..well, not for the rubes, that is.
So...
Finally, instead of just complaining, Michel Ignatieff has announced a "plan".
Basically, he's going to intrude on constitutional authority of the Provinces, and create an added Federal welfare program to make sure lower income people get better food.
Seriously.
He and his Liberal friends want to spend $80 million in yet a new Government beaurocracy, creating a "Buy Local Fund" to tell Canadians that they should be eating peas and carrots instead of burgers and fries.
And then, they want to spend another $40 million to help give the peas and carrots to 250,000 "low income children".
Of course, we will need more beaurocrats to determine who is, and who isn't "low income" to assure the right kids are getting their peas and carrots.
And then we'll have to create appeal processes to assuree that there is due process given to those who are denied and want to challenge their denial of peas and carrots.
And we'll have to spend money on explaining and publicizing the process to Canadians - to assure that people know how to get their peas and carrots.
And after spending a big pile of money to assure indexed pension funds and benefits for all of the new government employees who will be doing this work.. well, what's left will go to the "children", apparently.
And for those of you who already know that peas and carrots are good for you, and are paying for your own peas and carrots - what's in this plan for you?
Simple.
You get to pay for it. (Of course Michael Ignatieff says it will be paid for by amorphous "corporate tax", which doesn't affect anyone but, well.. people running businesses, people employed by businesses, or people who use their own income to pay for stuff.. does that include YOU?)
Welcome to Canada - where "doing the right thing" makes you a rube.
At least according to Michael Ignatieff.
9 comments:
Any chance of these funds being abused, directed to homegrow operations or advertising firms?
http://www.nrps.com/community/marijuana.asp
Can we get this funded?
http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/homegrowing.htm
While Iggy's proposal needs work, what's wrong with the principal behind it?
What's wrong with cancelling corporate tax breaks? These corporations don't contribute to communities and they don't create jobs.
The only thing they do is continue to line the pockets of executives with their 6 or 7 figure salaries (what did they do to deserve that is beyond me), in addition to their gold plated pensions, private jets and of course bonuses of all kinds.
True affluence is not needing anything...................................................
CK.
Here's a thought.
"Corporations", for the most part, aren't Goldman Sachs and AIG. They are "Bill's Plumbing Ltd." and "Dave's Drywall".
The vast majority of corporations are small businesses, who are, in addition, the largest employers in Canada.
So - the shuck and jive that the Libs and NDP like to give us that "corporations" aren't paying their share is a little bit deceptive.
Beyond that - corporations make their decisions based upon cost/benefit for the most part. Which means that decisions to hire new people or to provide raises to employees are made in light of other costs.
Added costs to a corporation equals, almost by definition, less employment and fewer raises - combined with higher costs to the consumer.
Look at all the hubbub regarding HST.
"These corporations don't contribute to communities and they don't create jobs."
Really.
So - if we gut GMC, Chrysler and Ford tomorrow, no problems?
A few thousand autoworkers I'm sure don't need their jobs - they'll just go work for the government apparently.
And while we're at it, I'm sure that Petrocan and Shell Oil don't do any business that creates jobs.
Do I need to go on?
And as for the suggestion that avoiding tax breaks = "no cost", well, that's garbage too.
Let's assume for the moment that we don't believe tax breaks will help the economy.
Alright - then don't provide the break and put the money saved into general revenue to reduce the deficit.
But - no, the Liberals want to spend money on yet another project to increase employment of Federal employees.
But "it's for the children".
Really?
Ignatieff's talking about spending $40 million for 250,000 children - works out to $160 each, assuming NO administrative cost to dole out the "peas and carrots money".
Problem is, it is suggested that one in nine Canadian children, (more than a million), live below the poverty line according to the 2008 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada.
Hmm. Well then, $40 million, divided by more than a million, menas a new government program which will provide, at best, $40.00for each child in poverty.
You want to talk about "suits" pocketing money - how about government employees who will be making a healthy salary, basically giving out $40 to each child in poverty.
Yeah.
Great plan.
No holes there.
Of course - knowing how things work in government, $40 million will turn into $4 billion before you can blink.
No problem.
No one is paying it.
Just "corporations".
Oh.
The other nice thing about "corporations" is they can do business anywhere.
For example - Exxon, last year, one of the most profitable corporations in the U.S.A., paid ZERO tax in the U.S. - but paid $15billion in other countries.
So.
Imagine that.
We create a tax burden sufficient to encourage Canadian business to pay taxes somewhere else.
Yeah.. be careful what you wish for when you talk about making sure corporations "pay their share".
Rob, it's amazing that you spend all this time criticizing Iggy when he's not even in power...
Are you trying to change the channel from all the rot in the Harpercons?
BTW, that abortion issue was opened up today...
*Yawn*
Yes, we already know.
According to Iggy there is no point in providing food and medical care to pregnant women if you don't also offer an abortion.
As I've blogged before - the same reasoning can be applied to a host of other issues - for example, the Calgary Flames failure to reach playoffs.
The "Abortion Issue" hasn't been reopened in Canada at all... other than through Ignatieff's pathetic fear-mongering.
I love readding, and thanks for your artical.........................................
Iggy fear mongering?? R.G. I suggest you talk to Con MP Dean DelMastro, it is still his goal to change abortion laws.
I realize the speech is 3 years old, but can you honestly say that he and the other Socons have changed their spots??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWH14ljM1BM&feature=player_embedded
You can take THIS to the bank.
The day the Conservative party of Canada proposes to prevent abortion for Canadian women is the day I buy a Liberal Party of Canada membership.
There are those in the party whom are intollerant and who are small-minded, however, Stephen Harper has said, repeadely, that there is no place for a revision of Canadian abortion law in his agenda.
If that changes, my guess is the party will lose 30% of it's base - and me along with it.
So.
When he does something of that sort, come back and see if I'm a man of my word. Otherwise, I'll be waiting for Ignatieff to do something.. anything.. of substance other than to create fear from nothing.
Post a Comment