NDP Surge: So What?

Jack Layton is our Prime Minister?

I love ideologues.

They just can't fathom that their point of view isn't accepted by others.

It leads people to do the stupidest of things - like learning to fly and hijacking airplanes into office buildings killing thousands of people.

Less drastically, we have seen a growing irrational fear of left-leaning ideologues about how the world will come to an end if Stephen Harper should attain a majority - and we, as conservatives, find it all very amusing, because we know very well that they're hyperbole and exaggeration is simply without any basis in reality.  Stephen Harper, oddly enough, holds no resemblance to Hitler or Stalin or whatever over-the-edge metaphor is brought to bear by NDP or Liberal supporters who wish to stoke fear in the hearts of the public to "save themselves" and vote for anyone but Harper.

Now, however, that the NDP party has shown a rise in the polls, we are starting to see the same sort of fear and hyperbole coming from the right. 

Problem is, as the Liberals have discovered, fear and anger sends a message of insecurity. 

The people want someone to lead them who is strong and unafraid.

Jack Layton, to this point, has most appeared strong and unafraid because the idea that he could ever be Prime Minister was beyond belief.  Easy to be bold when you have nothing to lose.  Now - however, as his polls rise, we see him backtracking on his estimates of revenue growth to cover spending promises..  he's now showing the fear of being "found out" for the charlatan that he really is.

Because there is no free lunch.

And no one knows that better than a small "c" conservative.

And no one is more able to respond to challenge and adversity than a small "c" conservative. 

So - it's more than a little embarrassing to see fellow conservatives starting to look like the fear-stricken Liberals and NDP when they were watching the country slowly creep forward to greater acceptance of the understanding that business works and socialism doesn't.

If the country as a whole seems to be leaning to believe in the Wizard of Oz delivering them courage, and intelligence and taking them home - so be it.  It won't last.  NDP governments come and, soon, go.  In many respects, the best thing that could happen to the Conservative movement is for Layton to actually win.  Or for some stupid coalition of the left to get created.. because then the proof will certainly be in the pudding.

Jet's will need to be replaced.  And it will cost a lot of money.

G8 conferences and such will recur - and dignitaries will have to be coddled and impressed and anarchists will have to be put down.

The bills will have to get paid..  and as the left-leaning policy hurts business - the reality that you can't tax yourself to prosperity will soon become apparent.

And meanwhile - conservatives will respond and get by - like we always do.

Because, in the long run, there is a certain reality to obsession with self-interest.



In 1943, in a speech before the National Conference Board in New York, U.S. businessman Henning Webb Prentis, Jr., had this to say:

Paradoxically enough, the release of initiative and enterprise made possible by popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.


At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas. New conditions, it is claimed, require new remedies. Under such circumstances, the competent citizen is certainly not a fool if he insists upon using the compass of history when forced to sail uncharted seas. Usually so-called new remedies are not new at all. Compulsory planned economy, for example, was tried by the Chinese some three milleniums ago, and by the Romans in the early centuries of the Christian era. It was applied in Germany, Italy and Russia long before the present war broke out. Yet it is being seriously advocated today as a solution of our economic problems in the United States. Its proponents confidently assert that government can successfully plan and control all major business activity in the nation, and still not interfere with our political freedom and our hard-won civil and religious liberties. The lessons of history all point in exactly the reverse direction.

Think about that.

The essential message is that there is no panacea to security beyond, at the end of the day, hard work and prudence.

New immigrants understand that.  Our grandparents understood that.  It's time for us to understand that.

Politicians come and go - so work hard, have faith in your ability and have no fear.  That's for the NDP and the Liberals.

Stephen Harper: Govern from the middle and the voters will come.

Harper Majority?  Dare to dream..

Let no one doubt one certainty as we proceed into an election next week..   Canada is populated by voters who sit very close to the middle of the political spectrum.

Not over on the left.

Not over on the right.

The middle.

People who advocate public health care.

People who want a fiscally responsible government who reaches out to help those who need it, but require the fit and able to secure their own welfare.

People who respect each other's differences, whether it's their gender, their race, or their religion - but people who don't see themselves as "victims" and who eschew efforts to have themselves identified as such.

We are a proud and secure society who don't feel the need to show how big our "weapons" are, who don't feel the need to stand on tables and shout out in restaurants or bars that we are the best damned country in the world.  We know it - and if others don't, well, so what?

Problem is, most political leaders in this election have no clue that this is the case - hence the never-ending procession of minority governments. 

Stephen Harper, if he had his wits about him, and if his strategists had any clue at all would be eating up the unhappy swing vote - but, sadly, he too has in the past overplayed his hand to the right - validating Liberal and NDP talking points suggesting the Conservatives are still a neo-conservative organization intent on moving Canada to the far right.  Too worried about appeasing his former Reform Party base, Harper has tried to be too cute by half throughout his tenure as Prime Minister - seeking to spend more money on jails, seeking to attack the long-form census, seeking to de-fund political parties, and then refusing to be honest and open about the sad Bev Oda shenanigans and the fact that they really don't know how much these stupid jets are going to cost at the end of the day.

But then neither, obviously, did the Liberals have any clue about how much the pointless gun registry was going to cost, or what the cost of cancelling helicopter purchases was going to be.

As it is, Harper is skating close to a majority this election, because, in reality - the Conservatives do govern from the middle.  By any barometer, big bad Stephen Harper would be welcomed into Barack Obama's cabinet - and most certainly would be seen as weak and too "liberal" by the Republican crowd.

He isn't going to tolerate renewing the debate on the legality of abortion.

He isn't going to privatize health care.

He isn't going to remove the Human Rights Commission.

Message to Stephen Harper:  Come out.  It's ok. We won't think less of you.  Admit you believe in the middle.  The voters will come.

Voters will come Steve.

They'll come to the Conservatives for reasons they can't even fathom.

They'll turn up at the polls not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at their ballot boxes as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you vote for us, you'll say. Just put your "X" by your Conservative candidate. 

They'll mark their ballot without even thinking about it: political rhetoric they've had, peace of mind they lack.

And they'll walk out to their cars; and sit listening to the radio on a perfect May afternoon.  They'll go home and turn on their TVs, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes.

And they'll watch the election results and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The sense of security will be so thick they'll have to brush it away from their faces.

Voters will come Steve. The one constant through all the years, Steve, has been the centre. Canada has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But the centre has marked the time. That place, in the middle: it's a part of our past, Steve.

It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... voters will come Steve. Voters will most definitely come.

Canucks Win!

No smart comments..

No "SFL Wisdoms"..

Just this..

Fraser Report Attacks Effort to Hide Costs: By Liberals

Just a quick reminder as the Liberals are desperately trying to cling to some belief that they will not be hammered by the voters on May 2..  as they raise issues of "respect for democracy" and "accountability", we should perhaps stroll back to 2006 and the report issued by Sheila Fraser respecting the Gun Registry.

In case you (like Michael Ignatieff) forgot - from CTV May 16, 2006:

The former Liberal government went to great lengths to hide the true costs of the controversial gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said in a scathing report released Tuesday.


Though the decade-long expense of the controversial registry through the end of fiscal 2005 has been tallied at $946 million -- coming in below an earlier approximation of $1 billion -- government officials concealed the actual amount, Fraser said in her first report since the minority Conservatives came to power earlier this year.

