Showing posts with label Federal Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Politics. Show all posts
Just wait until we get a majority! (Part 7)
I am sick of this minority parliament. I'm sure it is the opposition coalition of the Liberals, socialists and separatists are forcing Harper to make decisions like this: Minister of Agriculture defends protectionist policies in the poultry and milk industries. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for free trade.
Giving up agriculture supply management to join free trade group
So let me get this straight. In order to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade group Canada will have to agree to stop a policy that makes common foods more expensive. I think this has to be the very definition of win-win.
Of course the caveat is that Canada won't have to eliminate supply management immediately. It seems likely that they will be on a "liberalization schedule." Which is diplomatic speech for you don't ever have to really do that. But still it will at least create one pressure to encourage liberalization that will counter the special interest groups that try to stop it.
Of course the caveat is that Canada won't have to eliminate supply management immediately. It seems likely that they will be on a "liberalization schedule." Which is diplomatic speech for you don't ever have to really do that. But still it will at least create one pressure to encourage liberalization that will counter the special interest groups that try to stop it.
Flaherty confirms that the budget will not be balanced in 2014
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has announced that the deficit will not be eliminated as quickly as the government had promised. The plan to get out of deficit was based on an assumption that the economy will continue to improve at a certain rate. As has become increasingly clear the economy is not going to improve sufficiently. Who could have possibly have predicted that this would happen?
Oh wait…
I did!
And I wasn’t the only one.
Hell, anyone paying half attention to what was happening in Europe and the United States even back in April could have easily predicted that the Ministry of Finance’s optimist was misplaced. The only thing I can conclude is that no on at the Ministry reads financial news.
History has shown, time and time again, that deficit slaying does not take place on the back of economic growth alone. Real cuts and hard decisions have to be made. If the Government of Canada truly wants to put its finances in order, it has to be far more proactive.
Oh wait…
I did!
And I wasn’t the only one.
Hell, anyone paying half attention to what was happening in Europe and the United States even back in April could have easily predicted that the Ministry of Finance’s optimist was misplaced. The only thing I can conclude is that no on at the Ministry reads financial news.
History has shown, time and time again, that deficit slaying does not take place on the back of economic growth alone. Real cuts and hard decisions have to be made. If the Government of Canada truly wants to put its finances in order, it has to be far more proactive.
Just wait until we get a majority! (Part 6)
I am sick of this minority parliament. I'm sure it is the opposition coalition of the Liberals, socialists and separatists are forcing Harper to make decisions like this: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will confirm that deficits will run longer than promised. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for fiscal sanity.
One good crime reform
As bad as the Conservative government's crime reform agenda is and has been, there is one bright spot that I think should be noted. The Conservatives are planning on altering the criminal code to allow greater discretion for the individual to defend himself or herself against an aggressor.
As things stand now it is deeply ambiguous who would get in more trouble. The person that tried to rob you, or you for punching out the person who tried to rob you. Correcting this, and freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.
As things stand now it is deeply ambiguous who would get in more trouble. The person that tried to rob you, or you for punching out the person who tried to rob you. Correcting this, and freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.
Federal government can't spend money on infastructure, it has no money
As pressure continues for the federal government to introduce another round of new spending, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are adding its voice and suggesting that commuter infrastructure would be a good way to spend all that money that the federal government doesn’t have.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that even among Keynesians the usefulness of government infrastructure spending as a way to improve the short term economy is disputed. The effects on the job market are too narrow when you consider that it only employs people with specific skills, and usually it takes too long for these projects to be launched. So even if you do think that boosting aggregate demand is the thing to do (which I don’t) you have to wonder if infrastructure spending is the best way to do that.
The next thing that comes to my mind is that Toronto desperately needs a better system for commuters. I spent two weeks commuting from the Newmarket area to midtown Toronto and I vowed never to do it again. “Stimulating” the economy may just be a convenient excuse to tackle the problem. Although I would think that even if there is disagreement on what should be done and how it should be done, pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be done.
The third thing that comes to my mind is something that I mentioned in the first paragraph: the federal government has no money. The Government of Canada has been in deficit since the 2009/2010 budget and the Minister of Finance was betting a return to surplus on a fast growing economy, which is a dubious prospect at best. So if the federal government has to borrow money without even having to take on new projects, you have to wonder where this new spending is going to come from. How much more money do we really want our government borrowing? Also, if you have to borrow just to pay your day to day bills, is that really the best financial moment to invest in a large capital project?
