The Economist introduced a book review titled "The subversive chancellor" on pages dedicated to reports on European policy to make a veiled criticism on Angela Merkel's performance as Chancellor of Germany, based on the newly published work "Die Patin" ("The Godmother", not yet translated into English), written by Gerturd Höhler, an influential conservative, a former adviser to Helmut Köhl and a frequent presence in the German media.
In its veiled approach, The Economist disagrees on a few points presented by Ms Höhler, who paints Chancellor Merkel with the colors of a power-obsessed egomaniac threatening the foundations of democracy as result of her upbringing in Communist East Germany. Accordingly, she describes the Merkel's governing style as "establishing a quiet variation of authoritarian power". But The Economist appears to be aggreable to her other arguments highlighting what the magazine perceives as Ms Merkel's lack of solid values, her political ambition and her avoidance "to be committed to anything" at all.
To substantiate this view of the Christian Democratic Chancellor, they point out that she has always been malleable to adopt ideas from others as her own for political expediency, "such as family policy from the SPD or exit from nuclear energy from the Greens". Precisely a governing style quite contrary to the "quiet variation of authoritarian power" argued in "The Godmother".
At the beginning of the present US financial crisis, Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and the federal government graciously offered to "buy the companies" and keep them out of bankruptcy to "save jobs." Chrysler, as well as GM, were, in the words of President Obama and his Administration, "Too big to fail".
By the late 1970's Chrysler had a much bigger share of the market than now, but it was bankrupt as well. However, the US government did not intervene directly, as it did in 2009. At that time, Chrysler followed the natural course of any failing corporation and had to choose whether to give-up and close its doors or reorganize. In 1978 Lee Iacocca was brought in as CEO. Iacocca approached Congress on September 7, 1979 and asked for US$1.5 billion in loan guarantees. Congress reluctantly passed the "Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979" (Public Law 96-185) on December 20, 1979, prodded by Chrysler workers and dealers in every congressional district who feared the loss of their livelihoods. Chrysler not only made a come-back on following years but eventually paid this debt.
However, in 2008/2009, decisions taken by the government were quite different. On December 19, Pres. Bush announced a rescue loan, but the general "auto bailout" proposed was rejected in the Senate. A few months later the Feds organized their own "Automotive Task Force" to "fix" Chrysler and GM. President Obama appointed Steve Rattner, a longtime Wall Street deal maker, to be the White House's official "Car Czar" - literally, that was his title. Rattner was empowered as the liaison between Obama and Chrysler and GM. But in order to simplify, we'll concentrate on the Chrysler story.
Readers may wonder what is a Czar. The term "czar" emerges when President Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to run the War Industries Board in 1917. This position was dubbed then the "industry czar" and evolved to be known as the "war czar" after World War II. "Czar" became a slang term for certain high-level civil servants, such as the "drug czar" for the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the "terrorism czar" for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, the "cyber security czar" for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy, and the "war czar" to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, a czar refers to a sub-cabinet level advisor within the Executive branch of the U.S. Government. The fact is that he or she is appointed at the Executive level. This keeps many appointees outside the required senatorial approval; they answer only to the President and their actions are not accountable to Congress.
En nombre de la libertad se cometen y se han cometido muchos crímenes en la historia de la humanidad. A eso se le llama "jacobinismo", porque en nombre de la libertad el segmento jacobino de la Asamblea Nacional que surge de la Revolución Francesa cortó muchas cabezas y desató finalmente una feroz persecución del segmento girondino de ese órgano legislativo y de cualquier otra tendencia política que intentara oponérsele. Se cayó así en una cruel dictadura de las mayorías que hizo sucumbir a la naciente democracia francesa en un abismo de terror y que ha servido de modelo a innumerables dictaduras posteriores entronizadas sobre un mandato popular mayoritario en sus inicios.
Hay formas mucho más sutiles e insidiosas de destruir los fundamentos de la libertad con el pretexto de defender libertades o derechos selectivos. Ese es un fenómeno que estamos experimentando al enfrentar constantes descalificaciones por tomar posiciones, expresar opiniones o defender convicciones que "la mayoría" estima que no son "políticamente correctas". Cuando los factores religioso o ético –que frecuentemente van de la mano– forman parte de esta ecuación, es todavía más feroz e intransigente el embate en contra de lo que los elementos más agresivos de la sociedad estiman que no es "políticamente correcto".
