I don't know what Ignatieff's problem is, but it's not like Harper's government is going to fall just because three or four Liberals have decided to vote against the budget. In particular, two Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador are vowing to risk their plum positions on key House committees, saying the budget takes away the province's right to decide whether to get offset payments under the old rules or the new ones -- even though the province is presently in a "have" status. They and the province's Progressive Conservative premier, Danny Williams, thinks this is payback for Williams' "anyone but conservative" campaign last year.
For what it's worth, I think Iggy's position of "wait and see" and putting Harper on "probation" is wrong-headed. The time to take down the Conservatives is now. Their latest budget is anything but conservative (pardon the pun). Ignatieff should listen to his dissenters and tell his MPs to pull the plug, now. If they were the government in power, it would be a different story and the three line whip would be cracked. But as the opposition, they have some flexibility to allow for dissent from within. If an MP thinks their home province is getting screwed, they should be allowed to say so, publicly.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Daschle biting hand feeding him?
For the first time, I have to issue a criticism of President Obama and it deals with his choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, former US Senator from South Dakota and former leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Tom Daschle.
It's not just his tax problem, claiming he didn't know he had to pay about $128,000 in taxes for his "free" car and driver. (He has since paid up.) The AP reported last night that Daschle earned $220,000 for speaking engagements to health care industry pundits. And Daschle is supposed to be Obama's point man to reform the non-system of health care America has.
Even manufacturers and labour have set aside their differences on the issue of health care reform saying that the way things are now puts the US at a huge competitive disadvantage. Does America really want someone whose hand was in the cookie jar "fixing" the problem? Part of the reason why Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in the primaries was because she took a couple million from insurance companies, just a few years after she fought against them.
I don't know how Obama picked his vetters, but the vetters should have done more vetting. Daschle might still wind up getting a pass through by the Senate but he's lost a lot of credibility. I would have picked someone who was victimized by the insurance companies and has absolutely nothing to lose by throwing it back in their faces. Any of Michael Moore's horror story victims in his movie Sicko, for instance.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It's not just his tax problem, claiming he didn't know he had to pay about $128,000 in taxes for his "free" car and driver. (He has since paid up.) The AP reported last night that Daschle earned $220,000 for speaking engagements to health care industry pundits. And Daschle is supposed to be Obama's point man to reform the non-system of health care America has.
Even manufacturers and labour have set aside their differences on the issue of health care reform saying that the way things are now puts the US at a huge competitive disadvantage. Does America really want someone whose hand was in the cookie jar "fixing" the problem? Part of the reason why Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in the primaries was because she took a couple million from insurance companies, just a few years after she fought against them.
I don't know how Obama picked his vetters, but the vetters should have done more vetting. Daschle might still wind up getting a pass through by the Senate but he's lost a lot of credibility. I would have picked someone who was victimized by the insurance companies and has absolutely nothing to lose by throwing it back in their faces. Any of Michael Moore's horror story victims in his movie Sicko, for instance.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
7, 8, 9 ... 14!
I have misgivings about some reproductive technologies, but I do understand how desperate how infertile parents get in having children -- and the state should be supportive of that.
What I have a big problem with is parents who already have children but think it's not enough and then get fertility treatments -- and deprive infertile parents of access to those treatments since the already fertile couples have money to get to the front of the line. Such is the case with a single parent who gave birth to eight children the other day. That would be fine, except she already had six! (And the woman claims, through her parents, that she only wanted one more child, a girl.)
Children, of course, are a blessing from God. But isn't there a point when so many children should be enough? Shouldn't those who don't have children get preferential access to fertility clinics? And really, how can a thirty-something single mother realistically raise fourteen children?
Even the most devout of my Catholic friends, who oppose any type of IVF treatments, say the issue isn't how the children were conceived but that they were at all. It is simply improvident, they say, for someone to have so many children if they don't have the means to do so -- and certainly it is stupid to even try to conceive if one has had so many children already since each subsequent pregnancy and birth puts more strain on the mother.
