But I don’t get stabbing your fiscal stability in the neck.

If you do a quick search of The Politic (the search box is down at the bottom of the right hand column), you’ll see that I have a beef with the idea of a harmonized sales tax. I don’t like the fact that it conceals the source of each part of the tax (though this could be alleviated by having retailers display the taxes separately while keeping all the other wonderful aspects of the HST), but c’mon man, that’s no reason to throw a tantrum when Gordon Campbell dupes you (and I know about tantrums, though my three-year-old is more reasonable when I tell she can’t have a chocolate cookie).

Consumption taxes are good. They’re less distortionary than so many other taxes. They reduce transaction costs. And if you build in the right mechanisms, they’re a hella lot more fair. And, oh yeah, the B.C. HST did that. The reach of the sales tax was, arguably, further reaching than your beloved PST, but the rebates (read: money in your pocket) that would be issued would out-weigh the inconvenience of having to pay more at the cash.

But I get it. The Liberals went about the wrong way, and you just hate it when politicians lie to you. Of course, you don’t seem to mind when Bill Vander Zalm lies to you (though, if that’s the worst thing he’s ever done…), but at least he lets you get some self-righteous populous rage on. Not like those darned elites pretending like they know better than you… oh, wait.

And that’s the point, right? Fiscal sensibility, balanced budgets, economic security, a simplified and fair tax code… that’s all meaningless compared to sticking it to the man. Bra-vo.

So, do you realize how much you’re in the hole for? Did you really think about what will have to be done to switch back to your archaic, sentimental PST? Do you realize you owe the rest of us 1.6 freakin’ Billion dollars? It was mentioned on Twitter that 1.6 million people voted in this act of grandstanding referendum, so that’s $1000 per vote that you owe us.

And to the BC NDP and its supporters, what on earth have you done? Sure, the federal NDP recently ran a fiscally irresponsible campaign, but, damn, if thye didn’t build up the NDP brand like no one else. I think they actually made people forget what ruinous policies the NDP actually stands for. But you wouldn’t let that spoil your fun. The Liberals needed to suffer and you needed to prove your economic illiteracy. Are you, in fact, blind to the reality that you need to expand your tax base to fund all the goodies you want to buy? Do you not realize that the HST was, on balance, a fairer and more efficient way to achieve that?

And to BC voters, do you feel good? Are reveling in the pain Gordon Campbell is, no doubt, feeling as parades around London? Do you think that everything will just be fine, because you’ve slain the bogeyman that is the overbearing elites? Do you actually understand what you’ve done? No matter how good it feels to rebuke the public servants who think so little of you, you have just dealt a major blow to the province that, I assume, you love so dear.

So, yeah, that big ol’ middle finger you thrust in the face of the ruling Liberal party, you just shoved it in your own eye.

The recent nonsense coming from Stephanie Cadieux, B.C.’s Community, Sport and Cultural Development Minister, and parroted by Peter Leitch, chairman of B.C.’s Motion Picture Production Industry Association. sounds like the stupidest sales pitch I have heard in a long time to encourage the public to support taxation.

“Clearly we wouldn’t be competitive on certain productions and see less business [than we] otherwise would have. In terms of the exact amount, it would be difficult to know.”

–SNIP–

Remove B.C.’s HST advantage and Leitch said Ontario will “immediately market against us” and try to lure productions away from the province.

Oh, the irony! The drama of Monty Python seems a propos:

Life is a counterfeit and when you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s the joke, it’s true
You see, it’s all a show, keep them laughing as you go
Just remember the last laugh is on you

Legends including Anne Murray, Stompin’ Tom Connors, Andy Kim, Tom Cochrane, Lawrence Gowan, Carole Pope and members of Triumph have signed a joint letter in support of the private copying levy to Industry Minister Tony Clement and Heritage Minister James Moore, along with contemporary sensations Chad Kroeger of Nickelback, Metric and The Tragically Hip. Rising stars including Sophie Milman, Eva Avila, Serena Ryder, Sarah Harmer, Kathleen Edwards, Hawksley Workman, Jacob Hoggard and Royal Wood are also signatories of the letter.

This recent demand of charging a levy on MP3 players is absurd and unjust. Musicians do not deserve a levy. In fact, they should feel honored when somebody copies their music! The musicians owe their fame and fortune to the tax-payer as much as they owe it to their own artistry.

Tony Clement, iPhone owner and federal Industry Minister, is unmoved by a renewed call for a federal fee on smart phones and handhelds to compensate artists for file-swapping.

…

He considers the recommendation – made most recently by an artists’ group this week – a dinosaur of an idea.

Mr. Clement says it’s up to artists to find a new way to make money in the age of Internet distribution.

For eight years, Canada has levied a charge on the purchase of compact discs that is supposed to compensate artists for the private copying of music. But fewer and fewer people use CDs to share music. The levy – currently 29 cents per compact disc – collects only $15-million a year now.

I’ve been a touch harsh on Tony Clement this past year, but I’m with him now.  I’m all for protecting intellectual property – up to a point – but a cash grab based on the assumption of guilt is a bridge too far.  It’s bad enough that they’re leaching off our CD purchases;they shouldn’t be allowed a windfall on the backs of iPhones and Androids.

We already knew that the HST would lessen responsibility for politicians.  It’s a nebulous tax that belongs to no one in particular.  Thus, increases won’t be easily attributable to anyone one government or party.  The GST – as hated as it was when it was enacted – had one fabulous feature; you could always see how much it was.  The GST was born in 1991.  For 19 years, it was never increased.  Anyone see that streak continuing with the HST?

Now, we have another reason to hate this atrocious taxation policy.  The McGuinty government has decided to enact it before it has even become law:

In a move that will surprise many, Ontario consumers will get a taste of the province’s dreaded new harmonized sales tax (HST) beginning Saturday [May 1 - I said I was a little late with this], two full months before it is fully implemented.The early start applies to all products and services to be consumed after the 13 per cent tax’s official start on July 1. Airline tickets for fall travel, for example, will be subject to the new blended HST, as will gym memberships, theatre tickets and a range of other goods and services.

But of course, this couldn’t possibly be the government’s fault:

Provincial revenue minister John Wilkinson on Thursday defended his decision not to publicize the early transitional start. He said the rules have been posted on a government website since October. He blamed businesses for failing to inform the public about the changes.

“The decision of businesses as to whether or not they marketed that is up to them,” he told reporters. “But this information has been available broadly to the public since (October).”

Wow, now that’s chutzpah.  Beyond the fact that it’s not the job of private citizens to inform us of changes in tax policy, this just doesn’t pass the smell test.  Businesses have an incentive to get people to buy as far in advance as possible (they’d rather have your cash now than later), surely if they could have boosted their sales in April by highlighting the upcoming dishonest actions of the government they would have.

She wrote a piece in today’s Vancouver Sun defending the HST, now that recent reports indicate 20 ridings have already succeeded in collecting enough signatures to repeal the HST, and the rest of them are gaining hard.

I have never seen such a pile of ridiculousness in my life.

The arguments come down to, “It will make us more productive by simplifying technology.  And that will make us better than the Americans.  Did you know they are more productive than we are?  And they’re getting better.”

The article could have been entitled, “The HST will make us Better Than Americans”.  Of course, that premise would have been laughed out of the newsroom – but that’s what the piece says.

If your central premise is that streamlining the tax collection process will make BC more competitive, you’d better back it up with facts.  Last time I checked, I don’t see companies that produce tills and other money-processing equipment charging companies less simply because the system has to do one less percentage calculation.