Back in 2007 the Government of Canada may have been able to afford the cost of improving commuter infrastructure, but over the last few years the gluttony of spending has made it impossible. It would be incredibly financially prohibitive to spend the billions it would require.
Fortunately there are things that governments can do to take pressure off the system, if they have the political will. But at some point governments will have to spend money to address the problem and that money has already been wasted away.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that even among Keynesians the usefulness of government infrastructure spending as a way to improve the short term economy is disputed. The effects on the job market are too narrow when you consider that it only employs people with specific skills, and usually it takes too long for these projects to be launched. So even if you do think that boosting aggregate demand is the thing to do (which I don’t) you have to wonder if infrastructure spending is the best way to do that.
The next thing that comes to my mind is that Toronto desperately needs a better system for commuters. I spent two weeks commuting from the Newmarket area to midtown Toronto and I vowed never to do it again. “Stimulating” the economy may just be a convenient excuse to tackle the problem. Although I would think that even if there is disagreement on what should be done and how it should be done, pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be done.
The third thing that comes to my mind is something that I mentioned in the first paragraph: the federal government has no money. The Government of Canada has been in deficit since the 2009/2010 budget and the Minister of Finance was betting a return to surplus on a fast growing economy, which is a dubious prospect at best. So if the federal government has to borrow money without even having to take on new projects, you have to wonder where this new spending is going to come from. How much more money do we really want our government borrowing? Also, if you have to borrow just to pay your day to day bills, is that really the best financial moment to invest in a large capital project?
Back in 2007 the Government of Canada may have been able to afford the cost of improving commuter infrastructure, but over the last few years the gluttony of spending has made it impossible. It would be incredibly financially prohibitive to spend the billions it would require.
Fortunately there are things that governments can do to take pressure off the system, if they have the political will. But at some point governments will have to spend money to address the problem and that money has already been wasted away.
The Conservatives thinks that growing pot is worst than raping a child
Of course my title isn’t true. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all Conservatives, much like 99.9% of all sane decent human beings, would agree that raping a child is worst than growing pot. So it is incredibly puzzling to me why the Conservative government would want to create a justice system that views pot growers as being worst than child rapists. As Ethan Baron of the Province points out, the proposed sentencing guidelines for pot growers is harsher than for a pedophile:
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.
The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.
A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.
The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
Obama's buy America plan not Harper's fault
It is part of the job of the opposition parties in Parliament to criticize the government. To do so effectively they need credibility and you don’t help your credibility when you blame the government for something that is clearly not its fault. A good example of this has come up recently with the Obama administration’s plan to introduce a “buy American” provision with its “jobs” plan. The Liberals and NDP seem to be blaming the Conservatives for this protectionist move.
The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.
The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.
If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.
Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.
The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.
The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.
The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.
If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.
Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.
The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.
How will the Conservatives say no to new spending?
Three weeks ago I wrote a post that argued that the Conservative Party will have trouble resisting the calls for more “stimulus” spending because they have lost the credibility to offer an alternative (i.e. conservative) perspective. It has become the accepted wisdom of Canada’s political class that deficit spending can improve the economy. This is despite the lack of credible evidence proving this wisdom to be right. In fact there is considerable evidence that deficits are harmful in the long run and that government debt can cripple an economy. The Conservative Party can’t make these points, however, because it has publicly declared its faith in Keynes’ folly.
Yesterday Stephen Harper made a speech saying that the federal government will be “flexible” about its financial plan. This, more than any other statement thus far made, has opened the door to the possibility of more spending. Once that door has cracked open the pressure will be enormous for the Conservative Party to commit themselves to more years of deficit.
Lacking any credible intellectual defenses against this inevitable pressure, the Conservative Party will certainly succumb. The Conservatives’ only hope would be if the economy improves before they have to put forth an economic update in the late fall. It is only by arguing that it is not needed, as oppose to arguing that it is not useful, will the Conservatives be able to resist and keep to their already flawed plan to return to surplus.
As I said three weeks ago:
We are screwed.