"It is more than simply a disagreement between accountants," Fraser told a news conference, in reference to the 2004 decision that hid nearly $22 million in overspending by the Canadian Firearms Centre that year alone.

"We believe that decision did not respect the government's own policies nor the Financial Administration Act. So this is a serious matter."

In addition to the 137-page main chapter, Fraser issued a separate 25-page special report on the registry to detail the way senior bureaucrats buried the cost of the gun registry.

The report finds that nobody kept written records of key meetings.

Fraser also noted that government officials refused to give up their client-solicitor privilege on conversations over the legality of the accounting decisions, denying the auditor general from access to key information.

"These officials also stated that legal advice should not determine the correct accounting treatment," says the report.

The main gun registry chapter outlines how errors in the Canada Firearms Centre's first registration computer system were repeated during the second generation registration system.

The first system, which was estimated to cost $94.5 million, had been pegged at nearly $190 million by 2005.

An "ill-considered" decision to develop a second system, says the auditor, is now years behind schedule and is costing about $90 million in costs against an initial approximation of $32 million.

The highlights:

"..great lengths to hide the true costs"

"..government officials concealed the actual amount"

"..that decision did not respect the government's own policies nor the Financial Administration Act. So this is a serious matter"

"..hid nearly $22 million in overspending by the Canadian Firearms Centre that year alone"

"..senior bureaucrats buried the cost of the gun registry"



"..nobody kept written records of key meetings"
 
"..denying the auditor general from access to key information"
 
"..first system, which was estimated to cost $94.5 million, had been pegged at nearly $190 million by 2005"
 
".."ill-considered" decision to develop a second system, says the auditor, is now years behind schedule and is costing about $90 million in costs against an initial approximation of $32 million"
 
That's it.
 
Now go about your business trying not to throw up in your mouth a little bit every time you hear a Liberal speak about "transparency" and "respect for democracy".
 
 

The largest budget item for Average Canadian? The Government.

As reported by the Fraser Institute today:

The average Canadian family spent more than 41 per cent of its annual income on taxes in 2010, more than it paid for food, clothing, and shelter combined, concludes a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think-tank.


“Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that government is now the largest expenditure facing a family,” said Niels Veldhuis, Fraser Institute senior economist and co-author of the Canadian Consumer Tax Index 2011.

Much like the Consumer Price Index calculated by Statistics Canada which tracks the average price that consumers pay for the goods and services they choose to purchase, the Canadian Consumer Tax Index tracks the price of goods and services that government buys on behalf of Canadians.

In 2010, a Canadian family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3 per cent of its income on taxes, while spending 34.0 per cent on the necessities of life: food, clothing, and shelter.


But it wasn’t always this way. In 1961, the average family spent 33.5 per cent of its income on taxes, while 56.5 per cent was required for food, clothing, and shelter.

Imagine that you had another 41% of your pay cheque every month.

Would you..

..pay to create safe heroin use areas?

..pay government bureaucrats to tell you you can't listen to Dire Straights on the radio?

..pay money to separatist politicians seeking to destroy the country you love?

..pay to have someone look after the children of the wealthy so that they can be even more wealthy?

..pay to create a gun registry that doesn't make anyone safer?

..pay to fund government commissions to hold biased and lawless "hearings" to force a comedian to pay $15,000.00 to a drunk heckler because he insulted her in response?

Neither would I.

SFL: Featured on Canada.com.. Again!

Little brother Brad and I on our

Grandfather's Oppulent "Estate"

Well.

Again, I'm flattered to be asked by Canada.com for another page of my thoughts on the election, printed here.

And, as one might expect in Canada as the Harper government flirts with numbers that might bring them a majority, the responses to the article from non-conservatives are, more and more, shrill and off-point, and less and less responsive to the issue I raised - namely, when the top 10% of tax filers in Canada are paying 52.6% of the tax, and where the bottom half are paying 4.4%.. is it about time that the Liberals and NDP shut up about the need to increase taxes so that they pay even more?

Some samplings from the 168 comments:

anonymous

8:47 AM on April 26, 2011

A completely inaccurate analogy because it values all the apples equally. The top 9 pickers are getting all the premium apples and received top prices from day 1

Think about that reasoning for a moment. In my analogy I suggest 10 people are picking 52 baskets of apples to only 4 baskets being picked by 50 people. And then the 50 are paid MORE for their work than the 10. That's a fact. A StatsCan fact. And as happens, when the facts get in the way of ideology, well, just ignore or change them.


Anonymous.  The top 10% of income earners almost by definition take less from the government than do the bottom half.  IE) their apples apples aren't premium and they don' t get more return on their investment in the government through taxes.  Just the opposite actually.

But my favorite, from another "Anonymous" poster:

anonymous

8:35 AM on April 26, 2011

This guy is a little too much like Harper, a little too removed from the common person trying to make a living on the scraps from Harper's table......

Yes. No cogent argument, just an attack on me as being one of those "out-of-touch rich guys".  You know me Mr. Anonymous don't you?

Let me tell you a little about how "removed" from common people I am.

My parents were the children of immigrants from Hungary, Scotland and Ireland who struggled to support 5 children in each family.  Neither of my parents could afford University and worked hard for very modest salaries as I grew up.  While we never went hungry, I remember many nights of creamed peas on toast for supper, I recall second-hand hockey equipment for Christmas - I recall my parents giving us all the love and guidance we needed, but never having the luxuries that other kids at school enjoyed like name-brand running shoes - my generic runners often making me the butt of jokes at school.  At public schools that is - my parents were, if you can believe it, even less affluent that the Ignatieff family who "had nothing" but sent Michael and his brother to private school.

My grandparents on my mother's side were hard-working Hungarian immigrants, running a small orchard farm in Osoyoos, B.C.  During our "holidays" to visit them I recall waking at 5:00am to help my grandfather move sprinkler and, when I was 12, picking cherries with the Portuguese family next door for spending money.

At 15 I started working, first at a garden centre, then as a busboy in a restaurant and, at the same time, cleaning tallow tanks for a slaughter house (climbing inside a railway tank car heated with steam to about 120 degrees F., and then sucking out the waist-high, solid fat of slaughtered cattle into a vacuum truck.)

I worked part-time at various jobs to pay my own way through University, lucking out when I got a job with Canada Safeway - earning $13.63 per hour for stocking shelves.  While attending UBC I recall eating nothing but Mr. Noodles and wieners for several weeks after getting a "deal" on a case of stale-dated wieners and buying cases of generic ramen noodles. The news wasn't all bad - I did manage to lose about 20 lbs while attending law school.  I graduated in the midst of the fall-out from the National Energy Program and was earning $1,650.00 per month as an articling student - raised to a whopping $1,800.00 when I became a lawyer.  After years of struggling through University I and a year of articling, working 16 hour days - I was earning less than I did at Canada Safeway.  A lawyer earning less than the 18 year old stock-boy down the street.

6 years later, I opened my own office - and after business was difficult and actually flirting with bankruptcy, I refused to give up on paying my obligations - I stripped down my life, bare-bones - taking my kids on tenting camping trips for holidays, eating more ramen noodles and generic KD, feeling embarrassed because here I was a lawyer, and I had no money to buy my kid a ball and bat for his birthday so he wouldn't be looked down up by other players on his all-star team.  I recall that weekend trying to take a firm cheque into a Cheque-cashing business, but because it was MY business, they wouldn't take the cheque.  I swallowed my pride and borrowed a hundred bucks from my parents.