But more obviously, I don’t believe a single State in the USA has an HST.  Mainly because there is no Federal Sales Tax in the USA – although many cities and counties charge special sales taxes on certain goods and services.  So, basically this article, which the Vancouver Sun’s website advertises as one of the most read articles today, negates itself.  It says that we need the HST to be more competitive because America is more competitive than us… but the USA doesn’t have an HST.  They are kicking our butts productively because they work harder.  It has nothing to do with harmonized taxes.

Canada (and BC) needs to get off the pot (and the Pot) and work harder.  Not whine to the government about taxes being too complicated… never mind my 9 year old can calculate them in his head.

The results from Finance Minister Graham Steele’s cross-province consultation on the province’s finances are in, and they indicate a sales tax increase is coming in next week’s budget.

Related: Government fiscal myopia (Tax! Tax! Tax!) cuts across party lines, it seems. The Quebec Liberals.

Update April 1: Éric Duhaime expounds on the tax and spend addiction of the Quebec Liberals. Increasing government spending by 3% “year after year after year.” Nice.

… the Fraser Institute, which champions free-market economic solutions, concluded government spending and infrastructure investment accounted for just 0.2 percentage points of the 1.1 per cent growth between the second and third quarters of 2009. [...]

“First of all, that’s completely wrong and quite frankly contradicted by very serious work that’s been done [elsewhere]” Harper told reporters. “Economic theory and history is clear, governments must … make sure [funds] are put to productive use in the economy to create jobs.”

And with that, Mr. Harper demonstrates he is a pro-Keynesian quasi-capitalist who really does not believe economic freedom alone can pull nations out of challenging economic times. Actions and now words have shown that when the pressure is on the CPC believes government must intervene by essentially reversing the generational taxpayer truck to the government trough and opening the valve.

The gig is up. A free market, small-government, fiscal conservative Mr. Harper is not.

Canadian Heritage has 45 days to complete the review launched Jan. 27, but it could be extended by another 30 days if needed.

Walid Hejazi, a professor of international business at the University of Toronto, said he believes the government is close to allowing Amazon in to Canada, a move that would be consistent with the government’s recent steps to open Canada to more foreign investment.

And doing so would provide better prices and more jobs to Canadians.

Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice-president of global public policy who has been meeting with government officials, says a Canadian distribution centre would provide a benefit to the country.

“We are pleased to be continuing to communicate with policy-makers about the benefits that we have brought to Canadian culture both within Canada and globally,” he said Wednesday.

With the Canadian government opening up the telecom and satellite industry to foreign ownership allowances, Amazon could potentially be leading the way (hopefully) for foreign corporations coming into Canada and being able to take advantage of the benefits of doing business in Canada.

But, in many ways, Canada has been a closed market to so many different competitors because of those very foreign ownership laws and how they slam up against our cultural preservation limitations.

However, if it happens, and more follow, those industry “giants” as some call them, will only add to jobs in Canada which leads to a larger tax base, both corporately and in individual spending.

And Jack Layton wants to prevent tax benefits for “big business”. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t think the current Budget will create new jobs for Canadians.

“We will vote against it, but in a way that does not provoke an election,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters, speaking in French. “I don’t see a path in this budget that gets Canadians back to work. This is the key thing.”

Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff, this is how this Budget could, and I stress could get Canadians back to work and raise our GDP to levels that can accomplish what the Budget proposes.

Instead of poo-pooing the Budget just because you hate the Conservatives, try finding ways to make it work, or make it work better.

Support the Government and encourage these initiatives that are bringing investors and jobs to Canada!

The Cowardly Lion (played by Mr. Michael Ignatieff) – ‘This budget is so very terrible that we simply can’t stand to support this government! In fact, we are so unhappy with it, we’ll rrrruff, and we’ll rrrrrufff! and we will vote against it with at least fully half of our caucus!’

Yep. So instead of getting fully behind his rhetoric and getting his entire caucus to vote against the budget, he opts for the cowardly route. Not that I’m looking for an election or anything, since that would just be stupid on anyone’s part. But still, it makes you wonder if Mr. Ignatieff has spine enough to bring consensus to his caucus and have everyone of them move in lockstep. Judging by his previous courageous stands, well, I’m not going to hold my breath…

The Scarecrow (played by Mr. Jack Layton) – ‘Well look, see, there’s a lot of things I like in this budget that addresses some of our larger concerns, but we don’t want to think about that. Look at the things he’s doing that I don’t like!’

Right! The ‘If I only had a brain!’ argument! Jack Layton couldn’t decide what he was going to do about the Budget. Was he going to support it? Was he going to vote against it? Was he going to try and negotiate? Was he going to do anything? Mr. Layton just couldn’t decide! So instead, he’s going to take it to his caucus and tap into the power of loony-left-groupthink and come up with something outrageous.

The Tin Man (played by Mr. Gilles Duceppe) - ‘You see, I don’t care about the rest of Canada. I only heart Quebec. This budget does not do the things for the Quebec Nation that we want, so since we don’t get special treatment above and beyond the rest, we vote no.’

Thanks Gilles! I think we knew that the man with no heart for Canada wouldn’t support a budget that doesn’t try to bribe Quebec with the rest of the nation’s money.  How very predictable, but then we expect that from Mr. Duceppe…wait, was that a redundant observation? We expect predictability…? Anyway, back to navel-gazing for you Mr. Duceppe.

So in the end, while we got the usual reactions from the usual suspects, I was at least momentarily amused by them. Carry on carrying on boys!

Now, I live in a rural riding, and I’ve seen the challenges people have in finding day care for their children. Now I’m sure it’s ridings exactly like mine that Mr. Ignatieff et al have their eyes on when they talk about this glorious idea of a Nationalized Daycare program. Here’s the problem though, as seen through the eyes of someone in a rural riding.

We are not Toronto. Not a big surprise and certainly no stretch of the imagination. We have a population of approximately 109,000 people according to Elections Canada. If you’ve followed that link and looked into this riding, the map shows that we’re a fairly long strip of rural land. About half the population lives in Chatham itself and the remainder is spread out into smaller communities.

Now where the population is widely spaced, it’s likely that the only National Daycare Centres that would be put in place here are in the communities of Chatham and Leamington, possibly Tilbury and possibly Ridgetown. That leaves everyone else within the riding having to drive their children 20-30 minutes away from home and then having to travel back in order to go to work. This will very likely cause a lot of grief on any parent who would have to drive an hour (round trip) to another city/town at the beginning and the end of their day just to put their child into this Nationalized Daycare program.

As I’m sure everyone knows, there will be an complaint about Undue Hardship. The typical Liberal response to that will be to offer a subsidy for local day care because of the “unreasonable” distance a parent needs to travel. Likely, the local day care will be charging more given the potential loss of children to the ND program and the fact that it’s government subsidized. This will of course drive up the costs of the program. And I think we also know that the bleeding heart Liberals will succumb to nearly every complaint and woe presented to them.

Then there’s the loss of jobs in the private sector. For a party screaming about the loss of jobs in Canada, to put in a program that will essential wipe out an entire private industry is appalling! The government will of course require certain specialized certification in order to justify the elimination of the private industry which will require current providers to either upgrade their knowledge, which means going back to school which means loss of income and an increase in student debt ($$$), which may further be subsidized by the government ($$$), or else the former daycare provider will just have to suck it up and find a new job (more likely) or go on Employment Insurance ($$$), provided they’re eligible…

All of these costs will end up spiraling out of control (see National Gun Registry) due to poor planning and unrealistic expectations in productivity. The usual answer of the Liberals is to simply throw money at it and hope that solves the problem while crowing about investing in childcare (see Health Care).

