Such a system, of course, suggests that capitalism doesn’t work — or at least that it doesn’t work quite as intended. The government intervenes in the free market to tell the free market how to remain successful, decide what its future direction should be, and tells it that it will replace the position of the financing establishment and provide capital to meet its goals (so long as it does what the government wants). All because the company fits under the all-too-familiar guise of “too big to fail” — why, exactly, General Motors is too big to fail (even if we were to strategically intervene and have it fail gracefully) is somewhat unclear.

The company, which employs 250,000 people worldwide, came into trouble in late 2008, announcing sometime in December that it did not expect to survive past 2009 with the current funding. Discussion of bankruptcy, particularly that of Chapter 11 filing rose heavily, while the rest of the auto industry — especially Chrysler LLC — upheld similar suffering. The U.S. Senate voted against any form of bailout package — an idea for recovery supported by both then-President Bush and President Obama. Despite the legislative process rejecting the idea, President Bush approved a bailout plan for General Motors near the end of December, offering General Motors and Chrysler a cumulative $13.4 billion in financial support from the Treasury’s allocated Troubled Assets Relief Program, as well as an additional $4 billion for the future.

General Motors went on to declare the near largest loss in the history of automobiles — $31 billion. Market conditions showed gigantic losses for the entire industry, though none even remotely incredible as those of GM; Toyota marked its first loss in the history of the company. This wouldn’t be the first time for General Motors to grossly under perform the rest of the industry, however — in 2005, one of the best years for automotive sales ever — General Motors posted a $10.5 billion loss (Toyota posted a $2 billion profit in the same year).

Yesterday, the Obama administration’s restructuring plan called for Rick Wagoner to immediately resign.

It’s not that the U.S. automotive corporations didn’t keep up with the times, or didn’t build cars people wanted — quite the opposite is true. Western world energy policy has historically been low-cost gas: which encouraged people to want to drive larger more powerful vehicles, with little regard for environmental language and the gas costs associated — then, a number of events in recent years have caused both a market shift in gas prices and a social shift in environmental consciousness, effectively debunking the entire business plan. Overseas automotive manufacturers — who probably had the advantage of an earlier shift (or even a non-existence to begin with) away from larger cars, have successfully competed with all the new U.S. regulation and other legislation; though many jump quick to the subsidies which state-level governments have provided to these companies in recent years to attempt to spark interest in domestic production, indeed roughly $3 billion in tax breaks and subsidies have been provided over the last decade.

A UCS USA report said that while the company sells 23 distinct models which get better than 30 miles per gallon (highway), this number counts hatchback, sedan and coupe models of each car as multiple models — when using the more fair highway/city blend the EPA recommends, Toyota becomes the winner and General Motors falls to second last. Even more environmentally dubious, measured using the city numbers — which General Motors does not market — the company holds the winning place for selling the most cars which achieve less than 15 miles per gallon.

While undoubtedly a superstructure and secular shift away from gas-guzzling Hummers towards the more environmentally conscious mindset is a factor, labour regulations have been equally significant. The United Auto Workers and the Canadian Auto Workers alike have hugely dependent and cumbersome contracts with the corporations, building webs of complicated contractual obligations creating higher overhead and management problems. Furthermore, a hyper-saturation of models, brands, and product differentiation has clearly created a web of distributors with higher costs and lower productivity than normal.

Today, it seems rather disingenuous for President Barack Obama to suggest that, in fact, the plans submitted by the automobile industry were no good, and to even imply that bankruptcy should be the current plan-of-action. Maybe it is politicking, maybe it is not — the public, or at least the political establishment outside the President’s office seems to be, in many ways, against the bailout; will the extension of the deadline for a second revised business plan allow the automobile industry to win the President’s affection and continue the bailing out? Only time will tell.

The plan as it stands today — assuming the new business proposals do not become reality, is for General Motors and Chrysler to both split in to two companies. ‘Bad’ General Motors, which would absorb all the troublesome assets and liabilities, such as health costs (for retirees — a problem within itself) and debts, and ‘Good’ General Motors, which would retain all the assets of value. A similar structure would be achieved with Chrysler, who, if all goes according to this plan, would be sold to Fiat SpA. It is likely that the ‘Good’ General Motors would be divided up between old creditors, current shareholders and current United Auto Workers members, in an effort to somewhat restore value to the shareholders who have been damaged as of late.

The Fiat deal, some industry analysts suggest, is at more risk than Chrysler would like shareholders to know: “We are pleased that Chrysler, Fiat and Cerberus have reached agreement on a framework of a global alliance, supported by the U.S. Treasury,” announced Chrysler followed shortly by a backtrack to “a number of ’substantial hurdles’ are still to be jumped” before reaching the final deal — the details of what these “substantial hurdles” are, is unclear at this point but most are confident that the deal will eventually be closed.

Additionally, the United Auto Workers union would be required to agree to a new contract under the new ‘Good’ General Motors, one where the monopoly power of the employees may result in suboptimal conditions yet again. Additionally, the retirees, who are currently dependent on General Motors for their health and living expenses, may find themselves dependent on a bankrupt ‘Bad’ General Motors for a long time while a buyer is sought for the assets which are left in the effectively defunct company.

It seems that the original aim of a revised business plan is one that has caused nothing but heartache and frustration for the officials on Obama’s team — saying today that they would in fact prefer to go ahead with the current plan. In an attempt to keep all the recent news and the support of a bankruptcy solution from catastrophically defeating the company, President Obama announced that warranties on vehicles made by General Motors and Chrysler, if the companies were to become defunct, would be guaranteed by the U.S. government.

GM’s trading 25 per cent down today, at $2.70 a share, while Fiat is down about 10 per cent.

Gold is often considered in this sense, a hedge against social and political pressures. Fears that currencies may depreciate, that political stability may fall apart, or that war may break out is likely to be demonstrated in the rally towards gold as investors desire to hold less of their country’s currency. With internationalization, this threat trades best on an international market, where all countries are seen as at risk; gold is likely to increase rather than alternative currencies. Investors trading on a short-term often consider working with gold to capitalize on its speculative properties, particularly those associated with the political pressures; one may see the price of gold rally during the face of political instability, and return to value during political stability.

The price of gold, however, it seems has never truly grown — which is sensible: unlike investments in other areas, gold represents no real growth. Purchasing gold does not rent the capital to a corporation who may research or produce something new, something of value. Purchasing gold does not earn itself a rent in anyway. In this sense, gold is a store of value — or at least it should be. If gold’s actual use, in production of electronics, computers, jewelery, medicine and other non-monetary uses were to change measurably, the value of gold, being a limited resource, could jump similarly: historically, however, few of these changes have been seen. The price of gold makes it unlikely that “accidental” uses of gold will be discovered, as there is often a cheaper alternative.