Yeah..  I'm too far removed from the "common man".

And, now, at this point in my life, it is true I am blessed.  I want for nothing, I am able to pay my children's way through University, and, actually, have no complaint about the level of tax I pay (which is significant, by the way) - but, the complete lack of appreciation and arrogance that my income somehow came to me without effort or sacrifice - off a tree if you will - the suggestion that I am not "doing my share" is most insulting.  Not only do I pay a gob of income tax, but with my three partners, we have created some 20 full-time jobs for others who are paying tax as well.  Yeah, I think I'm doing my share.

So.

Anonymous, and other frantic, anti-conservative posters out there..  don't tell me and others like me are too "removed from the common person". 

Just say "thank-you" and go on your way.

Ignatief admits: "I live in a void." Liberal election hopes? Nevermind.

As the election draws to its closing days it is becoming more and more apparent that the Liberal effort has fallen very flat.

And as they see their numbers perhaps drop below the NDP, Michael Ignatieff's commentary becomes more and more strained and, well, self-defeating.  Today he is reported as stating that he wasn't aware of recent suggestions that he was seeking inspiration from Chairman Mao, defending his ignorance of the widespread news story, by saying that his campaign staff shields him from the goings on around him and that, to use his own words, "I live in a void."

As reported in The Chronical Herald today:

On the day after the English leaders debate, Sun newspapers across Canada ran a front page photo of Michael Ignatieff with the headline: What the Mao? Ignatieff Channels Chairman.


The Quebecor chain, the largest circulation newspaper group in the country, linked Ignatieff to murderous Chinese dictator Mao Zedong because during the debate the federal Liberal leader said "let some flowers bloom here," calling for greater openness in Canadian democracy.

The Sun suggested Ignatieff was quoting Mao, who famously called for Chinese officials to "let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend," before a brutal crackdown.


When he was informed of the Sun’s headline Saturday in a Halifax interview with The Chronicle Herald, Ignatieff laughed long and hard.

"I missed it," he said, and laughed again.

"They shield," Ignatieff said, referring humorously to his campaign staff, who decide what news he sees. "I live in a void."

And the dialogue doesn't get any better.

As he continues to try and take the moral high ground, talking about "respect for democracy" and such things, who does he drag out to exemplify the "high water mark" in Canada for total disdain for democracy and the poster-boy for the not-that-long-ago Liberal Adscam fiasco?  Jean Chretien.

I commented early in the campaign that it was a great mistake for the Liberals to show so little humility in failing to fully account for the widespread left of tax payer dollars by their party, and then have the audacity to complain about what they allege to be a lack of accountability and respect for democracy by the Conservatives.

Even Liberal stalwart CBC can no longer ignore the Liberal arrogance, reporting today that:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff appeared on Quebec TV Sunday, where he denied campaign appearances by former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin risks reminding voters of the sponsorship scandal that contributed to his party's fall from power five years ago.


Appearing on the popular Sunday program Tout le monde en parle, Ignatieff was asked whether the Chretien and Martin campaign events could backfire on the party.

The Liberal leader said the party has "paid for all the consequences of past behaviour," referring to the sponsorship scandal, and he said the two Liberal prime ministers will be remembered for restoring the country's finances and record spending in health care.

Yes.

We all recall the humble response of Jean Chretien, accepting full responsibility for the graft throughout his party under his leadership.

Don't we.

The dismal numbers for the Liberal party are, in fact, well deserved.

Michael Ignatieff seeks to be the next Prime Minister of Canada?

Nevermind.

Election 2011: The Hangover Continues..

Well.

Here we are, only 11 days away from election 2011, but with no real end in sight.

It appears all but certain that when we wake up the morning after the night before, we'll be suffering the same excruciating hangover we've been waking up with every morning since January 23, 2006, when the Harper minority government first came to power.

What does that look like?

It looks like continuing nausea of Gilles Duceppe.

It looks like the blinding headache (and forehead) of Jack Layton.

And it looks like the continued blurred vision of Michael Ignatieff.

Of course, hangovers don't just "happen".  The require a healthy dose of over-indulgence.  Too many Harper-pops.

What to do?

Well, here's a wild thought.  Cut down on the Harper-pops.

Have the maturity to realize that YOU HAVE A MINORITY GOVERNMENT.

What does that mean?  Well, it probably means not seeking to defund all of the other parties who hold 165 seats to your 143.  It means, perhaps, showing a little less hubris in Parliament - and when other parties ask questions, being man enough to give honest and open answers.

If you don't want to fund some group who seeks to undermine a strong ally, stand up and just say so.  Don't try and hide behind the lame and obvious bullshit argument that it was just a normal bureaucratic decision.

Will that happen the morning after the night before May 2, 2011?

I doubt it.

I would guess that Harper will form a minority government, again.  And that Michael Ignatieff will wait in the wings for the thinnest of excuses to "rescue" Canada, and seek to have the Governor General allow him to form a government with the support (but not the "coalition") of the NDP and Bloc.

Here's a novel idea.

How about a loose Conservative/Liberal coalition?

Sure, we aren't getting rid of the gun registry, and the Liberals will not get their national daycare program - but one imagines that the basic stuff, the stuff of telling Gilles Duceppe that he can go screw himself and telling Jack Layton that he can take his shiny head and stuff it..  that stuff can go forward with some purpose.

The Canadian ship can be steered forward with the NDP and the Bloc left to sit in steerage - where they belong.  And for a small "c" conservative - the idea of four years of a government that doesn't do anything more than they have already done.. I can live with that.

I'm sick of the hangover.

Michael Ignatieff: The Sean Avery of Canadian Politics

So.

I'm eating my mini-wheats this morning, and have the displeasure of turning the channel to CTV News and get to watch a 3 minute  Liberal "commercial" disguised as a "news item" - provided free of charge by our fawning mainstream media.

(Oh.  By the way.. loved watching Ezra last night on the maiden voyage of Sun TV - Channell 177 on Shaw Digital Cable.  The production values are a little rough, but it was interesting and new and far from the "Tea Party/Glen Beck" extremes that liberal hysterics were suggesting)

And as I was watching him complain about Stephen Harper - and say nothing about who HE is and what HE can promise Canada, it struck me.

Michael Ignatieff is politics' answer to Sean Avery.

Watching Sean Avery stand in front of Martin Brodeaur, making not even a semblance of effort to actually contribute to the play, is essentially what we see from Michael Ignatieff.

There he is, standing in front of Stephen Harper, waiving his arms around, trying to distract the voters, but really, taking no part in the game at all himself.

Literally.

Missing 70% of the votes in Parliament.

And when he is "in the game", he basically stands there and waives his arms around.  He's a side-show joke.

Look.

I'm not going to kid myself.

Stephen Harper's on-ice alter ego?  I would liken Harper, I suppose, to a Brendan Shannahan.

A plus-minus winner.  A guy who does nothing spectacular, but is an ironman who goes into the corners and just helps his team win. Over and over again.

Certainly, he is no Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux.  Let's not kid ourselves.  If he was - he would be cruising into a majority vote.  But he's a journeyman leader.  He puts in his time, he takes the hits, and he keeps coming back.

