Capitalism Needs Public Spending

As the United States and UK pull back on government spending they are cutting their noses to spite their face. Austerity measures caused by bank and corporate bail outs as a result of the financial crisis of 2008 are not going to create jobs, nor are they going to increase productivity.

They are counter productive. Modern capitalism requires government to spend on infrastructure in order to function as this analysis by Michael Hudson points out.

The logic of public investment is to upgrade economies and make them more competitive

Nations that today have the highest incomes recognize that rising productivity should enable costs and prices to fall – and that public investment is needed for this to occur. U.S. development strategy was based explicitly on public infrastructure investment and education. The aim was not to make a profit or use its natural monopoly position to extract economic rent like a private company would do. It was to subsidize the cost of living and doing business – to make the economy more efficient, lower-cost and ultimately more fulfilling to live and work in.

At issue is the idea that capital investment is inherently private in character. The national income and product accounts do not recognize government investment even in infrastructure, to say nothing of subsidies for the research and development that led to much space and aeronautics technology, information-processing and the internet, pharmaceuticals, DNA biology and other sectors that enabled private companies to make hundreds of billions of dollars.

Simon Patten, the first professor of economics at the nation’s first business school – the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania – explained that the return to public investment should not take the form of maximizing user fees. The aim was not to make a profit, but just the reverse: Unlike military levies (a pure burden to taxpayers), “in an industrial society the object of taxation is to increase industrial prosperity”[7] by lowering the cost of doing business, thus making the economy more competitive. Market transactions meanwhile would be regulated to keep prices in line with actual production costs so as to prevent financial operators from extracting “fictitious” watered costs – what the classical economists defined as unearned income (“economic rent”).

The U.S. Government increased prosperity by infrastructure investment in canals and railroads, a postal service and public education as a “fourth” factor of production alongside labor, land and capital. Taxes would be “burdenless,” Patten explained, if invested in public investment in internal improvements, headed by transportation infrastructure.

“The Erie Canal keeps down railroad rates, and takes from local producers in the East their rent of situation. Notice, for example, the fall in the price of [upstate New York] farms through western competition” making low-priced crops available from the West.[8] Likewise, public urban transport would minimize property prices (and hence economic rents) in the center of cities relative to their outlying periphery.

Under a regime of “burdenless taxation” the return on public investment would aim at lowering the economy’s overall price structure to “promote general prosperity.” This meant that governments should operate natural monopolies directly, or at least regulate them. “Parks, sewers and schools improve the health and intelligence of all classes of producers, and thus enable them to produce more cheaply, and to compete more successfully in other markets.” Patten concluded: “If the courts, post office, parks, gas and water works, street, river and harbor improvements, and other public works do not increase the prosperity of society they should not be conducted by the State. Like all private enterprises they should yield a surplus” for the overall economy, but not be treated as what today is called a profit center (loc. cit.).

Public infrastructure represents the largest capital expenditure in almost every country, yet little trace of its economic role appears in today’s national income and product accounts. Free market ideology treats public spending as deadweight, and counts infrastructure spending as part of the deficit, not as productive capital investment. The only returns recognized are user fees, not what is saved from private operators incurring interest charges, dividends, other financial fees, as well as high executive salaries.

As Patten showed, the relatively narrow scope of “free market” marginal productivity models applies only to private-sector industrial investment, not to public investment. (What would the “product” be?) The virtue of this line of analysis is to point out that the alternative is to promote a rentier “tollbooth” economy enabling private owners of infrastructure or other monopolies to charge more than the “marginal product” actually costs. Stock and bond markets increasingly aim at extracting economic rent rather than earning profits by investing in tangible capital formation to employ labor to increase output, not to speak of rising living standards.

In the United States, Alaska and Wyoming pay their residents a “citizens’ dividend” out of their resource rent receipts. Alaska’s Senators Stevens and Murkowski, as well as its Governor Sarah Palin, did not believe that it is proper for government to upgrade, educate and provide the population with social services. So Alaska has used its oil revenue to pay each resident a few thousand dollars – and to abolish property taxes. This policy leaves Alaska among the lowest-ranking states in terms of literacy, education, support for the arts and technology, while avoiding progressive taxation.

The state’s neoliberal anti-tax, anti-government ideology condemns its residents to send their children out to work rather than educating them and investing in their improvement.

