Friday, October 31, 2014

BEHIND THE INSTABILITY OF BURKINA FASO: THE GHOST OF THE AFRICAN CHE GUEVARA?

Burkina Faso: Ghost of 'Africa's Che Guevara'

In the weeks before violent protests, some Burkinabes' thoughts turned to slain leader Thomas Sankara for inspiration.


AL JAZEERA, Last updated: 31 Oct 2014 10:52
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso - In the early hours of a night in 1987, one of Africa’s youngest leaders, Thomas Sankara, was murdered and quietly and quickly buried in a shallow grave.
Now, the man widely believed to be behind it, Burkina Faso's president, has watched as his parliament was set ablaze by furious protesters who want him gone.
Many of the protesters say the history of the slain 1980s leader partly inspired them to rise against Blaise Compaore, who has been in power for 27 years and was trying, by a vote in parliament, for another five.

Though some see Sankara as an autocrat who came to office by the power of the gun, and who ignored basic human rights in pursuit of his ideals, in recent years he has been cited as a revolutionary inspiration not only in Burkina Faso but in other countries across Africa.
In the weeks before the current chaos, Al Jazeera spoke to people in the capital, Ouagadougou, and found many who predicted that Sankara’s memory, and Compaore's attempt to seek another five-year term, may soon spark an uprising.


At the time of his assassination Sankara was just 37 and had ruled for only four years.
But his policies, and his vision, are still cherished both by some locals who were around when he was in power and, significantly, by many young people who were born since his death.
His killing was the the fifth coup since the nation won independence from France and the main beneficiary was Compaore, who quickly took his place.
Until that night, the two had often been referred to as best friends.
Although there is less poverty now than back then, a growing number of Burkinabés had, in recent years, started to feel that Sankara's nationalisation policies may have made the perpetually arid nation a more prosperous and self-reliant place than it is today.
"Sankara wanted a thriving Burkina Faso, relying on local human and natural resources as opposed to foreign aid," retired professor of economics, Noel Nébié, told Al Jazeera.
"And starting with agriculture, which represents more than 32 per cent of the country's GDP and employs 80 percent of the working population, he smashed the economic elite who controlled most of the arable land and granted access to subsistence farmers. That improved production making the country almost self-sufficient."
Naming a nation
Initially known as the Republic of Upper Volta, after the river, in 1984 Sankara changed the country's name to Burkina Faso, meaning Land of the Upright People, and he soon made that name the symbol of his nationalisation crusade.
Some say the fact he authored his nation's name has kept his memory alive.
"When you wake up in the morning and you remember you are a Burkinabe, you automatically recall the person who thought up that local name and stamped it on us," Ishmael Kaboré, a 47-year-old lawyer in Ouagadougou, told Al Jazeera.
"At first, people felt the name Burkina Faso was odd, awkward and far from the modern and foreign names other countries were bearing in Africa.
"But they realised after his death that Sankara wanted to give us a unique and special identity that tells our history and depicts our character."
Sankara was a determined pan-Africanist, whose foreign policies were largely centred on anti-imperialism. His government spurned foreign aid and tried to stamp out the influence of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the country by adopting debt reduction policies and nationalising all land and mineral wealth.
Self-sufficiency and land reform policies were designed to fight famine, a nationwide literacy campaign was launched, and families were ordered to have their children vaccinated.
"Some families used to keep their children in hiding on the arrival of vaccinators for religious or ritual reasons, and that practice was sabotaging our efforts," Fatoumata Koulibaly, assistant campaign director at the country's health ministry under Sankara, told Al Jazeera.
"But when Sankara came he took a strong stand against it, which helped in the vaccination of close to three million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles, etc."
Vaccination has been common practice in Burkina Faso since then, she said.
Anger bubbles up
Sankara was often referred to as "Africa's Che Guevara" because he regularly quoted, and said he drew inspiration from, the world famous revolutionary leader. Sankara was also a good friend of former Ghanaian president, and fellow revolutionary, Jerry Rawlings.
Even for his most ardent of supporters it is impossible to know whether, if Sankara had not been killed, life would have been better, and some argue that it would not have.
But many people spoken to by Al Jazeera believed things would be better today if he was still alive, and that sentiment is partly responsible for Thursday's events.
"Young people who were not alive during Sankara’s administration are beginning to look back more at that period because something is wrong in the country today," 23-year-old University of Ouagadougou student, Ibrahim Sanogo, said.
"Sankara was not just fighting imperialism for the sake of politics but he wanted the Burkinabe people to develop themselves and their land and rely essentially on themselves instead of the West.
"Today, all the young graduates are dreaming to travel abroad to do odd jobs because of lack of employment opportunities here."
Compaore, though, has had some success. The mining industry has seen a boost in recent years, with the copper, iron and manganese markets all improving. Gold production shot up by 32 percent in 2011 at six sites, according to figures from the mines ministry, making Burkina Faso the fourth-largest gold producer in Africa.
Growth is running at seven percent. But per capita income stands at just $790, and local people say the standard of living is very poor for most. Corruption and elitism are a problem, they say, with any wealth only in the hands of the few.
"Those World Bank and IMF figures are seen only on paper and not in the pockets of the Burkinabes," Seydou Yabré, an independent rural development expert, told Al Jazeera.
"Only very few people are enjoying the wealth of the country. If you visit homes, or travel to the hinterlands, you will experience an appalling level of poverty."
Eerie prediction
Perhaps Sankara's anti-corruption campaign and exemplary modest lifestyle could have forced wealth to trickle down if he had been left alive to lead, Yabré thought.
"Sankara was Africa’s most down-to-earth president then. He lived in a small, modest house, rode a bicycle and had $350 in his account at the time of his death," Yabré said.
"He was also contested within his inner circle because he never wanted his army colleagues to embezzle public funds and lead a flamboyant lifestyle."
Famously - and eerily - just a week before his death, perhaps sensing what was to come, Sankara said: "While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas."
Burkina Faso’s progress over the past 20 years was largely due to its stability, many observers say, but, as was made clear when a crowd of the country's people converged on the parliament intent on destruction, an anger left to fester can take that away in an instant.
"Sankara had many enemies because he wrested privileges from looters in favour of the poor," Yabré said. "Maybe he did this too radically and within too short a time."
Follow Kingsley Kobo on Twitter@KoboKingsley

