That's what the opposition leaders demanded of Steve Harper last night. Exactly, but when you're the incumbent you unfortunately do not need a platform. You're defending your record; and people vote on that record. To be frank, I was left rather confused by last night's English debate here in Canada. Clearly, the opposition leaders did what they had to do which was pounce on the PM but it's difficult to gauge if they were successful. Hard to say if Harper succeeded in what he had to do but he can be scrappy when he has to be.
The fact that Harper admitted he was wrong about Iraq goes to the issue of credibility. He can't say he was fooled by the faulty case for WMD, when a candid world knew there was no case. The fact is if he was PM at the time, Canada would be burying way more soldiers, sailors and airmen than we are right now; and he knows it. Forget the fact we're already in a quagmire in Afghanistan. Does anyone really believe we're pulling out of combat duties in 2011? Ha!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
7 year high for unemployment benefits in States
If anyone needed proof the US economy is in trouble and that Canada is only a step behind (contrary to Harper's claims that "our fundamentals are strong") consider this: Last week, 497,000 Americans applied for unemployment benefits -- a seven year high and well above the Wall Street forecast of 475,000. Normally, only 325,000 (over a four week rolling average) should be applying for benefits, the rolling average right now is 474,000. Even worse, the number of people staying on the rolls is now 3.591 million, the highest in over five years.
How long will it be before the number of non-seasonal workers collecting EI here is over 400,000? We may already be there, in fact. Stay the course isn't going to cut it, Steve. If Americans are hurting that bad, it's only a matter of time before we feel the effects.
Sidebar: The European Central Bank, which sets interest rates for the 15 EU and 3 non-EU states using the Euro, today kept the rate banks charge each other within the zone at 4¼%. Guess that'll mean a further flight of money from the States to Europe given the 2¼% spread -- at a time when America needs that least.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
How long will it be before the number of non-seasonal workers collecting EI here is over 400,000? We may already be there, in fact. Stay the course isn't going to cut it, Steve. If Americans are hurting that bad, it's only a matter of time before we feel the effects.
Sidebar: The European Central Bank, which sets interest rates for the 15 EU and 3 non-EU states using the Euro, today kept the rate banks charge each other within the zone at 4¼%. Guess that'll mean a further flight of money from the States to Europe given the 2¼% spread -- at a time when America needs that least.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
CBC Calgary: Is Ron Anders still alive?
Finally, someone in the pro-Harper media -- the Canadian Press -- noticed something many of us in the progressive movement have for weeks: Local Conservative candidates are refusing to debate their opponents in their respective districts. Head office is saying there is nothing preventing them from doing so, but the excuses being come up with are bordering on the laughable.
While most Canadians vote for the party or the leader, about 5% still vote for who they think is the best local candidate. That's actually as it should be, since it is legally not a national race but 308 local ones.
To prove how evasive the Conservative candidates are being this round, exactly like the Gingrich Republicans in 1994 who were actually forced by the RNC not to make any media appearances without permission -- and when they did, made such incredulous statements such as homosexuals ought to be in prison -- CBC Calgary has launched a contest to anyone who can prove Ron Anders of Calgary West is still alive. Seriously.
Heck, even Terry Anderson, a former local councillor here in Hamilton, has been more readily available on behalf of the Cons than most; and it's only because here in Hamilton Mountain where I am it's essentially a Liberal - NDP battle anyway.
Most politics, if not all, is local. If a Harperite wants to throw away 5% of the vote and possibly a plum MP post, that's his or her problem. But the issue is that too many don't want to acknowledge their opponents' right to exist; and because of that it's a national problem. Harper should crack the whip and demand his candidates put their best face forward. If he can't or is unwilling to do that, then Steve Harper is not a leader.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
While most Canadians vote for the party or the leader, about 5% still vote for who they think is the best local candidate. That's actually as it should be, since it is legally not a national race but 308 local ones.
