District 3
Stephen Hunt
District Director
August 28, 2006
LOOK NO FURTHER THAN ACROSS THE BORDER FOR HARPER’S ROLE MODEL
By Kim Pollock
We should not be under any illusions about it: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives want a closer
relationship with the United States.
And Harper is clearly an ideological soul mate to US President George Bush.
Perhaps before we get tied into a closer relation with it, though, we should think about what kind
of regime it is that Bush leads.
Since he was elected (or not!) in 2000, Bush’s record can be measured in terms of three major
developments.
First, its domestic policy has been one of unashamedly rewarding the wealthy, while attacking
the incomes of working-class and low income Americans. Right from day one, Bush
championed major tax cuts for the rich. Ten years of Bush tax cuts will likely cost the US
Treasury $2.4 trillion, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. By 2010, Bush’s generosity means
that 51 percent of those cuts will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, at an average of
$483,000 each. In contrast, notes CTJ, middle-income taxpayers get $659 each on average.
Meanwhile Bush’s policies have reinforced a significant decline in the living standards of
ordinary Americans. The largest single reduction in Bush's fiscal 2006 budget went to Medicaid,
the health care safety net currently serving more than 50 million Americans, reports National
Public Radio. Bush’s policies have impacted wages, as well. “Despite the fact that 2005 marked
the fourth year of an economic expansion characterized by strong productivity growth, the
inflation-adjusted wages of most workers' fell last year,” says the Washington-based Economic
Research Institute, for instance. “The median (or typical) worker's wage fell by 1.3 percent. The
decline was even greater for those at the very bottom end of the wage scale, who saw their real
wages fall by 1.9 percent. Only those at the very top of the wage scale had wage growth that
outpaced inflation.”
The second major element of Bush’s program is the so-called “war on terror”, of course. Since
the attacks of September 11, 2001, US involvement in Iraq, not to mention the earlier incursion
into Afghanistan, has already lasted longer than US participation in the European theater during
World War II – by December it will have lasted longer than US engagement against Japan, as
well!
According to the Independent UK, US casualties in Iraq were some 2,620 dead at the latest
count and four times as many seriously wounded.
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union
300-3920 Norland Avenue, Burnaby, BC V5G 4K7 • 604-683-1117 • 604-688-6416(Fax) • www.usw.ca
August 28, 2006
Page 2
And yet just a week ago, the President was asked about the links between 9/11 and former Iraqi
president Saddam Hussein: “What did Iraq have to do with that?” a reporter wanted to know.
“Nothing,” replied Bush. After repeated lies about alleged “weapons of mass destruction” and
Hussein’s alleged involvement in the terror attacks, in other words, finally the truth: there is no
connection between the war on Iraq and the terror attacks. So why exactly have some 12,000
Americans and thousands more Iraqis been killed or maimed?
Finally, Bush’s third defining moment is his government’s response – or more precisely, lack of
response – to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.
Not only did the Bush administration fail to prepare for a widely-anticipated natural disaster in a
major US city: the storm devastated large areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and
produced a surge of water that breached levees protecting low areas in New Orleans, flooding
80 percent of that city and leaving thousands of people stranded for several days. One year
later, the city has less than half its pre-Katrina population and is still struggling to recover.
Tourism revenues are less than half of what they were before Hurricane Katrina. Meanwhile, 70
percent of $10 billion in recovery and reconstruction funds were awarded to contractors without
competitive bids, leaving a legacy of apparent misappropriation and misallocation of millions of
dollars.
Now, the political returns to Bush’s policies are in: an Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted
Aug. 7-9 found that 67 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush's handling of the Katrina
disaster. On Iraq, a Gallop poll earlier this month indicates 61 percent disapprove of Bush’s
handling of the war. On the economy, a Pew poll recently reported that only 33 percent approve
of Bush’s handling of that, with 59 percent disapproving. A survey by USA Today, CNN and
Gallop shows that Bush’s overall approval rating is at 39 percent. Currently, most political
observers believe the president’s Republican Party will lose big-time in November’s
Congressional elections.
It’s incredible. But what’s even more incredible is that this is the sort of program that Stephen
Harper wants to emulate. Harper has already blundered into Afghanistan to pick up the mess
Bush left behind when he moved US troops on into Iraq. He echoed US support of Israel’s
over-the-top response to the abduction of two of its soldiers in Lebanon, a five-week assault on
the citizen population of that country that Harper termed “measured.”
Meanwhile, Harper is ruthlessly pushing forward a lumber agreement with the US that is highly
prejudicial to the interests of Canadian lumber companies, workers and forest-based
communities. Harper’s government bullied companies into supporting the deal by threatening to
withdraw support for Canada’s successful legal challenges or for the fight against mountain pine
beetles in BC. We’re all apparently being sacrificed to Harper’s wish to ally with George Bush.
Now, perhaps the only hope for Canadians is that US voters will sufficiently punish Bush for his
government’s frightful record that Stephen Harper might think twice about handing Canada over
to him.
-30Bro. Kim Pollock is a Canadian research representative for the United Steelworkers, based in
Burnaby, BC.
KP/sml
cope 343