Presumptuous Politics : Dec 1, 2016

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Entitlement Cartoons

Europe's Trump moment: Countries see rise of populist leaders amid anger over economy, migrant crisis

Italians vote Sunday on a series of sweeping reforms, the outcome of which could determine the future of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s rule - but also serve as a gauge for the rising populist movement throughout Europe.
If Italians reject the reforms – which are basically an unofficial plebiscite on the prime minister – Renzi has vowed to step down, setting up a caretaker government and the chance for the populist comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement to take power in the next election.
Italy’s situation is a microcosm of what is happening across Europe, where the political establishment is being challenged by a slew of populist – and mostly far-right – politicians who are riding the same anti-establishment anger that earlier this year saw the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union and the United States elect Donald Trump as president.
Mainland Europe’s populist leaders are up in the polls in large part because of their promises to restore flagging economies, reverse the continuing trend of unemployment, stem the flow of migrants from the Middle East and Africa and, in some cases, even leave the EU.
“Many of these countries are looking at a series of complex questions, but they want an easy answer,” Michael Geary, a global fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, told FoxNews.com. “People are looking for answers and these politicians can take advantage of this because of the political unrest.”
Here are some European nations that are experiencing populist uprisings:
Italy
Despite Renzi and his center-left government enjoying widespread approval when he came into office in 2014, Italians quickly soured to him as the country continued to struggle economically and unemployment rates remained high.
Adding to the fiscal woes, Italy has also been one of the main landing points for migrants from North Africa and many Italians are upset with Renzi’s handling of the crisis, which some see as an open door policy.
Mirroring both the campaigns of Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders in the U.S., Grillo and his Five Star Movement have gained a large number of followers by harnessing Italian anger at political elites and frustration over slow economic growth. Unlike his fellow populists throughout Europe, however, the ideologically-elusive Grillo has not played into national identity politics the way that more right-wing leaders in places such as France, the Netherlands and Austria have.
“Grillo and his movement is a bit more of a response to the economic crisis hitting Italy,” Kimberly Morgan, a political science professor at George Washington University, told FoxNews.com. “It’s much more of an economic issue and less to do with identity.”
With Italians voting on Sunday, most experts predict that Renzi’s reforms will not pass, but it is difficult to tell as before a blackout was imposed ahead of the vote, about a quarter of Italians were still undecided.
France
Francois Fillon, a socially conservative former prime minister and an adherent of Margaret Thatcher’s economics, looks poised to face the leader of the far-right National Front party, Marine Le Pen, in a run-off election next year.
While the two share similar ideologies when it comes to Europe’s migrant crisis – Fillon has shifted farther right by promising to crack down on immigration and to destroy what he has called “totalitarian” Islamists – they differ on how to solve France’s unemployment and economic issues. Unlike Le Pen, Fillon has given no indication that he would push for France to leave the EU and has instead been an ardent advocate of free market capitalism.
“Fillon picked up a lot of Le Pen’s line on immigration, but he is much more neoliberal when it comes to his economic policies,” Morgan said.
With the memory of the Paris and Nice terror attacks still fresh in the minds of many in France, Fillon has also promised to reduce immigration and invest 12 billion euros in security, defense and justice. He has also called for closer ties with Russia in the fight against terrorism and recently penned a book, entitled “Beating Islamic Totalitarianism."
Germany
As Chancellor Angela Merkel runs for a fourth term, the popular leader may face her toughest test yet from a resurgent right-wing led by populist politician Frauke Petry of the Alternative for Germany party.
Merkel, who has been described by many as the last defender of the liberal West, has come under fire from opponents who disagree with her insistence on accepting large numbers of Syrian refugees and on Germany’s continued financial support for its faltering southern European neighbors.
“Petry has really mobilized a lot Germans with her stance on asylum for refugees,” Morgan said. She added that since World War II, the country has maintained a very open policy toward refugees “as a sort of atonement for their past,” but those attitudes appear to be shifting.
Despite the popularity of Petry and the Alternative for Germany party, experts say that Merkel still looks poised to maintain her chancellorship.
“Germany’s economy is in very good shape under Merkel and that bodes well for her chances of winning reelection,” Morgan said.
The Netherlands
If there is one European politician who earns comparison to President-elect Trump, it may be Geert Wilders.
From his unsparing rhetoric on immigrants to his infamous coif, Wilders and his bid to become prime minster have polarized the Netherlands in much the same way that Trump did during his presidential run.
He’s been described as a populist and right-winger, but Wilders has refused to align himself with European far-right leaders and instead considers himself a right-wing liberal even though he worked alongside Le Pen in a failed 2015 attempt to form a far-right parliamentary group in the European Parliament.
Wilders’ biggest issue is immigration, but his focus is less on the migrant crisis and more on immigrants – particularly those from North Africa - currently living in the Netherlands. The Dutch politician is strongly opposed to what he calls the “Islamization” of Europe (he once called the Koran a "fascist book" and said it should be outlawed in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf). He is currently on trial for hate speech.
Prosecutors say Wilders crossed a line when he asked supporters if they wanted "fewer or more Moroccans" in the Netherlands.
After supporters chanted back "fewer," Wilders replied, "We'll organize that."
While Wilders and his Party for Freedom currently top the polls in the run up to the March 15 general election, experts say that the Dutch political system would make it difficult for him to pass a number of items on his agenda if elected.
“He’s popular, but the Dutch system has a lot of coalitions and not many other parties appear willing to work with Wilders,” Morgan said.
Elsewhere
While the big four European nations and the UK are seeing populist uprisings, a number of countries on both sides of the continent have already elected leaders with these ideologies.
Angered at the numbers of migrants from the Middle East coming through his country, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has already completed one of Trump’s campaign proposals in his own country by building a border fence around his country.
In Austria, voters appear poised on Sunday to elect Western Europe’s first far-right head of state since 1945 in Norbert Hofer. The Austrian Freedom Party candidate campaigned on a platform of clamping down on unchecked immigration and less interference from EU leaders in Brussels.
It’s not just Europe, however, that is experiencing a shift to the right.
Argentines rejected the populist government of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in favor of the conservative, business-minded Mauricio Macri and Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff was impeached earlier this year before being replaced by her conservative vice president, Michel Temer.
Left-wing populist leaders through the region are also struggling to maintain power as Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro deals with widespread unrest against his rule, Bolivia’s Evo Morales' efforts to nationalize more of its natural resource-based industries are met with resistance and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa deals with anger over accusations that he will destabilize the country like Venezuela.
“What’s unique about what is going on in certain countries is the rise of populist leaders on both the extreme-right and the extreme-left,” Geary said.