Yesterday Stephen Harper made a speech saying that the federal government will be “flexible” about its financial plan. This, more than any other statement thus far made, has opened the door to the possibility of more spending. Once that door has cracked open the pressure will be enormous for the Conservative Party to commit themselves to more years of deficit.
Lacking any credible intellectual defenses against this inevitable pressure, the Conservative Party will certainly succumb. The Conservatives’ only hope would be if the economy improves before they have to put forth an economic update in the late fall. It is only by arguing that it is not needed, as oppose to arguing that it is not useful, will the Conservatives be able to resist and keep to their already flawed plan to return to surplus.
As I said three weeks ago:
We are screwed.
Partisan Jack
Often when celebrities or well known business and political leaders pass away the family asks the public to honour the passing by giving a donation to a charity that was dear to the deceased’s heart. For Jack Layton the NDP (not sure how involved the family is with this) has asked that people give to a left-wing political organization that is being started by Ed Broadbent and appears to be modeled off the Manning Centre. The Broadbent Institute will be training activists and Parliamentary staff and, much like the Manning Centre, will have deep ties within the NDP party establishment.
This seems to me to be an odd choice for a way to honour the life of Jack Layton through charity. The most obvious choice would have been cancer research or some cancer patient support group. If they didn’t want to make it about the thing that killed him, there are plenty of other choices. Jack Layton was suppose to care about the downtrodden, so why not ask the public to give to a women’s shelter or an organization trying to help at risk teens?
Instead we are asked to give to what is essentially a partisan organization. To be fair the only people likely to give to it are actually NDP partisans, but that just makes it feel like a cynical ploy on the part of NDP fundraisers to capitalize on the death of their leader. Yes they are not asking money for the NDP directly, but it will be the NDP that will benefit from the activities of the Broadbent Institute.
This isn’t the only oddly partisan way that Jack Layton is being recalled or honoured. The City of Toronto plans on turning the CN Tower orange on Saturday. Orange in Canadian politics has been branded to identify the NDP. So to honour Jack Layton we are going to turn an iconic symbol of Toronto into a giant advert for the NDP? As a non-supporter of the NDP this leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth. (Especially when you consider that it isn’t like the City of Toronto isn’t doing anything else in memory of Jack Layton).
Now we can turn to the awkward conversation about Jack Layton’s “final note to Canadians.” Christie Blatchford has been dumped on a lot this week for having the guts to be critical of not just the letter but the reaction to his death in general. At the risk of exposing myself to similar ire, the letter reeks of partisanship.
Ms. Blatchford already pointed out the odd snipe at Harper in the words “We can restore our good name in the world.” As if we were one step away from Syria. But this is hardly the only bit of partisan hackery in the letter. Hell the letter starts off by trying to direct the conditions of the leadership race to replace him. The fact that Mr. Layton preferred in early leadership race to a later one is not really a message that all Canadians needed to hear.
The next section he encourages cancer patients to not give up hope, which is nice but then he moves on to talking directly to the intra-Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary sections of the NDP. I suppose that is fine in principle, since it is with their support that he was able to accomplish his goals, but he managed to slip in there a resume of things that he claims as initiatives of the NDP. It just seems…well smooth.
If you think I’ve been harsh up until now, take a good look at the next two sections. He addresses messages to Quebec and youth.
Why Quebec and youth?
Seriously, why did he (and his wife and Chief of Staff) decide that those two groups deserved a specific message? Why not Toronto where he lived most his life? Why not to his own age group? Why not the West or the East or any other part of the country?
It is because Quebec and youth are recognized as being fundamental to the NDP if they want to form government. Read the letter and it not just clear but blatantly obvious that this is electioneering.
If you read that on a fundraising letter or heard it on a stump speech you wouldn’t bat an eye. But again, this is supposed to be a final message to all Canadians.
By the time I got to the end of the letter, the first time I read it, I felt so ripped off and cynical that I dismissed his rather nice sentiment about the importance of optimism as I would if I heard it come out of any politician’s mouth: shallow sentimentality.
I think what bothers me the most about all this is the picture that all this cynical partisanship is painting of Jack Layton. I now have in my head the picture of a man who was so thoroughly a partisan hack that he tried to use his own death as a way to advance his party’s electoral success. This picture is unfair because I’m not sure how much he actually had to do with the letter and he has had nothing to do with what has happened after he died. But I never knew Jack Layton and I never knew anyone well that knew him well, and so really I have nothing to judge him by except the public image. That public image has been very partisan, especially in the days after his death.
