FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

With Trump, ‘Brinksmanship’ Appears to be the Name of the Game

Brinksmanship is defined as the pursuit of a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping. When it comes to Syria, North Korea and Iran, it appears that President Trump is willing to employ this approach to his foreign policy. What is curious, is the fact that during his campaign Donald Trump indicated that he wanted the U.S. to avoid becoming the world’s policeman. Even then, his platform was and continues to be incoherent as evidenced on his changed stance on Russia and NATO. Putin was a good guy, now not so much!  NATO was obsolete, now not so much!  Worry about ISIS, not about Syria’s Assad regime. All that changed with the recent use of chemical weapons by Assad on civilians, including children.

I remember the Cuban blockade of Soviet Union cargo ships which was imposed unilaterally by President Kennedy in response to Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba. Fortunately, this scary example of brinksmanship did not lead to a full-out nuclear war because of delicate behind-the-scenes diplomatic negotiations with Moscow at the time. The U.S. had to agree to withdraw its missiles stationed in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba. Both sides came to their senses, and back room diplomacy saved the day.

The U.S. is today’s only real superpower. With respect to the proportion of its GDP in terms of military spending, it far outspends countries such as China and Russia. However, even though the U.S. currently has enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy any country, President Trump wants to increase its nuclear arsenal. Given such policies, one would think that other countries would see his position as a further threat to their internal and external political and economic objectives.  Whether one agrees or not with American intentions, launching unilateral military strikes against countries or carrying out military exercises off their shores is being interpreted as belligerent actions.  Moreover, saying that foreign regimes “must behave” sends an ‘inciteful’ message.

I would suggest that American behaviour has to also be in accordance with international laws and coherent foreign policy goals. The way to avoid brinksmanship is to keep open the lines of communication through diplomatic channels, including those of one’s allies.  Canada and its other NATO allies cannot afford to sit back, wait and watch as this dangerous drama unfolds on the international stage. It is incumbent upon America’s allies to provide a stabilizing effect when confronted with any form of brinksmanship. As during the Cuban crisis, we may be able to avoid future conventional wars, and even all-out nuclear conflicts.

Leave a comment »

Why Expect Lifestyles of Political Leaders to Change Once They are Elected?

Well, here we go again with complaints about the costs of keeping Presidents and Prime Ministers in lifestyles they’re accustomed to. President Trump spends more time at his Trump Tower in New York and his Florida golf resort at Mar-a-Lago. American taxpayers are paying millions of extra dollars to provide additional security at both locations.  Everyone knew about Trump’s celebrity lifestyle, so why complain?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose father Pierre Elliot Trudeau led a lavish lifestyle, is continuing to frequent the hospitalities of rich friends. Like all prime ministers, Trudeau cannot fly on commercial airlines for security reasons and must instead travel on Department of National Defence Challenger jets, which cost about $10,000 per flying hour to operate. Sounds reasonable.

However, during winter holidays last year, the Trudeau’s flew to and stayed at the Paradise Beach Resort on the Caribbean island of Nevis. The private resort has a brand new collection of seven beachfront villas that come with their own personal butler and, apparently, monkeys.  Celebrity gossip site TMZ reported that Trudeau paid $2,500 US a night for a 3,400-square-foot villa.  Fortunately, Trudeau personally later picked up the bill for the pricey resort stay.

More recently, Trudeau and his family spent several days during a New Year’s vacation as the guest of the billionaire philanthropist, lobbyist and spiritual leader the Aga Khan at the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas. The Aga Khan’s island, Bell Island, is 115 km away from Nassau. A Canadian air force executive jet took the Trudeaus from Ottawa to Nassau. It was the Aga Khan’s private helicopter that took his family back and forth to Bell Island. This episode raised eyebrows because the federal Conflict of Interest Act prohibits ministers from using private aircraft without prior permission from Parliament’s conflict of interest commissioner. Apparently, Trudeau did not seek prior permission. Surprise, surprise!

Do you really expect Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau to change their celebrity ways? Complain all you might, but the electorate put them in power, lifestyles and all. After all, they’re both working to benefit us middle-class folk.

Leave a comment »

Bombardier and the Corporate Welfare State are Alive and Well in Canada

The term “corporate welfare” was reportedly invented in 1956 by an American of distinction, Ralph Nader. In the 1972 federal election campaign, the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada picked up the term as a major campaign theme.  At the same time, David Lewis, the then leader of the NDP, used the term in the title of his popular book, Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums. The term is often used to describe a government’s bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

Remember, not long ago in the U.S. and Canada, federal governments provided bailout funds and loans to the auto industry, primarily to Chrysler and General Motors. In addition, Canadian taxpayers reportedly fell about $3.5-billion (Canadian) short of breaking even on the money that the federal and Ontario governments invested in the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.

Now, we have the case of a plan that includes federal and provincial money — a $372.5-million federal loan and $1 billion from the province of Quebec — for the CSeries and Global 7000 aircraft programs of Canada’s Bombardier Corporation. Bombardier is eliminating 14,500 jobs around the world by the end of next year, part of a restructuring plan aimed at helping the company turn itself around. However, as part of a PR disaster, six executive officers decided to give themselves a 50% raise bringing their total salaries to $32.6 million (U.S.) in 2016. Given that Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing the above payments and Bombardier’s planned lay-offs, there was an immediate public outcry against the planned increases in executive compensation. As evidenced over the last 50 years, this was not the first time that Bombardier had received federal and provincial assistance, totaling billions of government dollars.

Despite praising the benefits of free enterprise and the market place, governments of all stripes continue to use taxpayers’ monies to subsidize corporations for political reasons. Conservatives like to preach the benefits of reducing corporate income taxes, referred to as ‘tax expenditures’ in budgets. Governments even subsidize the oil and gas industry through such tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are now a huge part of governments’ budgets, and unlike actual expenditures reduce government revenues that could be used in support of public services and programs, including those directed at the poor and disadvantaged.

As well, a current tax loophole allows people to pay less tax on for income earned on stock options than they do if they are paid in cash. Corporate executives in particular greatly benefit since they receive much of their compensation in the form of stock options. The federal Liberals had pledged to close this tax loophole, but have backed off in their last two budgets. This loophole represents millions of savings for the wealthy and millions in revenue losses for governments. Moreover, the corporate welfare state is alive and well in Canada.

Leave a comment »