How will they pay for all of this? Easy. They’ll simply raise taxes, or pull a Dalton on us and create a Childcare Premium.

The Liberals have been talking about this for nearly 2 decades and still can’t provide anything close to some kind of detail as to how this program might function within budget. This tells me that they have no plan, and that they’re just going to ‘figure it out as we go’.

If this ever happens, I’ll weep for the nation.

The political culture is such that we are subjects of a massive state apparatus and comforted with infinite means to entertain ourselves, but why such little appreciation for the responsibilities that come with citizenship? with looking out for your own self-interest, especially in the community where you live? taking pride in your own capacity for self-governance?

Such prison policy is bearing fruit south of the border and it is rotten! … Reform is needed, and as the New York Times reports, it’s becoming a bipartisan issue.

I watched Gran Torino for the first time last night. Great movie!

There is a scene in Gran Torino where Clint Eastwood’s character, Walt, is asked why he didn’t call the police instead of confronting a gang outside his house. Walt’s response, “Well you know, I prayed for them to come but nobody answered. … when things happen quickly like that, you have to react.”

When faced with any individual or social “problem,” be it crime, the need for some agent of welfare, or even some public works project or another, we need to consider how civil society engenders a much larger definition than Big Government prefers to accommodate. Big Government is not the natural result of civil society, rather, Big Government is what Max Weber called an “iron cage,” and we require a responsible citizenry to moderate its role in civil society.

Consider what John von Heyking writes in his insightful review of “It’s the Regime, Stupid! A Report From the Cowboy West on Why Stephen Harper Matters:”

And so Canadians have come to view their sovereign as the agent of “gift giving,” … This decadent regime has been rendered possible by a decadent Christian culture that has forgotten the distinction between compassion, which benefits bureaucrats (because the purpose of compassion is to feel good about oneself), and caritas, for which the language of costs and benefits are irrelevant (because the purpose of caritas is love for another). Subjects of the modern regime need to balance their interest-calculation with some pride, which Cooper describes as a “something that you hold on to without qualification as to whether it is in your interest to do so – otherwise there would be no ‘you’ to have an interest.” …

In other words, too many take Big Government to be the default solution to whatever ails them. And yet, there is no virtue, no individual dignity to be gained, in not taking responsibility for your own life.

“I can say that it was a bit of a surprise to me,” Dexter told CBC News on Friday. “I’ve never had any problem sharing the credit for undertakings by the government with the various levels.”

Most people are smarter than that. Most people know any “credit” belongs to the tax-payer and, regardless of what level of government exacts the money, there is only one tax-payer. Since politicians do not pay taxes in any honest or intelligent sense, it does not surprize me to learn the stupid complaint from Darrell Dexter.

Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners — holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.

Tax withholding is a scam.  Despite any facile claims of needing a steady stream of income, tax withholding is designed to allow people to ignore the level of taxation and to make people pay more taxes than they rightfully owe.

First off, if the government can spread your tax burden over a long period of time, you’ll notice it less.  Further, by taking the money directly from your employer, you never actually see it.  The government has removed you from the transaction, and you don’t feel the complete tax burden that has been imposed upon you.  However, if they are only taking from you what you owe, there’s nothing too devious about that.

The insidious aspect of tax withholding is that it leads to people paying excessive taxes – taxes beyond what they are legally obligated to pay.

Come April, when we all file our taxes (assuming we do), we all, presumably, are hoping for a refund.  If, after taking an initial stab at completing the ridiculously complex tax forms, we owe money, most of us will look for more deductions or rebates.  If, after taking another pass at the tax forms, we now are owed a refund, most of us are happy.  If, after the initial attempt at our taxes, we are owed a refund, we’re happy.  Basically, we are, in effect, not worried about the amount of taxes we pay; we are worried about getting a refund.

Once we have that refund, we are far less likely to continue to look for more deductions.  We’re satisfied – we have our refund – so why bother?

And, thus, we come around to increased withholdings.  Implementing regulations that command excessive withholdings increases the number of people who will get refunds.  Consequently, it increases the number of people who won’t look for all the deductions they are owed.

But, the government has willfully deceived these people.  They may get bigger refunds, but their tax payment will have gone up even though their tax obligation did not.  It may not be theft, but it’s not that far off.

And, come on, that notion that the government needs the cash and can’t wait until April to get it is an utter lie.  They can just issue I.O.U.s.

(H/T: Veronique de Rugy.)

This isn’t the first time he appears to have told his caucus one thing and then had to reverse his position when word of it leaked out into the media. Not too long ago, Michael Ignatieff was going on a tear about the Unemployment Insurance crisis (yes yes, I know they want to call it Employment Insurance. That’s another discussion), then when the Government brings forward legislation to reform the UI system, they’re not interested in looking at it. Not a backpedal you say? Well, they were willing to call an election over it before the summer break, and have since totally backed away from it.

Michael Ignatieff is an self-admitted “Tax and Spend Liberal”, and backed it up during a speech April 14th, 2009 to the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce:

“We will have to raise taxes,” but not at the expense of hurting the recovery from this recession. He added that “an honest politician” cannot exclude a tax hike as an option.

And then today he goes on to say this today:

“I’ve been clear,” he said. “Tax increases are not part of my plan.”

No Mr. Ignatieff, you have not. You have in fact stated the exact opposite.

So which is it Mr. Ignatieff? Are you a dishonest politician now, or will you be raising taxes?

Stephen Gordon at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative disagrees and writes in favour of a harmonised tax:

The Charest government is floating the idea of increasing the QST – which has been harmonised with the GST since the very beginning – by another percentage point (in addition to the one-point increase announced in last spring’s budget) as a way of dealing with the post-recession deficit. This is clearly the right thing to do, and the Quebec Liberal government is to be congratulated for putting the proposal on the table. But what, you may ask, is the reaction of the PQ opposition?

PQ leader Pauline Marois said the government should hold off until the economy has stabilized.

This is the proper concern to raise, as befits the duty of an opposition party. The idea is a good one, but it’s important to get the timing right.

On the specific issue of an HST, I can’t agree with Mr. Gordon.  A harmonised tax hides the tax initiative of each level of government, making it more difficult for citizens to hold their politicians accountable.  One of the great things about the GST (as opposed to the hidden taxes that it replaced) is that it is an in-your-face tax.  If any government decided to tinker with it, we’d know; there could be no hidden shenanigans.  But this is a little beside the point.

Currently, we have a ludicrous, inefficient tax regime that is, seemingly, built to confuse, confound and just flat out con taxpayers.  The tax code is incomprehensibly complex, wasting time and money as taxpayers attempt to comply with a myriad of regulations.  Further, the practice of excessive withholding leads to people overpaying, unfairly stuffing government coffers with money that rightly belongs to individuals.

Shifting away from our tiered, exemption-ridden tax system towards a flat (or flatter) and simplified system would be a boon to our economy.  However, abandoning income-based taxation and moving towards consumption-based taxation would be even more beneficial.  Consumption-based taxation leads to fewer market distortions, encourages investment and simplifies tax remittance procedures, essentially freeing private individuals of all transaction costs related to paying taxes.  Since we already have the GST, the added transaction costs associated with tax payments for businesses would be negligible (especially compared to the savings accrued from a simplified tax code).