The World Gold Council, a collaborative funded by gold mining companies says that a number of research programs are ongoing examining further uses of gold in advanced electronics, fuel cells, cancer treatments and chemical catalysts and that roughly 40,000 patent applications have been granted in the last decade relating to technological use of gold. This group does, however, have a vested interest in both the real and perceived value of gold.

Gold’s current primary use in industry is in computers and jewelery. Being ductile and malleable, gold makes for an excellent material to work with to produce ornaments — historically, and still today, the biggest consumer of non-monetary and investment gold is indeed in jewelery, with India being the biggest area of the market (18% of global consumption).

The World Gold Council estimated in 2005 that the global supply of gold (as a flow) was about 3,860 tonnes; while the demand at market prices hit about 3,750. If this is accurate, the surplus of gold should mean gold, at some value level, is depreciating (or at least was in 2005; since then, a flock of investors towards gold — due to external forces — may have adjusted things).

The next paragraph refers to “1979 dollars.” The best way to understand this is to think about buying power rather than nominal money. If you’re not educated in economics or finance; simply consider 1979 dollars to be the same buying power today, in a previous year. These “1979 dollars” are calculated by discounting the U.S. Consumer Price Index across the 28 years between then and 2007.

Gold, today, is trading at about $930 U.S., arguably it’s inflation-adjusted value. Gold demonstrates itself to be a good investment in response to expected inflation — simply, it acts as an alternative store of value. If gold is held during periods of inflation, then cashed out at the ‘end,’ it seems to return roughly the same buying power. Investors who bought gold in 1979 at $473 U.S. an ounce would now have roughly doubled their money (though, a slight loss in 1979 dollars - roughly $303). The same investor who invested his money at 6 per cent per annum (if he could find it) would be left with $2,716.67 in today’s dollars ($887.74 in 1979 dollars). Investors who held their $473 in cash would now have about $154.57 in buying power. Perhaps gold should be considered a modern day currency — one resistant to the negative inflating effects of central banking and monetary control.

This leads us to the conclusion though, that gold truly has not appreciated in value. In fact, the original 1979 comparison suggests that gold may have lost about 170 1979 dollars of value (479 2007 dollars). This could simply outline inaccuracies of the CPI, speculation changing the value at the beginning or end of the measured period, or an increasing ’stock’ of gold — in fact, it’s likely this is the case: investors and financial analysts; such as Dr. Ray Jastrom, regularly publish analyses of the price of gold suggesting that in terms of real buying power, it has a fixed association with real assets over centuries.

Gold’s primary advantage in terms of speculative or inflation hedge investment, is that unlike other “real” investments (notably, real estate), gold is highly liquid. Selling a property, even at its “market value,” during an economic collapse may be difficult: selling gold likely won’t. Even in circumstances of absolute panic, gold holds its own. This still reaffirms the fact that gold is a fairly good store of value.

One analysis simply concluded that gold historically, forgiving improvements in production procedure (suits today are arguably much nicer than they have been in the past) that an ounce of gold would always buy a nice suit and a pair of shoes. This seems to hold true today, as it does historically. The question we are left with at this point; is that if all this is true, what explains the up-shoot in gold prices (to what would be inflation-adjusted prices) after 2002? Did a shock in political stability (9/11-related, perhaps) cause the market to speculate above value, or simply to readjust to what value should’ve been all along; or has inflation actually determined “what value should’ve been” as something growing rapidly over the last decade?

Obama’s rhetoric is where he shines: outspoken, charismatic and confident, his speech glows with believability, trust and rapport — an attribute of little real value, but one that is keeping the masses cool headed while being deceived and lied to about the true achievements of the new ‘great leader.’

Examining the budget, we find nothing but talking points and buzzwords, little real effort to address the credibility or chaos of the modern day republic. We see no real analysis of where funds are needed and where they are not, no new responsibility in terms of spending our federal funds, and no attempt to truly restore financial discipline from the government. Running on an air of “responsibility” at both the personal and public levels, and covering the budget with the line “A New Era of Responsibility,” there’s a lot of rhetoric, and CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE buzzwords, but little in the way of substance. Finally, to keep on the peoples’ good side: taxes will not cover the spending — yet again — not that it really matters, at least economically.

A ballooning $700 billion deficit (roughly 5 per cent of the GDP and 6 per cent of the total debt), a contracting economy and general economic waste should raise the question: where is our responsibility. Small, manageable government advocates, even those that many write-off as “crazy” or “insane,” due to their extreme beliefs — such as Ron Paul — see almost no press time. Even during the elections the amount of press time paid to the libertarian advocate for the Republican party was higher than ever — yet still only a tiny fraction of the total time, even compared to the extent of his support.

What a “responsible” Obama would be doing — even still could, and should be doing — is sitting down and conducting a solid analysis of where money is deserved. Not where it has historically been allocated; not where there are people dependent on it now; not where people feel they’re entitled to it for no rhyme or reason; but where it is deserved. He should then publish a public report, outlining where, and why — with sound economic principals and reasoning, the state should be intervening. This analysis should consider important factors such as long-term incentive reductions seen by taxation, government reallocation and the securing of economic rents for private entities — then this should be opened up to wide-scale public debate; perhaps the Internet is a good forum for this, some innovative form of adequately moderated crowdsourcing may be the solution at this point.

It would also be respectable and responsible for Obama and his economic advisers to stop pretending there are no other schools of economic thought on the matter. It’s obvious that most citizens don’t understand economics and have no desire to: factors are too deep for many, too complicated for some, and simply uninteresting for most. People don’t want to talk numbers: they want to talk food, consumption and wages. This makes it wholly unfair to talk about ‘economic truths’ and ‘educate’ the public on how providing stimulus will fix all the problems. Economists all over greatly disagree about the causes, effects and solutions in a recession and the solutions we’re employing today contradict with about half of them; if what economists call “long run aggregate supply” has shifted backwards — that is, there’s less capital, labour or technology available in the market — rather than simply aggregate demand (the demand for the product being supplied across the whole economy) shrinking “temporarily,” even using the more common neoclassical economic models we’re going to find ourselves in a bigger mess by throwing money at the problem: not a smaller one. Forget using the more heterodox models; the results from these models are all over the place — some potentially credible, some not.