It is a bankers’-eye view of the world, not that by which Britain, France, Germany and the United States built themselves up to global leadership positions. The focus is on financial returns, not on lowering the cost of living and production or upgrading the quality of work. It views government spending as a deadweight cost, not as productive investment.

Harper Government (c)(tm)(r)

Welcome to the Orwellian World of the Conservative Government. The Canadian Government becomes the Harper Government (c) (tm)(r) a decision made in 2009 but only revealed this month. As they quietly implemented it across various departments in their continuous use of taxpayer programs and funding for their permanent election campaign.

The “Harper Government” moniker rose to prominence in 2009, when its use was noted in light of a controversy over Conservative MPs posing with giant, mock government cheques bearing the party logo and MPs’ signatures. The mock cheques were consigned to the dust bin, and the “Harper Government” handle went into partial hibernation.

Since December, the “Harper Government” has returned with a vengeance, sprouting like mushrooms across departmental communications.

Scores of recent news releases — from the Canada Revenue Agency to Fisheries and Oceans, Finance, International Trade, Health Canada and Industry Canada — are all headlined by “Harper Government” actions.

Even the Treasury Board Secretariat is using the term.

In this video clip former Minister for the Treasury Board, Stockwell Day deny's, denys, denys--it's the standard Government policy to deny until one is caught.

Today Is Election Day

Bill C-16

Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

Well okay it should have been today, except that Harper took us into an election early, violating his own law. Instead in a cynical ploy to grab power the Harpocrites ran an election saying there was no recession, they would not raise taxes nor would they have a budget deficit...my my how things changed after they were elected with another minority government and the economy crashed.

Harper then prorogued the government within two months of that election in order to avoid being ousted by an opposition coalition, while still denying there was a recession.

Today with the threat of another election still in the air one has to ask why the rush last fall if not for the fact that actually the Harpocrites have been ready for an election since they won a minority in 2006. Every day is election day for them. They are not ruling as a government but as a party running a party campaign around the economic issues they denied were a reality last fall.

However if we take the PM at his own word well perhaps we should have had an election today. But that's just a technicality...

Harper says recession is no time for an election -

Harper says recession over only in technical sense

And despite all the political platitudes offered at the time it turns out that Canada's fixed election date did turn out to be an illusion........