It has been suggested that a consumption tax of 30% could replace the income tax system.  This would be a big shock for consumers, but, thankfully, they’d have more money in their bank accounts to pay these taxes.  Even if this lead to fewer consumer purchases, money would (assuming we don’t just stuff all our extra cash under our mattresses) be funneled into savings and investment, spurring economic growth, and possibly curbing rampant consumer debt.

Even if we found this tax system to be too regressive, we could address that with basic transfers to those with lower incomes.  The administration would be simpler than our current tax regime (as we already transfer wealth, and give GST rebates to those who qualify), thus the economic drag would be decreased.

No one wants to see a 30% tax added to every consumer purchase, but such a scenario would make people all the more aware of the level of taxation to which they are subjected.  With accurate information, citizens could make more informed and rational decisions about tax policy than they do today.  Even if people were to become numb to the 30% tax, the fact that it would be better for us by facilitating the expansion of wealth should be reason enough.

So.. who’s with me?  Let’s raise the GST!

The class consists mostly of small business owners, many of whom rely on income from government contracts to keep afloat. They say California has used them as “suckers” as it looks for a way to bankroll its operations while avoiding its own financial obligations.
“Instead of seeking funds through proper channels, the State has created a nightmare,” the class says. “Many of these businesses will not survive if they are required to wait until October 2009 to have these forced IOUs redeemed by the State.”

All I have to say to these small business owners is this: If you play with fire, you are going to get burned.

There is some good that will come out of this:
1) it happened soon after the IOUs were issued and thus,
2) less and less people will trust the government.
3) No other State will succeed at trying to extort the public by printing new colored paper.

Hat Tip to cMom.

But I stick to my point: a great deal of what we value most is provided by the state. That is why we care about it. That is why we voluntarily pay for it through tax – and vote to do so. That price is at least as well set as one distorted by the impact of advertising.

Uh…. OK. That is the substance of his argument. According to him, the state provides value because it provides value. The end.

He simply refuses to accept the possibility that the services provided by the state can also be provided by others. Also, he fails to be able to demonstrate that the state provides the most value in the provision of its services. He just says it does.

Oh, well. None of that surprises me from a crony who makes a living thriving on taxation. Without the state, he would actually have to work for a living.

Fast forward to 2009, Toronto, Ontario.

Toronto Mayor David Miller has through his own actions created a crisis whereby he has established a precedent for his own dealings with Organized Labour and has suddenly either seen the light, or experienced some sort of epiphany where he has realized that these sorts of “rollovers” can no longer go on. Did someone manage to prove to him that money doesn’t grow on trees? (Given that Canadian money is very colorful, his world must be in perpetual autumn.)

So now, during this disgusting crisis taking place arguably at the worst possible time for an already struggling city, Mayor David Miller is sending out the Toronto equivalent to the KGB with orders to track down and identify citizens who dispose of their trash in ways that the city doesn’t approve of (and admittedly any city wouldn’t). As if this wasn’t enough, he is encouraging citizens to snitch on their neighbors by reporting their activities to the proper “authorities”. Doesn’t that sound like the youth programs the Nazi’s established where children were brainwashed into betraying their parents and neighbors to the Gestapo? Now I’m not saying that this is what’s being emulated here, but it certainly sounds eerily similar in flavor.

Anyway, illegal dumping seems to be taking place because striking city workers have been causing some problems at approved dumping sites causing excessivly long waits (which presumably contribute to more traffic snarls in a city already famous for congestion). Now, I don’t condone illegal dumping, but what options are left to the tax-paying citizens who are not being provided with the services they have (and continue to be) paid for?

Mayor David Miller is asking people to store their garbage in their garages. Having lived in downtown Toronto for a time, I can tell you there’s not many personal garages around there. Striking city workers are asking people to submit to their ill-conceived (albeit legal) strike and all the harassment that goes with it.

Can you imagine though, if Torontonians chose the path of the Boston colonists? Imagine, if you will, if residents chose instead to destroy their own garbage instead of returning the already taxed trash to the city? I doubt Torontonians would tolerate dumping all their garbage into Toronto’s harbour, but there are other ways of disposing/destroying of trash that do not include illegal dumping.

We could very well see the Lazy Hazy Crazy Days of Summer in Toronto. More “Hazy” than usual maybe.

Just a thought…

The recollection of this reality came about this week as I read about some of the ongoing whining that the “science community” (aka the Canadian university academy) has been doing since the 2009 budget was introduced in January — particularly a bold but well-needed rebuke of the “beggars in lab coats” as Bliss’ original column calls our academy friends in Thursday’s edition of the National Post. I couldn’t help, as I read the article, in recalling the culture of entitlement and the stern desire by the above-mentioned faculty to vigorously defend the status quo, no matter how inappropriate it was.

Look, for any of us who have been to university recently and were paying attention, it’s nothing new that science faculty have a sense of entitlement that rivals even the collective workforce of France. One observation among the many my friends and I made back in the day is that the university culture that has come about over the past 1000 years is a loadstone that needs to be removed from our society’s neck; university-level education is important, but we don’t need academically-overqualified, but practicality-underqualified talking heads teaching much of what is taught in an undergraduate science program. The time has long since past since the romantic notion that professors can convey their wisdom unto the open vessels of their students, giving them a deep and well-rounded perspective on the ways of the world. The realities of the 20th century insured that we now use concrete measuring tools (we call them “exams”) to test the specific curriculum that departments now insist are taught whenever they approve a new course. A university education isn’t what it was back in 1156!

More to the point, if we don’t need the PhDs around except to personally mentor the few who go onto get Masters degrees or their own doctorates, shouldn’t these folks be finding their own funding and facilities like the rest of us? It’s nice to say that not all science is going to lead to a marketable advancement of our lives, and I don’t disagree with that, but if you decide to pursue years in the theoretical field of exobiology why, as Prof. Bliss argues, should a society that is struggling to keep its workforce employed be bankrolling your hobby? These are valid pursuits, don’t get me wrong, but the question comes down to where the funding should come from. Good science isn’t cheap but it is innovative — isn’t it counter-intuitive to force the minds who drive the field into a position of perpetual financial entitlement?

“The clock is running. Without labour concessions, Chrysler Canada’s manufacturing operations will not survive long-term,”

“Let me be clear, our negotiations are about saving Chrysler Canada.  We are coming down to the wire in the fight for our company’s survival – and we need your support.”

It’s unusual for companies to bypass organized labour leadership and appeal directly to the workforce. It flies in the face of precedent when negotiating deals or settlements. Only in times of dire need or when the situation is so grim and no progress is being made with the Union Leadership have I ever seen a direct appeal to the workers to take control of their own futures.

Make no mistake. Chrysler values it’s operations in Canada. I seriously doubt that was honestly ever in question. Seeing that Ken Lewenza and his ilk are not acting in the best interests of the company or those they are supposed to represent, they are taking their case “to the people” as it were.

I’m certain we’ll hear something angry and red-faced from Ken Lewenza very shortly.

I certainly appreciate the 11th Hour plea to the workers, but I suspect that it may just be a case of ‘too little, too late’.  The workers will need to organize on their own, communicate with one another and likely fight their own union in order to accomplish anything. And that takes time. More time than they have I think, but I suppose we’ll see what happens.

However, should Chrysler fail and withdraw it’s Canadian operation in order to make a deal with Fiat to survive (and that too is a very real possibility) CAW members might really want to make an excruciatingly detailed examination of the actions and performance of their so-called Leadership, because it will have been a spectacular failure on their part to act in the best interests of it’s membership.