A responsible President would acknowledge the problems and changes that need to be made as America’s population ages — problems with social programs in general, and those connected to the elderly specifically. Problems with the new health care plans, and more so problems with the existing public pension plans. Problems that are likely to arise as firms cannot find enough good productive labour, or cannot afford to spend the money to keep productivity high enough to pay for the pensions they’ve agreed to. The current modifications to Social Security and other programs are not enough and most economists see this.

A responsible President would go ahead and address long-lasting leftovers in legislation which are still in effect today — no one would be starving without farm subsidies, in fact, the whole market would work a lot better. Everyone would be better off without rent subsidies and limitations — and economists by-and-large all know this, but it’s a hyper-politicized issue, associated with people who cannot afford to live where they’re living; but really, to be economically sound, they should move to a production center that they produce among the class that can afford.

Incentives and support for people to stay in areas with little to no business should be replaced with technological support and innovation or nothing at all — economists across the spectrum would agree that wasting labour in areas where they’re hard on employment, to the extent they need to rely on government handouts, is the same as having unemployed labour to some extent. A huge negative effect on the economy.

The President should be using his skilled rhetoric and charisma to educate the masses on these important issues — no doubt his economic advisers, at least to some extent, have explained these things to he and his decision making cohorts; whether they’ve done so adequately is a matter of controversy, but if reasonableness and fiscal responsibility is the goal: these are the solutions.

Furthermore, the Geithner-Bernanke economic duo seen as of late is making a fatal fault in accountable government. Rather than listening to the people or the political establishment, they, over-and-over again publish the same recommendations, propose the same solutions — with minor, irrelevant changes — to problems which the educated and knowledgeable few refute. Eventually, with enough changes and encouragements (in the case of the original TARP bailout; added tax breaks to convert some Republicans needed to make the bill pass) and enough propaganda these bills, recommendations, and so-called solutions eventually pass; despite the rejection in the first place.

We see this again and again with projects like the toxic bank idea. Few economists seem to really support the concept of a toxic bank — redistributing ‘bad’ assets from few to all just sounds like a way of reburdening the problem — a problem the scale of which has not been entirely understood. These bad assets (like say, AIG), the government says, are worth more than people are willing to pay for them and thus, good investments: how this is the case, no one really knows. This idea has been killed time and time again by both politicians and the loudmouthed minority, yet it keeps coming back in modified form, just waiting for someone to accept it as a reasonable solution: perhaps repeat exposure increases believability — and without this solution many, if not most, of those involved in the subprime and CDO fiascoes would be found insolvent very quickly: an issue no one wants to have to deal with.

Where ever you fall along the spectrum, unless it’s that of simply “big unruly government,” you’ll agree: there’s no “responsibility” yet.

This was not a recent interview — but interest in the story has picked up dramatically lately with the rise of Jon Stewart’s recent attacks on CNBC’s legitimacy both as a source of news and a source of investment advice — making comedic comparisons to Cramer’s embarrassed appearance on MSNBC’s The Daily Show to “[Cramer] having to watch me as his Bear Stearns advice wiped out my parents’ 401(k).”

Cramer made use of MSNBC and NBC’s other properties to call Jon Stewart’s show a “variety show,” which resulted in the creation of a Stewart-Cramer media personality war.

Jim Cramer’s techniques — many which fit under the umbrella of ‘fomenting’ or ‘enticing’ to some extent — are generally systems designed to modify how the public investors, feel the technicals and fundamentals of a company are doing.

“You can’t foment. That’s a violation… But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn’t understand it,” said Cramer speaking of his strategy of falsely presenting a stock as ‘down.’

Cramer spoke of making use of the media and news establishment to ‘report’ information about companies and encourage the development of stories which may not have hit significant coverage to build favorable reputations for his companies or stocks. Much of Cramer’s technique seems to involve using his exposure and influence in media circles — particularly his operation of the ‘adviser’ show, Mad Money — to create opinions which are complex enough the SEC cannot enforce them as strict fomenting.

One of the basic strategies of Cramer’s fomenting, he said, was, that in the situation a hedge fund (such as his own) was holding a short position in a company which reported excellent quarterly news, the fund would call up brokerage houses and either feed them bad news / blatant lies, or order a huge set of short sales — suggesting that investor confidence in the company was falling. The slew of bad news would create a temporary fall long enough for the manager to resolve his short position and conclude a tidy profit.

Cramer refused to talk about some of his techniques, saying he was “not going to say it on TV.”

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, said the CNBC reporters used this technique to spread lies and rumors about his company, combined with a slew of bad / false financial reports and analysis around the Internet and otherwise.

Many analysts are suggesting that much of the CNBC enterprise and Jim Cramer’s specifically success came from a strong understanding of how to control the system — control the news, you control the stock.

“We had it down to a science in 1992: my wife would pick stocks that technically looked ready to go up, or she would keep track of merchandise to see what was down to tag ends. She would then generate a list of stocks that could move quickly on good news. Jeff would then go to work calling the companies to try to find anything good we could say about them [...] we would load up with call options and common stock and then give the good news to our favorite analysts who liked the stock so they could go do their promotion. That would get the buzz going and we would then be able to liquidate the position into the buzz for a handsome profit,” said Cramer in his 2002 book Confessions of a Street Addict.

“What’s important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not do anything remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view, that it’s important to create a new truth, to develop a fiction. These are all the things that you should be doing on a day-to-day basis and if you’re not doing it, maybe you shouldn’t be in the game,” said Jim Cramer in 2007.

Hedge funds, by many claims, exist simply to manipulate the market — promising much larger than “legitimately” achievable returns to their investors by producing market trends and actions that are less false or created. Hedge funds are currently unregulated in the United States, though a number of proposed bills (H.R. 3417 - Commission on the Tax Treatment of Hedge Funds and Private Equity; S. 1402 - Amendment of Investment Advisors Act of 1940; and S. 1624 - Amendment of Internal Revenue Code) as well as speculation in the Obama administration’s “confidence to financial markets” movements suggests that this may change in short order.

Stewart’s main critique of Cramer’s positions was that of Bear Stearns, a company Cramer suggested had strong fundamentals and was a great purchase in early 2008 — self-credited analysts such as Daily Kos question whether this was an attempt to pump up one of his positions.

The SEC’s Chairman, Christopher Cox, called for an investigation and a number of subpoena’s in to the collapse of Bear Stearns at which point Cramer joined the call for reform and investigation in to this short selling fomenting.