I agree. I am of course not saying it would not have been better for the children to have been not born at all -- simply that the mother's background should have been checked into. I fear that the mother will find she simply can't cope, and all fourteen children will wind up in foster care and apart from each other. That would be truly the worst possible outcome.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What I have a big problem with is parents who already have children but think it's not enough and then get fertility treatments -- and deprive infertile parents of access to those treatments since the already fertile couples have money to get to the front of the line. Such is the case with a single parent who gave birth to eight children the other day. That would be fine, except she already had six! (And the woman claims, through her parents, that she only wanted one more child, a girl.)
Children, of course, are a blessing from God. But isn't there a point when so many children should be enough? Shouldn't those who don't have children get preferential access to fertility clinics? And really, how can a thirty-something single mother realistically raise fourteen children?
Even the most devout of my Catholic friends, who oppose any type of IVF treatments, say the issue isn't how the children were conceived but that they were at all. It is simply improvident, they say, for someone to have so many children if they don't have the means to do so -- and certainly it is stupid to even try to conceive if one has had so many children already since each subsequent pregnancy and birth puts more strain on the mother.
I agree. I am of course not saying it would not have been better for the children to have been not born at all -- simply that the mother's background should have been checked into. I fear that the mother will find she simply can't cope, and all fourteen children will wind up in foster care and apart from each other. That would be truly the worst possible outcome.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, January 30, 2009
North Korean rattle sabling, part 2450
Just when we thought things between North and South Korea couldn't get even more tense, Pyongyang said today they are ripping up all "military and political" agreements with Seoul. They claim that the South's current President, Lee Myung-bak, has "hostile intent" towards the North -- in other words, they don't like Lee's hard line and his rollback of previously unconditional aid to the North.
Among the agreements to be scrapped is the one dealing with the maritime border between the two countries, one the North has never recognized anyway and has led to several naval confrontations, most recently in 2002. And this comes after several South-owned tourist spots in the North were ordered shut down.
If this is just another attempt by the North to get bargaining power with Washington, especially with a new administration, I don't think it's going to work this time. Obama may not be a hawk like GWB but he certainly is not a dove. I'm sure he'd like to pull out the tens of thousands of US troops in the South, as well as the nuclear weapons, but as long as the North poses a danger and continues to starve its own people on purpose, they're not going anywhere.
As far as Lee goes, he's absolutely correct in his stance. You don't award dictatorships unless they make positive steps in the area of human rights and moves towards genuine democracy. And in that department, the North has no human rights and no prospect of anything coming close to a free election. Food and medical aid regularly is confiscated by the North and given to its favourite apparatchiks. And on TV, it's all Kim Jong-Il, all the time.
No one wants war, especially in Korea. (Look what's in the neighbourhood -- Japan, China, Thailand -- theoretically some of North Korea's missiles could even reach the eastern fringes of the EU which would bring NATO into play.)
But if that's what the North wants, it has way too many enemies so as to ensure its defeat and long-overdue liberation. Even Canada, one of the very few countries with diplomatic relations with the North, won't put up with the crap -- after all, we still remember the Korean War.
We need more democracies ... as a general rule, democracies -- real democracies which rule through due process and not through rockets or bullying -- don't go to war against each other.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Among the agreements to be scrapped is the one dealing with the maritime border between the two countries, one the North has never recognized anyway and has led to several naval confrontations, most recently in 2002. And this comes after several South-owned tourist spots in the North were ordered shut down.
If this is just another attempt by the North to get bargaining power with Washington, especially with a new administration, I don't think it's going to work this time. Obama may not be a hawk like GWB but he certainly is not a dove. I'm sure he'd like to pull out the tens of thousands of US troops in the South, as well as the nuclear weapons, but as long as the North poses a danger and continues to starve its own people on purpose, they're not going anywhere.
As far as Lee goes, he's absolutely correct in his stance. You don't award dictatorships unless they make positive steps in the area of human rights and moves towards genuine democracy. And in that department, the North has no human rights and no prospect of anything coming close to a free election. Food and medical aid regularly is confiscated by the North and given to its favourite apparatchiks. And on TV, it's all Kim Jong-Il, all the time.
No one wants war, especially in Korea. (Look what's in the neighbourhood -- Japan, China, Thailand -- theoretically some of North Korea's missiles could even reach the eastern fringes of the EU which would bring NATO into play.)
But if that's what the North wants, it has way too many enemies so as to ensure its defeat and long-overdue liberation. Even Canada, one of the very few countries with diplomatic relations with the North, won't put up with the crap -- after all, we still remember the Korean War.