Bill C-16 on Fixed Date Elections November 06, 2006 Third Reading in the House of Commons House of Commons, Ottawa Monday, November 6, 2006 Check Against Delivery Introduction Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin debate in third reading on Bill C-16 – An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act – which would provide for fixed date elections. First of all, I would like to note that the Bill was carefully reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. A range of expert witnesses has appeared before the Committee and much discussion has taken place. The Committee heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, representatives of political parties, academic experts, as well as me. While I have been informed that there were lively debates on key issues, I am pleased to note that Bill C-16 carried in Committee without amendment. Moreover, while there were some minor differences on some of the details of the Bill, I was struck by the fact that all parties represented in the House of Commons support the fundamental rationale of the Bill. I believe that all parties share the view that elections belong, fundamentally, to citizens. They belong, Mr. Speaker, to the people. All parties agreed with the principle that the timing of elections should not be left to the prime minister but should be set in advance so that all Canadians will know when the next election will occur. Mr. Speaker, today I will begin with a description of the current process for calling general elections and I will discuss some of the difficulties associated with it. This will be followed by a discussion of the many advantages associated with fixed date elections. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to present the specifics of Bill C-16. Current Process Today, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, whose government has not lost the confidence of the House of Commons, to determine what he or she regards as a propitious time for an election to renew the government’s mandate. The Prime Minister then requests dissolution of the House from the Governor General and, if the Governor General agrees, he or she proclaims the date of the election. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where the Prime Minister is able to choose the date of the general election, not based on what is in the best interest of the country, but what is in the interest of his or her party. Bill C-16 will address this problem and will produce a number of other benefits. Advantages of Fixed Date Elections Mr. Speaker, before going into the details of the bill, allow me to discuss the key advantages of fixed date elections. Fixed date elections will provide for greater fairness in election campaigns, greater transparency and predictability, improved governance, higher voter turnout rates, and will help in attracting the best qualified candidates to public life. Fairness First of all, allow me to discuss the issue of fairness. Fixed date elections will help to level the playing field for those seeking election in a general election. With fixed date elections, the timing of general elections will be known to all. Since the date of the next election will be known to all political parties, each party will have an equal opportunity to make preparations for upcoming election campaigns. Instead of the governing party having the advantage of determining when the next election will take place – an advantage they may have over the other parties for several months – all parties will be on an equal footing. And it’s only fair that each party will have equal time to prepare for the next election and know when it will be. Transparency and Predictability Another key advantage of fixed date elections is transparency. Rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors, general election dates will be set in advance as prescribed by this bill. Once this bill is passed, the date of each election will be known by all Canadians. Predictability is also a key advantage of fixed date elections. Canadians and political parties alike will be able to rely on our democratic election system working in an open and predictable fashion for all general elections. Plans can be made on a reliable basis to prepare for, and respond to, fixed date elections. Improved Governance Mr. Speaker, fixed date elections will allow for improved governance. For example, fixed date elections will provide for improved administration of the electoral machinery by Elections Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer, in majority situations, will know with certainty when the next election will occur and will be able to plan accordingly. This will almost certainly involve greater efficiency at Elections Canada and will, therefore, very likely save money for taxpayers. Political parties will also likely save money as they will not have to remain on an ‘election footing’ for extended periods of time. Moreover, fixed date elections will allow for better parliamentary planning. For example, members of parliamentary committees will be able to set out their agendas well in advance, which will make the work of committees, and Parliament as a whole, more efficient. Higher Voter Turnout Rates Yet another reason for adopting fixed date elections is that this measure will likely improve voter turnout because elections will be held in October, except when a government loses the confidence of the House. The weather is generally favourable in most parts of the country. Fewer people are transient. So, for example, most students will not be in transition between home and school at that time and will be able to vote. Moreover, seniors will not be deterred from voting as they might be in colder months. And, of course, citizens will be able to plan in advance to participate in the electoral process, arranging for advanced voting if they plan to be away. An additional benefit is that pre-election campaigns to ‘get out the vote’ will be able to be well prepared, as the organizers will be aware of exactly when the next general election will take place. Candidates Finally, I want to mention an advantage that will have resonance to many of those in this chamber. It is a difficulty with the current system that I have witnessed personally (and something I have mentioned in interviews when Bill C-16 was first introduced). Fixed date elections will help to attract many of the best qualified Canadians into public life because it will be easier to plan their own schedules to enable them to stand for election. For many of our most talented Canadians, unfixed election dates make it difficult to plan to enter public life because they simply don’t know when the next election is going to be held. I think fixed date elections can only help in attracting the most qualified individuals to public life. Details of the Bill Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the details of the bill. 1. Responsible Government Legislation providing for fixed date elections must be structured to meet certain constitutional realities of responsible government. They include: • the requirement that the government have the confidence of the House of Commons; • respecting the Governor General’s constitutional power to dissolve Parliament. The bill before us was drafted carefully to ensure that these constitutional requirements continue to be respected. So, the bill does not in any way change the requirement that the government must maintain the confidence of the House. Moreover, all of the conventions regarding loss of confidence remain intact. In particular, the Prime Minister’s prerogative to advise the Governor General on the dissolution of Parliament is retained, to allow him or her to advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence. Moreover, the bill states explicitly that the powers of the Governor General remain unchanged, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion. 2. Modeled After Provincial Legislation As set out in the government’s platform, this bill is modeled after existing provincial fixed date elections legislation. The legislation is very similar to the approach used by British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the legislation in all of these provinces is working – and working well. British Columbia recently had its first fixed date election (May 17, 2005) and Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador will soon have their first fixed date elections (October 4, 2007 and October 9, 2007 respectively). In British Columbia, there was certainly no evidence of what some critics have called a “lame duck government”. 3. Mechanics The government’s bill provides that the date for the next general election is Monday, October 19, 2009. Of course, this will be the date only if the government is able to retain the confidence of the House until that time. So, for example, if the government were to be defeated tomorrow, a general election would be held according to normal practice. However, the subsequent election would be scheduled for the third Monday in October, in the fourth calendar year after that election. And that is the normal model that would be established by this bill. General elections will occur on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election. We chose the date very carefully and one of my parliamentary colleagues will provide a full explanation of our choice during the course of this debate. However, in brief, we chose the third Monday in October because it was the date that was likely to maximize voter turnout and to be least likely to conflict with cultural or religious holidays – or with elections in other jurisdictions. 4. Conflicts This raises an additional feature of the bill that I want to bring to your attention – a feature that provides for an alternate election date in the event of a conflict with a date of religious or cultural significance or an election in another jurisdiction. In the current system, the date of the general election is chosen by the government, so it is rare that a polling day is chosen that comes into conflict with a date of cultural or religious significance or with elections in other jurisdictions. However, with the introduction of legislation providing for fixed date elections, there is some possibility that, in the future, the stipulated election date will occasionally be the same as a day of cultural or religious significance or an election in another jurisdiction. The Ontario fixed date elections legislation provides that, if there is a conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance, the Chief Elections Officer may recommend an alternate polling day to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, up to seven days following the day that would otherwise be polling day. Using a variation of the Ontario legislation providing for fixed date elections, our bill empowers the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend an alternate polling day to the Governor in Council should he or she find that the polling day is not suitable for that purpose. The alternate day would be either the Tuesday or the Monday following the Monday that would otherwise be polling day. Allowing alternate polling days to be held on the following Tuesday or Monday is consistent with the current practice of holding elections on a Monday or a Tuesday. Illusory in Nature? Mr. Speaker, some Opposition members had concerns that this bill is illusory in that the Prime Minister can call an election at any point up until the fixed date for the election. However, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to retain his prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government loses the confidence of the House. This is a fundamental principle of our system of responsible government. Moreover, if the bill were to indicate that the Prime Minister could only advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence, it would have to define ‘confidence’ and the dissolution of the House of Commons would be justiciable in the courts – something that we certainly do not want. Conclusion Mr. Speaker, this bill providing for fixed date elections is long overdue in Canada. In June, Ipsos-Reid released the results of a poll which showed that 78% of Canadians support the government’s plans to provide for fixed date elections. You may know that the third week in October is already Citizenship Week in this country where we celebrate what it means to be Canadian citizens. Of course, fundamental to being a Canadian citizen is our civic responsibilities, including our duty to vote. It is fitting, then, that general election dates will be set for the third Monday in October. This legislation will provide greater fairness, increased transparency and predictability, improved policy planning, increased voter turnout, and will help to attract the best qualified Canadians to public life. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will join with me in supporting it and I look forward to the Bill’s speedy passage in the Senate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