En Estados Unidos se está desatando un desenfrenado jacobinismo entre ciertos sectores liberales o ultraliberales –que es un eufemismo utilizado para evitar identificarse como "socialista" o de "extrema izquierda" respectivamente– que aplican medidas autoritarias, cuando pueden, o desencadenan una tormenta de descalificaciones (y a veces también de insultos) cuando no pueden tomar represalias efectivas o legales contra aquellos que tienen la osadía de defender públicamente convicciones que les desagradan.
El derecho a la libre expresión y las libertades fundamentales de pensamiento y religión se ven seriamente amenazadas cuando las creencias y convicciones particulares y la defensa de una moral determinada se interpretan como una agresión contra la que hay que tomar represalias políticas, sociales y/o económicas.
Nota: Las cifras expresadas en “trillones” corresponden a la denominación en Estados Unidos, donde un trillón es equivalente a un millón de millones o un “billón” en otras partes. Por lo tanto, 6.4 trillones corresponden a 6,4 billones en otras partes.
En enero de 2012 publicamos un informe titulado "Al borde del abismo económico en EEUU" que advertía sobre las consecuencias de la actual política económica del Gobierno federal.
Se acababa de salir de una reñida puja entre Republicanos y Demócratas y entre el Poder Ejecutivo y el Legislativo para aumentar el límite de la deuda, que finalmente se resolvió cuando una mayoría del Congreso en Washington aceptó fijarla en 16.384 trillones el 30 de enero de este año, lo cual representaba un aumento del "techo de la deuda" de más de dos trillones en menos de dos años.
Este acuerdo se logró a cambio del compromiso de frenar una tendencia peligrosamente acelerada de endeudamiento que ha resultado en cinco aumentos del "techo de la deuda" aprobados por el Congreso desde enero de 2009, en comparación con otros cinco aumentos en los siete años anteriores. Desde que autorizó el aumento del techo de la deuda en junio de 2002 hasta 6.4 trillones, este límite aumentó en casi cinco trillones durante los 8 años de la Administración Busch y en más de 4 trillones sólo en los 3½ años de la Administración Obama.
Como esta tendencia no se ha frenado, este enorme aumento de la deuda autorizada en enero no ha sido suficiente para satisfacer el desbocado tren de gastos presupuestarios, los cuales han hecho subir la deuda total de 15.195 trillones en enero a 15.9 trillones en el momento de escribir este análisis, lo cual significa que EEUU, con toda seguridad, volverá a alcanzar el "techo de la deuda" cuando este problema deba volver a discutirse en el Congreso en septiembre. EEUU estará en esos momentos en la recta final de la campaña electoral y no hay que ser profeta para anticipar que ambas partes se echarán la culpa mutuamente de la prolongación de la crisis y se mostrarán reacios de alcanzar un nuevo acuerdo antes de las elecciones. Por lo tanto, EEUU llegará a estas elecciones en plena crisis.
Participatory budgeting (PB) is probably the best-known application of participatory democracy around the world. The World Bank is even an advocate, because it enhances transparency and accountability and reduces government inefficiency. Quite simply it is a process, which enables local people to decide directly how public money, should be spent in their communities, on the things that they know will make the biggest difference. In doing that, it builds community cohesion, capacity and wellbeing. It changes the relationship between service providers and users and helps communities be a part of the solution. It helps rebuild trust in democracy.
Evidence shows that local people can be trusted to make sound decisions most of the time and are often better placed to know how services can be delivered better and more efficiently, but most public bodies remain reluctant to share power and responsibility with their residents and the PB idea advances at a snail pace.
Until now, PB projects have been within the gift of the council or police authority in the United Kingdom. “The People’s Budget” is a campaign initiated in Britain and aimed at mobilizing and equipping local people and community groups to lobby for a say in how money is spent in their neighborhoods. It is, after all, their money. Surely, this is what localism is supposed to be about; fundamental not cosmetic change. As budgets come under increasing pressure, it’s more important than ever to start rebuilding trust.
The Economist introduced a book review titled "The subversive chancellor" on pages dedicated to reports on European policy to make a veiled criticism on Angela Merkel's performance as Chancellor of Germany, based on the newly published work "Die Patin" ("The Godmother", not yet translated into English), written by Gerturd Höhler, an influential conservative, a former adviser to Helmut Köhl and a frequent presence in the German media.