To prove how evasive the Conservative candidates are being this round, exactly like the Gingrich Republicans in 1994 who were actually forced by the RNC not to make any media appearances without permission -- and when they did, made such incredulous statements such as homosexuals ought to be in prison -- CBC Calgary has launched a contest to anyone who can prove Ron Anders of Calgary West is still alive. Seriously.
Heck, even Terry Anderson, a former local councillor here in Hamilton, has been more readily available on behalf of the Cons than most; and it's only because here in Hamilton Mountain where I am it's essentially a Liberal - NDP battle anyway.
Most politics, if not all, is local. If a Harperite wants to throw away 5% of the vote and possibly a plum MP post, that's his or her problem. But the issue is that too many don't want to acknowledge their opponents' right to exist; and because of that it's a national problem. Harper should crack the whip and demand his candidates put their best face forward. If he can't or is unwilling to do that, then Steve Harper is not a leader.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Link of the day: Strategic voting guide
I'm going to take a bit of a breather in anticipation of the debates, but in the meantime I found this handy tool over at Democratic Space which allows one to figure out how to vote if voting strategically. I agree with the site that one shouldn't have to do this and if we had proportional representation it would be completely unnecessary.
Go to the Strategic Voting Guide, which lists districts where it make sense to vote strategically in general. Then click on the party of your choice on the upper right of that page to find out whether you should be voting for your preferred party in your district, or another one to best ensure the desired result -- i.e. if you're a progressive, preventing a Conservative win; if you're a right-winger, preventing a Liberal win.
Could strategic or second-choice voting actually cause a different result? It certainly did back in 2004 when the Toronto Star predicted an extremely narrow win for the Cons -- 119 to 117. Enough Canadians were frightened of Harper to give it to the Liberals, 135-99. Could it happen again? With thirteen days left, I suppose anything's possible. Ekos said today that there are still 19% of Canadians who would switch their vote to prevent a Harper majority, including 14% of -- shock! -- Albertans. That's more than enough.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Go to the Strategic Voting Guide, which lists districts where it make sense to vote strategically in general. Then click on the party of your choice on the upper right of that page to find out whether you should be voting for your preferred party in your district, or another one to best ensure the desired result -- i.e. if you're a progressive, preventing a Conservative win; if you're a right-winger, preventing a Liberal win.
Could strategic or second-choice voting actually cause a different result? It certainly did back in 2004 when the Toronto Star predicted an extremely narrow win for the Cons -- 119 to 117. Enough Canadians were frightened of Harper to give it to the Liberals, 135-99. Could it happen again? With thirteen days left, I suppose anything's possible. Ekos said today that there are still 19% of Canadians who would switch their vote to prevent a Harper majority, including 14% of -- shock! -- Albertans. That's more than enough.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Bailout redux
The US Senate is voting today on the bailout package -- but only after sundown, in respect of completion of the first two days of Rosh Hoshanah. This version has some elements that the House version did not; including tax breaks for individuals and corporations as well as for alternative energy and, pushed by both Obama and McCain, an increase in the deposit insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000.
Will that be enough? Perhaps, but the problem still is that those who got America into the mess -- many of them members of Congress on the key financial committees who did not act on their oversight responsibilities, will continue to get immunity. Quite a few of them, if not all of them, should be in jail because they saw this coming and did nothing.
From what I see, the proposal also doesn't give the government the right to demand stock warrants so they in effect take an ownership stake. That's what they did in Sweden when that country experienced a near meltdown in 1992 during a recession that hit that country particularly hard. A meltdown so bad that at one point interest rates hit 500%. When the storm cleared, the government actually made a tidy profit which it put back into social programs; and it still stands to gain as it still owns about 20% of a major bank.
Would that be unprecedented for America? Hardly. Stock warrants are routinely part of loan guarantees to airlines, defense contractors and so forth -- but oddly enough not to banks. When Congress bailed out Chrysler in 1979, it demanded stock warrants as well. Warrants, similar to options but more easily traded, are convertible to shares if tendered before a certain expiry date. At a time when the stock was trading about five bucks no one thought much of it but when the company's fortunes actually did turn around and shares skyrocketed to $35 even after a supplemental stock offering, the government wound up making a profit of over $300 million. Of course, there was a huge price to pay, as over 60,000 lost their jobs in the reorganization -- and as Iacocca recalled in his memoirs, when he wanted to cancel the warrants because of that very fact he was castigated for welching on a promise to the government even if he did repay the loans seven years early.