We need more democracies ... as a general rule, democracies -- real democracies which rule through due process and not through rockets or bullying -- don't go to war against each other.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Blago ousted, banned ...
... and Rod's gone not a moment too soon. It wasn't even close, it was unanimous: 59-0 first to remove Blagojevich as Illinois' Governor, then another 59-0 vote to ban him from ever running for public office in the state again. I don't think it's so much the tapes that cost him, but rather the fact he had become a complete embarrassment to his state.
The last couple of months, they've had at least one joke per week -- some times even more -- on NPR's Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! I think each of the fifteen panelists, who rotate in sets of three each week, had something to say about Mop Top -- and it's worth pointing out both the liberal and conservative celebrities thought he was a joke before this crisis started after Obama's election. (WWDTM is produced in Chicago, and recorded there most weeks.)
Now let's see if Blagojevich can keep his big fat mouth shut during his criminal trial. If his lawyer dumped him for being indiscrete, not likely.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The last couple of months, they've had at least one joke per week -- some times even more -- on NPR's Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! I think each of the fifteen panelists, who rotate in sets of three each week, had something to say about Mop Top -- and it's worth pointing out both the liberal and conservative celebrities thought he was a joke before this crisis started after Obama's election. (WWDTM is produced in Chicago, and recorded there most weeks.)
Now let's see if Blagojevich can keep his big fat mouth shut during his criminal trial. If his lawyer dumped him for being indiscrete, not likely.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Guess who came to the budget?
A source has informed me a very interesting detail about Tuesday's budget. No, not what was in it -- that's in the public record. Rather, who was there.
There's a group in Ottawa called the National House of Prayer, led by Ron and Fran Parker. Its stated purpose is to "establish and maintain an ongoing Christian presence in Canada's National Capital Region that will provide informed, focused and sustained prayer for Canada and its leaders." Rough translation -- make your own but many have accused it of trying to insert a very right wing agenda into the national debate.
The Parkers say they got their start when at the huge 9/11 memorial service on Parliament Hill where over 100,000 defiantly stood in support of the victims, no mention was made in the prayers offered about God or Jesus. Furthermore, it was claimed, army chaplains were restricted from using either of those words in their public addresses. The Parkers decided this was proof that Ottawa had become "Godless" and they decided to do something about it. Okay, fine. There's nothing wrong with having God-fearing people in Ottawa. Or with having prayer groups on the Hill -- which are attended by people from all of the parties.
But here's where it gets interesting: My source told me last night that senior members of NHOP were invited to the reading of the budget speech, and the after-party reception hosted by the government. How do we know this? Because someone called in last night to the not so infrequent telethons at Lethbridge, Alberta based The Miracle Channel and said as much on the air.
This is huge. What's so significant about that? Well ... no other religious group was invited, as far as my source has been able to find out. No representative from the Catholic bishops, no one from the United Church, none from the Anglican Church, no one from the major Jewish lobbies. No one -- except this one faith based group. Why did NHOP get special treatment and access that most churches might crave?
Now, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a registered charity. And, NHOP got a big part of its seed money from -- The Miracle Channel, an extremely right wing station in its political orientation. Some say it may have been in the range of up to $200,000. All perfectly legal. My source tells me that when the station's former manager, Dick Dewert, put up $25,000 of his own money (or was it the station's?) and challenged his followers to match it, they phoned it and did match it -- and then some.
What is NHOP's purpose? Is it simply to offer prayer? Or is it in the business of proselytizing? Even if it does just offer prayer, does that entitle it to registered charity status? I pray for a whole bunch of people all the time and you don't see me applying permission to do it tax free.
As my acquaintance pointed out to me, this isn't a case of a faith based group like the Salvation Army which makes a point of doing its charity work before attempting to offer religious services. That puts them entirely within bounds and is completely appropriate. This is a case of proselytizing before offering charity, putting the cart before the horse -- which is out of bounds. Or perhaps it goes beyond proselytizing and into politicking, and in the current environment it's often hard to tell the difference.
Groups such as the Council of Canadians and Greenpeace aren't allowed to be charities because they are clearly defined to be lobbyists. But under the cover of religion, we have a situation where profits are not only tax-sheltered but its leaders get preferred access to the most senior officials.
