Reducing the US budget over $5 billion/year sounds too good to be true. Actually 1.2 billion is the US share (22% in 2010). But the ‘peacekeeping budget’ is a whopping $7.8 billion/yr, of which the US is responsible for over 27%, or $2.1 billion. The offending party—the UN. The place---Manhattan. The damage—at least $3.3 billion/year.
In the 2/3/10 column by Brett Schaeffer, Time to Rein in the U.N.'s Budget | The Heritage Foundation, he explains the details included in the 2010-2011 2-yr UN budget.  If one includes the US voluntary contributions to the UN, the US exceeds $5 billion annually. 
The Obama Administration did not even demand a vote on the $5.16 billion budget [Chart 1:B 2368] for 2010-2011 . Even more amazing is Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s (Past UN Ambassador) quote: “The countries which contribute more than 85% of the UN budget regularly vote against that budget, and are unable to prevent its increases because the countries who pay less than 10% of the budget have the votes.” 
The regular budget is supplemented by extensive extra budgetary resources. With comprehensive accounting, the U.N. regular budget for 2008- 2009 actually totaled $13.5 billion. 
Thomas Segal, in The Bad Aftertaste of the United Nations, describes how the UN is the antithesis of American ideology. Of the 192 member nations of the UN, the US share should only be a little more than 0.5%. Now, the US has the same vote as any other member, but its dues are significantly higher because its paycheck (GNP) is bigger. That sounds strangely familiar to US income taxes.
With the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, we actually sit with the same African countries known to have sent more than 200,000 of their own Africans into slavery. We sit unclenched in our UN seat with countries like Libya, Angola, Malaysia, and others who are accused of human rights violations, but are given membership to the Human Rights Council.
When a country such as Iran is placed on the Commission for Women, we stand unfazed. Worst of all, we find out that UN agencies such as WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and UNESCO use monies to provide abortifacients for population reduction globally.
The US is one of the countries that provide contraceptives/abortifacients which are birth control pills, morning-after pills, RU-486, the IUD, etc… All can result in the elimination of necessary uterus lining, and the likely abortion of a fertilized embryo trying to implant.
This information can be easily read in columns such as UNICEF: guilty as charged, or in Ellen Lukas: How the UN Is Exploiting the Population Issue.
It makes one wonder why countries with below replacement fertility rates (<2.1 children per woman), desperate for babies and spending huge sums of money to encourage their own citizens to bear more children, contradict themselves by spending huge sums of money to suppress their population growth.
Why the US would continue to give the UN over $5 billion/yr, turn a blind eye to racism around the globe, ignore the plights of women who aren’t American, ignore human rights violations by member nations, ignore blatant humiliation by UN members, and help contribute to abortions and contraceptive techniques to nations trying to lower their populations seems unthinkable.
Fortunately, reducing the debt is a major subject. The UN is fish fodder for closing. Can anyone think of a reason why the UN should be a US concern? The UN was against deposing Hussein from Iraq, it has always been a major thorn in the US’ side, and all of the foreign nationals have diplomatic immunity living in NY for as long as they’re there.
But with a debt load of $1.2 trillion for the US alone, one would think cutting off the paycheck for the UN would be a “no-brainer”. The US withholding all funding is an obvious solution. If the UN disappeared like the League of Nations, that would not be a bad thing at all.
Obama should be asked what his plans are. Actually, that’s likely known from the 3rd paragraph of this column.
Kevin Roeten can be reached at [email protected]