Trump Strikes Deal With Carrier, Ford, What About Oreo?

President-elect Donald Trump may be open to eating Oreos once again. After famously saying he wouldn’t eat another black and white cookie after Nabisco, owned by Mondelēz International (MDLZ), finished moving some Chicago area jobs to Salinas, Mexico, the company tells FOXBusiness.com it wants to open the lines of dialogue with Trump on future policies.
“We have not had any contact with the new administration, but, as with any new administration, we look forward to working with them and having a constructive dialogue about policies of interest to our business,” said Laurie Guzzinati of Mondelēz Global LLC in a statement to FOXBusiness.com.

Hundreds could still lose jobs at Carrier's Indianapolis plant, despite Trump deal

WASHINGTON – In persuading Carrier to keep hundreds of jobs in Indiana, President-elect Donald Trump is claiming victory on behalf of factory workers whose positions were bound for Mexico. But the scant details that have emerged so far raise doubts about the extent of the victory.
By enabling Carrier's Indianapolis plant to stay open, the deal spares about 800 union workers whose jobs were going to be outsourced to Mexico, according to federal officials who were briefed by the heating and air conditioning company. This suggests that hundreds will still lose their jobs at the factory, where roughly 1,400 workers were slated to be laid off.
Also, neither Trump nor Carrier has yet to say what the workers might have to give up or precisely what threats or incentives were used to get the manufacturer to change its mind.
"There's excitement with most people, but there's a lot of skepticism and worry because we don't know the details," said TJ Bray, 32, who has worked for Carrier for 14 years and installs insulation in furnaces.
"There's a few that are worried. And there's still a few that don't even believe this is real. They think it's a play, a set-up or a scam."
Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., said he, too, has lingering questions about what the announcement could mean for the workers.
"Who is going to be retained? What is the structure there will be for the retention? What is going to be put in place?" Donnelly said. "Are these the same jobs at the same wage? I would sure like to know as soon as I can."
Fuller answers could emerge Thursday, when Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who is ending his tenure as Indiana governor, are to appear with Carrier officials in Indiana.
On the campaign trail, Trump threatened to impose sharp tariffs on any company that shifted its factories to Mexico. And his advisers have since promoted lower corporate tax rates as a means of keeping jobs in the U.S.
Trump may have had some leverage because United Technologies, Carrier's parent company, also owns Pratt & Whitney, a big supplier of fighter jet engines that relies in part on U.S. military contracts.
Carrier said in a statement that more than 1,000 jobs were saved, though that figure includes headquarters and engineering staff that were likely to stay in Indiana.
The company attributed its decision to the incoming Trump administration and financial incentives provided by Indiana, which is something of a reversal, since earlier offers from the state had failed to sway Carrier from decamping to Mexico.
"Today's announcement is possible because the incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate," the company said.
In February, United Technologies said it would close its Carrier air conditioning and heating plant in Indianapolis and move its manufacturing to Mexico. The plant's workers would have been laid off over three years starting in 2017.
Whatever deal Trump struck with Carrier does not appear to have salvaged jobs at a separate branch of United Technologies in Huntington, Ind., that makes microprocessor-based controls for the heating, air conditioning and refrigeration industries. That branch will move manufacturing operations to a new plant in Mexico, costing the city 700 jobs by 2018.
Huntington Mayor Brooks Fetters suggested that local officials lack the political clout to preserve those jobs.
"At a local level, there was not much that anybody was going to do to make global, publicly traded companies make a decision other than what they made for the benefit of their shareholders," Fetters said.
Donnelly said he worries about other factory job losses threatening his state. Bearing maker Rexnord, which has a factory near the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, plans to lay off about 350 workers. And electronics manufacturer CTS plans to eliminate more than 200 jobs at its Elkhart plant, he said.
