This makes me so angry! The U.S. is bringing the U.N. to its knees...

Is this the Bush's idea of promoting peace in the world? Just create so much tension within the U.N. that the rest of the nations just get fed up? Of course - ask yourselves what exactly is Bolton talking about when he suggests that the U.S. will have to solve its international problems by some other means? Of course just world domination by the U.S. I can see Bolton's next proposal: "How be we just dissolve the U.N. and from now on international problems will be solved directly from the Pentagon?"

That's pretty much way the Bush Administration acts right now anyways.

This is just appalling. I hope that reasoned thinkers in the U.S. realize what a mess their policy makers have been making out of international relations over the past few years.

I hope that the nations of the U.N. just boot the U.S. right out and make it go sit in the corner until it learns to behave properly.

UN Threatened with Budgetary Shutdown
By Thalif Deen
Inter Press Service

Thursday 22 December 2005

Less than two weeks before a Dec. 31 deadline, the United Nations is in danger of beginning the new year inauspiciously - without an approved budget and unable to pay staff salaries.

United Nations - "I am not sure if the light in this room can and will be on," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters Wednesday.

Annan was hinting at an impending financial crisis which could shut down the world body, dimming the lights in the 39-story U.N. Secretariat, come January.

"I really, really hope that member states understand the implications of a budget crisis and will do everything to avoid it," the secretary-general said at his year-end press conference.

The potential crisis has been sparked by implicit threats by the United States that it will not support the U.N.'s biennial budget for 2006-2007 if member states refuse to back proposals for a radical overhaul of the world body, including management reforms.

Since the budget is traditionally approved by consensus by all 191 member states, a single country can withhold its support, thereby throwing the entire process into disarray.

John Bolton, the abrasive U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has said the U.N.'s biennial budget for 2006-2007 should be shrunk into a three-month budget giving member states a deadline of Mar. 31 to agree to a set of U.S.-inspired reforms.

But the 132-member Group of 77, comprising developing countries, is refusing to conform to artificial deadlines or rush into a decision under threats.

Last month, Bolton warned U.N. member states, specifically the 132 developing nations, that if they don't play ball with the United States, Washington may look elsewhere to settle international problems.

Addressing a gathering at Wingate University in North Carolina, Bolton said: "Being practical, Americans say that either we need to fix the institution (the United Nations), or we'll turn to some other mechanism to solve international problems."

Last week, Bolton went further when he said that the reform of the United Nations is coming up against a "culture of inaction" among member states.

In an implicit reference to Bolton's aggressive stance, Annan told reporters that the atmosphere at the United Nations these days is a "bit tense". He said that "tempers are high, and there is quite a bit of mistrust."

"There is a sense that they are operating in an atmosphere of threats and intimidation, which some of them say they resent," he added.

"But quite frankly," Annan pointed out, "I think the only choice they have is to sit down and talk honestly and sincerely and frankly to each other, and try and come to an understanding. But they have to put the interest of the Organisation first, not narrow interests."

The Group of 77 (G77) says that U.N. reforms are primarily driven by right wing neo-conservatives in the United States who have made U.N.-bashing into a fine art.

The G77 has told Annan that it is strongly opposed to the neo-conservative view that the world body should be run like a U.S. corporation, with the secretary-general playing the role of a chief executive officer (CEO).

The proposal to give Annan more powers would correspondingly diminish the authority of the 191-member General Assembly, the highest policy making body in the Organisation.

Asked about the deadlock, Annan said: "I know there have been some differences between the G77 and other groups of countries. But I think they all want to see reform and they all want to see the United Nations move ahead. I am hopeful they will be able to come to an understanding and agree on a budget (before the end of December)."

Bolton is also making a strong push for a new Human Rights Council, which is expected to replace the existing U.N. Commission on Human Rights whose composition has come under fire because some of its traditional members include countries such as Sudan, Libya and Zimbabwe, themselves accused of human rights abuses.

The year-end press conference also turned into a war of words when Annan was pinned down with questions about his family - all relating to the now-defunct oil-for-food scandal which has triggered charges of fraud and corruption against some U.N. officials who administered the programme.

A question that has kept haunting Annan is how his son Kojo Annan acquired a Mercedes Benz vehicle in Ghana apparently for his own use but avoided paying customs duties by registering it under his father's name.

