FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

May 6

‘Trumpcare’ Danger Is What It Takes Away From Existing Health Insurance

by bcurry

Any politician worth his or her career will tell you that the hardest thing to do in government is to take away what currently exists in law or programs that affect their constituents. Obamacare was often seen as a ‘band-aid’ solution to long-standing problems with health care coverage in the U.S., either private or public. Prior to its introduction at the time, the government estimated that the number of people in the country without health insurance was about 47 million persons.  Furthermore, if the proportions remained constant, it was estimated that there might have been nearly 16 million people with a chronic condition but no insurance to pay for medical care.  Individuals with health preconditions could either not obtain health insurance or could not afford insurance due to much higher premiums.

What the Republicans have to worry about is a real danger to their control of the House and Senate in upcoming elections because of Trumpcare. Based on the current bill, budget analysts estimate 24 million people would lose insurance over a decade, 14 million in the first year. Older Americans would face higher costs. It also gives the states more leeway to reduce coverage under Medicare and Medicaid, as well changing other health care policies. The insurers that will almost certainly feel the strain are those who provide a lot of coverage through Medicaid, which is subsidized. The Democrats have already accused the GOP of favouring the rich over the poor with proposed changes under Trumpcare. One can bet that Democrats will carry this highly emotive issue into the next federal elections. Republicans up for re-election have already faced hostile opposition from affected constituents to the point where some Senators have vowed to write their own bill.

There’s a basic premise in politics that it is always harder for a ruling party to take away provisions or funding that exist under current laws. Given that Obamacare has been around for several years, Americans who have benefited are prepared to fight to maintain their access to health care under the present system. Despite assurances by the GOP and the President, Trumpcare represents a great number of uncertainties. With the health of millions of Americans, both young and old, at stake, these uncertainties represent a real danger to the GOP control of Congress. In dismantling the Affordable Care Act, the stakes are very high, especially if done in a quick and dirty fashion.  No issue has been more contentious in modern times.  If mishandled, this critical issue could eventually lead to the downfall of the GOP, one way or another.

Donald Trump Health Care US US Politics

Leave a comment »
May 2

President Trump, Cozying Up To ‘Dictators’ Can Be Very Hazardous

by bcurry

In 1938, British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to meet Germany’s Adolf Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the Sudetenland crisis in Czechoslovakia. If history has taught us anything, Chamberlain’s appeasement policy made war much more likely because Hitler thought he could get away with anything.  Meetings between legitimate elected leaders and ‘dictators’ are seen as legitimizing ‘dictatorial’ regimes.

Trump’s description of Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a “nice guy” two years after Russia annexed Crimea from the Ukraine baffles one’s mind. The incursion by the Russian military was seen as responsible for the defeat of Ukrainian forces. Many countries, including the U.S. and Canada, implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies.  Amnesty International expressed its belief that Russia is fuelling the conflict, noting that there had been an estimated 8000 casualties resulting from the conflict.  The Russian Federation was accused of fuelling the ongoing violence with the presence and continuing influx of foreign fighters and sophisticated weapons and ammunition.  More recently, Putin has aligned himself with Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Maybe, not so much a “nice guy” or one to be admired!

Now one sees President Trump continuing to outreach to rogue leaders, even declaring that he would meet North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un and Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte. Kim’s grandfather Kim Il-sung established a Stalinist state after the Korean War.  Kim has continued to build a huge military arsenal, including a nuclear potential, while human rights are abused and North Koreans are starving from a lack of food.  Of course, we are familiar with Duterte who is accused of supporting thousands of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects in his country.

Having a face-to-face meeting between two or more businessmen is not the same thing as it is in the world of international diplomacy. You are not only the President of the world’s most powerful nation, but you are also a leader among ‘democratically elected’ national leaders.  You have alliances, both military and political, and their policies and positions must be respected.  The international community looks to you for coherent and strategic leadership, not showmanship.  Simply by meeting with the likes of Assad, Duterte and Kim can look like recognition of and support for their regimes, both internally and externally.  For the most part, this is exactly what they relish and seek out.  Such meetings will achieve very little towards resolving the real issues and dictatorial behaviour.  Only comprehensive and aggressive international actions and their economic and political consequences can help to prevent further abuses in these countries and future threats to global peace.  Indeed, beware of the Chamberlain effect!

