A study of the market reforms in PostCommunist eastern Europe

A study of the market reforms in post-communist eastern Europe with a specific case study of Poland

Introduction

      Poland, as well as it's fellow post-communist countries, face an arduous task in

re-inventing their economies to match the dominant Western style currently dominating the world. The difficulties lie in the areas of  ideology, structural needs (massive changes required), world recession(current) and debt load.

Communist Economics 

      Why did the economics of the communist bloc fail so miserably? Why has every single socialist, fascist, communist and other non-democratic country had to implement economic change in order to survive? This is due to some inherent problems in the command economy idea.

      Monopolies (in a command economy) tend to produce inefficiency, low quality goods, lack of innovation and technological improvement.

      Command economies tend to focus on growth rather than strength leading to larger production and an evan. worse use of available resources.

      The 1980's marked a change in world markets meant that the communist economies were faced with four challenges that would, if met, have meant the continuation of the USSR.

      Resource saving miniaturization requiring high technology and skill were demanded (command economies have neither), Flexible production to meet a variety of needs (command economies have large factories to keep production high - they, thus, did not have the funds or ability to affect the necessary changes to their means of production), the "information age" meant that the communist bloc had to deny the new prevalent types of technology, which would spread Western ideas, and thus they fell behind), and "software" became essential to the growth of industry (the "hardware" focus of the East could not absorb this new approach.

      As well, the changes are being attempted in a deep period of economic crisis that make an already difficult process even more difficult.

      Changing the Economy

      Systematic transformation requires institutional innovations, the internal liberalization of the economy, the external liberalization and the adjustment of the real economy as well as the monetary system.

      Not only does there need to be a different institutional framework for a market economy but one has to remove most of the inherited structures and to change the typical behavioral patterns in industry, state and private households.

      Privatization

      Privatization is a difficult task because of four main factors. Firm sizes in post-communist countries tend to be large. This means that their division or shrinkage poses difficulties for foreign investors, they are however, not worthwhile at current sizes and must be reshaped. Expectations are running high but attitudes ingrained in the workforce will need time to change. None of the structure exists to deal with private firms and must be created along with the labor needed to run it. There is very little knowledge and certainty about the property rights issue and until resolved investors will be wary of the situation.

      However, not all countries have addressed the needed changes in the same fashion. Poland has been a leader in foreign investment and involvement when compared to it's post-comminist counterparts.

Poland

      Brief History

      The name Poland is derived from that of the Polanie, a Slavic people that settled in the area, probably in the 5th century AD. Poland is a nation in east-central Europe. In the 18th century it was divided up by its neighbors and ceased to exist until resurrected in 1918.  Again partitioned by Germany and the USSR at the beginning of World War II, it was reestablished as a Soviet satellite state in 1945, and remained a Communist-dominated "people's republic" until 1989.

      Mikhail Gorbachev's appointment as Kremlin leader in March 1985 was the signal that the Polish opposition had been waiting for. Exploiting the new liberalization in the region, Lech Walesa and Solidarity, Pope John Paul II and the church hierarchy, and ordinary citizens stung by the deepening economic recession combined to force the Communists to sit down at roundtable talks in 1989.  They secured far-reaching political concessions and exploited the resulting opportunities for political competition to drive the Communists from power

      The new non-Communist government sought to bring about economic reform through "shock therapy" in a scheme devised by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz.    Introduction to Polish economic situation

      Poland's fundamental economic problem is that production and living standards for it's 38 million people is considered to be inadequate. With a GDP about a third of the United States (on a per capita basis), Poland is considered to be a middle income country.

      During the 1970's, the Gierek government tries to tackle the problem (of economic distress) through a policy of rapidly expanding consumption coupled with investment financed by foreign borrowing. For several years this economic policy generated growth of about ten percent per year (The USA's current growth (In GDP) is between 2-3% with 4% being the goal).

      However, the policy was to eventually fail due to mismanagement, recession in Western export markets (i.e a lack of foreign investment), a bias towards products in weak demand but costly to produce (in terms of energy input and raw resources). These three factors produced an economic crisis that resulted in negative growth rates in 1979,80,81 and 82. It also produced the Solidarity movement in 1980 and the implementation of martial law the following year.

      During the 1980's, Poland managed to regain earlier production levels, at the end of this period of economic development there was some restructuring of production, away from heavy industry towards lighter industry, food processing and services. As well there was slight movement towards the movement of business from state to private hands (with the goal of believed market mechanisms for efficiency). The private sector, in Poland, now accounts for one-third of the labor force (2/3 of that in agriculture).

      However, former policies (as mentioned above) have created a basic economic situation in Poland that is marked by inefficiency, foreign debt and market imbalances.

Inefficiency

      Agriculture

      Agriculture accounts for 13% of national income, 28% of employment and 12% of export earnings. It is predominantly a private industry sector (about 75%) but productivity is low and development is stagnant. In this area Poland has fallen progressively behind it's east European neighbors.

      This lack of progress is due mainly to an inefficiently small size of farms (10 hectares or less), inefficient production methods, lack of investment incentives and limited access to inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides (which would increase productivity and reduce loss due to pests).

       

Industry

      Industry (including energy and manufacturing) produces about half of GDP and employs 29% of the labor force. The sector is largely biased towards heavy industry and large state enterprises (classic approach of communist ethic). Over 90% of industrial output is produced by the 6000 (or so) state owned enterprises. This outmoded productive base needs to be restructured. Industry is largely over-manned and energy intensive. Energy consumption is 2-3 times higher per unit of production in Poland than in the average Western Industrialized country. There are significant energy reserves in Poland, in the form of coal, oil and gas (in eastern Poland), but these reserves need modern technology to be tapped. Poland is no longer a net energy producer and must import energy to maintain production.

      Incentives for management and workers have been distorted (includes unrealistic prices-low energy and pollution costs, soft budget constraints and employment guarantees.

Foreign Debt

      Largely created during the 1970's, this totaled more than 48 billion dollars (US) before the more than 50% reduction of official debt in March of 1991. The remaining 30 billion dollars is still a heavy burden on the economy. The debt service due (interest - simple maintaining of debt at present level) in 1991 amounted to 4 billion (40% of 1989 exports).

      The government fell into arrears with many creditors (2/3 owed to foreign governments, 1/3 to foreign banks). The debt was being traded on the markets at 15 cents on the dollar down from 40 cents at the end of 1988 (meaning that the creditors were not secure in the belief that Poland was a good debtor and that their debts were unlikely to be paid in full - hence the drop in value of holding part of their debt).

