tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post7475865605582378552..comments2023-10-10T10:34:10.843-06:00Comments on The Nexus of Assholery: Ken Dryden: Pwned With the TruthPatrick Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-39671301324793501362008-12-24T17:15:00.000-07:002008-12-24T17:15:00.000-07:00Well, in essence, Jared, I would argue that the in...Well, in essence, Jared, I would argue that the individual who casts their ballot in favour of the Liberals or NDP can credit themselves for that $1.97.<BR/><BR/>However, one also has to realize that non-voters help foot that particular bill at all. As much as I abhor the choice of simply not voting, I'd say that their decision not to vote just goes to show exactly what they think of <I>their</I> taxpayer dollars going to support political parties that they evidently don't support.Patrick Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-72718282341075005392008-12-24T15:55:00.000-07:002008-12-24T15:55:00.000-07:00True enough Patrick, but don't forget that Harper ...True enough Patrick, but don't forget that Harper is in effect doing the exact same thing. Jennifer Smith pointed out a similar problem at Runesmith's Canadian Content, as did Caylan MacGregor of Red Deer in a December 1, 2008 letter to the Journal. Both these women-and men like myself-don't have the disposable income to donate to the parties we would prefer to support. I'm having a lot of trouble finding a job right now, and so I'm stuck living at home until I can get enough income to move out on my own. I might like to make donations to the party of my choice, but I can't do so right now. <BR/><BR/>In effect, that's what the current financing laws do-one of the factors that affected my vote, alongside various other considerations, was the fact that my $1.75 would be going to support them. <BR/><BR/>While I can understand that some Canadians would not want to see their tax dollars going to support the Liberals or the NDP, I would point out in response that many progressives probably don't like seeing their tax dollars going towards some of the Harper government's other initiatives-tougher crime sentences, the war in Afghanistan, the military buildup, arming the border guards, etc. If you look hard enough, somebody somewhere is going to object to seeing their tax dollars go to just about anything you can think with. <BR/><BR/>And, like I said, we've had public financing in one form or another since 1974, so why get rid of it now? Why is Harper only targeting one specific form of funding-an initiative you weren't all that fond of either? It just makes him look like a bully, and waves a red flag at the opposition parties when Canadians made it quite clear they wanted everyone to work together-Harper got a slightly increased minority, although he actually lost ground in terms of the popular vote, and in overall electoral turnout. <BR/><BR/>As Dr. Serker pointed out, Canadians don't want to be governed by radical socialist policies, but I don't think we're all that keen on the Friedman ideas of radical deregulation and cuts to social spending-and Harper does deserve credit for doing what he should be and introducing an auto stimulus package, conditional on structuring deals. <BR/><BR/>But when his first major policy announcement is an economic update that all but deliberately provokes the opposition parties, that's when I think he should be criticized. Both sides are equally to blame for this sorry fiasco, and I don't want to let either side off the hook. <BR/><BR/>Jared.Jared Milnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07553795678274087372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-18313820224789312992008-12-24T15:26:00.000-07:002008-12-24T15:26:00.000-07:00"If the Tories are so interested in saving more mo..."<I>If the Tories are so interested in saving more money, why don't they cancel the public tax deductions that come with political donations?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Well, Jared, mostly because that would make it more difficult for political parties to raise funds from where they <I>should</I> be raising them in the first place -- from private donors.<BR/><BR/>Eliminating that tax deduction would prevent a great many Canadians from exercising their civic right to financially support the parties they wish to support.Patrick Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-67467502722943770252008-12-24T13:58:00.000-07:002008-12-24T13:58:00.000-07:00With all due respect to Dr. Zerker, I think she do...With all due respect to Dr. Zerker, I think she doesn't properly address some of Mr. Dryden's arguments. <BR/><BR/>Dryden, for one, hit it right on the head when Harper started this whole sorry mess with his idiotic economic update, which contained little or nothing to actually help Canadians through the difficult economic times. Instead, the centerpiece was to eliminate the public funding subsidy. <BR/><BR/>I find this incredibly ironic, given that we've had public electoral subsidies in one form or another in this country for decades, and that in one way or another they all come from our tax dollars. Whether it's the reimbursement of a