tags
Canada, Flaherty, politics, Conservatives,consumer spending, tax-credit, , economy, government, Conservatives, Harper, recession, Conference Board of Canada, consumer confidence, Economy, Finance Minister,

Blue Throne Speech

Why am I not surprised?

Throne speech warns of deficit, offers economic plan

No specifics in Tory economic plan

Because the neo-con agenda was about the failure of Keynesianism, except now all the capitalists and their political puppets are Keynesians when the market crashes. And when they applied their neo-con agenda it was during a temporary debt and deficit crisis of their own creation and it exasperated that into a full blown Reagan Recession. A little historical fact they fail to mention.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved closer to an about-face on economic policy today, outlining plans to stimulate growth that may run up a budget deficit after vowing to preserve surpluses.
A month after his Conservative Party government strengthened its hand in Parliament while falling short of a majority, Harper outlined his legislative agenda in a so-called Speech from the Throne, the ceremonial opening of a session. He pledged ``support'' for the country's car makers and plans to expedite infrastructure spending.
``In a historic downturn, it would be misguided to commit to a balanced budget in the short term at any cost,'' according to the text of the speech, which by tradition was read by Governor General Michaelle Jean in the country's Parliament, while Harper and other lawmakers listened. ``Ongoing'' deficits, though, would be ``unacceptable,'' Harper said.
Harper, who pledged ahead of his Oct. 14 re-election to maintain a balanced budget, told reporters last week his government may need to provide more stimulus to the world's eighth-largest economy to boost demand amid a global recession.


SEE:
Pinocchio Conservatives
Deja Vu
Business Unionism Offers No Solution To Capitalist Crisis

tags
asset-backed commercial paper ,, gold, homes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,Bernanke, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commoditiesSmoot-Hawley, protectionism, tariffs, Herbert Hoover, U.S., U.S. economy, Canada, Great Depression, market crash, free trade, recession, Harper, Conservatives, deficit, Government, politics, Flaherty, Budget, GST, politicsCanada, Surplus, Economy, Taxes, EI,

Whew

That was close almost lost Peter Miliken as speaker of the house. Almost. Imagine Speaker Rob Anders....shudder.....