EL RANKING DE LOS PAISES APTOS PARA EMPRENDEDORES

Singapur y Colombia, los mejores países para hacer negocios

Los asiáticos despuntan; la mitad de los latinoamericanos mejoran el entorno empresarial


La mala noticia primero: el mejor país del mundo para montar un negocio no está en América, sino en Asia. Es Singapur. La buena noticia: en la mitad de los países de Latinoamérica han mejorado las condiciones para hacer negocios. Es una buena nueva para miles de empresarios y ciudadanos de a pie, que han soñado alguna vez con montar su propio negocio o con expandir su empresa solo para encontrar trabas con las regulaciones, la burocracia o el papeleo excesivo.
En América Latina, este último problema es cada vez menos común. Por lo menos en 16 de las 32 economías de la región que en el último año han llevado a cabo reformas que facilitan la manera de hacer negocios, según la edición 2015 del informe Doing Business tituladoMás allá de la eficiencia.
El listado lo encabeza Colombia, el país que tiene el mejor ambiente para hacer negocios en toda Latinoamérica. Desde 2005, Bogotá ha llevado a cabo 29 reformas regulatorias, tales como facilitar la transferencia de propiedades o mejorar el acceso a créditos que garantiza las operaciones, reduciendo los tiempos y eliminando obstáculos a los empresarios locales. Colombia ocupa el puesto 34 de la clasificación de 189 economías de todo el mundo.
Perú le sigue de muy de cerca, en el puesto 35, y México en el 39, entre las economías más grandes de la región con más avances en su regulación, de acuerdo al informe, que elaboran el Banco Mundial y su brazo para el sector privado, la Corporación Financiera Internacional (IFC). Por ejemplo, hace 10 años a los empresarios peruanos les llevaba 33 días registrar una venta de una propiedad. Hoy día ese plazo se ha reducido a 6,5 días. Tal vez siga pareciendo mucho tiempo, pero este periodo está por debajo de Estados Unidos (15 días).
“Algunas economías latinoamericanas han estado mejorando su ambiente de negocios durante casi una década, equiparando en muchos casos el nivel de los mejores en el mundo”, ha asegurado Augusto Lopez-Claros, director del Grupo de Indicadores Globales del Banco Mundial.

