Germany's Election Season and Platforms

Gerhard Schroeder is now indicating (through his main “spokesman,” Franz Muentefering) that he will not resign if President Koehler does not authorize new elections for September. The reasons for this are far from clear. Schroeder has said in the past that his logic for proposing the no-confidence process was that he can no longer govern because of his lack of consensus and popularity. This is the same Chancellor who proudly boasted that he would not deserve his position if he could not bring the number of unemployed Germans below the 4 million mark. Well, that figure is now 4.9 million, and the guy still will not go away.

Why would Herr Schroeder now be backing away from this approach? The answer is of course as it always is with the Chancellor…Politics. Seems as though the ever-scheming SPD now believe that President Horst Koehler (a former CDU politician) might be seen as the bogeyman if he rules that the proposed Fall elections are not constitutional. Of course the fact that the SPD remains 15% - 19% behind the conservative opposition CDU Party may also play into this statement.

I have also read many left-leaning articles, which have been critical of the recently issued CDU election platform. No such clamor came as a result of the issuance of the SPD’s similar document a week or so earlier. The SPD manifesto seems to have gone “wobbly” on Germany’s economic reforms. It precludes everything from raising the retirement age, to student fees, to provisions for freeing up of Industry. The new SPD platform is a step back from their own reforms that they have been pushing for two years. Clearly, this is done for electioneering purposes to garner votes from those who seem perfectly content continue with the status quo because of a fear of losing entitlements.

The CDU manifesto, on the other hand, offers a series of economic stimuli in a much more detailed manner than their opponents’. They also indicate dates to go along with each step. This is important because as many are aware, a series of benchmarks without precise dates is merely a list of hopes; not a plan! American conservatives would most likely say that the CDU platform is not radical enough (particularly with the additional Value Added Tax it proposes). But, in the absence of an obvious “Reagan Revolution” in Germany, Merkel is wise as this time to merely “nibble at the edges.”

One need look no further than each party platform with respect to unemployment to understand which party is offering much-needed leadership. The main planks for the SPD include: increasing the fight against illegal employment, maintenance of state-financed training and job creation programs, and an the allowance of higher levels of unemployment for longer periods of time for older job seekers… Huh! More Keynesian protocol that has proven to be an absolute failure since Schroeder took office.

The CDU platform’s plan for unemployment is markedly different. It proposes a cut in income-based social security contributions (funded by the increased VAT), allowances for companies to deviate from sector-wide wage agreements, and it also allows companies to more easily make market-related decisions to improve their market position. The CDU rightly acknowledges that Germany’s high labor costs are crippling the economy in the face of the realities of globalization

The G8 Summit and Aid to Africa

With the G8 summit going on in Scotland and the Live Aid concerts of last weekend, perhaps it is time to review the issue of aid to Africa. Leaders of the eight richest countries seem to have a genuine interest in helping world poverty, but what is perhaps even more interesting is the “culture” that is responsible for protests in Gleneagles.

A simple Google search yields a virtual plethora of anarchist groups who believe in some sort of cause. These summits have become a sort of worldwide nutbag convention of sorts. For instance, The Deconstuctionist Institute for Surreal Topology (DIST) is one group expressing techniques of blockades and other demonstration practices. This particular group is proud to announce the release and availability (for a mere 20 pounds) of it’s "A Guide to Blockades: The G8 Edition", published by Bad Press. This handy pocket primer is apparently jamb packed with useful tips, maps and other information of general disruption. I thought these anarchists were against capitalism…why don’t they give the book away?

Do these people have any idea what the ramifications of their actions are? What if the successful blockade of a local Gleneagles street were to prevent emergency vehicles from reaching the site of a real emergency (like god-forbid a site of a terrorist bombing)? The absolute idiocy of these fringe of society groups is amazing to me. DIST proudly states it’s cause: “The G8 cannot solve the problems of climate change or poverty they are responsible for the very policies which are causing climate change and poverty. We cannot call on them to solve the world's problems, but must put a stop to their policies and shut down their institutions. Groups within and allied to the Dissent Network have thus called on protesters and the public to blockade the G8 on July 6^th.” Cleary this is pure, unadulterated anarchy, which really should have legal implications.

At least some of the rock stars have the intellectual honesty to understand that the G8 can make a difference, and to give president Bush and the US due credit; something many liberal pundits cannot bring themselves to do. A recent Washington Times articles essentially sums up the genuine efforts of the Bush Administration:

The most prominent example of this disparity (between the Bush and Clinton Administrations) is in the funding of the fight against AIDS. Mr. Bush recently pushed a $15 billion AIDS bill through Congress.

"His $15 billion commitment is unparalleled," said Melvin Foote, executive director of the nonpartisan Constituency for Africa. "Clinton offered $300 million, parking-meter money, even though he knew it was a tremendous challenge."
Even liberals have credited Mr. Bush with doing more than his predecessor to help Africa. In May, Live Aid founder Bob Geldof said Mr. Bush is far more committed than Mr. Clinton to fighting AIDS and famine on the continent.
"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk but does deliver," said Mr. Geldof, an Irish musician and activist who in 1985 staged the world's largest rock concert to combat starvation in Africa.
"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy," he said

It has certainly become a Euro battle cry of late to "bemoan" the stinginess of US efforts to aid the needy. Geldof, when speaking of the French approach, stated "They refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that he (Bush) has done more than any other American president in Africa, but it is empirically so."
The fact is that the United States donates more than any other country in Official Development Assistance - $16 billion this year, and $19 billion in 2006. Our contribution in this area has surpassed those of the EU, which has a larger (aggregate) economy.

The fact is that the United State is the single largest donor to international organizations, paying 22% of the UN budget (If you were to total the GDP of all industrialized countries in the world, does the US GDP comprise more than this percentage of the total?).

The fact is that the United State gives more privately than any other country. In 2004, private assistance from the US was $48 billion.

The fact is that the United States donated approximately $700 million in tsunami relief last year. Of course this does not include the cost of US military assistance immediately after the event, when most in Europe were tripping over themselves trying to figure out how to “out do” the Americans.