“Societies which admit private property — which is to say almost all and every society known up to the present — offer men two essentially different ways of acquiring wealth.” — Vilfredo Pareto.

From a purely business-economic perspective, the answer to this question is simple. The cost of preventing theft, on the margin will, at some point along the “enforcement set” become more expensive than the losses associated with it. Simply put, to prevent that last instance of any crime would cost more than it’s losses — at least for crimes where losses are easily quantifiable.

This is true over the entire set of quantifiable crimes; theft being the easiest to work with. Wal-Mart has long said to have an either unwritten, or highly confidential policy to not prosecute under theft under $25 — the costs and disadvantages of going through with prosecution is higher than the incentive which may be prevented.

Of course, these incentives are complex. If the fact that Wal-Mart doesn’t prosecute under $25 were to become public knowledge, stamped and confirmed policy, theft within that range would skyrocket — for any agent who’s morality does not prevent it, effectively there is no barrier to stealing things that are worth less than $25; everything under that price is priced out of the market — free. These incentives are what make this a complicated issue — at least from this perspective.

From a broader perspective, however, a more moral-economic perspective, we see a number of possible questions. Ignoring moral imperatives, the situation where the benefit to the thief could be higher than the loss to society, all things (incentives, overhead, and enforcement) considered. The situation arises where an actor has the infinite incentive to steal when, for instance, (s)he cannot afford the medication required to survive — the price elasticity (the change in demand with regard to any change in price) is effectively zero, but with no access to those funds even the most basic of economic theories falls apart. The assumption that an elasticity can be zero implies that an unlimited amount of funds can be accessed and that there is no income effect — in fact, there is an income effect, and it as such encourages theft. But is this theft suboptimal — morally, it may be right or wrong, that doesn’t matter — or does it create a situation where the benefit to society / the actor is more than the loss to society, and thus should be economically encouraged?

A paper by D. Usher in the Oxford Economic Papers, suggests that this is totally wrong. The ‘optimal’ amount of theft is 0, simply because any level above that induces unintentional inefficiencies in to the market — this is an interesting issue, and one that highlights what could be the problem of all of economics. Optimality is misdefined, misdirected and aims to complete a goal which may either be entirely nonsensical (NP) or simply unachievable. Perhaps even ‘efficiency’ in an economic sense introduces cases of inefficiency — to a point where the goal of efficiency is not a sound goal at all.

Usher’s paper posits that all forms of utility inefficiency — while not always definitively socially disadvantageous in themselves — including taxes, rent seeking, property rights, the free rider problem, etc. — can all be traced back to one commonality: theft itself or theft-like characteristics. The equalizing effects of theft, those outlined with the medicine example above, can be said to be true — but they create a solid, conforming and repeatable modification to the superstructure; a society without theft differs from a society with theft in that there’s loss and waste associated with preventing theft, there’s deadweight associated with the (otherwise productive) labour forgone by the thief (assuming theft becomes a full time job, rather than a ‘leisure time’ cost). There’s additional losses with regard to goods that might be destroyed by the thief (what Usher calls ‘non-clean theft’) and in the redirection of production towards goods which may be more difficult or less likely to be stolen.

Morally, much of this theft talk is unclear; as most of morality is. Is it ‘right’ for the man who is going to die if he doesn’t receive medication to die, steal the medication, or is it simply ‘wrong’ for the medication to not be available to him. Equality is an important issue in economics, arguably as important as efficiency, and certainly a factor which needs to be considered.

An interesting corollary to this, a study by Ned Carter of Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden, reported quite successfully that certain advertising techniques and promotionary activities — including price reductions and increased exposure — may result in significantly increased theft while sales did not increase significantly for 4 of the 6 products. A report which suggests retailers are doing themselves no favors by increasing many of their current promotional techniques.

The Usher paper, titled Theft as a Paradigm for Departures from Efficiency was published in 1987 in the Oxford Economic Papers and further goes in to a mathematical decomposition of the theft issue, for those who are interested.

Basque nationalism has been alive for more than two hundred years, with justifiable right. The Basque region, which spans the Pyrenees between France and Spain, is home to possibly the least assimilated group of the Palaeolithic inhabitants of Western Europe. According to the most believed theory, while the rest of Europe was being assimilated into the Roman Empire, Basque society developed outside of its influence. They created their own language, Batua, which is still spoken by about 650,000 people, almost all of whom live in what is considered Basque country. The Basque people were largely autonomous until the French Revolution in France and the Carlist Wars in Spain at which point the governments of both countries took an interest in their rule.

Since the early 1800s there has been a significant movement towards an autonomous Basque region or for complete independence from Spain and France. As it currently stands, about 60% of those living in the Spanish Basque Autonomous Community want some sort of an autonomous state for the Basques, while only 25% want to see an independent country spanning the Spanish-French border. There has also been a movement away from living in the Autonomous Community in recent years. While there are about 2.1 million people living there now, over the last 25 years approximately 380,000 people have left the area, many of which have settled in other regions in Spain. One of the most cited reasons for this exodus has been the violent tactics used by ETA.

ETA was founded in August 1959 as a group that advocated for cultural traditions of the Basque people. It has since evolved into a paramilitary operation which has been responsible for an estimated eight hundred twenty five deaths, thousands of injuries and dozens of kidnappings since it first took a violent stance in 1968. Hundreds of members of ETA are currently imprisoned in France and Spain, and most countries, including all of the EU, Canada, and the United States consider them a terrorist organization. Between 1983 and 1987 a sort of war raged between ETA and Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberacion (GAL). GAL kidnapped, tortured and killed members of ETA, as well as their family members and even some people who had no connection to ETA. This war is what prompted thousands to flee the area. In 2006 ETA announced a ceasefire, which was subsequently broken in 2007.

After hundreds of years of repression and forty years of violence, the people of the Basque country are ready to try to come to a peaceful agreement. While a majority would like some sort of autonomy and recognition as a distinct people, they do not want this at the expense of the lives of their brothers and sisters. The history of the Basque people has been hard, but it is no longer the time to fight for things that they will never get. As a people they are free, they are prosperous and they are happy. Their children can learn in their native tongue, and no one tells them that they cannot have their culture. The Basques no longer have a cause to fight for. They are content with what they have as a people, and do not need anything more.