 Market imbalances

      Shortages and excess demand for consumer goods and factors of production were deeply ingrained in the system until the reform of January 1990. Subsidies accounted for 14% of GDP (down from 17% in 1983), and the budget was running a deficit of 8% of GDP in 1989.

Summary

      Poland's economy was structured, in the same way systematic of communist countries, in an inefficient manner. Production was large, state owned and in usual monopoly, This meant that the economy was  without the benefits of private market mechanisms for economic efficiency. In attempting to compete in an increasingly globalized world market Poland's economic situation became dire. This coupled with debt (and the needs of servicing it) meant that the economy was in need of change on a grand scale if Poland was to emerge as an economic force with reasonable success in comparison to her neighbors in Europe and the world . 

The Reform Process

      Against the background , the Mazowiecki government adopted a rapid and radical reform program for 1990. The aim, of this program, was to effect a transformation of the Polish economy from a command to market economy based on proven institutions with market determination of prices and convertible currency. The program included measures for stabilization, liberalization and restructuring.

      Stabilization

       

A number of policy measures were directed primarily to stabilization objectives.

1)    Budgetary balance: increasing taxes by 50%, reducing government investments, and reducing subsidies from 14% of GNP to 6% in 1990. (These measures were designed to increase revenue while decreasing expenditures making for a balanced budget and the ability to repay the national debt)

2)    Tight monetary policy with positive real interest rates (interest minus inflation = real interest rate) to eliminate hidden subsidies from household savers to state enterprises via low interest rates in the banking sector that were estimated to total 10-15% of GNP in 1988 and 1989.

3)    Eliminating controls on more than 90% of prices in the economy, with exceptions in energy, public transport and housing. (This was designed to eliminate state pricing that did not reflect accurate market pictures of cost and demand)

4)    Wage restraint, providing only mild wage indexation (indexation = change of wages based on cost of living increases (i.e. inflation) - limited means that wages would remain largely unindexed and thus workers would not (unless given a raise) earn the same relative salary as years past and would experience a loss in buying power). Excess wage payments were taxed at a punitive 500% enterprise tax rate.

5)    Foreign debt was rescheduled by an agreement with the Paris Club (Holder of 2/3 of national debt) in march 1990 and reduced by at least 50% in March 1991. A structural adjustment loan of 394 million was obtained by the World Bank in 1990, as well as an IMF (International Monetary Fund) stand-by of 569 million and commitments from the G-24 stabilization fund (of 1 billion) and EC (economic community) of financial aid.

      Liberalization of Foreign Trade

      This implies the lifting of most of the quantitative and licensing restrictions coupled with the lowering of tariffs to between 15 and 50% for most goods. Since 1982 an increasing number of enterprises have been granted authorizations to conduct foreign trade activities, in addition to the 60 (odd) specialized state enterprises (with the same privilege).

      Export incentives include export related income tax reliefs, a foreign-exchange retention system introduced in 1982 (this granted export enterprises priority rights to buy foreign exchange for production related imports).

      Restructuring of the Economic system

       

This was to mean measures of a more radical nature to be introduced in a gradual nature. 

1)    Deregulation of state enterprises and enforcement of strict payment procedures; new bankruptcy and anti-monopoly legislation intended to harden budget constraints and to reduce monopoly power. The system of ad hoc, ex post tax differentiation with respect to sectors, firms and factors of production will be replaced by a uniform system of taxation (enterprise tax, personal income tax). Abolishment of industrial associations, in order to, prevent informal co-ordination of their activities.

2)    Well defined property rights. The new government inherited a system under which workers' councils were directly involved in enterprise decision making and the appointment of managers (the obvious lack of industry strength under this system is obvious). A Major difficulty is the reconciliation of workers' rights and the privatization law of adopted in July, 1990 (this law envisages far-reaching privatization).

      State companies are being transformed into companies with shares owned by the state to be sold later to the public. At most, 20% can be sold to worker on preferential terms and 10% to foreign investors without certification. However, larger scale sales to foreign investors are possible subject to government approval (the process is expected to be mere formality).

      The obvious gain of this is to increase government revenue (in the short term) and to create, through foreign investment, a vibrant economy providing jobs and revenue n the future.

3)    A new monetary system based on a two-tier banking system. The monopoly bank was split in February 1989. Interest rates are to reflect market forces, government bond sales can be used to manage possible budgetary deficits, and commercial paper will be issued (which can cope with the problem of inter- enterprise arrears by turning them into tradeable securities to be discounted at commercial banks).

      This was designed to create better adjusting "natural" market forces and to enable industry to better cope with the economic changes.

The Results of Reform

      The reform program led to initial results that were no less than remarkable. However these results have in most cases not been sustained over time.

      Inflation, after an initial jump, fell to a much lower rate; but it did not fall as far as was hoped and the problem is not yet beaten (low inflation has become a dominant economic policy in the last two decades). In 1990 inflation was at 585%, in 1991 it was supposed to drop to 36% (according to IMF forecast) but only fell to 80%. (For perspective the "normal" inflation rate in the Western world stands at between 1-3%).

      Relative prices responded rapidly to the 1990 price liberalization and shortages largely disappeared. Strong positive real interest rates were established. The budget was initially in surplus (unheard of) but has since gone back into deficit.

      The economy remains in a deep recession. GDP fell by 8-12% and output by 12-18% in 1991. The deepest output decreases have been in textiles, coal, metal and transport. Investment in 1991 was 15% below levels of 1990.

      However, output in the private sector increased in 1990 by 17% (might be due to the simple increase in the size of the private sector). Agricultural output has not decreased, so far, despite a drop in fodder and fertilizer sales to one-third of former levels.

      As well, bankruptcies have been rare, new firms have been established (net increase in firms in 1990 of 362,000). Enterprises have been cushioned, so far, by decreasing investment expenditure, sale of capital assets and stocks, and have used their resources to secure short-term survival and avoid lay-offs.

      Unemployment is also low compared to the drop in production levels (May 1991 - 8% of labor force jobless).Real wages have fallen sharply (25% immediately after reforms in 1990) and continue a downward trend. 

Problems of Reform

      The ultimate aim of the reform process is to infuse a dynamic element into the economy by means of marketization (making economic agents responsive to real prices) of production and privatization of the means of production. The full range of the necessary conditions for growth is not clear (economists rarely agree) but it is clear that there exists a minimum requirement for successful reform. This includes political, cultural and economic sustainability.