Asked about this, he said it was part of the report by the Paul Volcker Commission which probed the oil-for-food scandal. "I know you are all obsessed about the car. My son and his lawyers are dealing with it. If you want to know more about it, please direct the questions to his lawyer or to him. I am neither his spokesman nor his lawyer," he said pointedly.

Told that his own version of the story "doesn't really make sense", Annan addressed the reporter, James Bone, directly: "I think you are being very cheeky here."

"No, hold on. Hold on. Listen James Bone. You have been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this room for many, many months and years. You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving, and please let's move on to a more serious subject."

Annan's criticism brought a rejoinder from Jim Wurst, president of the U.N. Correspondents' Association (UNCA): "On behalf of UNCA, I have to tell you that James Bone is not an embarrassment. He's a member in good standing of UNCA. He has every right to ask the question."

But Annan decided to have the last word: "No, I agree with you. He has a right to ask questions, and I came here to answer questions. But I think we also have to understand that we have to treat each other with some respect."

"You have the right to ask all the questions you want to ask. I reserve the right to refuse to answer questions I don't want to answer. But there is a certain behaviour and a certain mutual respect we have to respect," he added.

Nearly one in 10 pension plans frozen in U.S.,

From Moneysense.ca

Nearly one in 10 pension plans frozen in U.S., U.S. federal study finds
December 21, 2005 - 18:23
By ANDREW BRIDGES

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. employers froze nearly one in 10 pension plans insured by the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. in 2003, according to a study released Wednesday.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the federal agency that guarantees worker pension benefits, said 9.4 per cent of the 29,000 plans it insures and for which it had data were "hard-frozen" in 2003, the most recent year for which numbers were available. Hard-frozen means employees can no longer accrue benefits under a pension plan.

The study comes amid a steady stream of headlines about companies, including Sears Roebuck & Co., Motorola Inc. and IBM Corp., freezing pensions to cut costs. Among the latest was Verizon Communications Inc., which recently said it would freeze the pensions of 50,500 managers.

The study, however, found that as of 2003 the frozen plans covered just 2.5 per cent of all workers in insured plans. Most of the more than 2,700 plans hard-frozen in 2003 had fewer than 100 participants, it said.

That finding comes on the heels of other studies that have suggested in the last year a steep uptick in the number of firms that are freezing - either fully or partially - employee pension plans. They include one conducted by the consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide that found that 71 of the 1,000 largest companies last year either froze or terminated their pension plans, up from 45 in 2003. Nearly all were freezes.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. officials said the private sector studies, including the Watson Wyatt report, had "shortcomings."

"While anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of frozen pension plans has increased since 2003, reports of a mass exodus from the defined benefit pension system appear to be overstated," said Bradley Belt, the group's executive director.

However, the report acknowledged that it does not illustrate the "full extent of the decline in the defined benefit system" since it does not track cases where employers have either partially frozen their pension plans or closed them to new entrants. These "numbers have almost certainly increased in the past two years," the report concludes.

That and the age of the data mean the report fails to accurately portray recent and significant changes to pension plans, said Dallas Salisbury, president of the Washington-based Employee Benefit Research Institute.

"The PBGC report misses much of what has been happening among defined benefit plans," Salisbury said in a statement.

Fewer workers covered by insured pension plans could make it harder for the federal corporation to improve its own financial position. It recently reported a deficit of $22.8 billion US as it takes over payments of abandoned plans, particularly in the airline and steel industries. Defined-benefit plans are now underfunded by an estimated $450 billion.

The number of participants in insured pension plans grew to about 35 million in 2004, from 28 million in 1980. Most of the growth has come in the numbers of retired workers, as well as surviving spouses, covered by the plans and not in new workers, according to the study.

That, coupled with the freezing or terminating of plans, could mean the number of workers covered by insured plans could stagnate or shrink, the report said. If that occurred, it would cut into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.'s premium income and make it even harder for the agency to improve its financial position, according to the report.

Watch What You Wish For...

I've been looking through some of the Alberta newspapers, commentary and blogs today to try to get a sense of what Western Canadians are thinking coming into this upcoming election.

First of all, there are alot of them who are VERY upset that Paul Martin was tossing "un-American" phrases around on last week's campaign trail. Second of all, there are a few out there who actually think that a two-tiered health system will be beneficial to Canada.