Sovereignty is determined by a nations ability to make decisions for itself, and have other nations respect those decisions. The modern liberal democratic conception of sovereignty was born of Woodrow Wilson, and was presented to the world at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. One of the things most important concerning the sovereignty of a nation is that it is only valid if other countries recognize that it is indeed a nation. Since Kosovo’s declaration of independence nine months ago, fifty two nations around the world, including the United States, France, Germany and Britain, have recognized its’ autonomy. While historically they have been ruled by the Serbs and are ethnically Albanian, the Kosovars are their own distinct people now through their shared heritage and struggles. The Serbians that are living in Kosovo do not feel the same way as the Albanians, as they are more likely than not transplants from Serbia itself. As well, the population of Kosovo is predominantly Albanian; it was the majority that was being oppressed by the government in Belgrade. They should have the right, just like any other people, to self determination.

Kosovo’s history has been, until very recently, one of violence and struggle. This has been fairly constant since 1355 when the last Nemanjić ruler, Stefan Dušan, died and the empire they had built fell apart. Since then, it has been a back and forth struggle for control of Kosovo, with Bulgaria, the former Ottoman Empire, the former Yugoslavia and Serbia having at one time or another been the ruling entity. The Serbian Kingdom ruled until 1459, when the Turks finally defeated them, even after the Battle of Kosovo was lost to the Ottomans in 1389. The Ottoman Empire controlled the entirety of the Balkans until the fall of their Empire in 1912. During this reign, there was much peace in the area, although there was still some fighting. In 1689 the Austrian army invaded the Ottomans all the way to Kosovo, and they were able to establish Austrian rule for a few months. When they were forced to retreat, they left with a large number of Serbian refugees in their wake.

However, many of these immigrants returned to Kosovo, only a few years later, resenting the hostile treatment from the Austrian nobility. The Serbs were able to retake Kosovo as the Kosovars were unable to wade through the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire to unite with Albania. Coming out of this carnage was the state of Yugoslavia which was called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes until 1929. During the Second World War, Kosovo was divided into three parts ruled by Bulgaria, German-occupied Serbia and Italian dominated Albania. Even though they fought against it, Kosovo was again joined in the new Yugoslavia, and formally annexed to Serbia, giving it no right to self determination or self rule that the other republics did. This was because the Serbians feared that if Kosovo was made a republic and given access to the right to decide for themselves they would take that opportunity and cede from the entire union. They were, however, granted all the other same rights as the republics.

Under Tito they even had schools taught in Albanian. The years following the death of Tito in 1980 were rife with riots and protests about things from the food at the University of Prishtina to cries for a Kosovo free of Serbian and Yugoslav rule. Throughout the 1980s the Serbian media tried to demonize the Kosovar Albanians, accusing them of degrading acts and rape. When the Yugoslav parliament tried to take away Kosovo’s autonomy in 1990, the Kosovan parliament rebelled and the fighting and politics eventually led to the republic of Kosovo being declared on the 7th of September, and a parallel government being set up.

After the collapse of the USSR, and the subsequent fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia disintegrated. While the parallel government of Kosovo was invited to the conference in London that would decide the fate of the republics, they were not invited as the government of Kosovo. Kosovo continued to be part of Serbia, and conditions for the people were horrendous. Many were sacked from their jobs, illness rates went up, and segregation began to be implemented between Serbs and Albanians. Tales of this sort continued throughout the 1990s, until in 1997 there appeared a group that called itself the ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’. They began fighting with the Serbian and Yugoslav armies in 1996. They used guerilla tactics, and because of them Serbia justified deporting 250,000 Albanians in 1998. When they tried to do this again in 1999 NATO finally intervened and policed the area for the following four years. While the KLA was demilitarized, the killing did not stop. In 2006 the two sides met to decide the final fate of Kosovo under UN mediation. A draft of a proposal for Kosovo to become a supervised independent province, but it was discarded some months later after it was rewritten several times. Finally, independence was announced in 2008.

Since the Battle of Kosovo more than seven hundred years ago, Kosovo has been a rallying point for much of the Balkans against those who have occupied and oppressed them. Kosovo has become central to the national myths of Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro. When Serbia and Montenegro went to war with the Ottoman Empire in 1876, they said it was to avenge what had happened in Kosovo almost five hundred years earlier. Because it has factored so into people’s beliefs, they are reluctant to let the land go. To the Serbs Kosovo is part of their identity – even though Serbia is not part of the Kosovars. The problem is that while Serbia wants Kosovo to be its province, it does not want the people that live in Kosovo to be its people.

While under Serbian rule, there was a push to assimilate the Albanian people in Kosovo into the general population of Serbia. Upwards of 70,000 ‘colonists’ were sent to Kosovo to populate the land. They took over the land that was owned by Albanians, who were rarely compensated for the losses. This in turn forced many to emigrate to Turkey. It is thought that between 1910 and 1920 some 150,000 left Kosovo. When the area became known as Yugoslavia in 1929, the land held by rebels was expropriated and given out, predominantly to the Serbian settlers. There was another forced placement by the Serbs, when Yugoslavia broke up as a country. More than 600,000 Serbs emigrated to Serbia from Croatia and Bosnia in the early 1990s. While most of them assimilated into Serbia proper (and therefore were unnoticeable), the 16,000 that were required to move to Kosovo in another attempt to subjugate the Kosovars stuck out. These immigrations were not unnoticed by the population and they feared that this was only the beginning of an attempt to completely take over their land, and thus they resented the ‘colonists’ and did little to help them settle. The Serbian government continued to try to force the Albanians to leave, creating laws that forbid Albanians to buy land from the Serbs, so they could not easily move to another place and therefore stayed in Kosovo. They also gave the Albanians smaller plots of land, so that they would not be able to survive where they were, and would be forced to emigrate.

The culture in Kosovo is distinctly Albanian, as would be expected when almost 90% of the population is ethnically Albanian. First off, while a number of other languages appear in Kosovo, the main spoken language is Albanian. Where Serbians are for the most part Orthodox Christians, somewhere around 95% of the population is Muslim. There is little economy in Kosovo as a result of years of conflict and poor economic policies. It is hard for Kosovo to control its’ own monetary policies, as it uses the Euro as currency and as of yet has no say in the ECB. The current economic trend is unlikely to continue, as Kosovo has deposits of silver, nickel, iron and zinc. There has also been a deposit of halloysite, which is used to make bone china and is one of only five such deposits in the world. With such rich natural metal and mineral deposits within years Kosovo will be able to support itself financial. There is a leaning in the arts and music towards all things Albanian. However, it is hard to say if there is anything that is culturally Kosovan, as all culture in Kosovo was suppressed under Tito’s rule.

