I woke up on November 5, 2008, reborn, minus the amniotic fluid, of course. I felt a heightened sense of euphoria, empowered. As of that day, the world had much more to offer me. One thing it now offered was the belief that I could offer it much more than I could prior to November 5th. After I sipped my morning green tea, I hit the pavement for my morning jog.
Usually, my first few trots are slow and arduous, as though I was running through fresh cement paste. However, this morning, this special morning, I ran as though I were running on a rubber track in Candy Land, or better yet, Cheesecake Land, my weakness.
As I strode along the sidewalk, the air felt fresher, traversing my biological pathways and filling my lungs. I ran with light feet and a cool head. I continued down my path and approached the familiar distant silhouettes of my fellow morning joggers.
However, that morning, as we passed each other to exchange our routine node of courtesy, I sensed within that greeting a mutual acknowledgement of “YES WE CAN.” However, what kind of effect will Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency have on Canada?
I appreciate the enriched essence of hope that Obama’s nomination signals to all ethnic groups in Canada, the U.S., and internationally as well. I mean, when or if I ever have a child, I can actually say to him or her that if you work real hard and stay focused, you can possibly be the Prime Minister of Canada, assuming I don’t slide down the brain drain into the U.S.
The fact is that Obama is the soon-to-be P.O.T.U.S. (President of the United States) of America, not Canada. During his term, President-elect Obama's policies will significantly affect Canadians.
Let’s speculate.
I wonder how much Obama knows about our vast country north of the border. John McCain’s daughter actually works in Toronto, while Obama has actually referred to our Prime Minister as the President of Canada. I must admit that I have made this mistake on many occasions. As a matter of fact, I made the same mistake while writing this article. Thank goodness for editors.
Speaking of Prime Ministers, despite the fact that Obama is a Democrat, our Prime Minister appears to be just as optimistic as many Canadians are about the role Obama will play in the future of Canadians. Traditionally, Conservatives bedded with Republicans and Liberals with Democrats. Harper has welcomed Obama and America with open arms. How could he not?
Obama’s presidency is legendary, and Harper is fortunate to have shared history with Obama during his tenure as president. Harper has indicated that he wants to tell Obama that Canada stands ready as the best friend and partner of the United States. Best Friend? Alas, it is a term that is used so loosely in our modern-day substance-depleted society. Just like the phrase “I love you.” Oh, where has all the realness gone?
Anyway, that is for a different kind of column, and no, I am not going there! Moving on, those whom I bless with the title of best friend have my back in times of peril, and I have theirs. It’s not a one-way street, or as we say in law, there is consideration on both sides. Canada has a reputation for wallowing in the residue of our friend’s successes, like Turtle from HBO’s Entourage. Watch the card game scene in 40-year-old Virgin if you need further clarification on this form of friendship. However, our dependence on the U.S. can also be detrimental to our well-being.
Early in the year, during his long and resolute run for the Democratic leader nod, Obama stated his concerns about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He indicated that he would like to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA to protect jobs in the U.S. However, many analysts think that is unlikely and that any changes to NAFTA would impact Mexico instead.
Harper said that the top issues that he would discuss with Obama are the economic crisis, the environment, energy security, international security, and foreign policy.
Harper appreciates that Obama wants to shift focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. Canada has approximately 2,500 troops there. Harper has set a 2011 deadline to withdraw our military from Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s perceived haste to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, Obama may pressure Harper to extend our military withdrawal past 2011.
I have read many articles that indicate Obama is likely to take a protectionist approach to economic issues. What does that mean? It means that his initial plan of action will be to protect America’s economic interests rather than those of any other country, except maybe China.
Our best friend owes a debt to some Eastern collectors. A trillion or so! Big deal!
Some economists claim that his protectionist stance can have a negative effect on Canada. For instance, BMO Capital Markets economist Doug Porter says that Obama’s protectionist approach could affect the Canadian export industry. Paul Ferley, assistant chief economist at Royal Bank, has indicated that our Canadian economy’s reliance on trade with the U.S. can be infringed upon if America provides benefits to American companies for keeping employment in America. Hogs!
Obama has displayed an aversive disposition towards dirty, dirty oil. He would like to fight America’s dependence on dirty oil, which includes their dependence on oil from the Middle East. Or so they say. Duh, duh, duh! Anyway, we better hope he does not have his eyes on the crude from Alberta oil sands or off them, for that matter.
It is one thing to say you would like to fight your oil addiction and another actually to do it, especially when no reasonable alternative exists. It's not the kind of problem that you can treat with a Patch. HELLO, MY NAME IS AMERICA, AND I’M AN OIL ADDICT. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said that he plans to work closely with the new U.S. administration to help meet its energy needs. It is a nice way of saying that if you are going to use anyone’s dirty oil, we are going to make sure that Americans use good ole dirty Canadian oil.