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Apr 20

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

by bcurry

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.

Donald Trump Foreign Policy US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Apr 12

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

by bcurry

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.

Canada Donald Trump Justin Trudeau US

Leave a comment »
Apr 4

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

by bcurry

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.

Canada Corporate Welfare State

Leave a comment »
Mar 31

Are Canadian Conservatives Regressing in the Face of 21rst Century Human Rights?

by bcurry

There used to be a federal party in Canada called the ‘Progressive Conservative Party’. In addition, between 1987 to 2000 the Reform Party of Canada emerged federally as a right-wing populist political party. This party then merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the current ‘Conservative Party of Canada’.  Note that they lost the ‘progressive’ portion of the party’s nomenclature.  However, today there are growing concerns about how Canadian conservatives view ‘human rights’ issues, both federally and provincially.

After all, it was John Diefenbaker, as a Conservative prime minister, who in 1960 successfully introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Diefenbaker thought that individuals’ freedoms of religion, press, speech and association were threatened by the state.  He believed that a Bill of Rights was needed to take a “forthright stand against discrimination based on colour, creed or racial origin.”

However, lately there has been a conspicuous trend in the stated views of several conservatives in Canada, as exemplified by the following:

  • Federal conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch was seen shaking the hands of a ‘Rise Canada’ senior advisor, who represents an organization that has called for a permanent ban on all Muslim immigrants plus the mass deportation of existing Muslims. Leitch has also pushed for the stricter vetting of potential immigrants/refugees based on so-called ‘Canadian values’.
  • Federal Conservative Party leadership candidate Brad Trost’s campaign is not backing down after controversial comments about his stated discomfort with the idea of people being gay.
  • Federal conservative leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary enjoys severely criticizing the policies and qualities of female provincial premiers such as Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. He appears to imply that male premiers are more capable leaders, especially when it comes to economic matters.
  •  Ontario provincial Conservative MPP Jack MacLaren was forced to apologize after speaking against the provincial government’s proclaimed “zero tolerance” policy for the sexual abuse of patients by medical professionals.
  •  Jason Kenney, leader of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, stated that Alberta schools should notify parents when their children join a gay-straight alliance club at school. This without fully understanding the nature of such school clubs and the resulting danger of putting some students at real physical and emotional risk.
  • Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak was roundly criticized in Parliament after she shocked other senators by defending those who had worked in the church-run schools, and saying that the residential-school experience had positive aspects for the Indigenous children. This despite the findings of the 7-year national Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluding that the residential school system was a program of assimilation and “cultural genocide.”

Canada is generally recognized for its enviable record for respecting individual human rights, societal tolerance and inclusion of groups and their beliefs, cultural diversity and progressive social policies. The above several incidences are but a few representing an alarming trend regarding conservative thinking and attitudes.  Hopefully, they won’t have to change their federal and provincial parties’ names to ‘Regressive Conservatives’.

Canada Conservative Political Groups Leadership

Leave a comment »
Mar 20

Does Quasi-Isolationism Really Work?

by bcurry

Who is it that once said? “No man is an island unto himself”.  According to Wikpedia, this originally was a famous line from Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, a 1624 prose work by English poet John Donne.  Moreover, the gist of the saying is that human beings do not thrive well when isolated from others.  One has to ask whether the quasi-isolationism adhered to by Trumpism will really work in the era of globalization?

Since the start of the industrialized age, the world has become an increasingly smaller planet. What affects one region of the world can affect most regions.  Technological advances in communication, transportation, cybernetics, medical fields, agriculture, energies, etc., etc. have brought continents together.  As for trade among countries, years ago it was recognized that there are advantages to having freer trade.  Most economists argue that everyone benefits from promoting freer trade because each country produces or provides cheaper goods and services by creating economies of scale and greater efficiencies in output and costs.  Such freer trade promotion is also supported by numerous international oversight forums which emerged post-World War II.