Mejorar la competitividad

Uno de los aspectos más complicados a la hora de hacer negocios es el acceso a los créditos. Las trabas legales pueden hacer que una excelente idea de negocio  quede en eso, una idea, si no se cuenta con el marco legal que facilite a las empresas el dinero para invertir y desarrollarse. México es un claro ejemplo de avance. En el último año, el país modificó su legislación sobre insolvencia al facilitar plazos para la reorganización, aclarar ciertas reglas y permitir la presentación de documentos en forma electrónica.
“Acelerar y expandir los procesos de hacer negocios ayudaría a cerrar la brecha con los países que mejor lo hacen a nivel mundial y a la vez impulsar la competitividad”, agregó López-Claros. La competitividad es clave para América Latina, que si bien es una región muy activa a la hora de emprender negocios, aún carece de habilidades para la innovación que la coloquen a la par de los países avanzados, según un reciente informe sobre el tema.
Otro país que se ha beneficiado en la reforma para acceder a créditos es Panamá, la economía de mayor crecimiento en la última década en Latinoamérica. El país centroamericano aprobó una ley que amplía la gama de activos que se pueden usar de garantía al pedir un préstamo, y permite la ejecución extrajudicial de las garantías.
En el istmo, el país con mejor nota según el Doing Business 2015 es, sin embargo, Guatemala, que facilitó la apertura de empresas al eliminar ciertas tarifas de registro y reducir el tiempo para publicar el aviso de su creación. Igualmente, simplificó el pago de impuestos y abarató el coste para las empresas al mejorar el sistema electrónico para rellenar y pagar el impuesto de sociedades y el IVA, y al reducir las tasas sobre las ganancias de capital. Esto ha permitido a las empresas ahorrar hasta 60 horas al año en trámites.
En el Caribe, Trinidad y Tobago y Jamaica resaltaron como las economías que introdujeron más reformas para facilitar la constitución de negocios. En el otro lado del espectro, en algunos países como Argentina, Venezuela y Bolivia, las condiciones para crear negocios no mejoraron.

Cambios en 'Doing Business'

Por primera vez, el Doing Business de este año recopiló información de una segunda ciudad en las 11 economías con más de 100 millones de habitantes. En Brasil, por ejemplo, analizó las regulaciones de negocios en San Pablo y Río de Janeiro, y en México, se tomaron en cuenta las mejoras de Ciudad de México y Monterrey. Asimismo, amplió los datos de tres de los 10 tópicos que analiza y para el próximo informe lo hará en cinco temas más.
A partir de esta edición, el Doing Business también cambió la metodología para calcular su clasificación. A diferencia del pasado, ahora la medición muestra cuán cerca está cada economía a las mejores prácticas globales en materia de regulación empresarial. Es decir, un puntaje más alto indica un ambiente de negocios más eficiente e instituciones legales más sólidas.
Bajo esta nueva metodología, el país con mejor calificación a nivel mundial fue Singapur, al que acompañan Nueva Zelanda, Hong Kong, Dinamarca, Corea del Sur, Noruega, Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Finlandia y Australia como las 10 economías con mejor ambiente de negocios.
*María José González Rivas es productora online del Banco Mundial