So the question is: How did NHOP manage to get such an invite to the budget speech, the hottest ticket in town that day? And was anything promised in return?
We've seen the Conservatives turn a blind eye to the trademark infringement when pro-life groups used the official Government of Canada service mark on their banners. Twice. How will they explain this one? And what does it mean for access for those of us who may want to lobby or petition Parliament but can't because the door has been shut to all but the most extreme elements of civil and religious society?
UPDATE (8:58 am EST, 1358 GMT): Fixed a link to CJIL. The link I did have is to a site critical of The Miracle Channel -- if you still want that one it's here.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There's a group in Ottawa called the National House of Prayer, led by Ron and Fran Parker. Its stated purpose is to "establish and maintain an ongoing Christian presence in Canada's National Capital Region that will provide informed, focused and sustained prayer for Canada and its leaders." Rough translation -- make your own but many have accused it of trying to insert a very right wing agenda into the national debate.
The Parkers say they got their start when at the huge 9/11 memorial service on Parliament Hill where over 100,000 defiantly stood in support of the victims, no mention was made in the prayers offered about God or Jesus. Furthermore, it was claimed, army chaplains were restricted from using either of those words in their public addresses. The Parkers decided this was proof that Ottawa had become "Godless" and they decided to do something about it. Okay, fine. There's nothing wrong with having God-fearing people in Ottawa. Or with having prayer groups on the Hill -- which are attended by people from all of the parties.
But here's where it gets interesting: My source told me last night that senior members of NHOP were invited to the reading of the budget speech, and the after-party reception hosted by the government. How do we know this? Because someone called in last night to the not so infrequent telethons at Lethbridge, Alberta based The Miracle Channel and said as much on the air.
This is huge. What's so significant about that? Well ... no other religious group was invited, as far as my source has been able to find out. No representative from the Catholic bishops, no one from the United Church, none from the Anglican Church, no one from the major Jewish lobbies. No one -- except this one faith based group. Why did NHOP get special treatment and access that most churches might crave?
Now, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a registered charity. And, NHOP got a big part of its seed money from -- The Miracle Channel, an extremely right wing station in its political orientation. Some say it may have been in the range of up to $200,000. All perfectly legal. My source tells me that when the station's former manager, Dick Dewert, put up $25,000 of his own money (or was it the station's?) and challenged his followers to match it, they phoned it and did match it -- and then some.
What is NHOP's purpose? Is it simply to offer prayer? Or is it in the business of proselytizing? Even if it does just offer prayer, does that entitle it to registered charity status? I pray for a whole bunch of people all the time and you don't see me applying permission to do it tax free.
As my acquaintance pointed out to me, this isn't a case of a faith based group like the Salvation Army which makes a point of doing its charity work before attempting to offer religious services. That puts them entirely within bounds and is completely appropriate. This is a case of proselytizing before offering charity, putting the cart before the horse -- which is out of bounds. Or perhaps it goes beyond proselytizing and into politicking, and in the current environment it's often hard to tell the difference.
Groups such as the Council of Canadians and Greenpeace aren't allowed to be charities because they are clearly defined to be lobbyists. But under the cover of religion, we have a situation where profits are not only tax-sheltered but its leaders get preferred access to the most senior officials.
So the question is: How did NHOP manage to get such an invite to the budget speech, the hottest ticket in town that day? And was anything promised in return?
We've seen the Conservatives turn a blind eye to the trademark infringement when pro-life groups used the official Government of Canada service mark on their banners. Twice. How will they explain this one? And what does it mean for access for those of us who may want to lobby or petition Parliament but can't because the door has been shut to all but the most extreme elements of civil and religious society?
UPDATE (8:58 am EST, 1358 GMT): Fixed a link to CJIL. The link I did have is to a site critical of The Miracle Channel -- if you still want that one it's here.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Cold as ice
The proposed Liberal - NDP coalition isn't so much dead for now as it is on ice.
Michael Ignatieff appears serious about putting Stephen Harper on probation and wanting to see results from the so-called "stimulus" package in yesterday's budget. But it's still disappointing for me, as a Liberal, to give Harper even another week to prove himself worthy as Prime Minister. Harper is not worthy period, and Ignatieff needs to realize that.
