My ‘ROC’ excludes Alberta

Jeffrey Simpson writes how annoying Quebecers better think twice about “putting a knife to Canada’s throat” because the “Rest of Canada” is fed up with it.

This kind of rhetoric is something angry white conservatives can’t get enough of. But which group of people welcomes it even more? The “country-wrecking” separatists! Clearly this is the most boneheaded way possible of attempting to meddle in the upcoming Quebec election in which a potential referendum hangs in the balance.

But if conservatives want to get divisive and exclusive, I think Alberta is really the odd man out in Canada. The province has two political parties: conservative and ultra conservative. Their small-government, anti-environment, social-con creed is much more in tune with Republican America than the Canada I grew up in.

The real ROC

The real rest of Canada includes Quebec whose values helped shape it. The Canada I’m talking about is the one built up by Liberals and New Democrats in the post-war era. It’s a bilingual, multicultural “just society” which has a healthy social safety net and affords Canadians equal opportunity.

This is the Canada Albertans like Harper call a “second-rate socialist welfare state.” This is the Canada Albertans want to destroy beyond all recognition.

Frankly I’d rather see Alberta go than Quebec. Just imagine how many of Canada’s problems would disappear if Albertans took their ball and went home…

The “Mound of Sound” aka “The Re-affected Lib” has blown a gasket

Yesterday the “Mound of Sound” ranted about how Thomas Mulcair was a traitor for not backing the Liberals in the Quebec election. I pointed out how this absurd and baseless smear is exactly the kind of nonsense the Cons resort to (like them calling Jack Layton “Taliban Jack” for opposing Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.)

Today he went off on a tangent about how his daddy fought in WW2, therefore we should all vote Liberal. Ok… My guess is that he has gone off his medication or something. It's painfully obvious he not making the slightest lick of sense.

He called me a “Dipper” for coming to Mulcair's defense. (And I guess that makes me an enemy of Canada as well…)

But the fact is I supported Ignatieff in 2011. I voted for Trudeau as Liberal leader. When he became leader, I signed up as a member of the Liberal party.

Buy now I'm having serious second thoughts. Trudeau has ruled out reversing any of Harper's $44-billion/yr in “starve the beast” tax cuts. There isn't a bitumen pipeline he isn't hot and heavy for. He ditched his commitment to ranked ballot voting reform. So what in the hell am I supporting, exactly?

In the next federal election (2015) people should stick to their values and principles. Their vote should be policy-dependent. Because that is the kind of government they are going to wind up with. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine too. But you will probably be better off not having your emotions manipulated by blind partisans of any stripe.

I think it's time to wind down this drama and return to a rational debate about policy and issues.

Mulcair backs the federalist side in Quebec

The not-so-Disaffected Lib is trying to smear Thomas Mulcair by claiming he's a traitor for not backing the Liberal party in the recently-announced Quebec election. That sounds like something the Conservatives would say, like when they called Jack Layton “Taliban Jack” for opposing Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

Mulcair is a staunch federalist. He opposes Quebec separation and another referendum, which he said Quebecers don't want. It's his job as leader of the Official Opposition to promote federalism and oppose a referendum, which he is clearly doing. It's certainly not his duty to support the Liberal party, which he is not a member of.

Let's leave this kind of mudslinging to the Cons.

It’s the inequality, stupid

Robert Reich has a column in today’s Globe and Mail: It’s the inequality, stupid.

He discusses how almost all the gains from economic growth over the last 30 years have gone to the top 1% — both in the US and Canada. What’s worse, is that the tax rate the rich pay has become a fraction of what it was 40 years ago.

The combination of the two has caused inequality and debt (both public and private) to soar. It is destroying the middle class, hitting the poor harder and hobbling income mobility.

He says the only way to reverse the damage is through tax increases on the wealthy.

Inequality election issue

Inequality and the shrinking middle class are shaping up to become prominent 2015 election issues. But in order to restore the “just society” and “equality of opportunity” of the post-war era, we’re going to need more action and less talk.

We must restore, to some degree, the level of taxation they wealthy paid back then.

Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau has ruled out reversing any of Harper’s $44-billion/yr in “starve the beast” tax cuts, most of which went to the rich. That puts him in a fiscal straight jacket from which he’ll only be able to deliver token measures.

Thomas Mulcair has promised to reverse Harper’s ineffective corporate tax cuts, which will restore $15-billion/yr according to the Con 2009 budget. That’s a good start, but obviously much more is required.

Canadians must demand leaders offer more action before the election, not after, unless they’re happy pretending something is getting done about it.

Robert Reich

Robert Reich has a documentary out, recently released on DVD: Inequality for all.

Here are some excerpts from today’s column:

The widening income gap is making it harder to escape poverty and thwarting equal opportunity, in both the United States and Canada.

Let me explain. When almost all the gains from economic growth go to the top 1 per cent of income earners, as they have for 30 years, the middle class is left without the purchasing power to keep the economy growing and generate jobs.

Once the middle class has exhausted its coping mechanisms – wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s) and deep indebtedness (2002-present) – the inevitable result is slower growth and fewer jobs.

This hits the poor especially hard, because they’re first fired, last hired and bear the brunt of declining wages and benefits. A stressed middle class also has a harder time being generous to them.

Helping America’s poor presumably requires money, but the U.S. fiscal cupboard is bare, and the only way to replenish it now is through tax increases on the wealthy.

The shrinking middle class also hobbles upward mobility. There is less money for schools, training and social services, and the poor face a more difficult challenge moving up – the income ladder is far longer and its middle rungs have disappeared. …

As wealth has accumulated at the top, it has reduced taxes on the wealthy, expanded loopholes that benefit the rich, deregulated Wall Street and provided larger subsidies, bailouts and tax breaks for large corporations. …

[The rich have] never been richer, but most adamantly refuse to pay anything close to the tax rates accepted 40 years ago.

Tax Free Savings Account: Whopping tax cut for the rich

In 2009, Harper introduced the TFSA — or what the wealthy call the “totally fantastic savings account!” It allows a person to put away $5000/yr in savings or investments and never have to pay taxes on any money the account generates. If one is familiar with concept of compound interest, that can really add up over the years.

The TFSA might sound like a nifty idea, at first. But like income-splitting, it's a scheme that only the rich really benefit from.

RRSP better

The best savings plan available for the average person is the RRSP. It allows you to deduct your contribution from your taxable income. When you withdraw money, after you're retired, you have to pay taxes on it. But since your income is less, you end up paying less income tax.

Of course, Canadians are holding record levels of personal debt. It's highly unlikely any middle-income earner is putting away $24,000/yr in max RRSP contributions. So filling up your RRSP and having room left over for a TSFA is something only the very wealthy can accomplish.

Economy Lab pans TFSA

Back in 2011, the Globe and Mail Economy Lab examined the issue: Who really benefits from TFSA? The wealthy, for sure. They concluded the tax cut scheme reduced revenues by $3-billion/yr and was a terrible waste of resources:

A small minority of Canadians have stuffed $19-billion in assets into these accounts in less than two years. …

You could relieve an awful lot of day-to-day stress for $3-billion. You could improve services, repair infrastructure or tackle poverty in a meaningful way. …

It’s not the government’s money, it’s our money. And how we use our money to create a prosperous and civilized society is critical.

Let’s be clear. This measure will make the rich and powerful more rich and powerful. The rest of us will be left begging for funding for basic services.

TFSA: the sequel

If that was not bad enough, Harper plans on doubling the TFSA to $10,000/yr if he wins in 2015.

In today's G&M, the economist who designed the TFSA from Simon Fraser University concluded: a) doubling the TFSA is a terrible idea that will blow a whopping $10-billion/yr hole in the budget; and b) all the benefits will go to the rich. Rhys Kesselman: The forgotten tax break for the rich that will cost Ottawa billions.

Reverse, Restructure, Reinvest

When Harper is finally brought down, we're going to have to look into the mess he has made of the tax system and put the money to better use: reverse reckless tax cuts; restructure the tax system; reinvest poorly allocated resources.