So what's the big deal here? The principle of equality of sacrifice should also apply in this case. If the banks want an infusion of cash, they should be forced to give up temporarily some of their independence. They certainly should not expect something for nothing. And as for concerns the Sweden model doesn't teach America any lessons because their currency value is only half what it was back then -- well, hasn't the greenback devalued itself already against the loonie, yen, pound and Euro?
Those who still believe in American "exceptionalism," that is America should find its own solutions and not even care about best practices elsewhere that actually worked, must also still believe that "Smurf ™" is an acronym for Socialist Men Under Red Father.
Give me a break.
UPDATE (8:36 am EDT, 1236 GMT): To make a clarification on the Chrysler situation: The warrants in question were exercisable such that the holders, both the government as well as the banks that extended their existing loans, could purchase the shares for just $14. 14.4 million warrants went to the government, the remaining 12 million to the banks. Do the math: The spread between $14 and $35 -- $21 per share -- is where the taxpayer and the lenders wound up making a windfall. As Iacocca correctly complained, the $311 million he had to spend to buy back just the government's warrants could have gone to hire back some of the workers he had to lay off, or at least bolster their pensions.
That's why I still find this bailout irksome. Even if warrants were demanded, too many good people are going to be out of the cold for good and in the end it'll be back to business as usual.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Will that be enough? Perhaps, but the problem still is that those who got America into the mess -- many of them members of Congress on the key financial committees who did not act on their oversight responsibilities, will continue to get immunity. Quite a few of them, if not all of them, should be in jail because they saw this coming and did nothing.
From what I see, the proposal also doesn't give the government the right to demand stock warrants so they in effect take an ownership stake. That's what they did in Sweden when that country experienced a near meltdown in 1992 during a recession that hit that country particularly hard. A meltdown so bad that at one point interest rates hit 500%. When the storm cleared, the government actually made a tidy profit which it put back into social programs; and it still stands to gain as it still owns about 20% of a major bank.
Would that be unprecedented for America? Hardly. Stock warrants are routinely part of loan guarantees to airlines, defense contractors and so forth -- but oddly enough not to banks. When Congress bailed out Chrysler in 1979, it demanded stock warrants as well. Warrants, similar to options but more easily traded, are convertible to shares if tendered before a certain expiry date. At a time when the stock was trading about five bucks no one thought much of it but when the company's fortunes actually did turn around and shares skyrocketed to $35 even after a supplemental stock offering, the government wound up making a profit of over $300 million. Of course, there was a huge price to pay, as over 60,000 lost their jobs in the reorganization -- and as Iacocca recalled in his memoirs, when he wanted to cancel the warrants because of that very fact he was castigated for welching on a promise to the government even if he did repay the loans seven years early.
So what's the big deal here? The principle of equality of sacrifice should also apply in this case. If the banks want an infusion of cash, they should be forced to give up temporarily some of their independence. They certainly should not expect something for nothing. And as for concerns the Sweden model doesn't teach America any lessons because their currency value is only half what it was back then -- well, hasn't the greenback devalued itself already against the loonie, yen, pound and Euro?
Those who still believe in American "exceptionalism," that is America should find its own solutions and not even care about best practices elsewhere that actually worked, must also still believe that "Smurf ™" is an acronym for Socialist Men Under Red Father.
Give me a break.
UPDATE (8:36 am EDT, 1236 GMT): To make a clarification on the Chrysler situation: The warrants in question were exercisable such that the holders, both the government as well as the banks that extended their existing loans, could purchase the shares for just $14. 14.4 million warrants went to the government, the remaining 12 million to the banks. Do the math: The spread between $14 and $35 -- $21 per share -- is where the taxpayer and the lenders wound up making a windfall. As Iacocca correctly complained, the $311 million he had to spend to buy back just the government's warrants could have gone to hire back some of the workers he had to lay off, or at least bolster their pensions.