Obama & Putin Breakfast - No comment

Thursday, October 30, 2014

THE REASONS OF RUSSIA TO CHANGE THE WORLD ORDER

Why Russia wants a change to the contemporary world order

BY IVAN TIMOFEEV
RUSSIA DIRECT, OCTOBER 30, 2014
If we are truly witnessing another shake-up of the world order, what should be Russia’s strategy for guaranteeing its security and access to global resources in a new multipolar world?
What are Russia's interests in a multipolar world? Photo: Shutterstock / Legion Media
The crisis in relations between Russia and the West, the advance of ISIS, and the arms race in the Asia-Pacific region all point to a potential shake-up of the world order. Shake-ups of this kind tend to be of a catastrophic nature – a gradual change in some critical area is suddenly accelerated, triggering a cascade.
Politicians, experts, and decision-makers repeat the mantra of nonlinearity, whereby a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a tsunami on the other side of the world. But their outlook continues to be linear and inertial, regardless. As a result, catastrophes are just that: wholesale, precipitate, destructive events. Nonlinearity has become a cliché, yet few have ever taken the time to ponder the nature of it.
Nonlinearity implies an asymmetric relationship between an outcome and the resources spent on achieving it. In some cases, the effect can be potent, the result poor. In others, even minor factors can produce disastrous consequences. In politics and many other social processes, such asymmetry is determined by resource constraints, since any political process unfolds within limited resource niches, ranging from personnel to finance and technology.
Applying the “predator-prey” model to the system of international relations
The “predator-prey” model is a textbook example of a nonlinear process. There are foxes and rabbits. As long as the rabbit population is large, little effort is required by the foxes to catch them. Neither do they have to compete with each other for prey, since there is plenty. The rabbit population is a resource niche (prey) for the foxes. But there comes a moment when there are too many foxes, and the rabbits’ rate of reproduction fails to keep pace with that of the foxes. Now the foxes have to exert much greater effort to catch their prey. And the result of these efforts is far more modest than before. The reduction in resources leads to competition for prey among the foxes themselves.
Sooner or later, the natural order of predator-prey relations passes a tipping point: either the foxes find new victims (i.e. expand their resource niche) or they kill each other until their dwindling numbers allow the rabbit population to recover. This also addresses the problem of resource constraints, although for the foxes it is more violent and destructive. Moreover, the bloodletting is multiplied by a delay factor inherent in any social or ecological system, whereby the realization that the resources have been replenished, and thus the killing can stop, does not come immediately. In other words, the delay severely exacerbates the competition for resources and its destructive consequences.
This, too, is a manifestation of nonlinearity within a limited resource niche. The scenario can be taken to the extreme: The foxes perish as a result of the resource competition or they destroy all the rabbits. One way or the other, the choice is to find new prey (resource niche) or die of starvation.
In the language of politics, the reduction of resources intensifies the competition for them and leads to a destabilization of the existing order. This destabilization produces qualitative changes (bifurcations) as a result of which either new resource niches appear or competitors are eliminated from the game and their resources are distributed to the winners. Incidentally, the “predator-prey” model is widely used in science to model political and social processes: for example, the relationships between the state and taxpayers, the mafia and business, firms and customers, etc.
International processes are also nonlinear. They clearly develop under resource constraints, and governments endeavor to secure a slice of the pie. This being the case, the resources inevitably decline. And the more the deficit is felt, the more rapidly the world order changes. It can even be said that resource depletion pushes the system of international relations towards anarchy, while resource sufficiency allows a particular order to be built in an atmosphere of cooperation.
There are two solutions for governments to the problem of a deficit: either introduce new technologies to expand the resource niche, or reduce the number of contenders to the existing resource niche. The second solution, in any event, is tactical, since it fails to address the fundamental problem of the limits of growth. Inevitably, the intensity of competition will necessitate a search for new resources. Such process is generally accompanied by a radical shift in the world order. It is clear that governments are unlikely to forgo their share of resources voluntarily, or surrender their position in the world order for the sake of a “bright future.” Therefore, the change is typically characterized by major global shocks – wars, revolutions, failed states and new ones in their place.
Dynamics of the contemporary world order
The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) recently prepared a report on the dynamics of the contemporary world order. A feature of the report was the use of nonlinear mathematical models to analyze the dynamics of the parameters of power and the development of modern states.
The report seems to paint a paradoxical picture of the present world order. On the one hand, we observe quite stable dynamics in terms of socio-economic development. In other words, there is yet no shortage of hard resources requiring the conduct of large-scale conflicts and the rearrangement of the existing order by force.