OTTAWA–They called for change, but in the end they stuck with experience and a side of optimism.
Peter Milliken, the Liberal MP from Kingston and the Islands who has been Speaker of the House of Commons since 2001, was re-elected by fellow MPs to the prestigious and demanding post yesterday.
It took five ballots for Milliken, challenged by seven other MPs, to win back his job. Many of the challengers campaigned on promises of restoring order and civility to the Commons, the scene of rancorous, partisan exchanges in recent years. Besides Milliken and Devolin, also running for the post were: New Democrat Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh); Conservative MPs Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu'Appelle), Merv Tweed (Brandon-Souris), Rob Anders (Calgary West); and Royal Galipeau (Ottawa-Orléans) and Liberal Mauril Belanger (Ottawa-Vanier).

tags
Rob Anders, Conservatives, MP, Canada,Calgary-West,

Leaky Ship Of State

Gee now who could have done this? Throne Speech Leaked

Considering how tightly under wraps they had their Income Trust announcement last year, and how tightly controlled all information from the PMO is, including its ability to gag cabinet and back bencher's, who do you think did it.

See:

Harpers Shoe Fetish

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Tories, Harper, Government,Sandra Buckler,Parliament, Ottawa, Press Gallery, PM,PMO,Throne Speech

Beast

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Harper says cabinet shuffle could precede resumption  of Parliament




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Stephen Harper, Harper, NCC, Reform Party, Conservatives, Conservative Party, politics, Government, PM, Ottawa, Canada,
Leo Struass, Calgary School,Carl Schmitt,polls,Harper
Canada, poltics, Conservative, parliament, 
polling, Angus Reid, Conservatives,

Cavet Emptor Illegitimate Goverment

There is no government like no government.

For an prime example of American Republican Libertarian forms of limited government one needs only look to Alberta.

Last weekend a fire destroyed 94 housing units, the majority were part of a new condo complex, the others were single family dwellings built too close to the complex, with little or no fire protection for their siding and outside walls. The result was mass destruction.And folks left homeless. In a boom economy with rental housing and other ownership options priced beyond most folks means.

The problem is an obsolete building code written in 1960 and based on the notion of preventing fires from spreading from building to building from inside out instead of from the outside in, Wolsey said.

"There has to be a better look at how we deal with building codes as to how we protect our society," he said.

"Is this preventable? I believe it is. With minor amendments to building codes and minimal costs, we can prevent this kind of a devastation from occurring in our communities."

The governments response was little, minor, small, none at all.

The Alberta government's own public safety division recommended changing building codes more than two years ago to prevent fires like Saturday's $20-million inferno in south Edmonton.

But the government chose not to act.

Instead, it forwarded the recommendation to the National Research Council for further study via a provincial committee - although it is under no obligation to wait for an NRC recommendation before making code revisions.

In fact, a year later, the department - then under the leadership of Rob Renner - rejected an official request by the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association to address the insufficient separation between homes, saying there was no evidence to support it.

Government exists to protect citizens, except after the neo-con revolution that defined government as existing above, apart, separate from the people. The earliest forms of self government, have been about building codes and fire prevention. Whether at the municipal, state/provincial or federal level. In Alberta this responsibility has once again been abdicated by the ruling Tories.

Building codes blamed for massive fire
Condo blaze sparks call for tighter fire codes
$25-million fire calls building codes into question
Insurance industry backs tougher building codes
Heed fire's warning: improve building code
Fire chiefs say Alberta should be leader in Canada on building codes

Since the Ralph Revolution of the nineties the neo-con/neo-liberal republican lite agenda of the Fraser Institute and the right wing political business lobby the NCC have dominated conservative politics in Alberta and Canada.

Tougher code carries a price

The Tories created a myth, first they attempted under Lougheed to both expand oilsands development and diversification of the economy. The former succeeded the latter failed. Under Don Getty the diversification expanded, but it ended up a failure because it was simply the government doling out corporate welfare to businesses and lobbyists that had the best selling points, rather than realistic business plans.

Though some plans and businesses were by their nature something the state should have done as public services, such as hazardous waste disposal, due to the costs and long term responsibilities involved, as well as the continuing need for state funded research and development required for technological and industrial advances.

And as usual the left wing moonbats like Neil Waugh of the Edmonton Sun trash our glorious republican government for their obvious contradictions.

More study is needed before deciding whether to update building codes to prevent repeats of a $25-million condo development inferno, Alberta's municipal affairs minister said yesterday.

