The idea of a global tax also involves giving power to “the rest of the world” over an issue as basic as taxation, and since U.S. taxes are lower than most other industrialized taxes, we would be penalized by having our taxes raised.

We all know about John Kerry's many votes for tax increases during his twenty years in the United States Senate. We also know that he is an unwavering supporter of the United Nations. The combination of these two policy preferences is dangerous. Based on his record, we can expect Mr. Kerry as President to support a global tax, imposed on American taxpayers but spent at the discretion of the United Nations.

When Mr. Kerry first ran for Congress, he said that America’s armed forces should be dispersed only under United Nations directive. He has not changed his tune. For example, in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations on December 3, 2003, Mr. Kerry declared that before we go to war we should make sure that we obtain the “consent of the American people and the rest of the world” (emphasis added).

This is where the global tax comes in, because the idea of a global tax also involves giving power to “the rest of the world” over an issue as basic as taxation. The global tax would transfer a portion of sovereignty over taxation decisions from a national government accountable to its citizens to a faceless U.N bureaucracy that could impose taxes on U.S. citizens with no accountability at all. For years, global tax proponents in the United Nations and in many member states themselves, who stand to gain from the resulting transfer of wealth from the United States, have clamored for the power to impose a global tax on currency transactions, energy, aviation or even possibly on ocean fishing! They also want to eliminate what they call “tax competition” among the member states – in other words, penalize the lower taxing countries like the United States by forcing them to raise their tax rates toward an international consensus rate that is closer to the higher taxing countries such as France and Germany.

Where does Senator Kerry stand on this issue that brings together his penchant for higher taxes with his reverence for the United Nations? Would he be likely as President to lead the United States in asserting its own sovereign interests against such “global” initiatives and veto them if they should come before the Security Council? Based on the scant but unmistakable evidence in his record, it is highly unlikely that Mr. Kerry would assert such leadership.

In 1997, Mr. Kerry was one of only 25 Senators to vote Yes on an amendment that would have removed all conditions protecting American taxpayers from a bill appropriating nearly a billion dollars for the United Nations. One of the key conditions that Mr. Kerry voted to remove would have prohibited United Nations-sponsored international taxes on U.S. citizens. Another of the key conditions that Mr. Kerry voted to remove would have required assurances regarding maintenance of U.S. sovereignty in the United Nations. In other words, Mr. Kerry opposed a measure stating Congress’ opposition to UN-imposed global taxes.

In 2002, Senator Kerry co-sponsored a Senate Resolution calling for implementation of certain United Nations initiatives whose effect would be to transfer wealth from the developed countries to the so-called developing countries. These innocent sounding initiatives under the label of “sustainable development”, including the U.N.’s “Agenda 21”, are being used by the proponents of global taxes as their Trojan horse for diluting national sovereignty over taxing decisions.

We can also examine where Mr. Kerry receives his significant advice and support. For example, Mr. Kerry takes close counsel from former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and has publicly stated that he would like to have Mr. Rubin join his Administration. Mr. Rubin was a member of the United Nations High-Level Panel on Financing for Development and signed on to its June 2001 report that supported an international tax and an International Tax Organization. At the same time, Mr. Kerry’s labor supporters in the AFL-CIO are also ardent supporters of the global tax initiative.

Mr. Kerry has said repeatedly in this campaign that he wants to re-establish what he claims is this country’s lost credibility with the United Nations and with allies such as France and Germany who opposed the war in Iraq. These are the very countries that have led the fight for a global tax. Is Mr. Kerry’s secret plan to curry favor in the world a sell-out of the American taxpayers to the global tax crowd? It certainly appears so.