The Right Honourable Kim Campbell » United States

Political Pledge vs Democratic Duty

sheila — Fri, 27 May 2011 19:42:34 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

I have been watching the discussion on American TV about the standoff between Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress regarding the 2012 Budget. It seems that most Republicans have signed a “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” prepared by anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist not to raise taxes under any circumstances including eliminating loopholes that would have the effect of raising the taxes paid by a particular taxpayer. Members of Congress who wish to reconsider this pledge are targeted for defeat by the considerable resources of Mr. Norquist. Apparently, this threat is sufficient to prevent Republican congressmen from considering any “revenue” mechanisms to address the American national budget deficit.

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (WY) has described this situation as highly dangerous for Americans. I find the notion of elected representatives binding themselves in this way immoral and a betrayal of their fiduciary responsibility to their constituents. It is fine for a party platform to advocate no new taxes, but all campaign promises must be subordinated to the national interest when circumstances change. Many of these “pledges” were signed at a time when the US Budget was in surplus, at the end of the Clinton Administration. To adhere to this pledge even after launching not just one but two wars or in the face of an historical financial crisis, is to sacrifice the national interest and the well-being of future generations to an unaccountable interest group. This is, frankly, undemocratic and corrupt. There can be no justification for democratically elected representatives to “fetter their discretion”. Given the constitutional authority given to Congress over the raising and spending of public funds, these pledges are a betrayal of the constitutional duty owed to the American people.

Is there no gonadal fortitude in the Republican Party?

What was the BBC Thinking?

sheila — Mon, 16 May 2011 20:21:03 +0000

The sexual assault charges filed today in New York against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Director General of the IMF, have shocked the world. Imagine, then, Peter Dobbie, filling in for Nik Gowing on BBC’s The Hub interviewing a Frenchman. He wonders if the charges reflect a more “puritanical” American view of sexual issues and refers to the extramarital affair of former President Francois Mitterand. His French interviewee remarks that the only French president who was without a whiff of sexual scandal was Charles de Gaulle. I almost fell off the sofa! What do extramarital affairs have to do with sexual assault? And by the way, rape is a crime even in France. If there is one difference between the US and France it is that in France, high officials sometimes seem to live in a bubble of impunity when it comes to behaviour that would incur criminal penalties in lesser mortals. Thus the sight of a member of the elite in handcuffs in a New York courtroom was indeed a shock to the French. (I can hardly wait for the Law & Order SVU version – this was the real thing!). It remains to see if the charges will be proven but the acts described in the charges are horrifying, no matter which side of the Atlantic you are on.

Tangible Transparency

kim — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:57:29 +0000

Last month, I was in Switzerland for the annual board meeting of the Forum of Federations, an independent org that was initiated in Canada, but is supported by many countries and governments. There also was a wide-ranging conference, co-sponsored by F of F, on immigrant integration in Switzerland and the impact of federalism.

It was an interesting program, but one of the most striking things during my visit was that I learned that in the Canton of Solothurn ALL jurisdictional business must be conducted in public. Imagine that! An interesting antidote to those who contend that governance conducted in public is merely political theatre.

As the debate over healthcare reform in the US rages, do you think that it would have benefited from more transparency or less?