One can only wonder where it will all lead....

Over the years as I have watched the world go by it has become more apparent on a daily basis that the manner in which our democracy works is at times it's own worse enemy. Although from an early age we are taught that the different levels of government exist to serve the people, unfortunately in practice it seldom works as originally intended. In reality, many basic human traits make the practical application of good government far more difficult to implement than it appears on paper. Greed, lust for power, ignorance, prejudices, and people's general inability to understand that every action has a consequence, all play a role in making perfect government only a dream that will never be achieved.

Those that "serve us" in government rely solely on the electorate process to maintain their seats of power. So our politicians have learnt well that the people's loyalty can be bought with a few baubles and trinkets. Every election brings more promises of what the electorate can expect "in payment" from each of the political candidates if they are elected. What we generally see is a bidding war for votes with every party pulling out the cheque book and removing all stops in their zeal to promise the voter more than their opponent can. The problem is compounded as the demands of the electorate and the promises of those running for office increase with each election and every generation of voters. Now on first glance, one may wonder if this is such a bad thing, after all it is taxpayers money intended to be spent for the common good and the betterment of society as a whole.

This boy is definitely a "chip off the old block"

As the Federal Liberals go through yet another leadership race in the hopes of finding someone to lead the chosen people out of the wilderness, I can't help but marvel at the desperation in their ranks.

Although one has to ask, why would we expect this race to be any different from ones of the past. In the last decade the Liberal party has certainly had some interesting potential leaders, looking back to 2006 they also produced a bumper crop of poor choices for party leadership.

Michael Ignatieff
Half the battle was teaching voters how to pronounce his last name (honestly, I never mastered it), but that was the least of the challenges facing the Liberal party with Michael. Here was a Canadian who moved to the United States, lived there for almost 30 years, crooned publicly about the wonders of living as a pseudo American, and then when he thought he could take the Liberal leadership and possibly become Prime Minister he parachuted back into Canada. Well as we all know he did become the leader of the Liberal party and went onto lead the party into a federal election that resulted in the Liberals almost being wiped of the face of the Canadian political map. Upon being soundly defeated, old Michael stepped down and now splits his time between teaching positions in Toronto and Harvard. Alas, a true Canadian patriot.

Bob Rae
Need I say more? As the former NDP Premier of Ontario, Bob was instrumental in leading that once successful province down the road of financial ruin. Bob made even America's President Obama look like a spendthrift when it came to holding the reins on the public purse. Once he had left a trail of fiscal destruction in his path he moved on and set his sights on the top job in Canada, Prime Minister. Now old Bob knows an opportunity when he sees one, and when the Liberals needed a leader he was not about to let the fact he was a card carrying member of the NDP party stand in his way, he simply jumped ship. However, what he couldn't leave behind was his record as Premier in Ontario, much to his dislike that stench clung to him and he was beat out by Michael Ignatieff. However, after Michael moved on Bob did get the job of acting party leader for the Liberals and the good news is that he could hold most of his caucus meetings in a broom closet.

Now , back to the present leadership race. The shining star in this one as far as most Liberals are concerned is Justin Trudeau, the son of former Canadian Prime Minister (and international playboy), Pierre Trudeau. Now amongst many Liberals, Pierre is held in the same reverence as say John Kennedy is with American Democrats. However most of us remember him better as the guy that flipped Canadians "the bird" from the back of the train on his way out of town or as the Prime Minister who coined the phrase "fuddle duddle". Someone who as a nation we could all be proud of, mind you I understand he did date Barbara Streisand.

So can we expect more from junior?

Spend , spend , spend, where does it end , end , end?

I just read an interesting article on President Obama's recent re-election and particularly his spending habits during his first term. Now while I have for a very long time been critical of the reckless spending of most levels of government (on a global basis, including our own) the numbers quoted in this particular article opened my eyes to the fact the monetary crisis is far worse than I believed.

Here's a couple of facts to roll around in your head, if they don't cause you some sleepless nights you obviously can not comprehend the shear size of money involved, or you are simply naive. Sorry, but if there is a third possible reason for lack of panic I really want you to tell me, but trust me on this one I will need some convincing.

-Every hour - as in every 60 minutes of every day of every week of Obama's first term in office his administration was spending $188 million of money that the United States did not and does not have. This spending spree continued 24/7 for his entire term! Even worse, is the fact that this is just federal spending and does not include municipal or state. I fear if I combined all levels of government spending during that period and published the resulting number many individuals would emulate lemmings and head for the cliff. Who knows, upon seeing that number I might join them myself!

- If second term Obama performs in the same manner the American federal debt will hit $20 trillion by 2014, a figure so immense that there is not enough liquid cash in the world to bail it out. Think about that statement for a moment, "not enough liquid cash in the world".