candidate's election expenses, or the tax credits given for political donations, all these types of elements come from the public purse and our tax dollars. This was first put into place in 1974 (check Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, 5th Edition, 2008, pages 312-313)<BR/><BR/>As Bryan Corbett wrote in a letter to the editor in the December 1, 2008 edition of the Edmonton Journal, if the Tories are so interested in saving more money, why don't they cancel the public tax deductions that come with political donations? <BR/><BR/>It'd be interesting to hear Dr. Zerker's thoughts on this issue, particularly since it seems to me that Harper was specifically targeting the major source of funding for his opponents, when we've had other sources of funding from the public purse for nearly three and a half decades now. She's right about the Liberals' management and fundraising problems, but as it stands many of the Liberal blogs I've seen are already aware of the problem and trying to fix it. In any event, the money they're getting from these subsidies isn't enough to pay off their debts, anyway. <BR/><BR/>Initially, Harper was more interested in playing cheap partisan politics than in actually doing something to help Canadians with the economic crisis-an economic crisis he failed to anticipate during the October election campaign. It wasn't until the Opposition stood up to his bullying that Harper and Flaherty actually stood up and did something to help our automakers. <BR/><BR/>-Similarly, while Patrick quite rightly points out the distortions and exaggerations the Liberals accused Harper-and Stockwell Day before him-of in past elections, at least they mostly restricted their ads to actual elections. The Conservatives, for whatever reason, have spent the better part of two years with their distortionate "Not a Leader" ads, which contained little of substance besides simply bashing Dion. I somehow doubt that these ads were as effective as their supporters claim, given that 40% of the electorate stayed home on election day and Harper actually got 168,737 fewer votes in 2008 than he did in 2006. Don't believe me? Go to the Elections Canada website and do the math for yourself. <BR/><BR/>How about the fact that in 2004, Harper wrote a letter to the Governor General, alongside Layton and Duceppe, all but proposing the same thing that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are now attempting. <BR/><BR/>Don't forget, too, that while the election of Michael Ignatieff as Liberal leader has its problems, don't forget that Peter MacKay wasn't able to win the leadership of the old Progressive Conservative party on his own-which doesn't surprise me, considering his thoroughly mediocre performance in the leadership debates-and could only win by cutting a deal with David Orchard. He then promptly stabbed Orchard in the back and merged the PCs with the Harper-led Alliance, despite the fact that he had specifically promised not to.<BR/><BR/>Along with calling elections when it suits them and attempting to bankrupt his opponents, Harper is pulling the same dirty tricks we in Western Canada used to quite rightly criticize the Liberals for doing. Does this mean it's alright when the Conservatives do it? Or is it only bad when Liberals and Easterners pull this crap? <BR/><BR/>Why has there been no reaction to Tom Flanagan's articles and interviews where he openly brags about "tightening the screws" on the federal government by cutting its taxes and depriving it of revenue-a practice which has led directly to the possibility of our facing a deficit, as Parliamentary budget officer Kevin page pointed out:<BR/><BR/>http://www.financialpost.com/reports/oil-watch/story.html?id=976554<BR/><BR/>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/20/report-budget.html<BR/><BR/>How about Flanagan's August article in the Globe and Mail comparing the Liberals to the Carthaginians, wherein he implies that the Tories plan to keep pushing the Liberals into a financial pit they can't get out of, and otherwise pretty much wipe them out? <BR/><BR/>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/National/<BR/><BR/>That's hardly fair and responsible government. <BR/><BR/>I hope this isn't taken as a defence of the Coalition. I am deeply dismayed by Dion's readiness to work with the Bloc in this way, as Patrick points out, sacrificing his integrity for the opportunity to gain power. I am also upset at the way this crisis has divided Canadians, putting us at each other's throats when we need to be working together. <BR/><BR/>But my view is that the blame should be equally divided-on Harper for his economic incompetence and for playing foolish partisan games designed to bully his opponents into submission, and to the Coalition for creating instability and damaging our national unity through their foolish attempts to seize power from the democratically elected prime minister. <BR/><BR/>Dr. Zerker trusts Harper, but I am more ambivalent. He has been very effective in keeping many of his promises, such as defending our Arctic sovereignty, rebuilding the military with new equipment, and arming our border guards, and various other