      Popular Attitudes

      Initially, both the government and the population were fully committed to the reform process. In the first months of 1990, the government could claim an unprecedented degree of legitimacy and support from the population. In the public opinion polls the proportion of people who felt that their economic situation was at least "not bad" rose from 13% in autumn in 1989 to 20% in January 1990 and up to a high of 27% in March of that same year.

      Since then, however, this spirit of success has become tarnished. Polls in mid 1991 showed that most people expected tensions to increase. In 1991 the CBOS polling firm recorded (in March) a 48% difference between optimist and pessimist (54% pessimist versus 6% optimist).

      The likely reason for this is that expectations rose faster than the possible economic gains and the populations expectations were not (nor could not be met).

      Institutional Reform

      A huge amount of new economic legislation is required to establish a general rule of law and institutions appropriate to a market economy.

      A crucial aim of reform is to improve incentives for private and state-owned enterprises. Property rights are to be clearly defined and contracts and payment procedures strictly enforced. Privatization has a high priority, however, there are still issues of timing, scale and foreign investment that need to be worked out.

      The Polish people are eager for quick reforms and a fast rise in living standards. There are, however, risks to endeavors such as quick privatization. This type of project (mass privatization) is costly in terms of consultants, administration (to monitor the new owners rights) and is dangerous in terms of insider acquisitions.

      Privatization policies are also difficult in an environment where the home populace is unable to afford a stake in the new firms. During the initial phase of reform individual Polish financial strength has diminished. This has meant that foreign investment was needed to buy the once state owned firms. This might create problems in the future with little or no control exercised by the Polish themselves in their own country.

      Adequate labor market institutions are absent, worker still appeal (in general) to the state authorities rather than to enterprise management when claiming higher wages and other improvements. A system of collective bargaining is needed, and the private enterprise needs representative organizations.

      Supply Response

      Institutions that can transmit market signals to producers are lacking. Should the signals pass there is often structural rigidities that prevent the necessary changes needed to capitalize on consumer demand.

       

World Environment

      This is crucial to the success of reform in accelerating economic growth. Poland has had the misfortune of four recent blows to the economy. The reduction of the former GDR market after the German reunification (this has meant the loss of job for 35,000 Polish migrant workers), severe cuts in exports to other parts of the former CMEA (especially Russia) (Poland's exports for reasons of quality and price cannot compete with Western exports), increases in world oil prices (Poland imports energy) and finally the world recession of the past 4 years which has forced Western economic concentration on itself and thus world aid has been reduced.

Conclusion

      Poland has been the unlucky recipient of economic and political freedom in terms of timing. The Western world is in a debt crisis and can no longer help as much as they once would. As well, the end of the Cold War has meant that Poland is no longer as important as it might have been as a lever for the democratic countries of the West. It's pursuit of democracy does not have the same impact as it would have had under Cold War circumstances.

      From an economic point of view Poland, and every other East European country in this situation, is faced with a lumbering giant of an economy littered with inefficiency, waste, bad management and technology decades behind the countries they are now in competition with. This means that Poland will need to effect a complete reconstruction of it's economy in order to be able to, in the future, compete on an even level.

      Poland has the ability to emerge from this economic recession and emerge as an solid economic power capable of providing good living standards for her people.

Bibliography

-Blanchard, O. and Layard, R. "Economic Change in Poland" Discussion paper No 3,    London School of Economics, 1990.

-Chilosi, A., "Poland's Program of Economic Transformation", Paper presented at     NATO-Colloquium, Brussels, 1990.

-Dziewanowski, M.K. "A History of Soviet Russia", Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1989.

-Gomulka, S. And Rostowski, J., "An International Comparison of Material             Intensity", Journal of Comparitive Economics, No4:475-501 Dec 1988.    

-Kremer, M and Weber M. Eds. "Transforming Economic Systems: The Case of      Poland"        Physica-Verlag Heidelberg , 1992.

-Macesich, G. and Dimitrijevic, D. "Monetary Reform in former Socialist Economies", Praeger,        London 1994.

-Mihalyi, P and Smolik, J.E. ,"Leading is not enough: an Assessment for Western Support for        Reforms...." Paper presented at 1st conferance of EACES, Verona, 1990.

-Nuti, D.M.

1)"Internal and International Aspects......in Poland", Paper presented at 5th Congress    of EEA, Lisboa, 1990.

2)"Privatization of Socialist Economies", Paper presented at 1st Conference of      EACES, Verona 1990.

-Poznanski, K. Ed "Stabilization and Privatization in Poland", Kluwer Academic       Publishers,       Boston , 1993.

-Sachs, J. "Poland's Jump to the Market Economy", MIT press, Massachusetts,1993.

-Shen, R. "The Polish Economy" Praeger, New York, 1992.

-Slay , B. "The Polish Economy" Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1994.

-Summers, R. and Heston, A. "A New Set of International Comparisons...", Review of        Income and Wealth 34, No1:1-25.

-Zabkowicz, A. "Stabilization, Adjustment and Economic Activity - the Polish and Hungarian        Experience" Discussion Paper 328, Institute of Developement studies 1993.

A comparison of Canadas main national political parties

In a country as vast and as culturally diverse as Canada, many different political opinions can be found stretched across the country.  From the affluent neighbourhoods of West Vancouver to the small fishing towns located on the east coast of Newfoundland, political opinions and affiliations range from the left wing to the right wing.  To represent these varying political views, Canada has four official national political parties to choose from: the Liberals (who are currently in power), the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats, and the Reform Party.  What is particularly interesting is that none of the latter three parties compose Her Majesty's Official Opposition in the House of Commons.  The Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec separatist party who only ran candidates in the province of Quebec in the last federal election in 1993, won 54 seats in that province, and claimed the title of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition over the Reform Party, who garnered only 52 seats.  Because the Bloc ran candidates only in Quebec, it would be difficult to think of them being a national political party, even though they hold a significant number of seats in the national legislature.  This paper will examine the significant early history of Canada's four main national political parties, and then will analyse their current state, referring to  recent major political victories/disasters, and the comparison of  major economic policy standpoints, which will ultimately lead to a prediction of which party will win the next federal election in Canada.   