Although he said he personally favours a "proactive" approach, Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk also said the numbers aren't all in. He said the province approached the National Research Council 18 months ago and asked it to study the issue. Its next major amendment of national standards, however, isn't until 2010.

Ray's job in Ed Stelmach's Country Club Cabinet is housing and municipal affairs. Both are hot topics after Wolsey warmed up to his usual theme following the MacEwan Fireball. Edmonton houses are fire prone. Thanks to the controversial vinyl siding that's slapped on them without any fire retardant board beneath.

Wolsey talked about a "simple fix." And when asked whether the MacEwan blaze and other similar fires involving Boom-berta houses are preventable, he answered: "I believe it is."

He talked about "minor amendments" to the building code. Which is Ray's responsibility.

And if the houses around the condo blaze had something as simple as exterior grade drywall under the plastic siding "we probably wouldn't have lost any of those homes."

So here's the question I put to Ray in the flower garden.

"Are get-rich-quick developers cutting corners and building shoddy houses that could put Albertans' lives in peril?"

Which, of course, is the Monday-morning-coming-down question for many folks.

No emergency meeting with Battlin' Randy Wolsey, no read-the-riot-act session with the Edmonton Region Homebuilders Association, no task force of surly bureaucrats to prepare a report, make recommendations and get to the bottom of what's going down out on Pleasant Acres Drive and Woodside Wynd.

Instead Danyluk froze up like a rusty Lada at 40 below.

The best he could offer was that the National Research Council is apparently working on something, but it won't be ready for three years.

Once again showing this government has no use for its citizens and is in the pocket of establishment special interests.

Caveat Emptor, citizen beware you have nobody to blame for getting screwed but yourself, the government refuses to protect you or to govern for the public good. Just as they have failed renters in this province now they fail homeowners, in favour of developers.

This then is limited government in a nutshell.

See:

Pay 'Em What They Want

He Can't Manage

Drumheller Bell Weather

Stelmach Tanks

Alberta Deja Vu

ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta, minimal government, Edmonton, libertarian housing, rental, condominium, apartment, Income Trusts, rent controls, homelessness, housing-costs, housing-boom, Alberta, ED Stelmach,
Premier, Alberta Cabinet,PC, Party of Calgary, politics, leadership, Conservatives

13 Years Later ,Get Over It

The New Conservative Government of Canada likes to get up on its hind legs in parliament when questioned and bark out; You had 13 years and what did you do?

While not one to defend the Liberals let's remember who was Her Majesty's Official Opposition.Why the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives who are now Her Majesty's Minority Government.

It always takes two to tango in government.

When Martin cut transfer payments to the provinces, which the Harpocrites remind us created the mess we are in when it comes to Medicare, wait times, post-secondary education etc.

What did they want the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives want the government to do? Cut faster and deeper.

And when they talk about the Liberals doing nothing on the environment, what was it they said when they were in Opposition, why that they opposed signing Kyoto and said they would do everything in their power to scuttle it. Which they are now doing.

And what did they say about social program spending cuts made by the Liberals?
Why they didn't go far enough of course which is why they have cut those programs now that they are in power.

And lets not forget either that the reason they paid off Maher Arar was to avoid him including the Conservative Party in his suit, since they repeatedly called him a terrorist when they were Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

So can we drop the 13 years crap already, the Conservative were across the aisle and they wanted to do far worse things, like lead Canada into war. Oops they did that too.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Harper, Canada, Liberals, Conservatives, politics, parliament,

Correction Child Care For Seniors

A correction on my post yesterday about Child Care and Seniors here is what Harper actually said;

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government has been investing in areas of core federal responsibility like national defence, international trade, security and direct assistance for Canadian families.

On the other hand, it is interesting to note what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. He wants to kill pension income splitting for seniors. He wants to repeal our tax cuts, including the GST cut. He votes against anti-crime legislation. He wants to take away the child care benefit from seniors, to scrap the softwood lumber agreement, to rip up military contracts and all the benefits to Canadian firms in all regions. We do not want to go back.

Apparently in Harpers New Canada only seniors are having children. Wow biotechnology sure has come a long ways.

See

Daycare

Childcare



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Stephen Harper, biotechnology, baby sitting, private daycare, childcare, daycare, Canada, Harper, Conservatives, baby bonus, government, women, families, seniors

Garths New Weblog Banner

Garth Turners new weblog banner which sounds suspiciously like Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan; "Let the conversation begin!,"

Note the Dion green background, not really Green more like pale green. But not teal. Nope definitely not teal.