Who would you draft for your team leader?

Coming Soon: The National Ringette League

Brent Seabrook: The Face of the New 

National Ringette League

CP: Responding to a growing call from smug liberal Canadians who have never played the game of hockey - and from frightened sheep-like sportscommentators who are afraid of them - the NHL is announcing that, beginning next season, they will take steps to finally introduce a game which all Canadians can play safely and which can be viewed by even the most pantywaisted fan.

Commencing in the fall of 2011 will be introduce the National Ringette League, according to sources close to current NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman.

Among the rules, most obviously, will be the removal of hockey sticks and the traditional hard rubber hockey puck - in favor of the softer and slower ringette ring.

Along with the change in the equipment will be introduced a strict no-contact policy, where any body contact will result in an immediate expulsion from the league.

"It's our opinion," said Bettman, "that we are truly missing out on our ability to capitalize on the latte-drinking portion of the public, which finds most traditional sports to be gauche and, generally, in poor taste."

As part of the NRL effort to re-brand itself, the Hockey Hall of Fame will be removing from it's roster Scott Stevens, Mark Messier, Cam Neely - and basically, everyone admitted before 2007.

Some Tax FACTS this Election Season

You like Apples?

There is a whole lot of stupid going on this election.

From all parties.

The Conservatives are making hay about Michael Ignatieff perhaps being less than candid about his family's so-called "humble beginnings" in Canada that barely permitted Michael and his brother to attend private school at Lower Canada College.

The Liberals are attacking the Conservatives lack of "respect for democracy", pointing to the Conservative "contempt" of Parliament (though, in fairness, the finding was made by a partisan committee composed primarily of Bloc, NDP and Liberals).

Meanwhile, there is very little factual information being provided to Canadians to respond to the Liberals demands that we increase corporate taxes to cover increase spending initiatives or to respond to the Conservative demand that we maintain lower corporate taxes and cut spending even further.

Well.

Here are a few facts to think about - published by Patrice Martineau of the Tax Data Division of Statistics Canada:

• The one-tenth of taxfilers who were in the highest earnings bracket provided more than one-half of the revenue from federal income tax in 2002. And, their share of the tax pie has been increasing. In 1990, this 10% of taxfilers accounted for 46.0% of total federal income tax; by 2002, this group accounted for 52.6%.

Read that again.

The top 10% of income earners paid 52.6% of all income taxes collected - and their burden has increased since 1990.

And there is more:

• At the other end of the scale, the one-half of taxfilers with the lowest incomes saw their share of the tax pie decline during the same period. In 1990, this group accounted for 6.7% of total federal income tax paid; in 2002, this proportion had declined to 4.4%. In fact, this group paid less federal income tax in 2002 than in 1990, in spite of higher incomes.

Take another look at that, Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff - as you complain bitterly about how the wealthy are getting a free ride on the backs of the less fortunate.  The fact is, the StatsCan fact is, that the bottom half of taxfilers paid only 4.4% of total tax collected - a number which is dropping, in fact, despite higher incomes.

Perhaps take a moment to visualize the reality of this information;

You and 99 others are tasked with picking apples.   

Over the course of the day - you and 9 others pick over 52 baskets - 5.8 baskets each.

During the same time - the other 90 people pick 48 baskets between them.  That's a little over a half basket each. 

Of those - 50 of your fellow apple-pickers manage to pick up a total of only 4 baskets all day long.  Less than 1/10 of a basket each.

And then the foreman comes along and pays you all the same amount - in fact, the 50 people who picked up only 4 baskets between them get paid a little bit extra because, well, they "needed more".  To be sure some of them are elderly or handicapped - but a good portion of them are healthy, able adults.

Now.

Imagine that there is an election for "King of the Orchard".  And, in an effort to curry favor with the 50 who picked up only 4 baskets of apples, two potential Kings - we'll call them Jack and Michael, campaign on a platform that the top 9 apple pickers should have to increase the number of baskets they pick in a day, and that even MORE money should go to the 50 lowest basket pickers.

This is the reality of Canada's tax and social care system.

You like apples?  How 'bout them apples?

Court Challenges: THIS is what the Liberals want to waste Tax Dollars On

Michael Ignatieff practicing how he is going to throw YOUR tax dollars away...

Well.

A few weeks ago, a Toronto legal colleague sent a mass email to fellow collaborative lawyers seeking to encourage us to donate money to the LEAF intervention in "this important family law appeal", a copy of the LEAF letter as follows:

March 17, 2011


PLEASE SUPPORT LEAF INTERVENTION IN SCC FAMILY LAW APPEAL


Dear family law practitioner,

As you well know, family law, perhaps more than any other single area of law, has the potential to improve women’s equality or deepen women’s inequality.

Women have made significant gains in the area of family law since the mid-1980s. LEAF has been at the forefront of the development of family law to better reflect the needs and realities of women and has intervened in many of the pivotal Supreme Court of Canada family law cases.

We cannot afford to lose any of the gains made.

For this reason LEAF, in Coalition with the Disabled Women’s Network Canada (DAWN), is seeking to intervene in L.M.P. v. L.S., a Supreme Court of Canada appeal scheduled to be heard in April 2011.

If the lower Court decision is upheld, the case will represent a significant shift backwards and will:

• signal a return to the “clean break” model of support;
• introduce a new concept of material change of circumstances into Canadian law;
• potentially affect every existing Order, Consent to Judgment and negotiated separation agreement which provides for indefinite support;
• throw into question the principle established in Bracklow that ill and disabled spouses may be entitled to long term and even indefinite support;
• further deter women from seeking a variation in child support when the payor spouse’s income has increased for fear of losing their spousal support; and
• reinforce discriminatory stereotypes of persons, and in particular women, with invisible disabilities.

The case involves a disabled woman with very limited education and work experience who looked after the home and her children during her 14 year marriage. When the parties divorced, they negotiated a consent to judgment that provided, among other things, for child support and indefinite spousal support in recognition of the wife’s permanent disability. Nevertheless, four years later, when the wife sought to vary child support based on the husband’s significantly increased income, the husband successfully cross-applied to reduce and terminate spousal support (subject to any further review by the Court on application of the wife).

The husband obtained this order by arguing that the wife was in fact never really too disabled to work. He did not argue that there had been any material change in the wife’s health following divorce. In spite of the wife’s negotiated right to indefinite support and there being no evidence of material change, the Quebec Court of Appeal held that the “passage of time” combined with the wife’s failure to seek employment, constituted a material change in circumstances to justify judicial review of her ability to work and the effective termination of her support.

In addition, in reducing and ending support payments, the lower Courts did not consider the enormous barriers to remunerative and secure employment for women like the Appellant, who was disabled, had little to no education and work experience and had been out of the workforce for almost 20 years. The court also did not consider the severe consequences to the Appellant of the loss of LTD payments.

Support LEAF’s Intervention

LEAF is the only party seeking leave to intervene in this appeal. Moreover, LEAF is the only party that can present the serious detrimental implications of the case for women’s equality. Please support LEAF’s intervention in this important appeal.

LEAF’s intervener litigation is funded exclusively by private donations.

LEAF is generously supported by pro bono counsel and the hundreds of volunteer hours of expertise that are devoted to the development of our facta. However, we cannot intervene without your financial support to cover the cost of disbursements.