Religiously Kosovo is very different from Serbia. While many Serbians are Orthodox Christian, Albanians are predominantly Muslim. But even before this, the Albanians were not part of the Serbian Churches. This also explains why if one were to look at old church records dating back from when the Serbian Kings ruled Kosovo in the 13th and 14th centuries, the names that are listed are almost completely Serbian and there seems to be no Albanians. One of the reasons that more Albanians converted to Islam was that they did not have a strong national church like the Serbians did. When the Ottoman Empire ruled the area, they used a policy of pacification by conversion to keep the peace. As well, the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church took to taxing the Christians in the Empire around 1700, which drove many peasants to convert. This is a fundamental difference between the two groups that inhabit Kosovo.

Some might argue, therefore, that Kosovo should not be its’ own country, but a part of a Greater Albania. This should not be so, as there are important historical and cultural differences between the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and those in Albania. The people of Albania have not had to fight in the same way that those in Kosovo have had to for their independence. As well, with a few exceptions (after WWI, during and after WWII, and after the collapse of Albanian Communism), Albania has been completely indifferent to the plight of Kosovo and its people. Because Albania had so much trouble keeping unity within its’ own borders, it was in an ill position to proceed to push attitudes for a Greater Albania. Albania also felt that to keep the borders that they had gained in their independence movement in 1912 they had to sacrifice their claims to Kosovo, especially since the rest of the Balkan states sought to keep Albania internally divided. While there are groups in both Albania and Kosovo who are still advocating for the creation of a Greater Albania, it is not on the forefront on the political scene in either country, especially since Kosovo’s creation as its’ own country. As it is not really the desire of either side, a Greater Albania is not the answer for Kosovo.

Kosovo has every right to stay a sovereign state. It is obviously distinct from Serbia, and has little to no ties to Albania. While they have been the focal point for the rest of the Balkans, Kosovars do not believe that they are part of anything larger, but are a state unto themselves. Kosovo’s distinct history from the rest of the Balkans is, perhaps, the defining factor in the reasoning behind its independence. It is culturally and ethnically separate from Serbia, and regardless of who used to occupy the area hundreds of years ago, it is now home to Albanians. The Serbians may have a love affair with the idea of Kosovo and what it represents to them, but they are not willing to take the people that live there with the area itself. Albania, with a few exceptions, has never had an interest in possessing Kosovo, let alone a continuous care. If no one can decide who should have it, it can be its own country. There are many areas around the world that this kind of policy would help end the violence and disagreement over ‘ownership’ of certain areas. Maybe if more people were willing to let other people decide things for themselves instead of trying to force them to be part of their preexisting nations then they could all get along instead of fighting over little bits of land.

Mr. Brown seems incapable of rational thought. The Obama administration has just released a budget which will exceed a trillion dollar deficit. And has mired itself in the economic development package of the Gaza Strip, they are expending monetary and political capital in attempts to establish a rapprochement with the Russians, and meanwhile Obama’s administration is being railed against by the Republicans for socializing the republic and collapsing American values. Furthermore, they’re already pursuing a new world order by trying to ram democracy down the throats of two lawless states, in wars which even military men have admitted can’t actually be ‘won’.

Mr. Brown may have been the man who stepped out of Tony Blair’s shadow to lead Europe in the right direction at the beginning of the banking crisis, however, his competence has shown to be wanting. And apparently, Britain’s special relationship will continue to be one where Britain extolls to its people and asks for cash and America has to consider its cheque book. The fact of the matter is, if America continues to dish out aid and continues to build nations in the third world, there is a real likelihood that the giant will fall. Without establishing a redeveloped infrastructure and attempting to at least offer health care and standardized education, America puts itself at real risk of exhausting itself simply to put forward the ambitions of other nations, nations which don’t pay taxes into the exhorbitant American debt. Britain would be wise to remember the cost of maintaining an empire without getting anything back.

Just yesterday, over 1,000 gathered at the Institute of Education in London and half a dozen other venues across the UK to debate counter-terrorism laws and press freedom, amongst other things. Throughout the conference, one thing was clear: the measures people are willing to take for national security are diminishing. Policies like ID cards and presumed guilt were viewed as a necessary step to combat terrorism when first proposed, but now are subject to much opposition from human rights advocates.

With 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain as of November 2006, potentially the highest camera:person ratio (1:14) in the world, it comes as no surprise that people get the feeling they are being watched. Recent studies have shown that a heavily metropolitan area subjects its inhabitants to around 300 individual image capturings in a single day.

The progression of government surveillance and its infringements on individual liberties is something I will cover later in a series of articles, needless to say things are fast becoming critical. There is really no doubt about the importance of preventing acts of terror, but as the very pretense of the convention makes clear: a line must be drawn between true preventative measures and needless, intrusive paranoia.

Speakers at the conference included Helena Kennedy, QC, a Human rights lawyer and life peer, and Moazzam Begg, a former prisoner of Guantanamo bay. Mr. Begg spoke of fellow ex-detainee Binyam Mohamed who after his release this week alleged he was tortured during his stay; Mr. Begg said he was “eager to pursue justice” in this matter and investigate the claims that the British government had knowledge of this treatment.

Helena Kennedy, QC, surmised the general consensus of the guest speakers and the British public: “There is a general feeling that in creating a climate of fear people have been writing a blank cheque to government,” adding, “People feel the fear of terrorism is being used to take away a lot of rights.”. Her statement raises concerns about just how much people will do in the name of peace of mind, whether or not they are informed.

A rebuttal to similar questions about DNA Databases, ID cards and CCTV last year came from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said that the measures were in place to protect a different right: the right to live free from crime.

It seems as with the rest of the world the ‘non-partisan’ mood which has occurred since the Obama administration took power has also taken affect in the Palestinian Territories. Of course, this may have more to do with the harsh facts of survival as opposed to political necessities: Benyamin Netanyahu seems likely to need the far right and extremely nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu (translated to, “Israel is ours”) to form his ever weakening coalition in the Knesset. Although Yisrael Beiteinu has, in the past, been known to support a “two state solution” its members have also advocated an aggressive pursuit of deportation of Arab-Israelis to the newly formed Palestine.

Because of the seeming swing right of Israel and an administration in the United States which is on record as stating that it would work towards a two state solution and would be willing to communicate with leaders without conditions, it is prudent for the Palestinian leadership on both sides to present a unified front. Without that, the hopes of the formation of a recognized Palestinian homeland my be dashed on the rising ire of a jingoistic Israel and a United States overwhelmed by the current economic recession.