For some time now, we have lived in a world of commerce involving multi-national corporations operating in several regions. Besides providing greater access to investment capital, technical expertise and business savvy, multi-nationals develop local labour markets and service industries.  To be certain, their primary goal is to increase their profits by taking advantage of local markets, natural resources, cheaper labour and government assistance.  Multi-nationals out the U.S. have greatly benefited from access to overseas markets. Recognizing however that there are also regional socio-economic costs involved — be they environmental, political or social.

Who has certainly benefited from increased trade is the American consumer. Next time that you go to a Walmart or Target, think about the variety and quantity of affordable goods available.  “Buy American” is a nice slogan, but would be an expensive one to act upon.  To effectively compete on the international stage, American businesses have to continue to develop knowledge-based products and services and promote greater innovation wherever possible and cost-effective.  Backing ‘quasi-isolationist’ doctrines will not only backfire economically and politically, but will cause the rest of the world to minimize their trade dealings with the U.S.  Countries have formed more-and-more regional trade blocs and will continue to do so, often out of necessity.  After all, no one can afford to become isolated on an island.

Foreign Policy US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Mar 14

A Letter to Precedent Trump

by bcurry

C/O Trump Tower, New York, N.Y., LOL999XOXO

Dear Precedent Trump:

Hi. Big fan here! I think that you are doing a tremendous job.  I don’t read or watch the fake news media which are always totally negative and the enemy of the American people according to your left-hand man Steve Bannon.  Instead, I rely on Brietbart and Fox News which gives us the real insight and alternative facts.  As for all those nasty terrorists, I fully support your ban on Moslums wanting to travel to our wonderful country and do harm.  These are bad dudes and need to be stopped.  Don’t let a bunch of supposed judges stop you.

As for your tweets, please keep them coming. I find them so informative and precedential. It’s important to get information right from the horse’s mouth.  Don’t let those late night TV shows discourage you, because they’re only concerned about ratings.  The American people need to know firsthand what you’re thinking, just like when you were on the ‘Apprentice’.

As for the Washington establishment, keep giving them the boot. Keep the campaign going.  Most good Republicans will continue to back you no matter what.  There are a lot of government agencies that we could do without, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department and the Occupational Safety and Health Agency.  They just get in the way of businesses wanting to create good paying American jobs.  Chinese businesses don’t have to put up with all those environmental and health and safety regs.  Oops, that reminds me to fix my made-in-China glasses.

I am fully supportive of enlarging our brave armed forces, especially our ability to nuke other countries. It’s not enough that we already outspend Russia and China for defense by double and triple the amounts. Good for you telling those so-called NATO partners to contribute more to their own defenses.  They’re all a bunch of loafers.  Besides, Russians love you and Putin is really the nicest guy.  Nevertheless, it’s always good to have those nukes in your back pocket, just in case.

As for the planned wall with Mexico, I’m going to adorn it with good old American graffiti. If you need more bodies to patrol the border, I know a few fellows who would be more than happy to help out.  They’ll even bring their military-grade rifles and equipment.  Know what I mean?

Precedent Trump, keep up the terrific work. As we saw from the election, there are millions and millions of Americans behind you, given that you won the popular vote.  Keep on tweeting.

Sincerely, a fan.

Donald Trump US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Mar 11

Canada Needs Laws Barring Discrimination Based on Genetic Test Results

by bcurry

In 2009, the U.S. passed the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act which bars discrimination by insurers and employers based on genetic test results.  The law was enacted in response to breakthroughs in genetic testing, including the development of readily available tests that can detect whether individuals are at risk for certain diseases or other medical conditions.  Developments had raised concerns that employers or insurers would use the information to deny coverage or employment to those at higher risk.

Genetic testing has come a long way. Tests have been developed to determine the probability of someone being potentially at risk for dementia, osteoporosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and numerous other diseases.  Currently, individuals tend to be the focus of genetic testing for their personal or health reasons.  This is where the privacy of such information becomes important, particularly as it pertains to employment and health or life insurance.  However, despite many advances in the science of the human genome, the fact is that it is still difficult to predict with absolute certainty that an individual will actually have the disease based solely on genetic testing.  Other important environmental considerations must also be taken into account when examining a person’s potential health risks.

