More Jokers.. and more Money to Burn
Remember the Liberal Gun Registry and the furor it has raised (rightfully so) with conservative Canadians.
Remember the massive expense, some $3.4 billion for implementation and enforcement that created so much furor (rightfully so) with conservative Canadians.
Because, after all that money, it will not make us safer.
Well.
From today's Globe and Mail:
According to a report released by Mr. Page this morning, the Harper government’s Truth in Sentencing Act will cost federal and provincial governments an additional $8-billion by 2016.Read that again.
Eight Billion Dollars. As in DOUBLE what the hated gun registry will cost.
And it's not going to make us safer. See my earlier post on this point.
Last I checked, a major complaint of most conservative voters is that Liberal policy has typically been a misguided "tax and spend" policy, where money is thrown at pointless endeavors, simply to try and curry favor with various special interest groups.
And yet here we are.
In a massive deficit.
Spending money, like, well... Liberals.
Send a letter to your Conservative MP, point out your membership in the party, and say, "Enough, please, get back to "conservative" government.. reduce the deficit and take us down the road where, as we understood, "conservative" meant less government and less spending.
We won't have Michael (Shut up!) Ignatieff leading the Liberals forever my friends.
9 comments:
I want the pediphiles and child preditors in prison for as long as possible.
If you say so. More prisons mean more prisoners locked away. That will cost money.
I didn't read your other post and I'm not going to argue about crime with a lawyer. Turning simple ideas into complex moral/logical/financial calculation is what got us to this point in the first place. Nobody knows what is right or wrong or what the heck the government will do about it.
There are things government should spend money on, and things they shouldn't.
In the former category are things like:
Defence, policing, roads, infastructure and a judicial system.
In the latter category are things like:
Grants for studies of useless things, buying out terribly run companies, subsidizing industries, providing funds to help people sue the government. All the salaries of people who work for CHRC, and the RCMP firearms lab techs.
It is my opinion that keeping dangerous people away from the law abiding is an expense which falls into the former, rather than latter group.
Good post.
Who knew Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien got merged and re-elected in 2006.
Is this the same Mr. Page who forecast that we are locked in to structural deficits ?
I wouldn't put much stock in any reports coming from this guy. I certainly wouldn't play hardball with the CPC, threatening to withdraw my support, because of what this guy "forecasts".
Meanwhile, the Globe is quoting Vic Toews as saying the additional costs will be $2 billion over five years.
Is this the Toews from the same government which forecast that we would not have a recession and not go into deficit at all?
I wouldn't put much stock in any reports coming from this guy or any of this colleagues. They have been proven to have absolutely no clue about numbers or finances. I certainly wouldn't plan a provincial budget because of what this guy "forecasts" when the massive downloading of the CPC electoral politics plays out. The CPC has been shown to outright lie in order to push their electoral chances. They are not trustworthy whenever numbers come out of their mouths.
Meanwhile, this guy Kevin Page, who was personally selected by Harper, has been more accurate and independent and balanced in his forecasts and analysis than anyone in government or in the private sector.
The point isn't that we should seek to save money by being soft on crime.
The point, which Conservatives have made regarding the gun registry, is we should not waste money where it's not doing any good.
Minimum sentences sound great - but, anyone who has spent time in the system knows that they will not make us safer. Any more than registering guns makes us safer.
Taking away discretion = more trials = more criminals being found not guilty = more taxes and less results.
taking away discretion = some people going to jail who don't have to = minor criminals becoming hardened criminals = more taxes and less results.
In my mind, notwithstanding what liberals say, "conservative" does not equal unwilling to consider all of the facts to make the best decision possible.
The crime bill is poorly thought out and has no demonstrated ability to deliver anything to anyone but higher government expenditures.
The reality is that most crime statistics show that crimes have been reducing, and this is in part because the system we have works fine.
The same media that we decry for sensationalist criticism of Stephen Harper is also the same media that does it's best to suggest that our homes are a war zone.
As a society, we're pretty safe - and the notion that we are in desperate need of a harsher criminal justice system is so much media hype and partisan vote-buying.
I don't have the Report from Kevin Page. Kevin admits his report like many is not based on cooperation of getting numbers from th PMO.
I am wary of all levels of government for taking on spending that is unnecessary.
Is 2 for 1 reasonable to save money?
If you ask victims, probably not.
My understanding the minimum sentences are for only serious or violent offences.
Some provinces are on board and others have started to raise concerns.
In Ontario we have Caledonia, Tax free tobacco shops.
Apparently the political will to apply rule of law is a problem.
In BC and Quebec the problems are less severe.
I don't think young boys with shoplifting will be facing firing squads soon with the legislation.
The added costs, equally applied standards may prove ineffective but I am willing to swing the pendulum back.
Post a Comment