I have lived in Canada all of my life, but I also lived in the United States for the past three years. Those were tumultous times, let me tell you. In Canada's debate, I have learned that above all, we have to take a hard look at the state of the United States of America and RUN LIKE HELL in the opposite direction!

I lived in Massachusetts, thankfully as blue a state as you can find in the U.S. and probably one of the very few places in the U.S. where a rational Canadian can set up shop.

My first apartment was in downtown Boston. It was a bachelor apartment for $1200 per month not including utilities. The cheapest rent I ever paid was when I decided to move out of the city into Quincy (a 1.5 hour commute by train) to pay another girl $650 per month to have a room in her 2 bedroom apartment. In that environs, I would say that most middle class people had at least a 1 - 2 hour commute to get into work (everyone had moved way out into the surrounding cities and even as far as Maine and Rhode Island). The crappiest fixer-up house within a 75 mile radius of Boston was $350,000 dollars MINIMUM. The cheapest real estate investments were 75 year old remodeled apartment units selling for $250,000 minimum.

That's just housing.

How about maternity leave? At my workplace, we were entitled to 14 weeks of paid vacation (you also COULD NOT USE any other accumulated sick time or vacation time to get yourself more time with your newborn). That's it. Your kid pops out, they and at 3 months they are suddenly without parents and have to go to daycare. It was ridiculous - at that age the child has not even developed its personality or familial bonds yet! The child's main developmental stepping stones will inevitably be witnessed by complete strangers. That's what the U.S. political system calls "family values". By the way, the website and statistics that I mentioned in my last post specifically states that of all the OECD countries, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand are the only countries left that don't provide full maternal/paternal leave options.

On the subject of daycare, of course the U.S. government has no cash for such luxuries. Most couples I knew with newborn children were rushing around trying to get on the list for a nearby daycare center as soon as the child popped out. Some of these waiting lists had a three year wait period to boot! One colleague of mine indicated that for childcare, a couple has to be prepared to pay A MINIMUM Of $15 dollars per hour. While this is probably not a fair wage for the daycare workers themselves - how many working Americans do you think actually MAKE the $15 per hour to be able to pay for it?

What I have been actively watching is the state of the U.S. economy and the corresponding effects on the middle class. Anyone with any knowledge about economics knows that you cannot run a government on several trillions of dollars of debt and have a stable economic future. The future of the country's economy depends entirely on foreign investors who are holding the government's bonds. If they decide to jump ship, the U.S. dollar could go into a major tailspin.

One of the absolute major problems with the economy has been the U.S. ever-increasing de-emphasis on regulation (with a corresponding outpouring of financial and regulatory support for corporations.) Let's do the round up:

*in the past 15 years the U.S. economy has been growing by about 3% per year. *at the same time wages have not only remained the same, but in some sectors have been falling.

How do we account for an economy which can continue growing while its citizen's incomes have not? CREDIT CARDS. Statistics show that individuals in the U.S. have an historically high level of debt in comparison to their incomes, and that individual savings are at an all-time low. This flows through all members of the society - if you take a look at that report in my last posting and you'll see what I mean - a shockingly low number of adults have individual retirement plans and that's only one group.

If you read Elizabeth Warren's book "The Two Income Trap" you will see that the reason why so many people (who historically would not have been extended credit) have credit now - is because of U.S. deregulation of the credit industry. And you would be shocked to know what they're up to these days! Did you know that in the U.S. it is not illegal for one of your credit card companies to RAISE YOUR INTEREST RATE because you paid ANOTHER CREDIT CARD bill late? Did you know that they can charge any interest rate they like and the number and kinds of fees that they are charging has skyrocketed? Did you know that a person in the U.S. is more likely to get more credit card offers AFTER they claim bankruptcy? This is because (contrary to what used to be popular wisdom) the credit card companies know that they will be able to milk the cash out of these people the longest.

What has been the Bush Administration's response to this kind of blatant abuse of the middle class which has had a direct impact on their economic well-being? This year the Bush Administration passed an amendment to the Bankruptcy laws which would make it harder for most people to claim bankruptcy and which would require persons who claimed bankruptcy to continue paying certain bills (even though a corporation who claimed bankrupcty would have their slate wiped clean!)