—————————-Update April 18th, 2009—————————-

BTW, for the record, I’m predicting that the CAW will refuse to meet the demands of the Government, Chrysler and Fiat. They may give a little more, but not enough. In order to salvage a deal with Fiat (who’s sub-compact car technology Chrysler needs to survive), Chrysler will announce that it is pulling out of Canada directly as a result of the failures of the CAW to behave as a fully participating member in a solution so that a merger with Fiat can proceed and save the jobs of the UAW workers who will ultimately make the needed concessions.

The CAW leadership have their heads shoved so far up their butts that they’ve asphixiated themselves. The leadership seems more intent on firing up their own vitriol within such a small and tight circle that one might almost call it incestuous. They have built themselves up into such a frenzy that they are totally oblivious to the realities of the situation they’re facing and instead focus on this mythical land of “milk and honey” where the rest of the world has no impact on what they can or can not get away with. This world tells them that so long as they stick to their guns, and hold out come hell or high water, they’ll be blessed with blessing and bounty.

They do not see the tide of public opinion rising against them with growing and massive swells every time Ken Lewenza mouths the platitudes about “…wages only being 7%…” or “…could work for a year free and it wouldn’t change…” or “…Canadian Competitive Advantage…”.

They do not hear the frank warnings from Ottawa, Washington, and more recently Fiat, that the $19 – $20 figure is non-negotiable. They do not recognise that the figure isn’t a suggestion, it’s a condition for assistance and a deal-breaker.

The leadership refuses to listen to the wishes of their current membership and bring their actual position to the table. The position that these workers would rather have a job making less, than have no job at all and lose everything. The leadership refuses to discuss that with the media, with the governments or the companies involved.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil……Have No Job.

That, my friends, is the new reality.

Ken Lewenza and his posse don’t seem to get it. They don’t get that they are not really competing against the costs of doing business. They’re competing against wages. And that competition is global.

There are literally hundreds of millions of people around the world who would be willing and thankful to do the jobs that the CAW is representing. Not only would they be thankful, they’d be willing to do it for a fraction of the cost that GM and Chrysler are currently paying their employees. Plus, they would be happy to do it without lifetime benefits. On top of all of that, they would be unlikely to organize…

So the reality here is this: The CAW/UAW have by-and-large negotiated themselves into more of a burden than a benefit, and the behavior the likes you might find comparable to a spoiled, selfish and greedy 4 year old child who stands in the middle of the grocery store isle carrying-on about their desires and how they want what they want and you had better give it to them or else….well….you either bend or you break, and it looks to me like the CAW would rather break than behave as a grown-up might and do what needs to be done to save the house.

There has been a LOT of criticism againt the current Conservative Government for their spending of late. And while as a Fiscal Conservative it makes the bile rise in my throat, my brain has me fighting to keep it down with a few considerations.

I want to throw it out there that there has been a LOT of Corrective spending happening.

Now, when I say corrective, I’m referring to PMSH having to spend in order to correct what we as Conservatives view as errors made by the previous Liberal government.  Errors such as the near-mothballing of our Military Forces. General Hillier referred to it as the Decade of Darkness, and Conservatives by and large agree. Conservatives, as I recall, were thrilled by such an endearment and viewed the rebuilding of our Military as a positive thing for our country.

But that doesn’t come free. Our troops needed updating, retraining, re-arming, and re-supplying. IF we were to be able to carry our own weight in international missions, we were going to need the wherewithal to do just that. Once there, they needed protection and security and the tools to do what was asked of them. Enter Corrective Spending. The large purchases made here (helicopters, Globemasters, tanks)  are not ongoing spending. Once purchased, they will need maintaining of course, but the big-ticket purchase will have already passed.

Moving on. We ARE participating in an international, UN sanctioned War. It’s not something that is frequently referred to, but we ARE a Nation at WAR. Again, that doesn’t come free. But also, it’s not going to go on forever.

This Conservative Government chose to make amends for the wrongs commited by previous governments. Things such as the Chinese Head Tax. The Residential Schools issue etc. Those apologies also came with renumeration. This has cost the Federal Government millions of dollars. But this too is Corrective Spending or One-off spending. Once resolved and restitution paid, it’s over.

This Conservative Government has also chosen first to acknowledge that there is a Fiscal Imbalance, and second, to try and tackle it. Something that no previous government has even considered. This has resulted in increased transfers to the provinces and the shouldering of additional responsibilities on the federal side. This likely will be a task that continues, but with co-operation from the provinces, a balance is likely to be found. (This is assuming that the Premiers can get past whining in order to try and squeeze as much as they can out of the Feds…)

I believe that if you were to remove examples such as these (and there are others), you’ll find that the Conservative Government under PMSH is spending at least the same, if not less, than other more so-called thrifty governments.

I also believe that once we are out of this recession which was beyond the control of anyone in Canada (Conservative, Liberal, NDP or BLOC), and once we are past the Corrective Spending and War Time spending, we will see the fruits of the changes being made by this current government. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that while the Conservatives take the heat and make the hard decisions, the public becomes unwilling to wait and elects a Liberal government who then reap the crop of Conservative seeding, unjustifiably propagating the myth that “Conservative times are hard times” when in fact, Conservatives shoulder the responsibility for laying the groundwork for the Good Times.

Tax policy is so much a fickle area of government, that even a tax on foreign goods coming into the country (a tariff) works against that nation’s productivity and wealth creation abilities; the last twenty years under free trade has so clearly demonstrated this that even old CAW boss Buzz Hardgrove acknowledged this a couple of years back. So again, the question comes down to this for Michael Ignatieff: how are you going to get the goose to lay your coveted golden eggs without poaching the bird?

This follows on the heels of the McGuinty government announcing deficit spending in the Ontario Budget:

The McGuinty government is allocating $32.5 billion for infrastructure projects over the next two years, supporting an estimated 146,000 jobs in 2009-10 and 168,000 jobs in 2010-11.

So that means $16.25B in 2009-10, and then a further $16.25B in 2010-11. $9B of which is being poured into that little red spot on the above map. I know, it’s hard to see against the vast bulk of the rest of the province.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ve lived in Toronto, and I know what traffic is like. More mass transit may help alleviate some of that congestion, and the current system is a little chaotic. I grew up in the far north of this province. I currently live in the automotive “heart” of this province. Is it worth taking advantage of the current times and the opening of the Federal Wallet to jump on this complaint, and disproportionately invest in Toronto given the situations elsewhere?

Dalton McGuinty and the successive Mayors in Toronto have whined and complained for Federal dollars to pay for this project (and other transit projects) for as long as I can remember. Suddenly, the country is about to be awash in Federal money and it looks like the Province and Toronto are taking full advantage of it to have the Feds pay for this project.

Oh sure, the optics are that Ontario is “matching” spending from the Federal Stimulus Package, but let’s be honest here; diverting such a large sum directly into that little red blot (in more ways than one) when other regions of the province are literally hemmoraging jobs in communities that are quite literally circling the drain is more than just a slap in the face.

One person even commented that it’s like giving with one hand and taking with another:

Why is the Ontario government spending billions of dollars simultaneously to destroy and save the auto industry?

It’s almost criminal. I’m sure David Miller is practically swooning in sheer joy to be able to go into his next election with this particular feather in his cap. I’m sure Dalton McGuinty is pleased that he has once again pandered to the largest voteshare in the province instead of having the personal integrity and fortitude to do the right thing and invest the money in the truly needing communities of the province. Toronto is not going to sink or swim based on this pet project. On the other hand, there are a plethora of communities who’s life-support plugs are about to be pulled unless drastic measures are taken to re-invogorate them.