Union leaders who represent the Carrier workers were not involved in the negotiations that the Trump team had with their employer.
Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, which represents Carrier workers, said of Tuesday's news: "I'm optimistic, but I don't know what the situation is. I guess it's a good sign. ... You would think they would keep us in the loop. But we know nothing."
Trump's deal with Carrier may be a public relations success for the incoming president. It also suggests that he has unveiled a new presidential economic approach: actively choosing individual corporate winners and losers — or at least winners.
To critics who see other Indiana factories on the verge of closing, deals like the one at Carrier are unlikely to stem the job losses caused by automation and cheap foreign competition.
The prospect that the White House might directly intervene is also a concern to some economists. The incentives needed to keep jobs from moving often come at the public's expense. They note that Trump's activism might encourage companies to threaten to move jobs overseas in hopes of receiving tax breaks or contracts with the government.
"It sets up a race to the bottom," said Diane Lim, chief economist at the nonprofit Committee for Economic Development.
Carrier's parent company indicated that moving production to Mexico would save the company $65 million annually. Because of pressures like that, states routinely give manufacturers incentives, and "economists who recoil at the thought of this are living in a dream world," said Scott Paul, president of the American Alliance for Manufacturing.
For Trump, a challenge will be trying to duplicate the Carrier feat many times over to retain and increase the nation's 12.3 million manufacturing jobs.
Since the start of 2015, the Labor Department has issued over 1,600 approvals for layoffs or plant closings as a result of shifts of production overseas or competition from imports, the American Alliance of Manufacturing noted.
But other forces, such as consumer demand and the value of the dollar, also determine whether assembly lines keep humming.
Payroll services provider ADP said Wednesday that manufacturers shed 10,000 jobs in November. U.S. manufacturers have struggled in the past year as a stronger dollar has cut into exports and domestic businesses have spent less on machinery and other equipment.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Trump would have to replicate the Carrier deal 804 times to meet President Barack Obama's record. He said that Obama created 805,000 jobs in manufacturing and that the figure is much higher if existing jobs that have been protected are included.
Trump acknowledged the extent of the problem on the campaign trail this year.
"So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this," he said. "We have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States."
Carrier wasn't the only company Trump assailed during the campaign. He pledged to give up Oreos after Nabisco's parent, Mondelez International, said it would replace nine production lines in Chicago with four in Mexico. He criticized Ford after the company said it planned to invest $2.5 billion in engine and transmission plants in Mexico.

Bret Baier: A new path for the US and Cuba? What Ike and JFK might tell President-elect Trump

On January 19, 1961, under the threat of a storm that would dump eight inches of snow on Washington D.C., President Dwight Eisenhower held a final transition meeting with his young successor, John F. Kennedy. One day before the inauguration, Eisenhower’s mind was on the looming threats to American security, and Cuba was high on that list.
Writing about this critical moment in U.S.-Cuban relations in my new book, “Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission” (out from William Morrow on January 10, 2017), I was struck by the parallels between then and now, especially as we grapple with the implications of the death of Fidel Castro.
Then, at the height of the Cold War, the threat posed by a Soviet-backed dictator off our southern coast was grave, and the need to formulate the right response in a nuclear age was a grave concern for Eisenhower.
On the campaign trail during the 1960 presidential election, Kennedy had been bullish about dealing with and confronting Castro. Now Ike wanted to give him a more measured perspective.

If Eisenhower were advising President-elect Trump today, he would likely suggest, as he did with Kennedy, that the best way to approach such a complex matter as Cubas was to proceed cautiously, to hold his cards close to his vest, and to strategize in private.