Lately, the current story attacking Obaminomics is the financial turmoil facing the big three of our domestic Auto sector: General Motors (GM), Ford, and Chrysler. General Motors, aka GM, aka Generally Lay Me Off one more time, has once again taken a financial dip. Actually, a dip is a huge understatement since it has always succumbed to dips, slips, and falls in the last few years.
This time, GM is dodging an economic cross-hook that could knock it into an abyss of no return. GM has recently announced that it will temporarily lay off 500 workers at its Oshawa, Ontario, car plants during the first week of 2009. GM ships 95% of what it builds to the United States. GM reported a US $4.2 billion operating loss for the third quarter, and Ford Motor Co. a US $3 billion operating loss, as U.S. auto sales collapsed to 25-year lows.
Analysts have claimed that Chrysler’s parent company, Cerberus Capital Management LLP, will sell the third-largest U.S. automaker off or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. GM and Ford Motor Co. burned through more than $13 billion in cash combined during the third quarter, and Chrysler’s sales performance was the worst of the three companies. The third quarter cash burn came before October U.S. sales. These sales were the worst for the companies in decades.
Economic Development Minister Michael Bryant indicated that Obama must formulate an agreement that will keep the Big Three automakers in Ontario. Obama has mentioned that he would like to implement a fiscal stimulus package that includes a bailout for the U.S. auto industry. Democratic leaders would like to use $25-billion of the $700-billion financial industry bailout to help GM, Ford and Chrysler. Wow, I can’t even borrow $10.00 from my Dad without a lecture. Chrysler is begging for a rescue.
Chrysler has taken proactive measures to cut costs. They have announced the shutdown of some assembly plants and a 23% cut in its salaried employee ranks. They are still considering the shutdown of two more of their plants. Auto Analyst Patrick Archambault has recently said that GM needs $22 billion U.S. in new capital between 2009 and 2012 and that the bulk of that amount needs to come from government funding or an alternative external source. GM shares have even been downgraded to neutral by analyst Himanshu Patel of JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Anyone care to bail me out of my school debt, it’s just $70 grand, which is peanuts compared to what these companies ask for. Any takers? No? No? Oh! Fine!
I am all for helping small businesses. However, when I think about the only solution on the table to help automakers, I can’t help but wonder if we are watering a dead plant. Will an auto industry bail-out package make a difference? Senators Richard Shelby of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona said using any Wall Street rescue money to prop up the automakers would be a mistake. They said an auto bailout would only postpone the industry's demise.
The first thing Obama needs to consider is whether consumers will actually consume automobiles if the auto sector gets the money it wants. For instance, one may argue that our economic crisis will encourage consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, such as hybrids. However, despite long-term savings, poor people think in the short term.
Rich people are concerned about not being rich anymore; middle-class people think they are poor, and poor people are…well…poor. Senator Carl Levin, who supports an auto sector rescue plan, has even said, “This is not a Big Three problem alone,” “This current crisis is a crisis in the economy where there is no credit available to purchase, and where people are not buying cars because they are afraid.” Everyone is entering a poor state of mind and seeking short-term survival.
Someone who anticipates being laid off, who has been laid off, or who will need to put their request for a raise on hold is not likely to have a new car planned in their budget for long-term savings benefits. Among other things, the consumer is thinking, how am I going to pay my bills now, buy food now, cover my current car loans now, and pay my mortgage now? Not what shiny new hybrid can I spend money on for long-term savings?
Further, the anticipated cure may amplify the issue. Analysts claim that an auto industry bailout package could encourage the merger of GM and Chrysler. A merger could lead to significant layoffs and plant shutdowns, including some in Canada, where GM and Chrysler employ about 30,000 people. Things that make you say hmmm! So they get the money, they may still file for bankruptcy or merge and still lay people off. Sounds like an effort to postpone the apocalypse to me. It’s like fixing a leaky pipe with bubble gum.
Obama is our modern-day Rocky Balboa or Mr. "We'll win the game. I guarantee you," Joe Namath. He is a symbol of endless possibilities for every man, woman, and child of all cultures. Hope is alive. However, hope alone is not a solution to tangible problems. To resolve problems that life throws at us, hope must be combined with a positive vision, a strong effort and resilient willpower. Obama will rally Americans together in a joint, concerted effort to resolve our current crisis. He said that he needed their help.
What does that mean for Canada?
Canada must implement proactive measures to ensure that America’s efforts to sustain itself will not negatively affect our economy or any of our concerns. Canada must become stronger, more focused, and more united. The passive and polite Canadian will take a back seat.
An Obama American is in the coaching position. The complacent Canada of yesterday, which would usually celebrate a victory from the sidelines, will be encouraged to fight for an active position as an independent unit of a larger schema that will pull us out of this global rut. This is the catalytic effect that an Obama America could generate for Canada. I accept that! Dependence is no longer the solution for Canadians. Besides, dependence is nice, but the glory is in independence! I feel like I need a sword to rise. Don’t you?