Okay right-wingers who are wagging their finger at those bankruptcy claimants who are selfishly abusing the system to buy big screen TVs - WRONG again! READ Elizabeth Warren's book! The top three reasons why Americans are claiming bankruptcy?

1. Unexpected health problems that cost them a trip to the hospital and thousands of dollars on their credit cards.
2. Divorce or separation.
3. People buying houses they cannot afford to live in areas where good schools are available.

Did you know that the REPUTATION OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL is one of the primary determinants of real estate prices in any particular area in the United States?

Strike two against you right wingers who are all pro-privatization of schools. (The third strike on this matter comes from my knowledge of a girl from Southwestern Ontario who went to work for a private school in Michigan that was owned by the company that owns DOMINO'S PIZZA!!).

I've said it before and I'll say it again - CORPORATIONS' ONLY PRIORITY IS MAKING MONEY. SCHOOLS' PRIORITY SHOULD BE CHILDREN. HOSPITALS" PRIORITY SHOULD BE PATIENTS. THE TWO ARE INCOMPATIBLE. IF a corporation has to cut costs in order to increase profits - they are going to cut costs - even if it negatively impacts on their service to patients.

Which leads me to my next point. Canada's health system might not be great BUT IT IS BETTER THAN NOTHING AND/OR RELYING ON INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PROTECT YOUR HEALTH.

When was the last time you made a claim to your insurance company about ANYTHING? Truth is NONE OF US LIKE TO MAKE CLAIMS TO INSURANCE COMPANIES BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY WILL:

1. nickle and dime the items we are claiming for
2. stall in processing payment
2. raise our rates when all is said and done

How would you like to have to take these into consideration at a time when YOUR CHILD NEEDS TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL?

Well this is what it is like for most Americans on a daily basis. For 30 million of them without health insurance, they have to think about going to the hospital or the doctor or the dentist the same way you and I have to think about whether we are going to buy a new CD or pair of jeans... CAN I AFFORD THIS RIGHT NOW?

Hard to think of it that way when you are in an AMBULANCE BLEEDING TO DEATH FROM A CAR ACCIDENT!!!

READ THE BOOK "CRITICAL CONDITION" that I mentioned in a prior post. IT IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT PRIVATIZATION IS THE WAY FOR US TO GO. In Canada we complain about how much tax we pay but the truth is, in my experience the income tax level was pretty much the same between the two countries, but in the U.S. I had to pay $135 PER PAYCHEQUE for family health insurance converage. For most Americans, their health insurance costs are $10,000 per year on average. A friend of mine was off work for one summer and in order to keep her family's health insurance in place until September, she had to pay $500 per month. This was an insurance plan through the employer which the employer was not contributing to for this period. This rate is actually cheap compared to if an American has to purchase insurance on their own (and not with the purchasing power of their employer).

I have must more to say about de-regulation in America and its effects on the economy as well. More next time!

Website to Watch

On the subject of the inequalities in the U.S. economy, I'd like to read this book: THE STATE OF WORKING AMERICA 2004/2005 By Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia Allegretto Cornell Unviersity Press, 2005. Information, including the Table of Contents and plenty of description including statistics, can be found at the Economic Policy Institute website: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_swa2004

Book of the Year

Critical Condition : How Health Care in America Became Big Business--and Bad Medicine (Hardcover) by Donald L. Barlett & James B. Steele. Doubleday, 2004. This book is an absolute must read for Albertans, Ralph Klein, Stephen Harper and anyone else who thinks that privatization of Canada's health care system is the answer to our prayers. This book gives a good overview of the "wallstreetization" of health care in America and how it has resulted in a substandard health care system where millions of people go without care; where the per person costs of administering the system are more than twice the per-person administrative costs in Canada, and in particular where bankruptcies and typical Wall Street corruption and meddling have resulted in huge cutbacks, inefficiencies and, in some cases, a complete breakdown of health care infrastructure in America.

Welcome to Canada Corner

My name is Annette and I was born and raised in Canada. I have a strong interest in Canada's international affairs. I lived in the United States for awhile and became very interested in the U.S. economy and the plight of the middle class there. In this blog I will give my own opinions about Canada's role in world politics and I will also keep readers up to date about news articles about economic and social issues in the U.S. and Canada. I really welcome feedback and debate, and also, since I am a librarian, if you have any new technology news, I would love for you to post it. Cheers! Annette