bread-and-butter issues, but I am very concerned about his longer policy goals, such as making Canada more "conservative" in the sense that Tom Flanagan implies. <BR/><BR/>Conservatives like Peter Lougheed, R.B. Bennett, John Diefenbaker and Robert Stanfield were willing to intervene to help poorer Canadians in need, and to try and strike a balance between free enterprise and individual gain, and collective aid and social programs for those in need. The idea of taking power away from accountable institutions like government, and otherwise tying its hands and transferring power to unelected, unaccountable trade tribunals and companies, is something that I am very wary of, with agreements such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, NAFTA, or the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Patrick's written extensively on the Nexus about the problems that arise from both the Keynesian approach to economics and the Friedman-based style of free enterprise and bare minimum of government intervention, and I'm very concerned that Harper is going too far in the latter direction. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, it's worth noting that Harper's premise of "open federalism" and sticking to the strict letter of the Constitution is in some respects admirable, but we have to remember the difference between the strict letter of the Constitution and the various conventions that have arisen. Constitutional convention, for example, means that the federal government doesn't use its reservation and disallowance powers to override provincial legislation, although it has the constitutional right to do so. Similarly, although most social policy is meant to be left to the provinces, the Canada Health Act has long since been accepted by Canadian society, and no politician who valued his or her career would suggest getting rid of it. Even now, although the Coaltion government would be legal, modern constitutional convention has, as I see it, become that the government who wins the most seats automatically forms the government, and that the only way to replace them if they lose confidence is for another party to win an election and carry the most seats in the House. <BR/><BR/>The Fathers of Confederation were quite clear in this respect-we are a federal country, and Sir John A. Macdonald's initial vision of a unitary Canada simply didn't work, but by the same token we're not a loose collection of provinces-we're a country, and the federal government has a role to play in helping Canadians across the country through social policy. Harper might prefer to see such things left entirely up to the provinces, but again the convention has developed that the federal government has a positive role to play in this area, and leaving everything strictly up to the provinces certainly isn't what the men who build this country had in mind. <BR/><BR/>Jared.Jared Milnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07553795678274087372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-43530087695813559802008-12-24T13:52:00.000-07:002008-12-24T13:52:00.000-07:00Any MP anywhere in the country who refuses to answ...Any MP anywhere in the country who refuses to answer correspondance in either official language should be stripped of their federal office budget.<BR/><BR/>I think it's as simple as that.Patrick Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-42675713962125023962008-12-24T08:42:00.000-07:002008-12-24T08:42:00.000-07:00My first language is French, you're completely rig...My first language is French, you're completely right.<BR/><BR/>I'm just out to prove a point. My riding here is just over 30% anglophone and immigrant, I believe my MP no matter which party he/she represents can speak or at least write in both official language.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't expect bilingualism from an MP in Yellowknife where the french population is almost nil. <BR/><BR/>But from someone in a large urban center where constituents speak English? Hell... I demand bilingualism.Muchacho Enfermohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14199529242989469992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-23166786421348323512008-12-24T01:07:00.000-07:002008-12-24T01:07:00.000-07:00Let me guess: he won't answer your letters in Engl...Let me guess: he won't answer your letters in English?<BR/><BR/>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought your first language is French.<BR/><BR/>Although, I think I understand what you're trying to do...Patrick Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-81370310593426916472008-12-23T21:59:00.000-07:002008-12-23T21:59:00.000-07:00Again, an excellent analysis of the current situat...Again, an excellent analysis of the current situation. Serker is completely right and justified in her response. <BR/><BR/>Now if I could only get my Bloc MP here to answer my letters in the language of my choosing I'd be a happy man. Much less have a constructive exchange. If nothing else at least Dryden answered. Even if it was just useless babble.Muchacho Enfermohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14199529242989469992noreply@blogger.com