      Starting on the far left, there is the New Democratic Party of Canada.  Today's modern New Democratic Party was originally called the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), and was founded in 1932.  Originally led by a man by the name of James Shaver Woodsworth, the CCF was formed by several radical farming groups who found out that they had more similarities with each other than just their destitution.  The 1920's had been a dark period for radicals and unions within Canada; poverty and significantly lower wages for workers were prevalent, and apathy regarding these issues was rampant.  When the depression wove its destructive web across Canada in the 1930s, proponents of capitalism were staggered, but their left-wing opponents were too busy coming to the aid of the victims of the depression, and could not deal with the capitalists effectively.  When the CCF was officially formed in Calgary, they adopted the principle policy of being "a co-operative commonwealth, in which the basic principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be the supplying of human needs instead of the making of profits."  (Morton, p.12, 1986)  Meanwhile, in Eastern Canada, a group of scholars formed the League for Social Reconstruction (LSR), and gave the Canadian left a version of socialism that was related in some respects to the current social and economic situation in Canada.  In 1933, the CCF had its first major convention in Regina, Saskatchewan, and the original policy platform first proposed by the CCF was replaced by a manifesto prepared by an LSR committee and originally drafted by a Toronto scholar, Frank Underhill.  The Regina Manifesto, as it is known as today, put emphasis on "economic planning, nationalisation of financial institutions, public utilities and natural resources, security of tenure for farmers, a national labour code, socialised health services and greatly increased economic powers for the central government."  (Morton, p.12, 1986)  As a supplement to the feverish mood created by the convention, the Regina convention concluded by saying "no CCF Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialised planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Co-operative Commonwealth."  (Morton, p.12, 1986).  The CCF tried to garner more popular support later down the road, and after calling itself the New Party in 1960, it changed its name officially to the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1962.  Over the years, the NDP has become a large force in Canadian politics, becoming an alternative to the Conservatives and Liberals.  (Morton, pgs.12-27, 1986)

      Even to the casual Canadian political observer, the NDP is generally regarded as the party at the bottom of the political barrel at the federal level.  In the last Canadian federal election in 1993 under the leadership of Audrey McLoughlin, the NDP went from holding 43 seats in the House of Commons to only 9.  McLoughlin resigned, paving the way for the election of the former leader of the Nova Scotia NDP to the federal post, Alexa McDonough in 1994.  On the provincial level, however, the NDP has experienced some success of late.  Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have had (or currently have) an NDP provincial mandate.  (Guy, p.384, 1995)  

      On the policy front, the NDP seem to be most concerned with a plan for "fair taxes now." (fairtaxnow.html, 1997)  According to the NDP, "it's time banks and big corporations paid their fair share -- so we can better afford health care, education and other services for middle class and working families."  (fairtaxnow.html, 1997)  Some of the key points of the NDP's "fair taxes now" campaign include "a minimum corporate tax, a minimum wealth tax, an end to tax breaks for profitable corporations that lay people off, an end to corporate deductions for meals and entertainment, and increased federal auditing and enforcement of existing corporate taxes," (fairtaxnow.html, 1997) to name a few.  Of course, these recommendations for taxation reform reflect the typical left-wing, socialistic standpoints that the NDP has stood for ever since its inception.   

      Moving further towards the centre of the political scale,  the current federal governing party in Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, is found.  Liberals in an independent form started to be elected to the various legislatures around the country in the middle of the 1800s, with a formal party being created in the late 1800s.  The purpose of forming a formal party was a response to the increasing popularity of the Conservatives in Canada; "...the rural Clear Grits of Upper Canada, the anti-clerical rouges, and the reform element in the Maritimes came together gradually as the Liberal Party."  (McMenemy, pg.10, 1976)  In its early years, the Liberal Party reflected the various demographics of religion and geography among the voting public in Canada.  With widespread support in Canada's rural areas several years after Confederation, "the Liberal Party opposed protectionism and supported commercial reciprocity with the United States.  It also opposed MacDonald's program of railway construction.  Led by Sir Wilfred Laurier, the Liberals supported unrestricted reciprocity and suffered for it in the election of 1891."  (McMenemy, pg.12, 1976)  The Liberals' policy on trade annoyed industrialists, who were intimidated by the prospect of unlimited trade.  British Loyalists regarded the trade reciprocity as being anti-British.  In the latter part of the 1890s, however, Laurier adjusted the party's policy on trade reciprocity.  "In the budget of 1897, the Liberals neatly undercut the Conservatives by introducing the principle of a minimum and a maximum tariff.  A chief result of this Liberal protectionism was to give British goods a preference in Canada."  (McMenemy, pg.12, 1976)  Another significant move made by the Liberals was in 1903, when Prime Minister Laurier announced the construction of a second transcontinental railroad.  Laurier's minister of railways dissented on the idea and in turn was sacked by the Prime Minister.  "By the election of 1904, the Liberals had acquired MacDonald's railway and tariff policy and could therefore wear the previously Conservative mantle of 'party of national development.'"(McMenemy, pg.12, 1976)

       The Liberal Party of Canada currently forms the federal government of Canada.  Their current leader, Jean Chretien, was elected to succeed John Turner in 1990.  Around the time Chretien was elected leader, questions within and outside the party were raised regarding the political "baggage" that Chretien carried from previous Liberal governments.  Despite the controversy, Chretien won his party's leadership quite comfortably, and returned his party to prominence once again in 1993 by forming a federal government with a large majority in the House of Commons.  Looking back, this current Liberal mandate has weathered relatively little criticism until recently.  One of Chretien's campaign promises in 1993 was to scrap the Goods and Services Tax (GST) if the Liberals were to form a government.  To complement that promise by Chretien, Sheila Copps, another prominent Liberal from Hamilton, Ontario, vowed to resign if the GST was not scrapped under a Liberal mandate.  Three years into the Liberal mandate, controversy began to rise over Chretien's and Copps' promises regarding the GST.  Copps eventually resigned after much criticism, and won back her seat in her Hamilton riding in a by-election several weeks later.  Chretien was subjected to large amounts of public criticism, especially during one of CBC TV's electronic "town hall" meetings.  Chretien argued the fact that the Liberals never said that they were going to scrap the GST, and that people should read their policy guide, the "Red Book," to find out where exactly the Liberals stood on the issue of the GST.  Chretien argued during this debate that the Liberals wanted to replace the GST instead of scrapping it.  Earlier clips taken from the parliamentary channel and radio interviews seemed to contradict his claim that the Liberals wanted to replace the GST.  "We hate it and we will kill it!" (the GST) were the exact words that came out of Jean Chretien's mouth during a debate in the House of Commons over the GST, before the Liberals took power in 1993.  Since the federal election has not been called yet, it has yet to be seen whether or not the Canadian public has lost any faith in the current Prime Minister.

