Fixing up the United Nations building

One thing we can do in the United States to improve skylines (visual pollution), meet energy regulations (green goals) and politics (Marxist doublespeak) is knock down the UN building instead of restoring and repairing it. The building (in New York) is aging--it's now about 60 years old--and although in Europe that wouldn't mean much, in the United States, it doesn't meet code. I visited it in 1954 or 55, I think, with a Church of the Brethren youth seminar group. That's back when the youth were going to save the world. Dag Hammarskjold was told he had won election to Secretary-General on April 1st, 1953, and his first reaction was it was an April Fool's joke because he didn't know he was a candidate. It was and still is a joke. But the joke is on us. The organization is worthless and is a hole into which pour money.

Fixing a 60 year old building to bring it up to current standards? Keep in mind by the time you have to pay off all the crooks, the cost overruns should double or triple this figure.

"The contract for construction management was awarded to Skanska USA Building Inc. in October 2007. Under the accelerated strategy, the entire project would be completed within five years, so that construction costs ($195.4 million), as well as the swing space cost estimates, would be reduced. This led ACABQ to recommend on 18 October the approval of the accelerated strategy and the appropriation of $992.8 million for the biennium 2008–2009 budget." UN Chronicle

The US contribution to the UN budget is 22%. "The US budget is determined by Congress after the president makes initial requests. The Bush administration, for example, requested $1.26 billion for mandatory contributions to the UN, UN agencies and other international organizations for the Fiscal Year 2007 (October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007). Included in this request was $422.7 million for the UN regular budget and $1.13 billion in peacekeeping dues." Fact sheet