But then, that has always been the Status Quo in this province of ours.

So what should we do now?
We need to prevent the banks from creating money every time they create a loan. We need to change the rules of banking to prevent the end the system under which, the more debt we get into, the more money the banks have available for lending!

Basically, his solution is to change the regulations in the money markets preventing lenders from lending in excess of their reserves. I am not sure people want that. They might want that but with regulations, we would never know. All we know now is that with a central bank providing loose credit and a history of inflating the money supply, consumers take loans. Can we trust bureaucrats to know what is good for us? I would not expect them to help worth a damn.

Whether we like it or not, we can not separate the creation of money from the creation of loans. That is part of the inherent nature of money and consumers demand that to a degree. Likewise, we can not separate entrepreneurship and capital growth from risk.

If you take away government guarantees from the money markets, there still might be customers willing to deposit their money in the banks that lend in excess of their reserves — possibly in exchange for higher interest rates or lower transaction fees or both. The future is never certain. Some people may want to take risks more than others. Those people should be free to do so at their own expense. The true problem with modern central banking is that the risks taken by lenders is often borne by tax-payers in the form of bail-outs, insurance and price inflation.

I think a wiser and more responsible solution is to stop central banking altogether, leave markets alone and let them fend for themselves. If governments stop insuring commercial loans and the central banks stop printing money entirely — even if it is only 5% of the over-all supply — the banks will be more diligent in how they lend money. Simply put, they will not have any other choice. Any mistakes that the banks make will be borne by their customers as it should and not by the lowly tax-payer.

Start with the most basic in economic theory: Everything happens at the margin. Thus, if the government really wants to help Canadians maintain jobs — I am becoming more and more convinced that it does not but anyway, it is all we have for now — the government will offer policy changes for employers who operate at the margins. That translates into cutting employee and employer deductions.

Until EI, CPP and any other premiums are eliminated, the government is only paying lip service to its commitment to increase jobs and the distinction between “red” and “blue” tories is disappearing. We are now in the era of The Color-Blind Tory and it will swallow us whole.

We can find an accurately brief quote by Armine Yalnizyan of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

“Canada is facing a potentially massive wave of economic dislocation as out-of-work Canadians turn to an EI system that is not recession ready,” she said.

She is absolutely right in her description.

We are now burdened by a government whose budgetary philosophy is to provide incentives for the misallocation of resources instead of providing deserved help for the only source of job creation: employers at the margin.

Personally, I’m looking at tomorrow with a sense of apprehension. Going back to an earlier post of mine here in response to Charles Anthony’s post, I fear that all the work and consultation that the current Federal Government has done could very well be for naught.

What I’m afraid of is that the Opposition Parties are trying to force the Government into making the situation worse so that they end up with “egg on their face”; and that they do this knowingly. And should the Government try to prevent that kind of manipulation from happening (for the good of the country), they will be punished for it by being “defeated”.

I have concerns about the motives of the Opposition parties regarding the creation of this budget. I knew that we could never count on the BLOQ or the NDP to support the budget no matter what it was. Their sole concern was to get the Conservatives out of power, at any cost. Being that this is a widely known and accepted school of thought, I think it’s safe to say that the BLOQ and the NDP have no interest in the overall good of the country in this matter; and at least the BLOQ are up front about it. Both these parties were extended an invitation to participate in the budget, but in the meetings, they only appeared interested in taking away what the Government was suggesting in order to tear it apart in the media. This was, by and large, expected of them.

No, my main concern is the Liberal party. Michael Ignatieff has taken great pains to position himself in such a way that he can sit on his fence and gauge which direction will benefit him most, and he’s done it in such a way that he can leave it to the very last second. Cowardly, if canny politics. Should the budget be rejected by Canadians, Mr. Ignatieff can blithely lay the blame on the Conservatives by declaring this a “Conservative Budget”. If Canadians are very receptive to the budget, Mr. Ignatieff will pronounce triumph in forcing the Conservatives to the wall and try to take as much credit as he can for the outcome.

Either way, the Conservatives will lose. Having been forced into a position of spending largesse by the opposition parties who were screaming for financial assistance and stimulus, they will end up wearing this deficit around their necks and will not be credited with any of the positive things it does. This will be largely promoted by the Opposition parties who will conveniently forget that they themselves forced it, further supported by the Media who will claim to simply be reporting on the actions and outcomes of the Government. Had they chosen to stand by their initial plans and intent to act responsibly, they would certainly be defeated tomorrow by an Opposition claiming that the Conservatives don’t have the interests of Canadians at heart, and that they “don’t care” about the welfare of Canadians.

As a Conservative, I almost wish that the budget is defeated so that one of the other parties, or a “coalition” of them might be faced with the same predicament. They claim that they would be the saviours of the country, when it’s more likely that they would bring Canada to it’s knees. I truly believe that would be our fate under a Coalition Government that could be held hostage by Separatists. One only needs to look to Iceland to see the result (edit Jan 26/09 2:47pm) possible outcome of a Coalition in current times. Such a path could vindicate Conservative position, but would effectively crush the country, and NO Conservative wants that. Truly told, no true Canadian would want that.

And so, Conservatives will do what they have always done. They will take the reigns in hand that Canadians have entrusted to them in “hard times” to do the right, if unpopular things for the country; even if it means that they need to compromise some of their beliefs and suffer the negativity inherent in such a position in order to try and do the right thing.

Welcome to the undercurrent of Conservatism in Canada, a thankless and demonized philosophy held to by those who seek to be responsible and thoughtful in a country that grows more and more addicted to suckling on the teat of a Nanny State.

Industry Minister Tony Clement came out on Sunday basically saying that any assistance given by the government will be hinged on a number of things, but specifically, that the major auto companies must become cost competitive with other industries. Which is to say, it should cost Ford, GM & Chrysler approximately the same to build a car as it does Hyundai, Honda and Toyota.

As would be expected, the CAW and other unions are screaming mad, and depending on who you talk to, for a variety of different reasons. Some members argue that to accept wage concessions and benefit concessions is a betrayal of ‘everything those who came before us fought for’. Some argue that it is simply propaganda by those who are jealous of “good” paying jobs. I personally would argue that their definition of good is probably more along the lines of astronomical to the average Canadian and that such concessions are simply an acceptance of fact and bending to the current economic times, but that’s neither here nor there. In any circumstance, Ken Lewenza and the CAW are definately making a LOT of noise; and I think it is for reasons not listed above….

The CAW is currently in a war with Government and the Public, not for equality or protection, but for their very existance. Unions are dying a slow and steady death, and they themselves are the ones slowly pushing the knife closer and closer to their own heart.

In days gone by, Organized Labour was a necessary and desireable element in the industrialized workforce. Jobs were scarce, and there was always workers willing to do the job if someone else wasn’t. Industry took advantage of that because there really wasn’t any general protection for the workforce. Through the years since, Organized Labour has forced government and the public to accept that laws and protections must be in place for a healthy and reliable workforce, and that the workforce itself is entitled to equity and reasonable security. Laws have been created and Acts put into practice to reinforce those issues, and make them standard.

The “Great Work” that Organized Labour set out to accomplish has been finished, and Organized Labour has become, to a large extent, merely an administrative advocate who acts on behalf of its members. But what does that really mean? What does that advocate actually provide aside from an administrative service that employees with a little time and research are fully capable of doing themselves?