We need to raise $15,000 to cover the costs of the L.M.P. v. L.S. case subcommittee meetings, copying, filing fees, counsel travel costs, agency fees and other disbursements. A charitable gift of $500, $250 or $100 will ensure that LEAF is able to intervene in this important family law case. Please donate now at www.leaf.ca (click the green “Donate” button at the top right) and earmark your donation for this litigation. Tax receipts will be issued.

We are grateful for your support of LEAF’s continued advocacy for women’s substantive equality in family law. LEAF works closely with its branches and its affiliate, West Coast LEAF.

If you would like to read more, LEAF’s factum for leave to intervene and the lower court decisions can be found at http://leaf.ca/legal-issues-cases-and-law-reform/active-cases/ or feel free to contact me directly at j.birenbaum@leaf.ca or 416-595-7170 ext. 223.

Yours very truly,
Joanna Birenbaum
Director of Litigation

But, well, here is the thing.

I looked up the case of L.M.P. v. L.S and read it.

And, well...  the implication of just how hard done by the woman in this case is, in my opinion, completely misleading, and is just another example of how the decision to cancel the funding of the Court Challenges Program was the right thing to do.

To best summarize my thoughts, here is my reply to my colleague:

* (name withheld out of respect for my colleague);


With respect, I respectfully decline to contribute to the legal fees of LEAF seeking to intervene in this case.

The findings of fact of the Trial Judge, which I feel have to be given some weight – suggest that LP was not completely forthright and honest in her representations and that she had an ability to contribute to her own support but had chosen not to. Yet, the suggestion is that this case should be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada – on the pretence that a woman, and worse, a disabled woman has been the subject of unfair treatment in the judicial system. I see not one shred of evidence in the decision to suggest that the Court, in any way, treated LP unfairly or unreasonably – but I DO see some indications that LP has not fully explored her obligations under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to contribute to her own well-being.

Frankly, I do not see anything earth-shattering in impact of this decision and believe that the implication of LEAF that this somehow will “introduce a new concept of material change” into Canadian law is more than slightly inaccurate when one has regard to the case itself.  Bracklow in no manner suggested that every woman suffering any degree of disability will necessarily be entitled to support, forever, such that again, I believe the implication that this displaces the Bracklow principles is, again, less than an accurate reflection of the nature of the decision.

Family “LAW”, in fact, has become unworkable and a blight on society, in part, based upon the ever-shifting sands under the feet of litigants and their counsel – which, more than anything, has contributed to the need to find other better ways of resolving problems. To suggest that we need yet another decree from our Supreme Court of Canada to further muddy the waters to confuse and obfuscate the interests of litigants is, with all respect, a misplaced effort.

Robert G. Harvie
Huckvale Wilde Harvie MacLennan
Barristers and Solicitors

To summarize.

The woman in this case, after trial, was essentially found to be dishonest and lazy - and the Court, in my opinion, quite rightly told her the gravy train was coming to an end.

The suggestion by LEAF that the case stands for anything for than just that, is well, also misleading. My reading of the case says no more and no less than as is stated in Section 17 of the Divorce Act, namely, that:

An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

Were Michael Ignatieff in power, he would without reservation reinstitute the Court Challenges Program, to empower the lazy and dishonest to pursue pointless litigation, all on the government dime.

Isn't that nice?

But don't take my word for it.  Read the decision, and then decide for yourself if, in fact, it is of dire importance that people like the woman in this case deserve financial support from others to further their cause.

If you agree with LEAF - by all means send them the $100 they are asking for.

If you don't, perhaps send the $100 to the Conservative Party of Canada to assure that these clowns NEVER receive another dime of your tax dollars.

Leaders Debate: while the Children Play, Harper Gets the Job Done

Leaders Deabte: Their looks say it all.. "You are the man, Stephen"

Well.

Color me somewhat impressed.

Not one to pull punches based upon pure partisan preference (say that six times fast) I was, I believe, properly critical of the Conservative machine engaging in opposition-style complaining about trivialities while failing to stand up to show the leadership Canadians need. (Michael voted where?..  yeah, yeah, but what about your plan to run our country?)

Well, I watched the debate last night, and I saw something that I haven't really seen in a while.

I saw a leader in Stephen Harper.

To be certain, there were no "turning points" or "knock-out punches".  I would be hard-pressed to say that the debate was likely to shift the polls significantly - however, the debate did make a pretty loud statement, and amplified the talking point that will, perhaps, define this election.  That while the children are outside playing, dad goes to work, gets his job done, and puts bread on the table for the family.

Stephen Harper was truly the lone man among children.

Gilles Duceppe came across worse than I have ever seen him - sputtering inane babble about the need to welcome immigrants, but not so much in Quebec.

Jack Layton did his best to suggest that immigrants are not being well served, but was constantly put in his place by his elder, Stephen Harper, who softly but very directly chastised him, pointing out the reality that immigration rates have increased under the Harper government and that while we would love to welcome the whole world to our shores tomorrow, little Jackie, we just can't bring everyone to Canada in one day.

And then there was Michael Ignatieff.

I must say, I was rather shocked.  For someone who has, apparently, taught at Harvard and lived abroad working in journalism and broadcasting, I guess I expected something rather impressive.

He wasn't.

When asked to comment on the need for immigrants to integrate into our broader culture, he not only didn't answer the question, but then made an amateurish effort to color himself as "one of them", telling us a couple of times about how his family were immigrants.  (Yes Michael, we know, your family came to Canada with nothing, and while there was scant food on the table, somehow you and your brother were able to attend a snotty private school.)

When asked about what was his plan to get tough on crime, he complained about the U.S. effort at "get tough on crime legislation", but really didn't articulate any liberal plan at all.  He was asked how he was going to make the streets safer, and he tried to turn it into a Liberal commercial for the gun registry, babbling on about the *gasp* need to address violence against women.

Really, Michael?

Uh, I think we got that memo about a decade ago.

We've had the gun registry for some time - but, yet, somehow the RCMP officers at Mayerthorpe still died, and while Kimveer Gill held a proper gun license and registered HIS firearm, somehow he still managed to go to Dawson College and shoot 20 people.  Please explain that Mr. Ignatieff.

Ignatieff looked uncomfortable, inarticulate, and certainly, was completely unable to ruffle a single feather on Stephen Harper who, over and over again, looked steel-eyed into the cameras and stated over and over again his resolute plan to keep the ship on course.

The bottom line - Stephen Harper looked the part of a statesman, taking the immature barbs from Jack Layton (I don't know why you need more jails, the criminals are happy in the Senate.. hahaha.. ba-dump-bump) and explaining, over and over again, how Canadians need government to tend to the business of governing and that this partisan bickering wasn't helping anyone.  How unless Canadians take a chance on a Conservative majority, we are going to have two more years of opposition bickering about nothing.

It was, in it's own quiet, confident way - rather impressive.

While the partisans will, no doubt, do their best to explain how "their guy" won, the reality is that the only person who did not look afraid of the outcome of this election was one Stephen Harper.

Last night, for the first time in this election, showing us a man among boys.

Suddenly, CPC Twitter goes silent.. hmmmm..

Many have been saying that this is an election about "nothing".. the "Seinfeld Election" some have called it.