That's why I still find this bailout irksome. Even if warrants were demanded, too many good people are going to be out of the cold for good and in the end it'll be back to business as usual.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The buck stops here -- except for Harper
Years ago, the US President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The buck stops here." The sign was still on the Oval Office desk right through to the Jimmy Carter era. The principle: You may delegate responsibility to others, but the final decision is yours and you have to be accountable and responsible for it. Note that it was apparently removed when Reagan came to Washington -- imagine that.
A few years back, when it turned out the intelligence case for the Iraq War turned out to be fraudulent, Dubya vacillated for weeks on end as to who should take the blame -- and in the meantime, a top secret agent who was investigating the case for war in Iran was betrayed in the worst possible way (anyone remember the name Valerie Plame?).
Tony Blair, on the other hand, took it to the chin. He stood up in the British Parliament and said that while he was misled by his advisors, that did not excuse his misleading his fellow Commons and the people of Britain and that he was sorry. While he said he still would have taken his country to war but for the falsified info -- the "sexed-up" Downing Street Memo, as it's come to be known -- he actually had the guts to say that on that key count he was wrong to take the information at face value.
So what does Harper do when it turns out one of his most important speeches -- in fact, his first key policy address in Parliament as leader of what was then the Canadian Alliance? He lets someone take the fall for it, the person who wrote the speech. But Harper himself? No remorse. No regrets. No having the buck stop with him.
I ask this, not as a card-carrying Liberal but just as an ordinary Canadian: Do we really want four more years of this? If my fellow Canadians decide that they do, then of course I'll respect that as most of us will. However, a little remorse now and then is a good thing and of the five leaders Harper seems the most incapable of showing anyway or even knowing what that is.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
A few years back, when it turned out the intelligence case for the Iraq War turned out to be fraudulent, Dubya vacillated for weeks on end as to who should take the blame -- and in the meantime, a top secret agent who was investigating the case for war in Iran was betrayed in the worst possible way (anyone remember the name Valerie Plame?).
Tony Blair, on the other hand, took it to the chin. He stood up in the British Parliament and said that while he was misled by his advisors, that did not excuse his misleading his fellow Commons and the people of Britain and that he was sorry. While he said he still would have taken his country to war but for the falsified info -- the "sexed-up" Downing Street Memo, as it's come to be known -- he actually had the guts to say that on that key count he was wrong to take the information at face value.
So what does Harper do when it turns out one of his most important speeches -- in fact, his first key policy address in Parliament as leader of what was then the Canadian Alliance? He lets someone take the fall for it, the person who wrote the speech. But Harper himself? No remorse. No regrets. No having the buck stop with him.
I ask this, not as a card-carrying Liberal but just as an ordinary Canadian: Do we really want four more years of this? If my fellow Canadians decide that they do, then of course I'll respect that as most of us will. However, a little remorse now and then is a good thing and of the five leaders Harper seems the most incapable of showing anyway or even knowing what that is.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Harper's sacrificial lamb
Harper aide Owen Lippert admitted he was overeager in lifting John Howard's Iraq speech, claiming he was "pressed for time" in writing it in time for a BQ "supply day" that just happened to be scheduled when the Iraq War started, and has resigned from the Conservative campaign.
Not good enough. Lippert may have walked the plank on this one, but it was Harper who gave the speech -- and in Parliament no less. A leader takes responsibility for his own actions and doesn't blame it on a speechwriter.
Steve Harper is not a leader.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Not good enough. Lippert may have walked the plank on this one, but it was Harper who gave the speech -- and in Parliament no less. A leader takes responsibility for his own actions and doesn't blame it on a speechwriter.
Steve Harper is not a leader.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Rae: Harper plagarized Howard's Iraq speech
Woot! Huge HT to Jason Cherniak (BTW, Jason, Shana Tov!).