      The Liberals have made the economic revival of Canada one of their top policy platforms, so much so that in the online edition of the Red Book, economic policy is  chapter one.  The Liberals explain their approach to economic policy by saying that they will focus on the five major problems facing the current Canadian economy: "lack of growth, high unemployment, high long-term real interest rates, too high levels of foreign indebtedness, and excessive government debt and deficits."  (chapter1.html, 1997)  In the online edition of the Red Book, the Liberals also state that the "better co-ordination of federal and provincial tax and economic policies must be achieved in the interests of all Canadians....we will work with the provinces to redesign the current social assistance programs, to help people on social assistance who are able to work to move from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of this country....and that Canadians are entitled to trade rules that are fair that secure access to new markets, and that do not undermine Canadian commitments to labour and environmental standards."  (chapter1.html, 1997)  There is also a brief section about the Liberals' plan to create many more jobs for Canadians, which was one of their large campaign platforms during the 1993 election.  (chapter1.html, 1997)

      Right of centre on the political scale, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada can be found.  The Progressive Conservatives (PCs) were, in their fledgling years, known as the Conservative Party (and before that, the Liberal-Conservatives), and was founded before the Liberal Party of Canada, making it the oldest political party in Canada.  "While it is difficult to pin-point a precise date of origin of the Conservative Party there is nevertheless good reason for regarding 1854 as the inaugural year for the political group which has continued to this day as the conservative element in Canadian politics."  (Macquarrie, pg.3, 1965)  In 1854, John A. MacDonald, who was to become Canada's first Prime Minister ever, led the Conservative Party to office  and "began the process which established a nation in the northern part of this continent and set the pattern for that nation's political institutions."  (Macquarrie, pg.4, 1965)  Since Confederation, many events in Canadian politics have held vast significance in Canada's history.  For example: Confederation (1867), Hudson Bay territories joining the dominion (1870), Arctic Islands added to the dominion (1880), the defeat of reciprocity (1911), the enfranchisement of women (1918), the providing of universal suffrage under the Dominion Elections Act (1920), the Statute of Westminster (1931), and finally, the addition of Newfoundland to the Dominion (1949).  It is interesting to note that all of these significant political occurrences were made under Conservative Party mandates.  (Macquarrie, pg.2, 1965)  "It has been said that if Canada had an Independence Day it would be December 11, 1931, the date of the proclamation of the Statute of Westminster under the regime of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett."  (Macquarrie, pg.3, 1965)  The Statute of Westminster "repealed the Colonial Laws Validity Act and gave Canada absolute legislative autonomy except as requested by Canada in the case of amendments to the British North America Act."  (Macquarrie, pg.107, 1965) This was a recognition of an establishment which was long overdue.  Before the Statute of Westminster was implemented in 1931, it was under the rule of another conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, in which Canada took its largest steps towards having "full independence and complete national sovereignty.  Vigorously and successfully he (Borden) asserted the equality of nations comprising the Commonwealth."  (Macquarrie, pg.3, 1965)  In December of 1942, the Conservative Party met at a leadership convention in Winnipeg, and after some prodding by one of the candidates, John Bracken, the name of the Conservative Party was changed to that of the Progressive Conservatives, in order to reflect the party's progressive goals and intentions.  (Macquarrie, pg.122, 1965)  Under the name of Progressive Conservative party, John Diefenbaker led the party to the largest landslide victory in the history of Canadian politics in 1958, just one year after the Diefenbaker government had won a minority government.  (Guy, pg.393, 1995)

      In recent years, the Progressive Conservatives have been dealt severe blows at the polls.  In 1993, the Progressive Conservatives went from having the majority government in the House of Commons to a mere two seats: current PC leader Jean Charest in Sherbrooke, and Elsie Wayne in Saint John.  The PCs can attach their massive defeat in the 1993 election to nine years of rule by Brian Mulroney.  Mulroney won two large majority governments in 1984 and 1988, but in the 1988 term, his fortunes turned south.  His government was responsible for the implementation of the hated Goods and Services tax, the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and the Meech Lake Accord.  Several months before the 1993 federal election was called, Mulroney stepped down as party leader, which paved the way for the election of Kim Campbell, then Justice Minister, to the post of Prime Minister.  Campbell was the first female Prime Minister of Canada, even though she was not elected by the general voting public.  Her early days of campaigning were regarded as successful for herself and the party, but in the latter part of the election campaign, debates over whether or not Campbell was a competent leader were raised.  Her trip-up in the late stages of the election campaign set the stage for the Custer-like wiping out of her party; she was even soundly defeated in her own riding of Vancouver Central.  Even though the federal party was decimated, provincial PC parties seemed to hold their own during the federal dark times.  Currently, there are Progressive Conservative provincial governments in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.  PEI Conservatives won the most recent election, going from only one seat in the PEI legislature to a majority.  The Conservatives in Ontario were also recent winners.  Under the leadership of Mike Harris, the Ontario Conservatives ousted the Ontario NDP in the 1994 provincial election in a landslide victory, perhaps bringing on a second wave of the Big Blue Machine in years to come.  

      Even though the Conservatives were given a serious setback in the 1993 federal election, their commitment to policy-making has not been affected.  They have drafted a Tory Top Ten list of policies that they will campaign with during the next federal election.  Their number one policy standpoint on the Top Ten is tax cuts for jobs: "Canadians today are overtaxed. The high tax burden is killing jobs and reducing Canada's competitiveness. We need to create lasting jobs and rekindle the entrepreneurial spirit. Tax cuts will inject life back into the Canadian economy by promoting investment, consumer consumption and job creation."  (library4.html, 1997)  On the income tax front, the PCs are also committed to giving Canadians a 10-20 per cent personal income tax cut, which would be phased in over their first term in office. They have also given the situation regarding the federal debt and deficit a fair amount of thought.  They intend to balance the federal budget within their first mandate in office, and that by the time the deficit is eliminated through spending cuts, "specific targets for reduction of the federal debt  must be set with measurable milestones."  (Designing a Blueprint for Canadians, pp.6-7, 1996)  Finally, their overall economic policy states that "Canada should constitute an economic union within which goods, services, persons and capital may move freely.  Any measures which unduly discriminate between individuals, goods, services and capital on the basis of their origin or their destination should be unconstitutional. The strengthening of the Canadian economic union is crucial to fostering economic growth, the flourishing of a common citizenhood, and helping Canadians reach their full potential."  (Designing a Blueprint for Canadians, pgs.40-41, 1996)  On the whole, it would appear to the unbiased reader that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada knows exactly what it stands for.

