Putting a price tag on the United Nations

"This may come as a shock: It's possible, not likely but possible, that a committee of officials from the Defense, State and Justice Departments, as well as the National Security Council, will conduct a review of the disproportionate funding the United States provides to the United Nations and, hold onto your hats, come to the conclusion that American taxpayers should spend less on an organization that is inefficient, corrupt and inimical to American interests.

Nikki Haley, the newly confirmed American ambassador to the U.N. hinted at this radical departure from tradition when she said on Jan. 18 that while she would oppose 'slash and burn cuts' to the U.N., she did want to ensure that the U.S. 'gets what it pays for.'

One week later, The New York Times reported that it had 'obtained' (in other words, someone in the government had leaked) copies of a 'draft' executive order (in other words, an unapproved working document) that would 'clear the way to drastically reduce the United States' role in the United Nations and other international organizations.'

Serious question: Is The New York Times correct to assert that paying less means playing a reduced role? The United States gets one vote on the Security Council - just like Russia and China. The U.S. gets one vote in the General Assembly - just like Iran and Venezuela. How much money we fork over doesn't change that..."