I always thought Steve Harper's speech in favour of the Iraq war on March 20, 2003, sounded convoluted and full of stuff that he couldn't possibly come up on his own. In this day and age, all politicians need speechwriters; but I thought Canadians should use Canadian speechwriters -- not writers from other countries.
This morning, Bob Rae revealed a potentially embarrassing fact: That Harper's address was almost identical to the one given just two days earlier by then Australian PM John Howard in the Aussie House of Representatives.
Watch and judge for yourself if Harper plagarized Howard or if it was just a huge coincidence:
Not surprisingly, a Con spokesperson calls the issue irrelevant. No, it's not.
If Steve can't come up with an original thought on his own, can't come up with something on his own on a crucial matter of foreign policy, especially on something as crucial as the Second Gulf War, then Steve has proven that he is not a leader. This should be on the next free time availability that the Liberals have ... and it needs to be repeated.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I always thought Steve Harper's speech in favour of the Iraq war on March 20, 2003, sounded convoluted and full of stuff that he couldn't possibly come up on his own. In this day and age, all politicians need speechwriters; but I thought Canadians should use Canadian speechwriters -- not writers from other countries.
This morning, Bob Rae revealed a potentially embarrassing fact: That Harper's address was almost identical to the one given just two days earlier by then Australian PM John Howard in the Aussie House of Representatives.
Watch and judge for yourself if Harper plagarized Howard or if it was just a huge coincidence:
Not surprisingly, a Con spokesperson calls the issue irrelevant. No, it's not.
If Steve can't come up with an original thought on his own, can't come up with something on his own on a crucial matter of foreign policy, especially on something as crucial as the Second Gulf War, then Steve has proven that he is not a leader. This should be on the next free time availability that the Liberals have ... and it needs to be repeated.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
If Ratzinger can go green, why can't Harper?
As Steve Harper continues to refuse to do anything to even support green industries, one country is taking the pollution problem into its own hands -- Vatican City.
Some time ago, it became the first carbon neutral country, when it added trees to a tract of forest in Hungary to offset its greenhouse gases. Now, it's going one step further by installing 2700 solar panels on top of the papal audience hall. When completed, it will generate 300 kW of energy, enough to power the hall as well as other parts of the compound and reduce the Holy See's footprint by about another 200 tonnes per year.
Say what you will about Benedict XVI (Joe Ratzinger), that's leadership. Steve Harper is not a leader. For the record, Harper's religion has nothing to do with it; many evangelicals fully understand just how serious global warming is and the actions required. I'd be criticizing Harper no matter what faith he professed.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Some time ago, it became the first carbon neutral country, when it added trees to a tract of forest in Hungary to offset its greenhouse gases. Now, it's going one step further by installing 2700 solar panels on top of the papal audience hall. When completed, it will generate 300 kW of energy, enough to power the hall as well as other parts of the compound and reduce the Holy See's footprint by about another 200 tonnes per year.
Say what you will about Benedict XVI (Joe Ratzinger), that's leadership. Steve Harper is not a leader. For the record, Harper's religion has nothing to do with it; many evangelicals fully understand just how serious global warming is and the actions required. I'd be criticizing Harper no matter what faith he professed.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
All debts contracted
At 7:45 am EDT (1145 GMT) Dubya will give yet another address on the economic crisis and yesterday's failed vote on the bailout in the House of Representatives.
Hard to believe this guy and how far things have fallen for him. Four years ago, Bush pulled off a narrow win over John Kerry. The President, having finally gotten a win that could be seen as clean by most and moreover the first majority win since 1988, claimed he had gained "political capital." He certainly burned it quickly not only by continuing a deeply unpopular war but by bungling the federal response to the Katrina hurricane.
And the worst part was that he, with Congress' acquiescence, plunged the US deeper and deeper into debt. Rather than trying for a balanced budget, annual deficits were run on purpose. While Clinton set the US on a path to pay off the debt in only 10 years, Bush not only wiped out Clinton's efforts but essentially doubled the debt.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why America is in the mess it's in right now -- subprime mortgages, the war, no restraints on "golden parachutes." But imagine if America had actually balanced its budget. Would an emergency $700 billion bailout have then been more palatable? Sure, because there would at least be the perception that it could be paid back.