On the other, the world is home to a number of powerful nations whose political relations and security policies could, of their own accord, capsize the world order. Russia is one of these great powers, yet its position in the group looks vulnerable. The conversion of its large political resources into development is bounded. The country’s global weight is highly contingent on its ability to solve internal social and economic problems. In other words, Russia’s success in the international arena does not guarantee its socio-economic development.
The Ukrainian crisis illustrates the situation. Russia took a tough stance, acting ahead of the curve, asserting itself as a world power with a view to be reckoned with. It is now clear that Russia is unlikely to deviate from its chosen course. However, its opponents will respond less by political means, but rather try to limit Russia's access to global sources of growth and development. The pressure will be powerful and concerted, and Russia lacks reliable playing partners. Restricted access to the resources of globalization is the penalty for a tough foreign policy. In the present circumstances, Russia will not be able to assert its political ambitions and still maintain the same level of access to global sources of development.
In this situation, two inauspicious scenarios present themselves.
The first involves a tough confrontation with the West, more consolidated pressure on Russia in the fields of security and economics, marginalization to the world periphery, and severance from financial, technological, and other sources of growth. In this scenario, Russia will find it extremely difficult to survive.
The second entails significant concessions to the West. This is also negative, because in this instance, Russia’s return to the global world would be far more costly. Moreover, the concessions, whatever they may be, are no guarantee that Russia would not be squeezed into a corner or that it would be able to surmount its existing development problems. The bottom line is that both scenarios would deepen Russia’s backwardness and cause serious damage. The world order would be maintained, but without Russia in its accustomed role.
What are Russia’s options?
Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Photo: AP / RIA Novosti
Naturally, any such scenario is totally unacceptable to Moscow. Hence, Russia is eyeing a possible change in the existing world order. As matters stand, it would suit Russia to realign the world order in such a way as to limit foreign adversaries’ ability to cut it off from the sources of growth. Therein lies the essence of Russian interests in a multipolar world. Multipolarity is the presence of several sources of growth and development, not simply the coexistence of several great powers.
It is evident that Russia is hardly likely to be able to build a world order all on its own. Unlike the Soviet Union, it does not even have a project to propose to other countries. Meanwhile, competition between world order projects is bound to play a part in the future of international relations. Some projects are already familiar, such as the Western liberal approach, involving the preservation and development of the existing model of globalization. Russia’s project will appeal to the costs and excesses of the Western model, and the problems of inequality and resource allocation. It is essentially a “leftist” project, regardless of what name is assigned to it. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia voluntarily relinquished leadership of this project. It cannot reassume it due to a lack of resources and the country’s decisive split from leftist ideas.
So who will lead the global leftist project? The answer is obvious: China.
So far, China has exuded a marked sense of caution and restraint in foreign policy, and has explicitly avoided asserting its global ambitions. But a latent process is underway, and China will one day announce its designs for a new world order. An interesting picture may well soon emerge. Communist China is adapting a number of elements in the economics of capitalism and the tools of democracy  tools, mind you, not principles (the smooth, predictable handover of supreme power combined with flexible regional government).
But internationally it could assert itself in terms of leftist principles  so as to address the problems of marginalization, inequality, distribution of resources, etc. The project will dovetail with Beijing’s official ideology, facilitating its consolidation and legitimization through foreign policy.
The question centers on whether China will, in the foreseeable future, continue to adapt under the Western model or begin to align its own world order. If the confrontation between Russia and the West goes too far, the second option will favor Russia. In such an event, it can try to fit into the Chinese model. But equal status will not be in the cards.
Finally, the last alternative is for Russia to try to keep an independent role in multiple playing fields  not to over-aggravate the confrontation with the West, while avoiding dependence in relations with China, and to stay maneuverable, while solving the problems of its own development. It is essentially a conservative foreign policy model with the same reliance on common sense, pragmatism, and reliance on its own potential. But given Russia’s limited resources and the challenges it faces, it is diplomacy, not military force, which should be the key instrument of foreign policy.
Moscow needs a world order in which none of the players is able to monopolize global sources of growth and cut Russia off from them if political differences arise. Multipolarity is acquiring a conceptually new meaning. Once understood as the coexistence of great powers, it now supposes the presence of several alternative sources of growth and development. One of which, of course, is Russia itself.

