefully changing the world? Let's try rubbing less salt and more honey-coated money into our self-inflicted wounds.