The CAW and others right now, are making a lot of noise in order to try and stay relevant in areas where they have worked themselves out of necessity and into merely an advantage. An advantage some might argue, that is pushing them out of the economy with breakneck speed.

Category 1: Leadership
Grade: D-

If there was one crucial area that Mr. Bush needed to get together if all the others were to come into place, it had to be leadership. On this front, President Bush often faltered. Certainly, he had moments of great eloquence and really looked the part of the most politically powerful man on Earth, but these sadly were the exceptions to the rule, wherein Mr. Bush opted to go about governing without consulting or appealing to the governed. High points that spared Mr. Bush an F in this ranking included his determined and appropriate response after the darkest day of his terms, 9-11-2001, and his his State of the Union address in February, 2003 where he put forward his most convincing and passionate address on why America needed to get rid of Saddam Husein’s murderous regime in Iraq. Ever since his re-election in 2004 though, Mr. Bush has basically been asleep on the job — going through the motions, press conferences and visits but more or less AWOL either on setting an agenda for the nation or going to the people in order to articulate a vision. Had Bush done better, not only would he now be seeing the new President (Democrat or Republican) continuing on with his objectives, but his inability to control and lead his staff to execute the War on Terror would not have led to the major setbacks the war saw recently.

Category 2: Vision
Grade: B

If there was an area that was hampered by President Bush’s lack of will to actually lead, this would be it. People with long memories might correctly point out that Mr. Bush came into office looking quite content to be a caretaker President who talked a lot, but did little. When 9/11 occurred though, that all changed and for a few years we saw his administration embark on what looked to be an impressive attempt to clean up the foreign affairs mess left behind by former US Presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Nixon, and Eurocrats during the past fifty years. Bush correctly pointed out what FDR noted during World War II — if the United States was to survive as a liberal democracy, it was going to have to harness and seed liberal democratic values around the globe. In FDR’s day, this was because of the Japanese and Germans; in Bush’s, it clearly was militant Sunni states and the old Cold War adversaries like China and Russia. Sadly, while the vision was badly in need of delivery, it was going to be a long and gruesome process if properly executed. Between Bush’s poor leadership and his administration’s bungling of the first fronts on this objective, it became clear shortly into his second term that America will either need a better advocate to sell this plan, or be destroyed for its failure to execute.

Category 3: Economic Policy
Grade: C-

Sadly, this area will be a lasting legacy of Mr. Bush’s and it will likely hurt the Republican Party for at least the next decade’s worth of elections. While Mr. Bush is not responsible for the wholesale selling out that his GOP colleagues in Congress conducted during the first six years of his term, he certainly fed the fire by shoring up spending on useless and damaging programmes such as No Child Left Behind or the sub-prime mortgage expansion. We’ve seen the results of the latter, but the former will take another generation. While liberals were rightly critical of Bush’s over-spending during his presidency, these were crocodile tears at best (as I believe the next four years will certainly show); however, this has allowed the Democratic Party to position itself as the party of fiscal prudence, a ridiculous notion to anyone who lived in the last half of the 20th century. It might be fair to point out that many of Bush’s disastrous fiscal policies were merely continuations of his predecessors or that his tax cuts earlier in the decade spared America an earlier market collapse, but when you’re the guy in the big office, it’s still your responsibility when the house comes crashing down. Bush would’ve learned well by studying the deskplate of one of his predecessors as it relates to the resting place of a dollar bill.

Category 3: Social Policy
Grade: A-

Perhaps the best area of Bush’s work, although a soon-to-be-irrelevant effort due to bungling in other areas. Bush held firm in the wars waged on the family during his term, and even scored a few victories — a few young lives exist today that wouldn’t have if Al Gore had been President. The overall culture war is a tricky area for any President to navigate though since it is becoming more and more clear that two Americas exist today and neither wants anything to do with the other. This not only puts political pressure on a President, but largely negates any point solutions they propose. As such, Bush’s successor is likely to undo any of 43′s reforms, leaving only the appointments Bush made to the bench as any sort of true legacy. On this front, it remains to be seen how his decisions will impact the nation, although the initial survey indicates that Bush had a golden opportunity that family advocates were waiting decades for and he blew it as the clock was winding down to zero. There will certainly be an influence on the courts thanks to Bush, but certain appointments suggest that things could’ve been much better than they now are.

Category 5: Legal Policy
Grade: C

While this category can encompass both domestic and foreign policies, I’ve said my peace about the latter in previous categories. Bush the domestic President was a curious study. The lasting laws he passed included moving daylight savings time in include more of the calendar year, or tinkering with internet laws. His administration was rightly taken to task for restricting the freedoms of U.S. citizens after 9/11, although it would be difficult to see how any other President would’ve acted differently had they been in his shoes. The whole design of the War on Terrorism justice system will likely be debated for decades to come, although Bush was a trendsetter in that he started to build on just how the U.S. government will deal with foreign nationals which commits crimes against its citizens and territory. Perhaps this category, because it is the actual implementation of everything else Bush represented for the last eight years, is the most telling since it was muddled, contradictory at times and downright mediocre on the whole.

On that note, perhaps, when people look back at the Bush presidency, they will see a few shining moments, surrounded by an agenda of confusion and with a world of turmoil and darkness. However, before history judges George Bush too harshly, it’s equally important to remember the alternative: between Al Gore and John Kerry, it is difficult to see how America would’ve avoided the financial meltdown of 2008 or faced the dangers of a world that won’t be satisfied until America is, like Bush, is just another page of history.

Overall Grade: C

Are politicians ever going to learn? Is the public ever going to learn? The money has to come from somewhere. You have to wonder, if you can spend your way out of a recession, why wait until you are in a recession to spend on these projects?

These infrastructure plans are not meant to pull the economy out of a recession or out of the “economic crisis” as we now call it. We are only told that because, well, to make us feel good and because we want to believe it will work. We just refuse to accept inaction. With enough time, most Western countries pull themselves out of a recession anyway and so the public thinks the “stimulus” at least helped attenuate it — like the public would know the difference.

The only real solution to dealing with a recession is precisely for the government to do nothing. Regardless of what metric you want to use, the bottom line is that a recession is a massive mis-allocation of resources in an economy. Government intervention can only prolong such mal-investments by chosing winners and losers. We are seeing it unfold in the auto sector right before our very eyes. I wonder what mystery of the world must be uncovered to demonstrate that government bureaucrats are capable of determining the proper allocation of resources at a time when everybody else in the economy has failed to determine it themselves.

The sad truth is that the politicians are just pulling out Keynesian tools to placate the public. At best, these “stimulus” packages are bread and circuses. At worst, they are political opportunism to re-distribute wealth.

Now, in a time of economic crisis, the Conservatives are looking for things to cut that will save us from more taxes, a very bad thing when people already are paranoid they might not have any money or employment to tax.  They recognize that Jean Chretien, a decade or so ago, came up with the brilliant idea of addicting federal political parties to the government’s largesse.  He had this clever scheme, you see, of making sure that rich people (or any organization with a vested interest in the political process) could not give scads of money to political parties to curry favour.

The less well-publicized reason was to handicap conservative political foes with business contacts.

Still less publicized was the fact that Chretien still needed money coming into Liberal offers to run things like elections, which he preferred to call every 3 or so years because that was when he could most handicap his opponents, despite the cost to taxpayers for an election.  So he decided to make elections even more expensive – he dreamed up the current system where the parties get money, for free, from the government, instead of having to fundraise.