Not so much now, with the debt ceiling scheduled to go up to $11 trillion when some version is finally passed. The US Constitution may be the supreme law in the US but it is also not self-enforcing, and the least of these is the first clause of Article VI which requires the US to live up to its debts.
I never thought I'd live to see the day when the IMF and / or the World Bank might actually have to give the US a loan to avoid going bankrupt, as they did in the mid 1970s with the UK which in part contributed to the fall of Callaghan and the rise of Thatcher. But it could be that day is almost here.
If the winner on November 4 winds up being Obama, expect an almost seige mentality for at least the first two years and forget anything he may have said about the audacity of hope. So far, the bank for the Eurozone and eight other countries including Canada have had to coordinate with the Federal Reserve to stop a meltdown as I wrote about yesterday.
Now imagine the humiliation when Mainland China, Russia and Saudi Arabia start dictating the terms of a loan. Most likely, the US will have to give up its long standing veto within the banks of last resort.
As BTO used to sing, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Hard to believe this guy and how far things have fallen for him. Four years ago, Bush pulled off a narrow win over John Kerry. The President, having finally gotten a win that could be seen as clean by most and moreover the first majority win since 1988, claimed he had gained "political capital." He certainly burned it quickly not only by continuing a deeply unpopular war but by bungling the federal response to the Katrina hurricane.
And the worst part was that he, with Congress' acquiescence, plunged the US deeper and deeper into debt. Rather than trying for a balanced budget, annual deficits were run on purpose. While Clinton set the US on a path to pay off the debt in only 10 years, Bush not only wiped out Clinton's efforts but essentially doubled the debt.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why America is in the mess it's in right now -- subprime mortgages, the war, no restraints on "golden parachutes." But imagine if America had actually balanced its budget. Would an emergency $700 billion bailout have then been more palatable? Sure, because there would at least be the perception that it could be paid back.
Not so much now, with the debt ceiling scheduled to go up to $11 trillion when some version is finally passed. The US Constitution may be the supreme law in the US but it is also not self-enforcing, and the least of these is the first clause of Article VI which requires the US to live up to its debts.
I never thought I'd live to see the day when the IMF and / or the World Bank might actually have to give the US a loan to avoid going bankrupt, as they did in the mid 1970s with the UK which in part contributed to the fall of Callaghan and the rise of Thatcher. But it could be that day is almost here.
If the winner on November 4 winds up being Obama, expect an almost seige mentality for at least the first two years and forget anything he may have said about the audacity of hope. So far, the bank for the Eurozone and eight other countries including Canada have had to coordinate with the Federal Reserve to stop a meltdown as I wrote about yesterday.
Now imagine the humiliation when Mainland China, Russia and Saudi Arabia start dictating the terms of a loan. Most likely, the US will have to give up its long standing veto within the banks of last resort.
As BTO used to sing, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, September 29, 2008
No more bailouts! Not even from the Bank of Canada!
Finally, Congress does somthing right ... and rejects the Wall Street bailout, even though both McCain and Obama supported it.
Meanwhile, Wachovia is sold to Citibank. (This one is really serious but also a bit funny for me -- until recently, I thought the stock ticker WB stood for Warner Brothers!)
Also the swap facility announced just 11 days ago has gotten even larger, from $290 billion to a whopping $620 billion, with the Bank of Canada alone tripling its committment to $30 billion until April 30, 2009. Several more central banks -- Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia -- are dipping into their reserves for the first time; along with the other five of the "big six" centrals in the UK, Japan, Switzerland, the EU and the US which began coordinating their actions some time ago. (Sweden is an interesting one -- I though that central bank is busy right now getting ready to pick this year's winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.)
The reserve banks do need to act every so often to tighten or loosen the money supply to avoid a catastrophe, but this makes it number six in just the last nine months. I know full well the B of C is independent, but he still answers to the Prime Minister.