      Even further to the right side of the political scale, the relatively new Reform Party of Canada can be found.  On the last weekend of October in 1987, 306 delegates from Western Canada converged on Alberta, in order to found the party.  These people were fed up with the traditional Liberal/Conservative rule in Ottawa, and wanted a party that could effectively represent the concerns of Western Canadians.  (Harrison, pgs.110, 112,114, 1995)  "The delegates faced three tasks as they met that weekend: to decide upon a name for the party, to devise a constitution, and to pick a leader.  The delegates chose the party's name - the Reform Party of Canada - the first day."  (Harrison, pg.114, 1995)  On the second day of the convention, the party started the process of selecting a leader.  There were three potential candidates: Preston Manning (the current leader), Ted Byfield, and Stan Roberts.  Byfield was not entirely comfortable with the idea of being the Reform Party's leader, however, and wanted to continue to run his own personal business. A theory that came out of the convention was that this leadership race was a battle between "Roberts' old political style and money against Manning's grass-roots populism."  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  There was also some controversy over the amount of money Roberts spent on his hospitality suite at the convention, which was an estimated $25000.  Manning was regarded as being quite frugal, spending around $2000.  Even though the difference in the amount of money spent between the two main candidates was rather large, Manning was regarded as being the stronger of the two candidates, having the unquestionable allegiance of many of the delegates.  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  Roberts knew of the immense support Manning had, and it was rumoured that he was going to bring in a significant amount of "instant delegates"  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  to push him over the top.  The Manning camp got word of this idea, and subsequently closed delegate registration on the Friday night of the convention (it was supposed to run until Saturday morning).  This action sent a Roberts supporter by the name of Francis Winspear into a rage, severely criticising the decision to suspend registration and accusing the Manning camp that some membership money had been unaccounted for.  "With animosities rising, Jo Anne Hillier called a meeting between the two sides on Saturday night to attempt to resolve the disputes.  The attempt at reconciliation failed."  (Harrison, pg.117, 1995)  The next morning, during an emotional speech, Roberts decided to drop out of the race, all the while questioning whether or not the party stood true to its founding principles of integrity and honesty.  He referred to Manning's supporters as "fanatical Albertans" and "small-minded evangelical cranks."  (Harrison, pg.118, 1995)  This left Preston Manning as the first (and current) leader of one of Canada's newest political parties, the Reform Party of Canada.  

      In its short history to date, the Reform Party of Canada has had some success federally, and has weathered its share of criticism.  In the last federal election, they won a total of 52 seats, almost beating out the Bloc Quebecois for the title of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who won 54 seats.  The Reform took one seat in Ontario, one seat in Manitoba, four seats in Saskatchewan, 22 seats in Alberta, and 24 seats in British Columbia.  (Guy, pg.434, 1995)  There was some debate at the beginning of the Liberals' mandate from the Reform Party whether or not a separatist party (Bloc Quebecois) should be allowed to be the opposition in Parliament, but the Bloc remained as official opposition.  Lately, however, a Bloc MP resigned his seat, leaving the Bloc with a one seat lead over the Reform Party in the race for official opposition.  The next federal election should be very interesting, as these two parties might battle it out for the right to be opposition again.  One moniker that the Reform Party wears that could damage their hopes of ever being the opposition or the government is the fact that many Canadians have the stereotype that Reform MPs and supporters are red-necked hillbillies from out west.  A little while back, a Reform MP by the name of Robert Wringma made comments of a racial nature towards black and aboriginal people.  Wringma suggested that if he were a shopkeeper, and if his patrons were offended by blacks or aboriginals working up in the front of his shop, he would make sure that the black or aboriginal person(s) working for him would be in the back of the shop while his racist customers were on the premises.  This prompted outrage from minority groups and the general Canadian population, and Preston Manning was eventually pressured into kicking Wringma out of caucus.  That particular incident summed up the Reform stereotype of extreme right-wing views, and it should also be interesting whether or not this subject surfaces again during the next federal election campaign.  

      On the Reform Party's web page, the policy section is entitled "a 6 point plan to build a brighter future together."  (summary.html, 1997)  Their number one priority is to "create growth, opportunity, and lasting jobs through smaller government, an end to overspending, and lower taxes, to make government smaller by eliminating waste, duplication, and red tape to save $15 billion a year, and to balance the budget by March 31, 1999."  (summary.html, 1997)  The Reform Party also intends to give the public tax relief, by having "lower taxes for all Canadians: $2,000 by the year 2000 for the average family, an increase in the Basic Personal Amount and Spousal Amount, cut capital gains taxes in half, cut employers' U.I. premiums by 28%, and eliminate federal surtaxes and last but not least, flatten and simplify the income tax system."  (Summary.html, 1997)  Their plans for the Unemployment Insurance system are not all that extravagant, but on the home page, they are quoted as saying that they are going to: "return Unemployment Insurance to its original purpose: protection against temporary job loss."  (summary.html, 1997)  These economic reform policies seem to be related somewhat to the Progressive Conservatives' economic reform policies, but they do not go into nearly as much detail as the Conservatives do.

      Politics in Canada is an extremely volatile business. One day a party can be on top of the world, and the next day they can be the scourge of the planet.  Politics in Canada has a long and interesting history, so much so that this paper has barely even scratched the surface.  While the New Democrats and Reform are gathering support in different areas of the country, it must be remembered that the only two parties to ever hold federal office in this country have been the Conservative and Liberal parties.  From examining the various party's web pages, it seems that the Liberals and Conservatives have the most detailed policy platforms, the Reform Party is simply lacking the detail of the Conservatives and Liberals, and the New Democrats have little information to research at all.  History tends to repeat itself, especially in elections in this country, and it would not be surprising if the Liberals won another federal mandate this year.  The Conservatives look like they are making the long trek back to prominence, but the Reform Party and New Democrats seem to be treading water.  The real test that will determine which paths these parties will take during the trek into the 21st century, however, will be made in the soon-to-be-called Canadian federal election.  Democracy will speak out once again.