But I'm starting to see the election as pretty informative, problem is - what I'm learning is making it a little more difficult to decide if I even want to vote at all.

Why would I blaspheme so.. here in the political blogosphere?

Well, it's starting to look a little like there is not one single deserving party to support in this election.

To begin with, I'll level my sights at the party I have been supporting - the Conservatives.  They've done a pretty credible job keeping the Canadian ship afloat, slow and steady through some pretty treacherous waters these past few years - but then, doing nothing to get in the way of the slowly growing economy isn't all that difficult when you're a minority government.

But let's give them credit.

On the other hand.

Through the election to this point, what I have seen from our noble Conservative machine is a lot of ankle-biting about where Ignatieff voted or didn't vote, where his family originally came from - but not a whole lot of adult talk about what distinguishes the Liberals from the Conservative.

Worse - yesterday, there was a barrage of tweets from Conservatives who couldn't say enough about the Ignatieff foreign voting gaff, and then, when suddenly - the disclosures come out regarding the Fraser report on the G8 spending..  the silence from the twitter masters in the PC Party is deafening.

For example:

@kenneyjason

If Mr. Ignatieff says he never voted in a US election, why did he tell a reporter he would do so?

@Rob_Harvie

@kenneyjason Trust Iggy.. not. But, what say you respecting the Sheila Fraser report on G8 spending? Were we feathering our own nest?

The response?  **chirp chirp**

Likewise, twitter fiend, Tony Clement also was on the Ignatieff ankle-biting bandwagon:

@TonyclementCPC


RT @InklessPW Nobody should underestimate the queasiness many voters feel over Ignatieff's past vagueness about his national allegiance....



@Rob_Harvie


@TonyclementCPC some are feeling a little queasiness over the suggestions in the Fraser Report respecting spending. Comments?

Again - the response?  **chirp chirp**

Worse, when the dust settles a little bit, and someone comes forth from the PC Party to give a response, what do we get?  The party comes out and essentially does a cut and paste of comments made by Sheila Fraser respecting the Liberal response to 9/11 and pass it off as a comment respecting the Conservative management of the G8/G20 conference.

What do you make of all of this?

Are we truly that partisan that we are happy to look the other way in the face of what appears to be gross misuse of our tax dollars by a party that we expect to be fiscally conservative?  Are we really going to look the other way in the face of what appears to be either the worst sort of dishonesty - attributing comments to Sheila Fraser relating to something that happened years ago, and trying to pass them off as relating to the matters in issue today, or are we to believe that the Conservatives are not dishonest - but merely galactically stupid?  It's a dilemma, isn't it?  And only the most strident partisans are going to say, "No big deal"..

It truly is one stupid thing after the other.  From Bev Oda and her brutal soft-shoe over the changes to the funding for KAIROS, now to this "accidental" use of the Fraser quote and the continuing non-response to the allegations of spending millions of our tax dollars for what appears to be purely partisan purposes (can you say Adscam?) the goings on in the Conservative caucus are truly starting to stink.

I'll tell you what.  I'll withhold final judgment until the debate.  I will expect that there will be some indication of why we needed to spend the money that appears to have been thrown away in Tony Clement's riding.  But if I do not receive some reasonable explanation - I am very unlikely to vote Conservative come election day.

And I suspect I may not be alone.

Now - then - will I vote for Michael Ignatieff's party?

Not in your life.  The fact that the Fraser Report was leaked, no doubt, by Liberal insiders, smells just as bad as anything attributed to the Conservatives.   The ongoing promises of billions of dollars in new spending, with almost no thought being given as to where those funds are coming from - other than corporate tax increases, that have no chance of creating revenue anywhere close to what the Liberals suggest they will is just a recipe for economic slow-down, and continuation of the liberal vision of utopia where those who work will get to pay more for those who don't.

My vote may not be cast this election.

Not that it matters, perhaps, in Alberta.. but, unless the party I support starts actually displaying something approaching integrity and intelligence, I'm not going to park a vote with a party "just because".

Message to the Conservative Party - it's time to end this amateur night version of a campaign and to start showing some leadership.  Or not only will you not get that majority you pine for, you may find you wake up the day following the election to Prime Minister Ignatieff.

Ignatieff Support Chain Letter

Sorry.

I just have to share this email I got from my mother of all people.. 

Subject: Keep it going


 
As a rule, I don't pass along these "add your name" lists that appear in emails.
BUT this one is important. It's been circulating for 10 months & has
been sent to over 20 million people.

To show your support for Michael Ignatieff please go to the end of the list & add your name.


. 
. 
.
.
.
.
1. Mrs. Ignatieff
2.

Harper Not Supported by Mulroney and Hard-core Conservatives.. and the polls go up!

"I'm just not comfortable with this

new Conservative Party.."

Well.

The small minded and the disgraced don't support Stephen Harper.  Oddly enough, Liberal media stalwart, The Star, makes like this is a bad thing today.

Color me pleased.

Being a conservative has always been a bit of a dicey proposition.

Because the tent is pretty big.

Fiscal conservatives, libertarians and social conservatives all in the same house, and not necessarily seeing eye to eye.

And sometimes, when one or the other is unhappy, that spells difficulty - and sometimes it doesn't.

This week we see that Brian Mulroney is still trying to keep himself relevant by taking little shots at Stephen Harper, apparently still smarting that the party didn't get behind him when he was caught taking money from a greasy German businessman in a paper bag.

See Brian.. here's the thing.  Chretien got caught and his party got behind him - and that's one big reason that party is the mess it is today.  You just can't look the other way when a current or former leader is found to be engaging in what appears to be grossly unethical practice.  And if you get your feelings hurt because YOU got caught - well, tough luck. 

Beyond Mulroney, we've go the social conservatives all pissed off. Link Byfield is moaning because Harper won't help him end abortion and gay marriage.

Well, Link - go vote Liberal.

Here's my thought.

The natural tendency of healthy, independent adults is to be conservative.  In the sense of wanting to make their own way if possible, and to support others to do the same.

Things like delayed gratification and acknowledgement of personal responsibility are the core of what I see to be basic conservatism - and they are at the core of the formation of a healthy adult.

Hence - the natural tendency for healthy adults to be conservative.

But here's the thing.

There is a portion of the movement who is NOT healthy.  Who want to use conservatism as a euphemism for "stacking the deck".  For not being responsible for their own well-being, but for actually tilting the table in their own favor to effectively subvert the concept of personal responsibility.  People like Lehman Brothers in the U.S., and, in Canada.. well, people like Brian Mulroney.

In my mind, they are welcome to go elsewhere if they don't like it in the current incarnation of the Conservative party.

Then there is another group.  The flat-earthers.  The people who, if they had their way, would in fact make Canada the Christian answer to Saudi Arabia or Iran.  A Christian theocracy who has no room for people who don't share THEIR version of ethics and spirituality.

People who would have us exclude discussions of evolution in favor of teaching the Old Testament in our science classrooms. 

People who want to legislate Christian morality.  People like Link Byfield - also quoted in the star as being unhappy with Stephen Harper. As referenced in the Star article, "Harper has made it abundantly and compellingly clear that the social conservative agenda is not to be contemplated in his government and not to be advocated or advanced. And he will have come to this conclusion because he has seen it necessary to get centre voters. As long as he’s leader that will remain the case,” Byfield told journalist Charles Lewis.