Isn't it time our opposition leaders stood up to Harper and said, enough of the bailouts? Enough of the golden parachutes? Isn't it time we made this an election issue? I would not have an issue with it if good debt was being swapped for bad (as is supposed to happen under the rules); but inevitably we're throwing more bad money, reserve money in greenbacks and Euros, into the system to award rogue traders and punish ordinary lenders even more.
What say ye, gentlemen -- and madame? Canadians await your answer and we want it before the debates on Wednesday and Thursday.
UPDATE (5:55 pm EDT, 2155 GMT): As per Femme Verte's request, here's a link to the B of C announcement.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Meanwhile, Wachovia is sold to Citibank. (This one is really serious but also a bit funny for me -- until recently, I thought the stock ticker WB stood for Warner Brothers!)
Also the swap facility announced just 11 days ago has gotten even larger, from $290 billion to a whopping $620 billion, with the Bank of Canada alone tripling its committment to $30 billion until April 30, 2009. Several more central banks -- Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia -- are dipping into their reserves for the first time; along with the other five of the "big six" centrals in the UK, Japan, Switzerland, the EU and the US which began coordinating their actions some time ago. (Sweden is an interesting one -- I though that central bank is busy right now getting ready to pick this year's winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.)
The reserve banks do need to act every so often to tighten or loosen the money supply to avoid a catastrophe, but this makes it number six in just the last nine months. I know full well the B of C is independent, but he still answers to the Prime Minister.
Isn't it time our opposition leaders stood up to Harper and said, enough of the bailouts? Enough of the golden parachutes? Isn't it time we made this an election issue? I would not have an issue with it if good debt was being swapped for bad (as is supposed to happen under the rules); but inevitably we're throwing more bad money, reserve money in greenbacks and Euros, into the system to award rogue traders and punish ordinary lenders even more.
What say ye, gentlemen -- and madame? Canadians await your answer and we want it before the debates on Wednesday and Thursday.
UPDATE (5:55 pm EDT, 2155 GMT): As per Femme Verte's request, here's a link to the B of C announcement.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
For Steve, $500 is the new $75 -- again
In one of the biggest surprises of the campaign so far, Steve Harper said he would extend the physical fitness tax credit to those parents who instead choose to enroll their kids in the performing and visual arts.
The good news is that it's nice to see that Steve has actually listened to ordinary Canadians on this one -- the bad news of course, is that because it's a tax credit the imputed amount is much greater than the actual savings. $500 works out to only $75; and with the average music or dance lesson at about $20 per week, that money will go very quickly. Like the fitness credit, it's peanuts.
How about instead using the approach Québec uses for its provincial taxes -- a real and refundable tax credit for fitness or arts based on one's demonstrated potential? It's little wonder why a plurality of performers and athletes hail from the province, or that many Canadians reaching for the stars decide to hang their shingle there.
And of course there's the obvious problem with Harper's plan: If you cut funding to the current performing arts, then why fund its education for its future bright lights?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The good news is that it's nice to see that Steve has actually listened to ordinary Canadians on this one -- the bad news of course, is that because it's a tax credit the imputed amount is much greater than the actual savings. $500 works out to only $75; and with the average music or dance lesson at about $20 per week, that money will go very quickly. Like the fitness credit, it's peanuts.
How about instead using the approach Québec uses for its provincial taxes -- a real and refundable tax credit for fitness or arts based on one's demonstrated potential? It's little wonder why a plurality of performers and athletes hail from the province, or that many Canadians reaching for the stars decide to hang their shingle there.
And of course there's the obvious problem with Harper's plan: If you cut funding to the current performing arts, then why fund its education for its future bright lights?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Harper no-show for anti-poverty video
Steve Harper refused to take part in a series of videos being promoted by the non-partisan Make Poverty History group. After some back and forth, his office finally said the questions being asked were "too specific" but would have answered more general questions.
The other leaders actually took the time to say something, incidentally.