A Brothers Murder

A belief I feel very strongly about proposes that all problems faced by our society have solutions.  If this belief is true, why do problems still face us today?  The answer could be a result of either laziness by the people in our society in finding these solutions or just the fact that there are too many problems to solve.  Maybe this belief I have is too far out of reach to be true.  On the other hand, Brent Staples, a well-respected writer, seems to share this idea with me.  In his works, he displays a great deal of motivation to solve particular problems faced by society.  In "A Brother's Murder," he uses a personal account of murder within the streets caused by social placement to illustrate the problem within the lower class.  After reading this article, I questioned the stability of our society, and the overall severity of this problem of murder in the streets.

      The inner streets of our nations' cities have, over the years, proven to be war zones.  Gangs are roaming the streets to protect their territory, making gunplay an everyday task.  The smell of fear, death, and misguided souls reek to the nose of the onlooker.  Brent Staples does an outstanding job of describing the severity of these problems.  His brother, Blake, leads a life molded by this street life.  His official cause of death was murder.  However, at the young age of twenty-two years old, they should have noted his death as a casualty of war.  He played a part in the war of gangs and guns.  If he did not live in the inner streets of Roanoke, Va., he would probably be alive today.  In most other parts of the country, you can have an argument with one of your best friends and not get killed over it.  Blake was shot six time s by a good friend over an argument about a former girlfriend.

      Brent Staples grew up in the same type of atmosphere as his little brother Blake. As Staples explains in paragraph four of "A Brother's Murder," he chose a different lifestyle.  He disagreed with the childish attitude of the death-ridden people on his street.  He chose a path of going to college and leading a successful career.  He was lucky enough and smart enough to leave those streets.  "Upwardly mobile" was how Brent put it.  In Blake's lifestyle moving up means killing more people to gain social standing within his gang.

      Brent took a trip to his brother's home to intervene with his situation.  What he saw was someone taken over by life on the streets.  He was obsessed by this lifestyle of teetering between life and death, because that was all for which he had to live.  This was clear on the surface, but his own brother could look deeper.  He could see his true human character.  Brent saw his brother as a human being who he cared deeply for and wanted to help.  However, when our society looks at these people killing each other, they see young kids with no hope and no feelings.  I believe this inability to give people a chance is what cause this instability in our social structure.  If everyone could try to make a difference like Brent did with his brother, we would have more stability in our society.

      After reading this article, I came up with many unanswered questions.  First, I would have like to have seen more detail about the relationship between Brent and Blake.  I feel like this would have added more emotion and detail to the story.  A final question to be discussed is concerning Brent's actions with his brother.  Could he have done more to save his brother's life?  It took Brent ten years to go back to his brother to help.  Also, was it right of Brent to shut out his hometown, knowing that this would affect his brother?

      Brent Staples' "A Brother's Murder" appeared in a 1986 edition of New York Time Magazine.  Brent continues to write editorials regularly for the New York Times.  I had the opportunity to browse through some of his recent articles at the library.  He continues today to write about life in the streets and other problems with unfound solutions.  Brent Staples is a true humanitarian, and with his articles shows a lot of care in making a change.

A Balanced Budget

This year President Clinton will submit his proposed legislation for the Federal Budget to Congress. The fact that we have divided government (ex., Democratic President, Republican majority in Congress) means the majority of that legislation won't make it through the first ten minutes of a Congressional session. The President in turn will veto legislation presented to him by Congress. The whole situation is a vicious, never ending circle. Each side is looking out for their own best interests, and after years, even decades of this the United States has a huge budget deficit. Is there a solution to all this madness? Is it feasible to balance the Federal Budget? Every politician on Capitol Hill claims to have the answer. The Federal Government goes as far to employ some of the most renowned economist's in the world to try to solve the deficit mess, and they still haven't figured it out.

      The budget simulation exercise by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget provided choices Congress has to use as its guide for the upcoming year. How hard can it be to balance the budget I thought? After doing the exercised I realized the title of the simulation exercise, "The FY 1997 Budget: An Exercise in Hard Choices," could not have been more appropriate. It is possible though to balance the Federal Budget, provided you follow 3 simple rules. First you must decide what you feel is important, then cut without consciousness, and if that doesn't work, alter your baseline.

Important Choices 

      When deciding on what I thought was important to protect in the budget, I felt like a politician myself. I protected my own self interests. First up was Defense. The fact that I am in the Marine Officer Program weighed heavily on my decision to increase Defense spending by 17.6 billion (all amounts in billions, unless noted), following the Congressional Budget Resolution. The President's plan just didn't provide enough capital, the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus would basically wipe out my career before it even starts, and I just can not have that. Next up is Education. Without the direct student loan program, I would have no way to fund my education other than going to some bank and going through the demeaning process of begging a loan officer to lend me money for school. I feel a sense of loyalty to the President on this issue, because without this program I would still be doing concrete construction back home in Indiana. As a result, I voted to increase Educational spending 33.4. My other concern or problem area is Administration of Justice. Crime is way out of control in this country. There has to be an end. I voted to increase spending 23.6, opting for the President's budget because it provides enough capital to temporarily combat the problem. You might be thinking, wow this fool just increased the deficit by 74.6, but unless are borders are protected, are children educated, and until we can feel safe in our homes at night, this country won't realize it's potential.

International & Domestic Spending

      At this point, the deficit stands at 883.6 (809 billion beginning + current spending). It is time to cut the waste. First, International Affairs requires attention. Does the United States really need to fund every country's struggle? I don't think so, so I agree with the Budget Resolution Conference Agreement (BRCA), and I vote to cut 12.4.

Next on the list, General Science, Space and Technology. I vote to discontinue the Space Station Program. As the report says, scientists have lost interest so why keep funding it. Another 11.2 by the wayside.

 The Energy issue is a complex one, but nevertheless the DOE has to go. The DOE is a bureaucracy of waste. The DOE has several institutions doing the same research. By Eliminating the DOE as a go-between, money and time saved. The BRCA proposal is more beneficial to my pursuit of a balanced budget, eliminating 4.2.

 Natural Resources are a touchy subject, but in order to balance the budget, everyone has to chip in. By charging the fair market value for natural resources, 21 billion saved.

Agriculture is essential, but it is not necessary to increase salaries and expenses of Farm Service Agency employees, which the President's budget does.. The BRCA cuts 4.1. 

      Commerce and Housing Credit, another huge buearucracy, has to go. By eliminating the Department of Commerce, and by broadening FCC Authority to Auction Licenses, total saving equals 10.4.

 Transportation is another touchy subject, what with all the airline tragedies and train crashes. This subject is constantly in the news. Terminating  the Federal Transit Administration and leaving the states to be responsible for funding, 23 billion saved. Also by reducing or eliminating other Transport Subsidies I save another 6.2.