Conveniently, the Liberals were running high in the polls, so they got most of the money.

However, because of this program, parties which have become immensely lazy and poorly organized can now garner national attention and spend money on advertising and campaigning, without expending hardly any effort to fundraise.

So now the Conservatives, having prudently planned for the future (something most leftists aren’t familiar with), have a solid fundraising infrastructure and no debt.  If the government teat for political parties gets shut off, sure as the party polling highest, they will lose the most funding, but they know they will hurt their opposition more because the opposition has not created the fundraising infrastructure to seriously compete.

Is this the Conservatives’ fault?  No.

But the media is surely working hard to frame them that way.  They are trying desperately to make this cost-cutting, pro-democracy, populist, conservative move to do away with federal funding of political parties into a totalitarian move bent on crippling any voice of dissent.

Funny, the media isn’t affected by this cut.

To de-fund political parties is a brilliant move to save this country tens of millions of dollars per year.  Political parties were never meant to be funded by government.  It is crazy to think that Canadians for the last 10 years or so have been forced to contribute to political parties via their taxes.  I can’t believe that law was ever passed.  If I contribute to a political party, it is because I choose to, based on their positions and their platform.  If I disagree with them all, I should be able to take my contribution and move it to another party that better reflects my viewpoint.  That was how the Reform Party was begun.  That was how every party in existence began.  Forcibly requiring all Canadians to contribute to political parties is completely undemocratic and only serves to entrench the current parties as the only options.  It makes it doubly hard for any new party to arise to replace moribund or untrusted parties.  Any new party starting up faces the uphill battle of raising all of their support from the grassroots, while those they fight against simply siphon off the government the money they need to beat back any competitors.

Especially in light of a party like the Liberals, so close to simply collapsing, they are being propped up by the government after their fundraising and all public faith has evaporated in them.  If this program didn’t exist, a new, energized form of Liberals (or something) could arise with a strong network of support on equal footing.  The Liberals’ waste and corrupt ways would drag them off the political map in a well-deserved hurry.  Then we would have true renewal.

Keep in mind, it isn’t that I don’t think there should be opposition.  But there should be effective opposition.  There should be opposition that actually listens to its roots, and doesn’t simply tell them what is good for them.  Whether it is left or right or center, this is the way politics should be.  As long as the government props up failed ideologies, we will suffer under a lack of true democracy.

The Bank said it plans to introduce a Canadian Dollar Term Loan Facility (TLF) in four auctions of $2 billion each in the coming weeks.

Under the plan, qualifying financial institutions will be able to offer non-mortgage loans as collateral — meaning they can offer most loans currently on their books.

This will prolong the recession by feeding malinvestments. I do not like this socialist / crony-capitalist trend of our supposedly “conservative ” government. The real solution to financial woes is to let businesses fail.

If what the minister says is true, why are we not seeing insurance companies from “around the world” taking on the risk of these insured mortgages which “provide a reliable backstop for Canadian mortgage-backed securities, which are well accepted around the world” instead of the government? The truth is that these securities are only accepted because the people around the world expect the government will bail them out — at any cost, I might add — when they fail. I say let them fail. The more bitter truth is that the insurance companies and the banks do not have any money to do so even if they wanted to — their money depends on constant inflation of the money supply.

This temporary program will be offered to lenders on commercial terms so there is no expected fiscal cost.

Why is he calling it temporary? It makes no sense to call this temporary when the mechanism and the reliability of these markets hinges on bailouts.
No expected fiscal cost? Yeah, the money will fall from the sky!

Many countries have recently announced new and comprehensive policy initiatives to restore or protect the stability of their financial systems. “I welcome the decisive and far-reaching actions that many countries are taking, which will provide critical support to financial stability,” said Minister Flaherty.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Minister? Countries around the world are just printing money, nationalizing their banks and now you are doing the same.

Ladies and gentleman, friends and neighbors, get ready to enjoy more socialism and price inflation in Canada.

Q: Today you appeared to be bracing Canadians for a prolonged period of economic turmoil by talking about the weeks, months and years ahead. What’s your forecast for how long and how tough the road ahead will be?

A: We don’t know. We’re in a period of great deal of economic uncertainty around the world so it’s hard to predict how all this will unfold. I’ve said that we anticipate at least another year of slow growth, and I think that would be, among analysts, almost universally the case. At the same time, we have every reason to believe that Canada will stay out of recession if Canada doesn’t start raising taxes and spending itself into deficit.

Harper starts off by telling the truth: nobody knows. However, I am appalled at the lack of any follow-up to the last sentence. Who is he talking about when he personifies Canada? It sounds like he is talking about the government. Well, if that is the case, I have to ask: Who runs the economy? the government or the rest of us?

We are amidst a cognitive dissonance here. Is it bad for “Canada” to have public debt? Can we comfortably ignore the individual debts held by Canadians? Is it bad for “Canada” to have the accounting hassle of government taxation? Can we comfortably ignore the nefarious and hidden taxation of rising prices created by the institutionalized inflation of the money supply?

In light of the recent flogging after Stephane Dion fumbled an economic question, I think it is only fair to demonstrate how unknowingly biased journalists may be by virtue of their own ignorance. Stephane Dion is made to look like an economic fool — which I believe he may very well be, mind you — because his interviewer is ignorant of basic rules of grammatical logic. Stephen Harper is made to look like the prudent economist — which I believe he may very well be too, mind you — because his interviewer is ignorant of basic economic theory.

Scale Tip to Kathleen Harris, National Bureau Chief, Canoe Media.

This is nonsense:

Flaherty said the plan will make mortgages “more available and more affordable” for Canadians, adding that it will have “no fiscal cost to taxpayers.”

No fiscal cost to taxpayers?? Yeah, instead of screwing the taxpayer through open accounting-style taxes, the inflation of the money supply will screw the taxpayer through rising prices.

Who would have thunk it?

“The government stands ready to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the stability of the Canadian financial system.”

“I think what we have right now is adequate.” But he would not give any details about what specific measures he was contemplating and dodged questions about expanding CMHC lending programs, except to say it is a possibility. Any new measures will target the availability of credit, and not aim at subsidizing banks for their losses, or even focus on the cost of credit.

“So what I’ve said to the banks is, do as much as possible in the present circumstances” Mr. Flaherty said. “My concern, again, is less the cost of credit – that is, the price – but the availability of credit. We have to ensure that credit continues to be available.”

I am happy to hear Stephen Harper reiterate that there will not be any bailout of Canadian banks. However, I am not satisfied when I hear this:

‘The government has a series of options at its disposal … to ensure both the availability of credit and the cost of credit coming down, and we’re doing that to ensure there’s money available,” he said.

How can the government make credit available? What are these secret options at the government’s disposal? They had better get their story together because Flaherty seems unconcerned about interest rates wheras Harper is. Maybe that was just a slip up.

Regardless, get ready for an inflation of the money supply.

There is nothing that the government does that is rightfully productive. The government is not some rich zillionaire who can hand out donations to “make credit available” as a goal. Anything the government does is funded by what the government takes away. When the government acts to “make credit available” to the economy, we find ourselves somewhere along a continuum between an independent monetary system and a banking system that requires bailouts to prevent collapse. Whatever makes a bailout wrong is the same thing that makes a policy to “make credit available” wrong too — just to a less dramatic degree.

• only “approved” programs will be credited — that means more bureaucratic oversight
• they only benefit people who can afford the programs

This type of micro-management is absurd and belongs to confused socialists. Please just reduce taxes and reduce spending, thank you very much.