Elections aren't about generalities or broad principles. They are about specifics. That's why parties put out platforms and backgrounders. The best the Conservatives seem to be able to offer is that they'll offer a "steady hand" during difficult times. That is an almost complete carbon copy of Bush's re-election line in 2004: "Steady leadership in a time of change," which says a lot about his originality. The best he can come up with is the other side is too risky. We tried it Harper's way and he took us from a $12 billion annual surplus to a near deficit.
And Harper's definition of steady leadership when it comes to poverty issues: Throwing the bare minimum amount of money rather than actual programs that would make it more valuable to work than to stay at home and collect welfare; abolishing the Kelowna Accord; and cutting foreign aid rather than increasing it to 0.5% of GDP as he promised in 2006 (to the point where we're now outspent in this department by Australia -- and it reached that target during the last right-wing administration under John Howard before he was defeated by Paul Rudd).
Perhaps Harper takes the Bible literally where it says, "You will always have the poor among you," at the expense of ignoring the part where the same person also refers to feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, etc.
I'm definitely not saying money for nothing. I'm saying there should be a real hand up rather than the brush off Harper is so willing to provide.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The other leaders actually took the time to say something, incidentally.
Elections aren't about generalities or broad principles. They are about specifics. That's why parties put out platforms and backgrounders. The best the Conservatives seem to be able to offer is that they'll offer a "steady hand" during difficult times. That is an almost complete carbon copy of Bush's re-election line in 2004: "Steady leadership in a time of change," which says a lot about his originality. The best he can come up with is the other side is too risky. We tried it Harper's way and he took us from a $12 billion annual surplus to a near deficit.
And Harper's definition of steady leadership when it comes to poverty issues: Throwing the bare minimum amount of money rather than actual programs that would make it more valuable to work than to stay at home and collect welfare; abolishing the Kelowna Accord; and cutting foreign aid rather than increasing it to 0.5% of GDP as he promised in 2006 (to the point where we're now outspent in this department by Australia -- and it reached that target during the last right-wing administration under John Howard before he was defeated by Paul Rudd).
Perhaps Harper takes the Bible literally where it says, "You will always have the poor among you," at the expense of ignoring the part where the same person also refers to feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, etc.
I'm definitely not saying money for nothing. I'm saying there should be a real hand up rather than the brush off Harper is so willing to provide.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Steve Harper says (#795)
On Global National tonight, Steve Harper was quoted as saying he doesn't watch Canadian news and doesn't read Canadian newspapers; but that he does watch the US newscasts and reads American papers to see how the US Presidential race is going -- and that, by the way, he thinks it's Obama's race to lose.
Very nice of Steve to inform us about that. But don't we remember that a certain US president didn't watch the news at all, didn't care about anyone's opinions other than a very close group of advisors, and the choices he made sent America and the world into a tailspin?
Do we really want an ignorant man to continue to be our Prime Minister? Especially one who won't support our media -- even the media outlets who blatantly support him?
One other thing: He turned his high school reunion into a political rally. A reunion is one of the places I would want to talk about anything but politics, even if one of the regathered class was head of government.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Very nice of Steve to inform us about that. But don't we remember that a certain US president didn't watch the news at all, didn't care about anyone's opinions other than a very close group of advisors, and the choices he made sent America and the world into a tailspin?
Do we really want an ignorant man to continue to be our Prime Minister? Especially one who won't support our media -- even the media outlets who blatantly support him?
One other thing: He turned his high school reunion into a political rally. A reunion is one of the places I would want to talk about anything but politics, even if one of the regathered class was head of government.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Does Harper know how to handle a $20?
Another thing: In his continuing war against the performing, visual and literary arts, I get the impression that Steve Harper doesn't even use real money. Why do I say this?
Maybe Steve should check the back of the Canadian $20 note. On it is inscribed a line from the Canadian author Gabrielle Roy and her 1961 novel, The Hidden Mountain: "Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Maybe Steve should check the back of the Canadian $20 note. On it is inscribed a line from the Canadian author Gabrielle Roy and her 1961 novel, The Hidden Mountain: "Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?"
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)