So.

Then.

The so-called "neoconservative bogeyman" who was going to do away with abortion and equal rights for homosexuals, is, well, pissing of Link Byfield for doing just the opposite.

Again, I think the new conservatism, the natural conservatism which is evolving (*gasp*.. did I say "evolving"?) in the 21st century is not the conservatism of those who want to stack the deck in their own favor to gain unfair advantage over others, and is not the unthinking conservatism which seeks to ignore science and blur the lines between church and state. 

And while the cheaters and the small-minded may not like it - the rest of us are pretty comfortable in the evolving conservative house.

At least according to the bump in the Nanos polls today:

Mulroney and Byfield complain - and the Conservatives bump 1.7 points in the latest Nanos polls to 41.2%today, the Liberals dropping 1.2 points to 30.4%.

Thanks Brian.

Searching for Liberty a "Featured Commentator" on Canada.com

Well.

Color me flattered to be asked and included as a guest commentator on Canada.com, under their collection of writers suggesting what should be the "Real Agenda" in this election.

My comments were reflected in a post I made a couple days ago.

I was curious about what kind of comments would be left, some were relatively complimentary:

From Anonymous:

AMEN BROTHER.....!


Now that all the theatrics have been played out and busted by anyone with more than 3 brain cells, could we get on with a serious realistic platform. Not pie in the sky or a rehash of the red book.

Really I just want some stability with this recovery.

Thanks for the breath of fresh air

Others were less so:

From Capitalist:

Lawyers should be an election topic as they are a big problem for Canadians. Self serving and self governing vultures is as best as I can describe them.


As for Captain Quebec (Gilles Duceppe) and the rabid centralists opposition of Ontario and Quebec, they are ready to take down another government (again) should Harper win a minority.

What these centralist opposition members (MP's) need to do is enrol in the "liberal day care" program themselves.

They are beyond repair ...

Maybe Capitalist is sort of missing the point.

Rather than simply "circle" the partisan wagons, we need to start making our politicians work for their money and start asking some tougher questions.

If you're not doing that - you're part of the problem whoever you vote for.

More Cautions on Drinking the Kool-Aid

I hate zealots.  I often refer to them as Kool-Aid drinkers.

People who adopt positions and then close their minds to consider even the slim possibility that they just might be wrong.

And there are good reasons to despise them..  as they bring us things like Nazis, and Islamic Terrorists.

They hide behind concepts like "faith" as an excuse for ignorance.

The lead to things like the Holocaust  and the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

They lead to the tragedy in Guyana, when Jim Jones lead his followers to a mass murder/suicide of some 900 people, who drank Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.

But Jim Jones was a champion of the liberal movement in the United States prior to moving to Guyana.

While Jones' political affiliation initially commenced with the American Communist Party, as that became less and less politically relevant as a movement as a result of the actions of people like Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, Jones found his way to the Democratic Party.

He was eventually named as the director of the Human Rights Commission for the City of Indianapolis under Democratic Mayor Charles Boswell, fighting strongly against segregation. 

From there, his "faith" in the vision of a social utopia overtook his sanity.

He travelled to South America, scouting for locations of a socialist Eden on Earth.  And then moved to the closest thing to socialist Eden in North America - the State of California - and became very entrenched in the Democratic political movement, becoming Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission under Democratic Mayor George Moscone. 

Jones engaged in private meetings with Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Walter Mondale, and met several times with first lady, Rosalynd Carter.

He was given support by Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown who described him at a dinner in Jones' honor as a combination of "Martin Luther King Jr., Angela Davis and Albert Einstein..". 

Gay Rights advocate and Democratic politician Harvey Milk was also a supporter of Jim Jones, being effusive in his compliments for Jones and his "Peoples Temple", stating after a visit to his Church, "Rev Jim, It may take me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something dear today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours and energy placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave."

A blind belief and hope for a social utopia caused people to see, in Jones, what they wanted to see.

And in the end, this good liberal Democrat was found to have physically and sexually abused many of his Church members, and, as his final legacy, induced or caused the deaths of 900 people, most of which voluntarily drank the Kool-Aid served to them by social utopian Jim Jones.

Beware of just accepting what people, even well-intention people, tell you.  Do not accept it at face value - look into it for yourself.  Ask questions. 

Global warming and Climate change.. maybe, maybe not.

Rising crime requiring new prisons.. maybe, maybe not.

Increasing taxes an answer to revive a slowly recovering economy.. maybe, maybe not.

This election cycle, maybe park your preconceived notions and think about things, read up a little, and make an informed decision - not a decision based upon amorphous notions of faith or "Hope".

Economy Keeps Exceeding Expectations.. Time to Let the Liberals Screw it Up

Setting a "Liberal" course for Canada..?

Well.

Following up on my post a couple days ago referencing Canada exceeding the growth of other OECD countries, we see more evidence of an improving economy - much to Michael Ignatieff's chagrin.

As reported in today's Financial Post, after economists had predicted Canadian building permits increasing between 1% and 1.4% in February, when the numbers were crunched by Statistics Canada permits rose by 9.9% during the month to $5.8 billion in new building permits.

That equals private investment and new jobs for those keeping score at home.

Yet another reason why we really need to change captains on this ship which seems to be sailing true into increasingly calming financial seas...

I would like to see the Conservatives review their position on increased prison spaces - but otherwise, the course seems sound.

Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff wants to cancel our plan to buy new jets for our military, by doggedly refuses to offer up what, exactly, the alternative will be and what it will cost.

Can you say Sea King Helicopter fiasco?

Next thing you know, the contract will be cancelled, the military will not have the air support we need, and, at the end of the day, we'll spending more than they are complaining about now.

If they are going to complain, they had better be able to outline a logical and sensible alternative.

But that is NOT how Michael Ignatieff works.

Gaga Hot.. May, well, not.

Canada Leading OECD in Growth.. and don't forget to vote for Charlie Sheen!

Well.

I'm on my way to do battle with the big bad Alberta Government - going into a wrongful dismissal discovery.. so not much time to post.


I will offer this article for your consideration, however, respecting the current state of Canadian affairs under the Harper government, from today's Ottawa Citizen:

Canada to lead growth, says OECD


Canada is set to lead all Group of Seven countries in real GDP growth in the first half of 2011, said the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Tuesday in an interim economic outlook.

The OECD said it is now more confident that the global recovery is becoming entrenched, as data has exceeded its previous expectations from just a few months ago. Business investment and exports are driving this recovery, the Paris-based group added.

“The outlook for growth today looks significantly better than it looked a few months back,” said Pier Carlo Padoan, OECD chief economist.

In an analysis of G7 countries, Canada leads the pack – as it expects annualized first-quarter GDP growth of 5.2% and 3.8% in the April-to-June period, besting projections from its peers. In its last full economic forecast in November, the OECD had forecast that Canada would record annualized growth of 2.4% in the first quarter and 2.6% in the second.

Economists say Canada is on track for first-quarter growth in the 4%-plus range after a strong January report.

P.S. - dont' forget to vote for your favorite to add to the Leaders' Debate.

Who do you want: Elizabeth May or Charlie Sheen?

NOT WINNING!

Well.

Elizabeth May is sad.

I seems the powers that be won't invite her to the big people's table for the leaders debate.

