There has been a serious inequality in the funding of the UN budget.  The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1]  Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn?  [1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008