ELECCIONES DEL CONGRESO EN USA: GRAN CAMBIO EN KANSAS?

El bastión republicano de Kansas se tambalea en el Senado de EE UU

Los sondeos dan la victoria al independiente Greg Orman en las legislativas

 Wichita DIARIO EL PAIS, MADRID29 OCT 2014 - 18:13 CET

Algo se mueve en Kansas y no en la dirección deseada por los republicanos, quienes parecen avanzar en las elecciones legislativas del próximo martes con fuerte viento a favor en todo el país excepto en este Estado del medio oeste. De que Kansas vota al partido de Lincoln no cabe duda. Mitt Romney barrió aquí en 2012 por 20 puntos, en este bastión republicano que ha ganado todos y cada uno de los escaños del Senado desde la Administración de Franklin D. Roosevelt –que comenzó mandato allá por 1933.
Con este último dato en la mente y más votaciones de las que gusta recordar, Julia Ketzner, 74, asegura que, “con todo el dolor” de su corazón no votará en esta ocasión por Pat Roberts, 78, senador en busca de renovar su escaño por cuarta vez y con casi medio siglo de trabajo en Washington a sus espaldas. La señora Ketzner se define “republicana clásica”, a saber: “creo en la familia, en el trabajo duro y en que el Gobierno se mantenga fuera de mis asuntos”.
La calle –informada por los sondeos- daba por hecho que los republicanos tomarían en esta ocasión el control del Senado, que renueva un tercio de sus escaños como cada dos años. Eso fue hasta que el candidato demócrata, Chad Taylor, se retiró de la carrera en Kansas y se sumó a la pugna Greg Orman, un empresario que se define como independiente pero que para los republicanos puede ser la definición de la derrota. La ascensión en los sondeos de Orman ha sido fugaz: 7%; 14%; 20%; 37; 47%... A menos de una semana de los comicios, las encuestas le dan entre 1 y tres puntos arriba, excepto una que da una ventaja mínima al senador Roberts.Pero, ¿acaso no es eso lo que persigue también el senador Roberts? “No”, contesta enérgica mientras atiende clientes en un destartalado café a las afueras de Wichita. “Roberts ha ido demasiado lejos, demasiado a la derecha”, explica quien se define contraria al aborto, alérgica a los impuestos y cumplidora con el Señor, al ir cada domingo a la Iglesia para que su pastor la guíe. A la ultraderechización de Roberts, según la señora Ketzner, se suma el hecho de que ha pasado “demasiado tiempo” en el cargo –tanto que el senador ni siquiera posee residencia fija en Kansas y suele rentar una habitación en casa de un donante cuando viaja a su estado natal, lo que ha sido un tema –en su contra- en la campaña.
En una aparente busca constante de cambio, Orman votó en 2008 por Barack Obama y en 2012 por Mitt Romney. Hoy, este hombre de 45 años reclama algo que parecía imposible hasta hace un par de meses, que los votantes –mayoritariamente republicanos pero cansados del sistema- se olviden de los llamados ‘valores’ (aborto; inmigración; pero también incluidos en este capítulo armas y Obamacare) y opten por expulsar al ‘establishment’ de Washington. Pide hacer de Kansas un experimento político.
Si funciona, Orman hará historia. Bien lo sabe el senador Roberts, que en un acto de campaña este martes en un aeródromo a las afueras de Wichita lo hacía notar. “Miren esas cámaras”, decía señalando a los camarógrafos de televisión, apostados al final del hangar. “Los ojos del país y del mundo están puestos sobre nosotros porque podemos retomar el senado”, exclamaba bajo los aplausos. Por supuesto, el senador no dijo que esos mismos objetivos también le filmaban por lo contrario, por la posibilidad de que tras décadas sirviendo en el Congreso de EE UU sus ciudadanos dejen de querer sus servicios.
Saberlo lo sabía, o de otra manera su equipo de campaña no hubiera recurrido a la artillería de guerra y solicitado la ayuda de los pesos pesados –y posibles contendientes presidenciales en 2016- del partido. El lunes fue Mitt Romney en Kansas City –al que se unió el exsenador Bob Dole-; el martes en Wichita, Rand Paul, senador por Kentucky aupado por el Tea Party que busca ganarse la simpatía del Partido Republicano; la semana pasada el senador texano Ted Cruz… incluso la incombustible Sarah Palin, quien se resiste a abandonar el espectro mediático-político, ha acudido al rescate de Roberts.
No solo Roberts está en la cuerda floja en Kansas. Sam Brownback, 58, aspirante a la nominación para la Casa Blanca en 2008 y exsenador, lucha por su supervivencia tras haber fracasado lo que él calificó en 2010 al llegar a la mansión del Gobernador como “un experimento en tiempo real”. “Mi Administración probará de una vez por todas que el camino para ser próspero pasa por eliminar el Gobierno de la vida económica”.
Hasta ese momento, ningún otro Estado había ido tan lejos al reducir de forma drástica los impuestos para las rentas más altas; endurecer el proceso para obtener prestaciones sociales; eliminar de un plumazo hasta cuatro agencias estatales con la consecuente pérdida de empleos (hasta 2.000); y recortar en 200 millones de dólares el gasto en educación, la mayor reducción en la historia de Kansas. Todo ello aconsejado por el economista de la era de Ronald Reagan, Arthur Laffer, padrino de la escuela de la economía de la oferta y quién describió el proceso como “una revolución en un trigal”.
“Se cambia América cambiando primero los Estados”, declaró Brownback durante la campaña de 2012. Dos años más tarde, los resultados no invitan a la copia. El recorte de impuestos ha provocado una pérdida de ingresos públicos de casi 700 millones; Kansas podría ser deficitario hasta 2019 y tanto Moody´s como Standard & Poor´s han rebajado notablemente el crédito del Estado. Brownback podría no repetir mandato.
Tras tres décadas de votar por un republicano para que ocupe la mansión del Gobernador en Topeka, el matrimonio formado por Rosie y Wesley Denning romperá la tradición y se pasará a las filas demócratas al apoyar a Paul Davis, 42. “El Gobernador Brownback acabará por hundir el Estado”, asegura Wesley Denning mientras al caer la noche carga las bolsas de la compra realizada en Wal-Mart en su furgoneta. “Su ‘experimento’ nos dejará sin escuelas, sin trabajos y sin futuro”. “Los experimentos en el laboratorio”, musita a su lado la señora Denning.