      Community and Regional Development are an issue I have never really given much consideration to, but with the spending I did earlier, I need to make cuts. The BRCA cuts the most. I propose to follow their legislation cutting 21.5.

      Health was in the news when Clinton was first elected. I liked his rhetoric then, and although I need to make cuts, I stand by his proposal of 45.3. even though it is only half of what the BRCA proposes to do this is a very sensitive area of policy, and cutting to much could mean reelection.

      What about Medicare? To play it safe, I went with the BRCA proposal because it reforms Comprehensive Medicare, just not as much as the President's Proposal. The CBO Illustrative Comprehensive Options were a brief and passing thought, but overall I believe they hurt Medicare more than either of the other two proposals. Saving equates to 182.6.

      As far as Income Security goes, I recommend following the BRCA proposal. Their proposal cuts 45.4, so for those people on welfare, get out and get a job.

      Social Security is a sore topic for many individuals. I would propose cutting Social Security completely, but that wasn't an option. Why should I pay for something I'll never get anything out of. Forced to choose some kind of cuts, I suggest first skipping one COLA for One Year, a saving's of 57.9. By Reducing the Replacement Rate Within Each Bracket of Social Security I am able to save an additional 11.8.

      Something I failed to realize earlier, Veterans Benefits and Services. This is something I might one day need based on my career aspirations. I chose to go with the BRCA because it increases the Presidents budget in categories such as medical care and medical research. Total saving amounts to 9.4 billion.

      With the Federal Compensation and General Government portion of the budget, I thought it to be a bad idea in cutting pay to government employees. If I were a Member of Congress, I could consider myself blacklisted. Also I one day hope to be a government employee via the military. I propose Reducing COLAS to Middle or High Income Retirees, saving 11 billion. I also would raise Employee Contributions. By doing so, it only benefits these same employees in the future when they retire, and it also allows me to trim an additional 12.4 off of the deficit.

      As for means testing, I chose to reduce this area by opting for Reduction of Benefits to Middle and High Income Families. Families with an annual income of $40,000 really don't need help. I chose to not cut anything else, but I was able to do 303.3 in damage to the deficit.

Revenue

      Going into Revenues, I have saved 793.9 billion, but still the budget remains unbalanced. Here, I decided to tax imported oil, saving 62.5. Next, taxing Toxic Water Pollutants as well as levying an Excise Tax on Air Pollutants nets an additional 170.7. Also by increasing tobacco taxes to 48 cents per pack netted 22.3. As for a running total, 1048.7 billion remains unspent. 

      Unfortunately there happens to be some programs that need money. First, I chose to spend 117 billion on giving tax credits for Families/Children, opting for the President's budget. I voted to repeal the 4.3 cent motor fuels tax, spending 2.9. Finally, I spent 15.6 to Provide Tax Incentives for Long - Term Care Insurance. All this spending on revenues cost me 187.2 billion. My rational behind my spending, is once again in my own self interest, for if I was a Member of Congress, with all the cuts I have made, I have to give back a little.

Balanced?

Will the budget balance? Before the exercise began there was an 809 billion deficit. I spent 209.3 billion, on a total of 6 different programs. I cut 1048.7 billion from 18 different recipients of federal dollars. This amounts to a balanced budget. Total Deficit Reduction from Policy changes equaled 838.7(all amounts in billions). Interest savings amounted to 83.87. Total deficit reduction, 992.57. Add in the baseline budget deficit of  809 billion from the previous year. 113.57 remains. Policy changes totaled at 718.7. Spending changes as a percentage ended up 85.7%. Finally revenue changes finished at 14.31%.

Is it feasible to balance the Federal Budget? It is if it is a game or assignment. Dealing with issues that effect individuals from all walks of life is almost impossible. I cut all but a few categories under International & Domestic Spending. It is not realistic in the real world. Cutting funding for one program not only effects those involved, but inadvertently effects' others. An example would be cutting welfare benefits. With no money, no job, and no future prospects, an individual might result to crime, whether selling narcotics or robbery, in order to support their family. The decisions that the President makes in preparing a budget have to be overwhelming. In Congress, individual decisions are more anonymous. The records are accessible, but who really remembers how an individual Member of Congress voted. How many taxpayers know what a baseline is. The President and Congress each uses their own baseline, it helps them justify spending or cuts. Until the President and Congress can agree to balance the budget, cut waste, and quit talking about it, there will be a deficit.

 Works Cited

Exercise In Hard Choices. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. July 1996.

US 96 Elections

The presidential elections are here.  The elections only take place every four years and now it is time again to vote for the man whom we trust to be our leader for another four years.  There many things involved in the elections.  Campaigning and debating are two things used to help get the people to be in favor of those who are running.  The two main candidates this year are Dole/Kemp and Clinton/Gore.

     Campaigning is done in many different ways, it is a technique used by the candidates in order for more people to recognize them and become more familiar with their ideas.  It is done on television, in newspapers, signs that are put all over your town, and on the internet.  The object is to put the adds in places where many people are going to see them.  The internet and on television is a very good way to make the candidates known because of the tremendous internet traffic and increasing television viewers.

     Debating is a requirement of the elections and there are different kinds of debates.  There are debates between the candidates and there are some between the possible vice-presidents.  The speakers must be very good at thinking of something to say quickly and making their point clear to the audience in order to make a difference in the debates.  The debates are a time to show the audience the flaws the other candidate might have and to also show them the good things that you may have to offer them as their president or vice-president.

     Dole is the major republican candidate for president.  One of Dole's major plans in his presidency, if he is elected, is to cut taxes and balance the budget.  This is a very hard thing to do, but it is a good aspect of Bob Dole.  He also has a goal for a plan of economic growth.  I myself like the aspect that Bob Dole as a republican is against abortion.  I think abortion is murder to innocent babies who are not even given a chance to live.

 

Clinton is the other major candidate for the elections.  He is a democrat that is hoping to get re-elected to serve another four years.  While in his first term, Clinton has made abortion a legal act, increased our taxes, and been

accused of many small lies; but if he is accused of those small lies, why should we not be able to think he is lying to us?  One of Clinton's big concerns is health care.  He has done many things pertaining to this issue, but only half of it has been followed through with.

     The elections are up to the people, and it is the people who decides who will be your leader for another four years.  So, let's vote smart and think about who will better our country for the next four years.