I suspect that he was more than that. I suspect that he was much more than Partisan Jack. He was a father, a husband, and a friend to some. He was more than a vehicle for political gains and it sickens me that he is being treated that way.
This seems to me to be an odd choice for a way to honour the life of Jack Layton through charity. The most obvious choice would have been cancer research or some cancer patient support group. If they didn’t want to make it about the thing that killed him, there are plenty of other choices. Jack Layton was suppose to care about the downtrodden, so why not ask the public to give to a women’s shelter or an organization trying to help at risk teens?
Instead we are asked to give to what is essentially a partisan organization. To be fair the only people likely to give to it are actually NDP partisans, but that just makes it feel like a cynical ploy on the part of NDP fundraisers to capitalize on the death of their leader. Yes they are not asking money for the NDP directly, but it will be the NDP that will benefit from the activities of the Broadbent Institute.
This isn’t the only oddly partisan way that Jack Layton is being recalled or honoured. The City of Toronto plans on turning the CN Tower orange on Saturday. Orange in Canadian politics has been branded to identify the NDP. So to honour Jack Layton we are going to turn an iconic symbol of Toronto into a giant advert for the NDP? As a non-supporter of the NDP this leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth. (Especially when you consider that it isn’t like the City of Toronto isn’t doing anything else in memory of Jack Layton).
Now we can turn to the awkward conversation about Jack Layton’s “final note to Canadians.” Christie Blatchford has been dumped on a lot this week for having the guts to be critical of not just the letter but the reaction to his death in general. At the risk of exposing myself to similar ire, the letter reeks of partisanship.
Ms. Blatchford already pointed out the odd snipe at Harper in the words “We can restore our good name in the world.” As if we were one step away from Syria. But this is hardly the only bit of partisan hackery in the letter. Hell the letter starts off by trying to direct the conditions of the leadership race to replace him. The fact that Mr. Layton preferred in early leadership race to a later one is not really a message that all Canadians needed to hear.
The next section he encourages cancer patients to not give up hope, which is nice but then he moves on to talking directly to the intra-Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary sections of the NDP. I suppose that is fine in principle, since it is with their support that he was able to accomplish his goals, but he managed to slip in there a resume of things that he claims as initiatives of the NDP. It just seems…well smooth.
If you think I’ve been harsh up until now, take a good look at the next two sections. He addresses messages to Quebec and youth.
Why Quebec and youth?
Seriously, why did he (and his wife and Chief of Staff) decide that those two groups deserved a specific message? Why not Toronto where he lived most his life? Why not to his own age group? Why not the West or the East or any other part of the country?
It is because Quebec and youth are recognized as being fundamental to the NDP if they want to form government. Read the letter and it not just clear but blatantly obvious that this is electioneering.
(emphasis mine)
To my fellow Quebecers: On May 2nd, you made an historic decision. You decided that the way to replace Canada’s Conservative federal government with something better was by working together in partnership with progressive-minded Canadians across the country. You made the right decision then; it is still the right decision today; and it will be the right decision right through to the next election, when we will succeed, together. You have elected a superb team of New Democrats to Parliament. They are going to be doing remarkable things in the years to come to make this country better for us all.
If you read that on a fundraising letter or heard it on a stump speech you wouldn’t bat an eye. But again, this is supposed to be a final message to all Canadians.
By the time I got to the end of the letter, the first time I read it, I felt so ripped off and cynical that I dismissed his rather nice sentiment about the importance of optimism as I would if I heard it come out of any politician’s mouth: shallow sentimentality.
I think what bothers me the most about all this is the picture that all this cynical partisanship is painting of Jack Layton. I now have in my head the picture of a man who was so thoroughly a partisan hack that he tried to use his own death as a way to advance his party’s electoral success. This picture is unfair because I’m not sure how much he actually had to do with the letter and he has had nothing to do with what has happened after he died. But I never knew Jack Layton and I never knew anyone well that knew him well, and so really I have nothing to judge him by except the public image. That public image has been very partisan, especially in the days after his death.
I suspect that he was more than that. I suspect that he was much more than Partisan Jack. He was a father, a husband, and a friend to some. He was more than a vehicle for political gains and it sickens me that he is being treated that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)