And he is no longer principled or independent.





See

Garth Turner



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Garth Turner,
Stephane Dion, Liberals, Canada, politics, Government,

Not PM Material

It's a sad day when the PM is upstaged by Stephane Dion and Garth Turner. So much for Dion not being PM material.

Here it was the official anniversary of the Conservatives wining the election last year, and the PM was reviewing his accomplishments and announcing his new five point election platform and he gets undercut by Garth and Stephane.

All the news focused on Turner becoming a Liberal. Including in the blogosphere.

Whereas Stephens New Government of Canada Redux speech got lost in the media wash over Turner. Including in the blogosphere.

And Harper was supposed to be the master strategist. To bad it wasn't true this time, so sad.

And Turner did it again today challenging Harper to call by elections. Which will make the news again.


See

Garth Turner

Dion

Liberals

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Garth Turner, Conservatives, Harper,
Stephane Dion, Liberals, Canada, politics, Government, PM

Child Care for Seniors

In response to a question from Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in QP, PM Harper rattled off the programs his government has instituted since last year when they were elected.

Which included "the Child Care Credit for Seniors" he said.

See I told you their universal child care benefit was for baba sitting.

See

Daycare

Childcare



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
baba, baba sitting, baby sitting, private daycare, childcare, daycare, Canada, Harper, Conservatives, baby bonus, government, women, families

Where's That Damn Calculator

Lyle Oberg the man who would be Premier but ended up as Treasurer can't find his calculator so the Spring sitting of the Alberta legislature will be delayed.

The session, Ed Stelmach's first as premier, was originally slated to begin in the last week of February. But the date is now being pushed back to March 7 to give the government more time to prepare. The delay comes less than three weeks after finance minister Lyle Oberg admitted the 2007 budget would not be ready until April, rather than March, as is the norm.

Apparently the session will be delayed because he is counting all the billions on his fingers and toes.

No big deal they do all the real business in Cabinet. After all the only deficit in Alberta is a democratic deficit.

The May 2006 report Fiscal Surplus, Democratic Deficit by the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute, not only correctly predicts this year's actual surplus, it also points out that the Alberta government has been wrong in its revenue projections for at least the last thirteen years.

More specifically, the report calculates that in each of the last six years, the government has underestimated revenues by an average of $4.3 billion per year.

This attitude was confirmed by Mr. Klein last fall when he told the media that the unbudgeted surplus was none of the legislature's business. Given Alberta's track record in budgeting, what the premier was saying was that the legislature should have no say in how to spend 20 to 25 per cent of the province's revenue.

For more on Alberta's democratic deficit see Daveberta's review of Kevin Tafts new book democracy derailed.

See

Democratic Deficit

Ed Stelmach

Lyle Oberg



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta,, Ed Stelmach, Stelmach,, , Lyle Oberg, Progressive Conservatives,, Premier,, Government,, , politics,, , democratic deficit, One Party State,,

Troops In Our Cities

So the Harpocrites are now preparing to put Canadian Forces in 14 major Canadian cities in order to quell civil disturbances;

"The units would be designed to react to domestic emergencies such as natural disasters or a terrorist attack."

Or a General strike, mass protests, a Quebec referendum on Sovereignty or possibly a socialist revolution.

It's not like it hasn't happened before......

See

Soldiers In Our Streets

Paranoia and the Security State

Atlantic Canada Employment Strategy

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
fLQ,, Quebec,, Troops,, Canada,, Harper,, Conservatives,, Government,, Canadian armed forces,, troops in Canada's cities,, insurrection,, protests,, labour, protests,, srikes

John Baird In Exxons Pocket?

Is Harpers new Environment Minister, John Baird in the pocket of Exxon Mobil? After all their Canadian anti-Kyoto lobby is run by Barry Cooper part of the Calgary School which Harper is a graduate of. We will find out soon enough as he goes to Paris for the UN Climate Change Report.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has maintained any environmental plan for Canada must balance the need to reduce greenhouse gases with the need to profit from the country's vast energy resources.

See
Environment



ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Kyoto, Envrionment, carbon, carbon trading, emissions, greenhouse gas, climate change, global warming, Conservatives, Canada, Harper, John Baird,