According the Con 2009 budget, Harper has cut taxes by $44-billion/yr. That's an gargantuan amount of money going to waste.

Although Trudeau has ruled out reversing any of Harper's “starve the beast” tax cuts, Mulcair could really capitalize on the situation. He could promise to reverse these tax cuts and with most of the savings cut personal income taxes for middle- and low-income earners. That would be attractive to voters and still leave over $20B/yr to spend on infrastructure and social programs.

Harper has put the federal government in a fiscal straight jacket. We need to elect a leader that has the balls to undo the damage Harper has done.

Trudeau ruling out working with NDP shows he just doesn’t get it

In the rest of the developed world, coalition governments are the norm. But instead of standing up for Canadian democracy, Justin Trudeau has decided to back Harper’s anti-democratic position that coalitions are undemocratic.

Iggy folly redux

Clearly Trudeau hasn’t been paying attention to recent history. When Ignatieff rejected the 2008 Liberal-NDP coalition — which would’ve ousted Harper — that meant he was forced to prop up the Harper Government. Harper took full advantage and ruled like he had a majority. Iggy looked pathetic attempting to criticize legislation he was forced to vote for. In the end, he went down in a stunning defeat.

Having learned nothing, Trudeau is also taking the position he would rather work with the Harper Conservatives than the NDP.

History of Liberal-NDP cooperation

But the fact is the Liberal party has worked with the NDP many times in our country’s history. The greatest government of all time was an informal coalition between Lester B. Pearson and Tommy Douglas. It brought to Canadians: universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada Student Loans, the 40-hour work week, two weeks vacation time, a new minimum wage and the Canadian flag.

After 30 years of tough Tory times, you can bet most Canadians would rather have this kind of “interventionist” government than more neo-con “starve the beast” bullshit with big free-money tax cuts for the rich.

Canadians sick of partisan bickering

Trudeau also doesn’t understand that most Canadians are not partisan. We want center-left politicians to work together to stop Harper. We are sick of watching the Harper Cons destroy the country. Liberal, NDP, Green: we don’t care!

Conclusion

It’s time Trudeau did his homework and found out how our democracy works and what the vast majority of Canadians really want. Given Harper is at 30% in the polls, it is certainly not more Harper Government.

Trudeau chooses vanity over democracy

Justin Trudeau has abandoned his promise to upgrade our primitive voting system, First-Past-the-Post, with ranked ballot voting — which Liberal party members supported by 70% at their 2012 convention.

Instead, he has opted for the same process that produced designed-to-fail PR referendums by provincial Liberal governments. Given Trudeau was “deeply” opposed to proportional representation a few months ago, it’s clear his plan is to kill electoral reform like his provincial counterparts. Here’s what he said:

I do not support proportional representation because I believe deeply that every Member of Parliament should represent actual Canadians and Canadian communities, not just political parties. I support a preferential ballot because I believe it will lead to a more substantive and civil debate during elections and a more representative government afterward.

Vanity of vanities

So why would Trudeau abandon voting reform and attempt to enshrine corrupt FPP, which 91% of developed countries got rid of because it produces distorted election results?

One word: vanity. Trudeau imagines he has the magic to restore the Liberal party to it’s former glory as Canada’s “natural governing party.” And to do so, he will need the fake majority on 39% of the vote.

Bad at math

Unfortunately for Canadians, Trudeau is bad at math. In 2004, Paul Martin kept Harper down to 30% and the NDP down to 16%, but was still seen as a failure. Although, the Cons are presently at their 30% rock bottom, these protest polls are not carved in stone. And with the NDP at 23% in the polls — their lowest since the 2011 election — Trudeau has a long way to go to better Martin.

Then there’s the Green party. Their 4% to 8% of the vote disappears into thin air under FPP. How Trudeau expects to get their vote by supporting the Keystone XL and Kinder Morgan pipeline expansions is beyond me.

Conclusion

Trudeau’s inability to comprehend the vote-splitting issue will make the Conservatives Canada’s natural governing party, not the Liberals. If he gets his way.