The above numbers are staggering, but in all fairness Obama can't be blamed entirely for this fiscal disaster. When he walked into the Oval Office the debt was sitting at $10 trillion, his predecessor George W. had taken it up by $4 trillion during his two terms. So the nation is suffering from two wild spenders in a row. Unfortunately President Obama inherited a runaway train and rather than applying the brakes he opened the throttle. In fact, by 2014 he will have personally created as much federal debt as every preceding president combined over a period of over 225 years (including George W). It's ironic that George W and Obama, (two individuals who couldn't be more different in some ways) over the span of 14 years created $14 trillion in federal debt, approximately 70% of what will be owed by the nation in total by 2014.

Now for those Democrats or Republicans that live by the belief that their man in office can do no wrong, if you truly can not see the problem here it is too late to save you. You have already drank the "koolaid" as they say.

I wonder how history will best remember President Obama, as the first African-American to be elected President, as the President that introduced a federal health bill, or as the individual who destroyed America's financial future. Only time will tell.

Stormy Seas Ahead?

Over the last 6 months there has been tremendous focus on the Presidential election and what it's outcome would be. Well it's old news now and President Obama has another four years to fix Americas economy or continue it on the road to no return. Like most individuals I hope it is the former , not the latter, but unfortunately the man doesn't have a great track record up to this point.

My personal feeling is that Mitt Romney was a more qualified individual and better suited for the task ahead, simply based on his past experience. President Obama walked into the Oval Office with no real life business experience, Mitt Romney on the other hand has a lifetime of practical experience  running a large corporation. Now I for one am not against a bit of  "on the job" training in most instances, but I believe that most sensible people would agree that the Whitehouse is not the ideal  place for it.

However, no point in dwelling on what might have been, the fact is that Mr Obama is back for another term, like it or not. So am I just being negative towards the guy, well lets see how others view his re-election

- The stock market took a sharp downturn Wednesday, just a day after President Obama’s re-election. The Dow Jones average dropped about 313 points, or 2.4 percent, as if my writing this it is down 4%!

- How about job creation, or maybe the real indicator is job loss. So how many Americans lost jobs since the President secured another term. Here's a short list of layoffs that have taken place on or since November 6 in about a 3 day period .

Bristol-Myers – 480 Sales Related Jobs in NJ

ING – 2,350

Husqvarna AB – 600

U.S. Cellular – 980

Energizer Holdings Inc – 1500

Ameridose LLC – up to 650 Layoffs

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne – 100

Boeing – 30% of Executives at Defense Unit

Hawker Beechcraft - 240

Vesta Wind Systems - 3000

Now trust me when I say the above list is but a small portion of layoff announcements I was able to find in short order, yet in just the 3 days after the election the list totals over 10,000. What confuses me is the fact that Mr Obama claimed during his campaign that he was the one that could create good paying manufacturing jobs. Seems he forgot to mention his abilities to the companies listed above. My personal belief is that the timing of these layoffs was not coincidental, they occurred right after Mr Obama's election for a very good reason. I suspect many of these companies held off on downsizing hoping beyond hope that the Oval Office would have a new tenant and Obamacare would be repealed. No such luck, so the pink slips went out. Now the count of those seeking government entitlements has increased by over 10,000, throw in the 18,500 jobs the unions killed over at Hostess and there are nearly 30,000 jobs down the pipe simply due to greed and stupidity (on both Obama's and the Unions part). Now the fact is that some of these jobs may come back if business feels a bit of confidence, but some are lost forever (i.e Hostess). But even as jobs come back Mr Obama has already laid the groundwork for a future workforce of part-time rather than full time jobs, he did this through Obamacare which defines a full-time position (for the purposes of health insurance coverage) as 30 hours per week! Think about it, the easiest way for employers to avoid the onerous costs of Obamacare is simply to hire employees on a 25 - 28 hour workweek (just shy of 30 to be safe), so Obama has just reduced the standard 40 hour workweek to 28 in his wisdom. His logic behind this is brilliant, any time the government quotes new job figures all of these part-time positions will fall into them and instead of having two (40 hour workweek positions), and assuming that employers commit to the same umber of work hours (80 per week) they will now count three (25-28 hour workweek positions) and an increase in the number of new positions of 50%! So the government looks like a hero, except of course to the guy that is short 12 hours a week on his paycheck.

Unfortunately while it seems that Mr Obama has the support of a good deal of the population who depend on government entitlements, he is not inspiring any confidence amongst the companies that create the jobs the American population is hoping for. Oops, I hope that statement didn't cause too much grief amongst those of you who are under the delusion that the President or any other politician can actually create meaningful employment, sorry I burst your bubble. All any politician can do is foster an economic and political climate that ensures that employers are confident enough to invest in creating jobs. Unfortunately, continuously bad mouthing the financially successful, and beating the drum of tax increases and additional employer costs (Obamacare) has exactly the opposite affect. I guess that's what one should expect when you have a community organizer in the Oval Office, rather than a successful businessman. Obama's roots as a community organizer are showing through, when he needs more money he just assumes the government will provide it.