Una utopía ultraconservadora fallida

No solo Roberts está en la cuerda floja en Kansas. Sam Brownback, de 58 años, aspirante a la nominación para la Casa Blanca en 2008 y exsenador, lucha por su supervivencia tras haber fracasado en lo que él calificó en 2010 al llegar a la mansión del Gobernador como “un experimento en tiempo real”. “Mi Administración probará de una vez por todas que el camino para ser próspero pasa por eliminar el Gobierno de la vida económica”.
Hasta ese momento, ningún otro Estado había ido tan lejos al reducir de forma drástica los impuestos para las rentas más altas; endurecer el proceso para obtener prestaciones sociales; eliminar de un plumazo cuatro agencias estatales con la consecuente pérdida de empleos (hasta 2.000); y recortar en 200 millones de dólares el gasto en educación, la mayor reducción en la historia de Kansas. Todo ello aconsejado por el economista de la era de Ronald Reagan, Arthur Laffer, padrino de la escuela de la economía de la oferta y quién describió el proceso como “una revolución en un trigal”.
“Se cambia América cambiando primero los Estados”, declaró Brownback durante la campaña de 2012. Dos años más tarde, los resultados no invitan a la copia. El recorte de impuestos ha provocado una pérdida de ingresos públicos de casi 700 millones; Kansas podría ser deficitario hasta 2019 y tanto Moody’s como Standard & Poor’s han rebajado notablemente el crédito del Estado. Brownback podría no repetir mandato.
Tras tres décadas de votar por un republicano para que ocupe la mansión del Gobernador en Topeka, el matrimonio formado por Rosie y Wesley Denning romperá la tradición y se pasará a las filas demócratas al apoyar a Paul Davis, de 42 años. “Brownback acabará por hundir el Estado”, asegura Wesley Denning. “Su ‘experimento’ nos dejará sin escuelas, sin trabajos y sin futuro”. “Los experimentos en el laboratorio”, musita a su lado la señora Denning.