We see reports from the Canadian banking industry, Ben Bernanke - the chairman of the Federal Reserve, heads of all the Federal Reserve banks, and government’s around the world in the last week confirming contractions, collapses and recessions. The United Kingdom’s recent official figures marking a near 2 per cent contraction in just the last three months of 2008, with signs that things may have gotten worse since then, mark that the problem has heavily hit the Western world outside of North America, while other European countries are passing large stimulus and bailout packages, assisting in damaged industries and still today announcing large layoffs and income contractions. Asian economies are not in much better condition, marking their dependence on high trade and exports towards the West in many industries, particularly the heavy hit automotive industry.

But the question stands - are we at the bottom, realistically, and markets and the media are just catching up to old news? A question that editorials and publications have been asking since this recession began to hit the general public near the end of last year. Many of the reports speak of 2008’s performance, and businesses are just beginning their first quarter of 2009 report cycles - clearly, there’s some stickiness between what the media is reporting and what is occurring today. This stickiness is not absolute - Ben Bernanke’s reports come in ‘real time’ for lack of a better term, he speaks of the economy as he’s watching it unfold, with a level of insider information not seen by the general public or the media, and Bernanke is reporting today that the U.S. economy is unlikely to recover within the next two years, saying things look worse now than they did 3 months ago.

The answer, in this case, seems to be that there’s no quick answer. In some ways, it appears the international economy, or at least the economy in the United States is recovering - for with interest rates at remarkably low numbers, and political and social policies rolling in to place to return to prior levels of lending, it seems investment - both publicly and privately is on the rise, or will be shortly - and who’s to say public policy isn’t a primary variable in economic forecasting? Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve - and world renowned economist - Alan Greenspan suggests that the short term nationalization and national assistance towards the banking establishment is indeed the best way to restore the cycle of money in the economy, and this is exactly what we’re doing.

Drifting away from the U.S. economy though, many international economies are feeling the effects of the U.S. economy’s end-of-last-year collapse in what appears to be a lagged echo - exactly what many economists expected. Fears propagate around the world that these echo-crashes may have devastating effects on a significant economy, such as one in Europe or first-world economic Asia which could start the whole mess again.

Morales, elected in 2005 with an absolute majority of 53.7% (almost unheard of in Bolivian politics) is pushing harder than ever as his term as president is drawing to a close. As the first indigenous president in the history of Bolivia, Morales has sought to reverse the hundreds of years of subjugation that has resulted in the poverty of millions of native Bolivians. As recently as January 25^th of this year, a nation-wide referendum passed that limited the future purchase of land to 5,000 hectares of land per person. The same referendum also enabled the government to expropriate land that they deem ‘unproductive’.

This is all in effort to break up the large rural estates that exist in the east. This has the farmers in that area worried, as much of the land in the eastern part of the country is used as grazing land for cattle. While the redistribution is not supposed to start until a new Multinational Legislative Assembly is elected in 2009, it has already led to bouts of violence in Santa Cruz and the kidnapping of a government official.

The reform in Bolivia follows the same patterns of that in Zimbabwe – taking from the rich, producing, prosperous elite and redistributes the land to the impoverished natives. We know that this was one of the leading causes of the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy, as anyone who was actually working to get ahead and produce had all of their property confiscated. Moreover it discouraged people to actively pursue capitalist production for fear of having their hard work ripped from them. One wonders what havoc these reforms will reap on an economy already headed for the graveyard.

Nationalist pride is no terrible sentiment, and has previously made possible some of the most spectacular economic recoveries. However, regardless of the fact that in today’s globalized economy it would be almost impossible to “buy -insert country-”, the fact that minorities are being discriminated against more in times of recession is indicative of Protectionism going just a little too far.

Who hasn’t heard an angry US born citizen cursing the Mexicans for, and I quote, “stealing all the jobs”? In fact, this sentiment in itself can be heard on every continent, uttered by any ignorant native of a country with a high migrant population. There is a certain stigma attached to those who come to a country looking for work and find it, whether legally or illegally, as taking something from those who are ‘entitled’ to it, and that is a grave misconception.

Self-entitlement is a grim bastardization of entitlement, which in itself is a highly flawed concept to begin with. What makes anybody entitled to anything? Many say that the fact that one is born in a country is simply enough, but at the risk of pushing meritocracy, how is that more important in a worker than intelligence, ability, willingness to learn, and most importantly willingness to accept less money? If a native citizen is not willing to work in less than desirable conditions for less than ample pay, then they have no right to criticize and discriminate against the person who is, regardless of their heritage.

In North America particularly, the majority of those who would consider themselves as having North American bloodlines actually come from, at some point, migrant workers from Europe. That being said, it is apparently no longer kosher to give people those opportunities that provided prosperity now taken for granted. It seems that in this day and age most people are content with birth right being their main justification, leading to an ever growing problem - laziness.

I am a firm believer in the survival of the fittest, and as a driven individual who does not quite fulfill the WASP criteria, maintain that anything I achieve will be due to my hard work. That, too, can be said of many of the people who are “stealing jobs”: jobs which they are quite frankly more capable of doing and because of that fact, now hold. By allowing foreign professionals to bring their expertise, much of which is acclaimed, to a field it is doubtlessly bettered. This then has a positive effect on our economy, our social standing and general standard of living.

Social benefits (with a few legitimate exceptions, granted) are in place for those who lack the required capacity and motivation to do great things. Should a position be held by a less capable individual simply because the more qualified person was coincidentally born and educated elsewhere? Though the notion may be a tad elitist, I see no reason for the few who made it their goal to pioneer and excel in whichever field they chose to support those who did not consider it their duty to contribute to society.

There are cases of young women in England, leaving school and having children because government housing and allowances are provided to an extent that provides better returns than working for a living. Were such handouts to be abolished, people would think twice about sloth and complacency as a legitimate means of survival, and theoretically, economic productivity would increase.

Protectionist extremists would quite happily close off borders to all foreign influences, but do this and the realization would hit that most countries depend heavily on foreign business and the gains from trade, and soon industry would grind to a halt. It would serve far better to encourage as much competition as possible in order to kick the general population out of its delusional sense of self-entitlement, end complacency and make them productive members of society once and for all.

Don’t get me wrong - you have some traditional (or perhaps idealized?) Americanized voices with respect to those seen in mostly involved in the libertarian movement: Ron Paul, Penn Gillette (yeah, the loud-mouth from the Penn and Teller duo) and the CATO and Mises Institutes. In fact, what we call the ‘libertarian’ movement is rather new - not something traditional at all - but this is a trick, it’s only ‘new’ because it never needed to exist before, there was no general social movement towards this metrosexualized, European-style dependent-on-the-government whining.