In a cabinet meeting following their private discussion, Kennedy learned the details of a plan in development under the auspices of the CIA to train Cuban exiles for a potential invasion of Cuba. The aim was to overthrow Castro’s brutal regime. But, Ike stressed, the plan was only in the early stages, and certain conditions would have to occur if it had any chance of success—including the creation of a government in exile and a strong leader who was capable of replacing Castro. Kennedy listened respectfully, but he mostly ignored Ike’s caveats. Kennedy was impatient with the process Ike favored, which involved extensive debates from national security advisers. He preferred a looser, more shoot-from-the-hip style, and relied on a couple of key men who had his ear. In the case of Cuba, the absence of sound advice had disastrous consequences.
Within three months of becoming president, Kennedy approved a poorly planned invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs by a disorganized group of exiles. When he withdrew critical air support, Castro’s forces easily swept in and killed or captured the exiles. It was a complete failure—and Kennedy knew it. “How could I have been so stupid?” he raged.
In desperation he turned to Eisenhower. On April 22 he sent a helicopter to bring Ike from his home in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania for a private consult at Camp David. As the two men strolled along the wooded paths, Kennedy lamented, “No one knows how tough this job is until he’s been in it a few months.”
Eisenhower smiled wryly. “Mr. President,” he replied softly, “if you will forgive me, I think I mentioned that to you three months ago.” And indeed he had. But Kennedy, bursting with confidence, hadn’t taken him seriously.
Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco unleashed the rage of Castro and emboldened the Soviet Union to begin erecting missile sites in Cuba pointed at the United States. The Cuban Missile Crisis, over half a century ago, remains America’s most chilling encounter with an immediate nuclear threat.
Once again, Kennedy turned to Ike. In a tape recording of their conversation on file at the JFK Library, one can hear the nervous uncertainty in Kennedy’s voice—and the unruffled calm in Eisenhower’s. Kennedy knew he had to act, even if it meant attacking Cuba and removing the missile sites by force. But he was worried about making a fatal mistake. “What about if the Soviet Union, Khrushchev, announces tomorrow, which I think he will, that if we attack Cuba, that it’s going to be nuclear war, and what’s your judgment as to the chances they’ll fire these things off if we invade Cuba?” he asked Eisenhower.
Ike, the old warrior who had stared down Hitler as commander of the allied forces in World War II, saw through the bluster of our enemies. “Something may make these people shoot ‘em off,” he said. “I just don't believe this will.” Reassured, Kennedy went on to negotiate the removal of the missile sites, and did it without having to attack Cuba. But it was a very close call.
Today, the wounds from the conflicts of the early 1960’s remain exposed and painful. When President Obama opened relations with Cuba in May of this year, six in ten Americans supported normalization. But for many others, especially in South Florida, the atrocities of Castro’s regime cannot so easily be forgotten, and its future commitment to freedom for its people is not so clear.
In conversations during the transition, Eisenhower told Kennedy that the easy decisions a president faces are handled by staff. Only the impossible ones fall on the president himself.
President-elect Trump will likely find that to be true as well, and Cuba is a good example. As president he will oversee the beginning of the post-Fidel Castro era, with all the complexity that entails. The decisions he makes early in his term could shape our relationship with the island nation for decades to come. He has already signaled his intention to renegotiate President Obama’s deal and perhaps even terminate it, but no matter what his strategy it will have significant consequences.
If Eisenhower were advising President-elect Trump today, he would likely suggest, as he did with Kennedy, that the best way to approach such a complex matter was to proceed cautiously, to hold his cards close to his vest, and to strategize in private.
In particular, Ike would have advised bringing voices from all sides into the room--those who agreed with the president and those who did not--and letting them engage in a rigorous debate.
We don’t know what could have changed if President Kennedy had listened to Ike’s same advice at the time.
More than five decades later, without the looming Soviet nuclear threat, a President Trump has an opportunity to steer a new course in U.S. Cuba relations.
Tuesday, the Obama administration sent Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, Jeffrey DeLaurentis to attend a memorial service for Fidel Castro in Havana. The administration insisted it was not “honoring” the dictator, who executed thousands of Cuban citizens and persecuted many more, because they didn’t send “an official delegation” to the ceremony.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters about the move, “We believe that this was an appropriate way for the United States to show our commitment to an ongoing future-oriented relationship with the Cuban people.”
No matter which path the 45^th president chooses when it comes to Cuba, one can be assured, it will be different in some way to the path the 44^th president has pursued.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Entitlement Cartoons

Europe's Trump moment: Countries see rise of populist leaders amid anger over economy, migrant crisis

Related Image

Related Image

Related Image

Related Image

Related Image

Related Image

Trump Strikes Deal With Carrier, Ford, What About Oreo?

Hundreds could still lose jobs at Carrier's Indianapolis plant, despite Trump deal

Bret Baier: A new path for the US and Cuba? What Ike and JFK might tell President-elect Trump

Related Image

CartoonsDemsRinos