Political Decisions: Do Dollars And Bodies Equal A DRIC Bridge

Are they all crazy?

You may literally be sick after you read this BLOG. That was my reaction when I read the articles that I will outline below.

First of all, I need you to read again, very slowly, the quotation that I have Blogged before from Margaret Thatcher’s speechwriter:

• "The decisions that really matter to political leaders are those to do with the getting and holding of power. Other decisions may turn out well or ill. They may cost billions of pounds or hundreds of lives, but for enlisted politicians those decisions are secondary. What matters to them is: will I still be here after this?"

Please read it again, slowly, and keep it in your mind as you read the rest of this BLOG.

Can you believe the hundreds of billions of dollars that governments around the world are throwing at financial institutions? AIG, because it was too big to be allowed to fail and notwithstanding the disastrous activities of a few of their employees, was given first $85 billion by the US Government and then another $40 billion.

In Canada alone we have given $75 billion for the mortgage meltdown. I know we have given the money but I am not sure to whom we have given those dollars and what they are supposed to do with them. Did our Government get anything in return for this taxpayer largesse, say a piece of the receiving institutions or a promise to pay back? What a nice holiday present.

Compare that with the automobile companies and look at how they have been raked over the coals for their failures. Not only did the US Senate not give the money but if they were to do so, they demanded the scalps of their chief executives. So it was up to President Bush to figure out some way to give a few dollars between then and the time that the President-elect enters office.

One could argue that this is nothing more than Senate Republicans being very cynical. Let the new President inherit the mess and see if it blows up in his face. That is bad enough to play politics with this matter but it is probably a lot more than that. Take a look at this article and be disgusted if it is true:

• "If the UAW, which is perceived as one of the strongest unions in the country, can be put under control, that may send a message across the whole country," said Michigan State University professor Richard Block, a labor relations expert.
  
  Handing a defeat to labor and its Democratic allies in Congress was also seen as a preemptive strike in what is expected to be a major legislative battle when the new Congress convenes in January: the unions' bid for a so-called "card check" law that would make it easier for them to organize workers, potentially reversing decades of declining power. The measure is strongly opposed by business groups."

Is that what this is all about? Is this nothing more than union-busting/union-bashing activity by the Republicans and business groups? Putting potentially millions of people out of work at a time of economic crisis, being responsible for the closing down of businesses across the United States (never mind Canada and many other countries around the world), weakening America’s manufacturing ability and putting at risk its defence capabilities did not seem to matter to some of these people.

Who cares if cities die? Who cares if states become bankrupt? We have to kill those unions and here’s the best time to do so. Let’s make the wages of Americans similar to that of Mexicans or other Third World countries. Of course, nobody will be able to buy anything with low wages but that’s another issue.

I am no great advocate for unions but this is hardly the time to abuse them.

Think that is bad. Just you wait. That only deals with billions of dollars. How about dead bodies? Would that concern you?

Take a look at this story and wonder how anyone could think what is being proposed or say it publicly:

• "Blueprint for getting Obama's ear: Keep our troops in Afghanistan
  
  Supporting U.S. in spreading global democracy will be a key to a better relationship, a policy paper says
  
  Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service
  
  Canada's laundry list for Barack Obama's arrival in the White House next month is ambitious: boosting trade across a dysfunctional border, a continental energy and climate-change accord, and halting the economic meltdown.
  
  But if Ottawa has any hope of getting the ear of the world's most popular politician, it will have to think big and act even bigger. And that means dumping plans for the large-scale withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in 2011.
  
  That was the underlying message this past week when dozens of senior bureaucrats, diplomats and analysts from Canada and the U.S. met in Ottawa to discuss a "blueprint" for getting the Canadian government on the radar of the incoming Obama administration.
  
  The message couldn't be any more timely, given the musings last week by U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates about keeping Canadian troops in Kandahar past their 2011 pullout date.
  
  Canada's overtures to Obama will have to be as big as the larger-than-life U.S. president-elect himself, and will only grab his attention if they are bold and daring, and promise to take the Canada-U.S. relationship to new highs.
  
  That means playing the Afghanistan card.
  
  Against the backdrop of recession, Obama comes to power facing weighty world problems with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a provocative and nuclear-minded Iran, and carnage in Haiti and Sudan's Darfur region.
  
  "It's not wait times at the Ambassador Bridge," a senior Bush administration official said.
  
  The official was referring to the bottleneck at the two countries' busiest land crossing at Detroit and Windsor -- a major focal point of Canada's irritation with its "thickening" border with the U.S., which it believes slows trade and is economically harmful.
  
  What the U.S. wants from its northern neighbour, the official said, is help on the world stage to help solve big world problems.
  
  "You did that with Afghanistan," the official said, and that translated into face time for Canada with the U.S. to solve bilateral irritants, such as the softwood lumber dispute.
  
  Bruce Jentleson, a Duke University political scientist and a foreign policy adviser to former Democratic vice-president Al Gore, said Canada should extend the Afghanistan mission beyond the withdrawal date set by Parliament…
  
  David Bercuson, the director of the Calgary-based Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, said the U.S. does not expect Canada to behave like a superpower, but it does want it to contribute to the defence of democratic values on the world stage.
  
  "Obama will want the same from Canada. If his administration is disappointed, it will not go out of its way to accommodate Canadian needs in other areas," Bercuson wrote.
  
  Derek Burney, a former Canadian envoy to Washington and the chief of Harper's transition team, co-chaired the Carleton project. In an interview, Burney said Ottawa must overcome the indifference in Washington by showing the "intestinal fortitude" to explore big ideas."

Big ideas!!! Can you truly believe what you are reading? Is this what is known as Realpolitik? If you want to get somewhere with the United States, go fight a few battles with them or for them even if some soldiers are killed.

So what is it now, 100 or so Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan? That’s okay though, it got us a resolution of the softwood lumber dispute.

Using that logic, how many people have to die in order to get us a DRIC bridge?

It should not be too difficult to calculate. In the softwood lumber dispute, $4 billion was returned to Canadian exporters due to the revocation of the U.S. countervailing and anti dumping duty orders. That amount is fairly close to what the DRIC road, plazas on both sides of the border and the bridge would cost by the time everything is done.

125 more lives to be lost! That is proportional since DRIC will cost around $5B. I guess that is an acceptable trade-off given the precedent of Afghanistan.

Yes, I like it. It works for me. I think this is what Mr. Burney meant so that Canada can get some more face time with the new US President. We’ve got guts in this country. We are not afraid. We know how to THINK BIG. Why, it would not surprise me if Stephen Harper learned that expression when he talked to our Mayor for 10 minutes the other day.

Yes, this blueprint is bold and daring. I wonder which political party will make this a key plank in their platform for the next election. Die for the DRIC Bridge! They might just be swept into power based on it. Majority government here we come.

It will get us to new highs all right as we are told. One would have to be "high" in order to make such statements.

Is the world mad!