So, like a proper progressive, rather than work to establish some modicum of support by the electorate and have, oh, maybe ONE elected representative in Parliament from her party, she's going to Court to ask her fellow progressives on the bench to let her sit with the adults.

And the Globe and Mail is behind her, apparently, publishing one of their polls suggesting "most Canadians want Elizabeth May at the leaders' debate."

Sure.

Why not?

The election is boring.  The majority of Canadians didn't want an election, and are, rightly, offended that the opposition ankle-biters have foisted one upon us for reasons that don't exactly resonate - the issue of "trust" and "respect for Parliament".

Problem is, of the three major leaders, the grand pooba leading who lead the charge leading to the non-confidence vote, Michael Igantieff, is the least trusted of all the leaders.. with a paltry 44.2 on the "Nanos Leadership Index" compared to 102.1 for Stephen Harper.

Thus, the election is hardly capturing the attention and interest of most Canadians.

So why not invite a clown to the debate to liven things up.  I mean, what can it hurt?  It's not like she has any legitimate chance at all of forming government.  Of course, by that barometer, we would, by definition have to exclude Gilles Duceppe (why don't we?)

But here's the thing.

Why limit our choices to Elizabeth May?  Nik Nanos, I would like to see a broader poll..  giving us a few choices of who to invite to what will otherwise be the least exciting thing on television (with the exception of CBC of course).

Why not, say.. Charlie Sheen?  After all, while Elizabeth May is surely losing, but according to Charlie, he's #Winning!

If the debate seems like it's too much of a sausage-fest, well, perhaps we should have a choice of another woman - Lady Gaga seems very popular these days - probably more saleable as Prime Minister than Elizabeth May.

As Nik Nanos is unlikely to give us these choices, as your self-anointed leader of liberty, yours truly, will give you that same choice - so take a second to answer my poll up on he right - and tell us, who would YOU like to see in the leaders' debate?  And then we can send those results to the Globe and ask them to publish who Canadians REALLY want in the leadership debate.

P.S.: FYI - to help you make your choice in our poll, the current Twitter Stats for our Candidates are as follows:

Charlie Sheen:   3,449,278 followers.
Lady Gaga:        9,226,298 followers.
Elizabeth May:   17,550 followers.

The "Real Agenda".. More Meat Less Kool-Aid

Alright.


So I’ve been asked to give my own $.02 worth regarding what I think are the “real issues” in the current Federal Election campaign, and what I would like to hear from the various party leaders.

To begin with, in the interests of full disclosure, I will probably vote Conservative, barring some unforeseen nightmare (like the Liberal Gun Registry which caused an immediate reversal of years of Liberal voting and a lifelong disdain of anything remotely linked to Alan Rock).

That being said, I think that, in general, no party has sought to reach beyond appeasing their base – “serving Kool-Aid to the Converted” if you will – to reach out with honest and open discussion of the pros and cons of their plans for Canadians.

Conservatives – what, exactly, do you base your theory that building more jails and legislating harsher criminal penalties will actually reduce crime? Do you, perchance, have a study or something other than the “hunches” of Stockwell Day suggesting that, in fact, there is merit in spending perhaps $5 billion per year on this effort? Yes, I know it appeases the base – but then so did the Gun Registry appease the Liberal base in Canada and we all know how you feel about that. So, in this time of “fiscal restraint”, please the background studies which I would expect you have considered which suggest this is money well spent in the interests of safer communities. The American experience with “truth in sentencing” and “minimum sentencing” suggests these measures have a negligible impact on crime rates – so I would hope we are spending this money on more than just making us “feel better”;

Liberals – upon what economic theory do you base your suggestion that reversing a tax cut to corporations will generate $6 billion in additional revenue to spend on your promises? The PBO suggests the more realistic number is $4.6 billion, barely covering your spending promises, and this is assuming a static level of ongoing income. Will you concede at least the possibility that with lower taxes, there will be greater incentive to create profit, and, hence, greater productivity – with increased taxes at least POSSIBLY having the opposite effect, and actually reducing the potential growth of business and business income in Canada?

NDP – while you suggest you are a champion of the working man – how do you exactly think that people who have been living without significant wage increases are now going to manage an added $100 per month off of their pay cheque for your increase in CPP deductions? And, when the employer’s cost is also increased by a like amount, do you believe that it is likely that what might have otherwise been that employee’s pay increase will now go to the government? In other words, would you concede that your plan, in the short run, will result in workers paying more to the state from less income?

Too often, politics in Canada is a game in which the real game-changers, the swing vote, are ignored in favor of pandering to the base. If you really want to create a party representing the whole of Canada, try speaking to all Canadians – including the ones who don’t presently support you.

Just a thought.

Four Billion Reasons the Liberals Polls are Dropping

New Liberal Party of Canada Logo

Well.

Again, the Liberals are dropping even farther in the polls as the election campaign continues.

Why?

Well, first of all, they are betraying their ignorance of reality.

They are suggesting that business is the evil bogeyman of the Canadian economy.  That corporate tax cuts which have been slowly implemented by the Conservatives, which, have in fact, contributed to a strengthening economy (which equals increased jobs) are wrong, and that everything will just be set right if we increase corporate taxes, and then increase spending by some $4.1 billion per year.

The problem is, like so many Liberal efforts in the past (see Gun Registry) it's all smoke and mirrors.

Firstly, with respect to the general suggestion that Corporations in Canada are getting some sort of "sweet deal",  as reported in the Windsor Star:

"...in fact, Canada's corporate taxes aren't as competitive as they need to be. According to the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation, the combined federal-provincial business tax is nearly four percentage points above the average among OECD member countries."

So.

Before Liberal Tax increases being announced, we are 4% points higher already than the OECD average.

Who cares?

Well, another little reality that escapes Michael Ignatieff is that corporate income is not static, and, in fact, responds to taxation levels.  Many, many corporations have the ability to shift income from one country to another - and increases in Canadian tax levels from levels beyond other OECD countries, may, in fact, not result in the savings Michael Ignatieff suggests.

In fact, as explained by Jack M. Mintz - economist and Palmer chair of public policy at the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, the net cost of the current tax reduction to corporations will not be the "Phantom Six Billion Dollars" suggested by Michael Ignatieff, but, in fact, will cost Canadians approximately $100 million dollars - which, in turn, will be offset by increased business investment, increased jobs, and an improved economy.  But even ignoring these collateral benefits, the net cost to government of the recent 3% corporate tax cut will be only $100 million.

Michael Ignatieff is planning, therefore, to do away with these tax cuts - which will, as indicated, save a net of some $100 million, and, he will immediately start spending $4.1 billion per year.

To draw a picture for Michael Ignatieff, the net result of his announced economic plan will look something like this:

See that huge red bar at the right side of the graph.  That's a $4 billion more in spending which would be added to our deficit annually based upon Liberal promises.

And, keep in mind, that nothing ever costs what government says it will (see Gun Registry).

So.

No great shock then that the Conservatives have risen again in the polls, now holding a commanding 42.3% of committed voters to the Liberals who have dropped again, now sitting at 28.4%, according to today's CTV/Nanos Poll.

Way to go Michael.

Move farther to the left..  as the world comes to grips with the reality that a strong social safety net DEPENDS upon a strongly functioning economy, the Liberal Party of Canada introduces itself as "NDP Lite".