I have respect for Europe. The whole of it. It is just not an economically sound model. European countries are notorious for their socialist-leaning movements - from things like ‘better’ unemployment packages (see: higher unemployment) and higher minimum wages (see: higher unemployment) to the specifics, such as an establishment that supports anti-businesslike behavior and the health care system (which, I hear Obama wants to adopt something similar to ) that is dependent on a tax structure which is neither fair nor reasonable, and likely hinders development (economically) to the point where we’d all be driving flying cars and able to have personal robot-doctors by now if the government wasn’t involved.

But, this isn’t about Europe.

What this is about, is this crazy idea to spend $900 billion (okay, $780 billion) on something that the President has to sell to the public through careful politicking, panic incitement and this weird “quoting experts” stuff. The economists I talk to - and there’s quite a number of them - all have Ph.D’s and overwhelmingly think that inflation is likely to cause a bigger mess from such a stimulus, but, they all believe that the mess will “sort itself out.” I’m starting to feel like there’s incentive for Obama’s economists (or, should I just say “great minds,” he never really tells us who comes up with this stuff) to like big spending - perhaps it conditions the public in to accepting more spending, or perhaps they just happen to work with / have personal interests’ in the industries which will be positively effected by such a stimulus.

But you can’t give a man a dollar without taking it from someone else.

Even ‘printed’ or ‘injected’ money has a cost - a huge cost - eventually that debt has to be paid back, and in the interim, it’s implicitly paid back in the rate of inflation as the money spreads around the economy. Or even as the expectation of the money spreads around the economy. The value of money is only the value of the goods it chases - if there’s more money and the same amount of goods, the money is just worth less. The real problem with this ‘inflation tax’ is that it misappropriates money; those who had a lot before (or, more so, carried high real money balances) are negatively slammed by this tax as their money buys less and less - it then gets put where-ever it’s going, investment projects, the automotive industry, wars (though, clearly not this time - at least not yet). This kind of whiny protectionism and more so, absolutely ridiculous misappropriation of money is something that the American people aren’t - or at least, weren’t.

I understand that the failure of Bush’s presidency left 2/3 of the mostly unengaged American populace unhappy with the way so-called “Republican” policies (which is nothing more than big-business and big-spending pandering itself) left the country in even bigger shambles, more of a public perception crisis, and a fairly un-American standing overall; but the response to big-spending idiocy isn’t to do everything your nation stood against.

The Founding Fathers - a favorite topic of Libertarians (surprisingly) world wide - would be hugely unimpressed with the way this statist government has grown. And, the American people, if they were anything like they were 30 years ago - or even before that - would be too. Certainly progression is about not being stuck in the past, but it’s also about gripping something with some solidarity - not this Keynesian-Marxist mega-cross protectionist ‘equality is about stealing from some’ attitude.

Observers didn’t know what to think of the budget. One of its clear elements is that you can’t really tell who wrote it. The spending programs are a Liberal trademark, but they would not have approved the budget’s tax cuts. Deficits are rhetorically accused of being more and more of a Tory instrument, but they traditionally cringe at interfering in the free markets to the degree which this budget does. The New Democrats generally approve of social programs and interventionism, but would never allow the appalling elimination of pay equity for women. So who is this budget for?

On CBC Newsworld’s initial budget coverage, commentator Chantal Hebert compared the budget to pressing every button on a switchboard in the hope that something good happens. The fact is that the government can’t do everything, and they certainly can’t do everything and avoid structural deficits. In the February 5th, 2009 issue of the UBC Okanagan Phoenix, NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair openly questions the Conservatives’ resolve with a number of these spending measures. The Conservatives are strictly ideological, and the Opposition is right to accuse them of not believing in this budget. If there is any way that they could reduce spending and protect their position in the Commons as Government, they would do so.

Jack Layton argues that they are unlikely to follow through due to past performance regarding fixed election dates and other broken election promises, but there exists greater evidence than campaign rhetoric: the “Maybe we’ll spend it, maybe we won’t” infrastructure component of the budget.

The money being made available for infrastructure programs is intended to contribute to projects in a three way, one-third split.  This is no new system because, according to Kelowna Mayor Sharon Shepard in the Phoenix, the funding was already a series of one-third portions. The government also claims the funding from municipal and provincial levels of government as a part of its stimulus package. International Trade minister and MP from Okanagan-Coquihalla, Stockwell Day compared the funding to a thirty-three cent dollar, where they would only have to put in thirty-three cents in order to obtain the whole thing.

The metaphor, however, applies to each of the three levels of government. Unlike the situation of municipal governments, who must cast out their third of the funding and hope that provincial and federal governments bite, the federal government only needs to make the funds available. But if municipal and provincial governments like Newfoundland and Labrador’s, who will lose  an estimated $1.8 billion in equalization payments due to provisions in the budget, are cash-strapped and cannot buck up their share, the government does not have to provide any money. It even claims potential contributions from other levels of government as part of its economic stimulus package. Additionally, big city mayors like Toronto’s David Miller warn that the approval process will ensure that “money will flow very slowly, if at all.” The money that has already been budgeted for infrastructure projects has been in the pipe for a while, and it is therefore important to take care of it soon.

An ironic inclusion in the budget is new funding to restore Toronto’s Union Station. A monument to broken government promises, $25 million was pledged by the Liberal government in 2000 to restore the condition of the aging transport hub. According to Council the funding never arrived, without explanation of its disappearance. The budget promises $75 million from the government to help complete the project, but the city won’t see dime one until the federal government can inspects the work after completion to see if it likes it. Toronto is fairly close to the federal framework, so that may not take so long. But will the government be able to respond to all the requests that dot all of the small towns across the various provinces?

On its face, demanding “progress reports” to guarantee spending that does seem so unlikely seems like strong action. However, the coalition that made motions of confidence so deadly this winter is now in tatters, and both Ignatieff and the Governor General cannot rely on its influence to form a government if Harper should lose the confidence of Parliament. This will reduce the confidence motions to the same impotent feedback loop that plagued the Liberals in early and mid 2008, where the Conservatives seemingly feared no confidence motion because the Liberals were never properly prepared or convinced they could run an effective campaign.

Lack of follow-through is a huge issue with this budget, especially in one so dependent on its promises. However, the Liberal amendment only helps to remedy this problem the same way that blowing on a burn makes it heal faster: it doesn’t.