For these reasons, laws are required to prevent genetic discrimination and to guarantee the rights of people to privacy of genetic testing results. This is a matter between the individual and his/her physician, not to be shared with anyone else without the individual’s consent.  As was the case in the U.S., the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association on behalf of insurance providers believes that insurers have every right to information about a client’s genetic makeup.  However, given the reasons for genetic testing, the uncertainty of the science and other environmental considerations, the need for and use of such information by insurers and employers is really questionable.

Recently, a private members’ bill from the Senate was passed which would ensure that Canadians can get genetic tests to help identify health risks and take preventive measures.   This could be undertaken without fear that they’ll be penalized when it comes to getting a job or life and health insurance.  However, in a bizarre twist, the federal government is arguing that the bill amounts to an unconstitutional use of the federal criminal law power to intrude into provincial jurisdiction to regulate the insurance industry.  This ignores the fact that under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians have the legal right to life, liberty and personal security.  The latter should of course include the right to privacy in matters related to their health and well-being.  For this reason, the government needs to proceed implementing the bill and stop its stall tactic of declaring the issue to be an infringement on provincial jurisdiction.  Instead, we should get on with ensuring the privacy of people’s health information, especially when it comes to genetic testing.

Canada Federal Government Mental Health

Leave a comment »
Mar 5

George W. Bush is an Enigma in Many Ways as a President and a Person

by bcurry

The other day, former president George W. Bush was on the Ellen Show.  He was promoting a book containing portraits of American veterans that he had painted.  Apparently, he took up painting as a past time some five years ago.  Ellen Dejeneres is a friend of the Bush family, including Bush senior.  President Bush stated his admiration for vets, particularly those wounded in battle.  As always, he displayed his known sense of humour during Ellen’s polite interview, noting that historians will inevitably judge his presidency.

Having lived through the period of his presidency, nine-eleven and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I have mixed feelings about the former president. I remember seeing him standing at the site of the destroyed twin towers in New York, giving warm thanks to first responders and those who aided them. The event was to change the direction of his presidency toward a commitment to wage war on terrorism.  Indeed, this was to be his legacy to the American people.

However, after that tragic event, a number of wrong turns were taken by President Bush and his administration. Remember that this was an administration that included the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell — the first two who were definitely ‘hawks’. Suddenly, the U.S. was to take on the so-called axis of evil, unfortunately including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The administration perpetuated the belief that Hussein had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which of course was never true.  I firmly believe that President Bush was goaded into accepting this assertion by his immediate advisors – despite intelligence to the contrary.  However, no one in the administration had a viable ‘exit’ strategy once the Iraq occupation was over — something even George H. W. Bush had warned his son was a crucial consideration. Following the speedy fall of Hussein’s regime, Bush junior declared ‘mission accomplished’ aboard an American aircraft carrier.  The rest is the sad history of over a decade of American military actions in Iraq, amid corrupt and incompetent Iraqi governments and sectarian fighting among various religious factions. Thousands of Americans and many more Iraqis loss their lives or became refugees during the decade.  Once U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq, this led to the re-emergence of Al Qaeda and eventually the spin-off terrorists who formed the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Otherwise, the whole region became a bigger mess with even more explosive potential among the warring factions.

President Bush was the puppet on a string for a hawkish administration that used American military might for all the wrong reasons. Subsequent presidents have and will have to deal with the consequences of such tragic mistakes.  American troops returned home from Iraq as amputees, many having incurred the loss of limbs, brain trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc. Iraq continues to be embroiled in ugly urban guerrilla warfare, this time involving ISIS. Sorry President Bush, although you may be a somewhat likeable person, the heartbreaking outcome of your administration’s decisions is no laughing matter.  I believe that history will judge it so.

Iraq and ISIS Iraq Today Syria and ISIL US US Politics

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.