The option of a constructive vote of no confidence (CVNC) -- that is, no confidence with a viable alternative government immediately available to take over -- must remain as an option and should be exercised as soon as possible if Harper won't talk deal. It's not that common in British parliamentary tradition but it does exist in countries with Parliaments instead of a Congress.
In fact, at least three EU members -- Germany, Hungary and Spain -- require an alternative government be ready to go before a CVNC is allowed. The most famous recent example was in 1982 when Socialist Helmut Schmidt was dumped for Christian Democrat Helmut Kohl after Hans Dietrich Genscher, who led the centrist Free Democrats, dropped one coalition for another. The main issue was the economy and Schmidt's mishandling of the recession.
Harper, in his minority situation, has turned a golden egg into one you can just crack and put in the microwave. There's no better time than now to get rid of him or to exercise the CVNC -- give him longer than a month or so, and when a simple no-confidence vote comes, the GG will call for a snap election which could be just as indecisive as the last one. We need that like a shot in the head.
The fact is, as has been the case around the world, so-called right wing governments aren't responsible when it comes to finances. They blow budget surpluses when times are good then start to bail water when times get rough. It's been centrist and leftist governments that have shown prudence, even if their priorities haven't always been the best ones. (Sponsorgate still rankles for me, just so you know.)
Our debt to GDP ratio is substantially less than it was in 1995, when Paul Martin started to tighten the belt and put some semblance of discipline. With reasonable growth prospects as things start to turn around -- and I am not nearly as pessimistic as some forecasters -- we can keep growth in debt below growth in the economy so in fact our interest burden continues dropping.
But the whole idea behind running surpluses, and having surpluses as big as possible (or at least containing deficits to below GDP growth), is to pay down debt to prepare for a rainy day situation. From each tax dollar, about 14 cents goes towards interest on the debt (at one point in the early 1990s it was about 33 cents). Not bad, but it would have been better if we only had to pay 10 cents and better still if it was less than that (meaning the end of foreign borrowings).
In the States, the interest bite was about 20 cents -- in 2006, before things started to slide. They're up to around 25 or 26 right now. And as they slide further, people will flee the dollar (which will impact our currency as well since we're so reliant on the US for exports) and flock to the Euro -- and despite its problems the Eurozone as a collectivity is actually better prepared for this crisis than the US was.
No wonder both the Liberals and Conservatives stocked up on Euros here as a buffer -- who can blame them? Or why we're now pursuing a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU even in these tough times.
We were getting close to freeing ourselves from the evils of sovereign wealth funds once and for all. Now, we're trapped again. Forget the anemic changes to EI rules, or the ongoing screwjob on equalization and transfer payments. Being further indebted to terrorists and communist governments that support genocide, is enough reason for Iggy to pull the plug, in my humble opinion.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Michael Ignatieff appears serious about putting Stephen Harper on probation and wanting to see results from the so-called "stimulus" package in yesterday's budget. But it's still disappointing for me, as a Liberal, to give Harper even another week to prove himself worthy as Prime Minister. Harper is not worthy period, and Ignatieff needs to realize that.
The option of a constructive vote of no confidence (CVNC) -- that is, no confidence with a viable alternative government immediately available to take over -- must remain as an option and should be exercised as soon as possible if Harper won't talk deal. It's not that common in British parliamentary tradition but it does exist in countries with Parliaments instead of a Congress.
In fact, at least three EU members -- Germany, Hungary and Spain -- require an alternative government be ready to go before a CVNC is allowed. The most famous recent example was in 1982 when Socialist Helmut Schmidt was dumped for Christian Democrat Helmut Kohl after Hans Dietrich Genscher, who led the centrist Free Democrats, dropped one coalition for another. The main issue was the economy and Schmidt's mishandling of the recession.
Harper, in his minority situation, has turned a golden egg into one you can just crack and put in the microwave. There's no better time than now to get rid of him or to exercise the CVNC -- give him longer than a month or so, and when a simple no-confidence vote comes, the GG will call for a snap election which could be just as indecisive as the last one. We need that like a shot in the head.
The fact is, as has been the case around the world, so-called right wing governments aren't responsible when it comes to finances. They blow budget surpluses when times are good then start to bail water when times get rough. It's been centrist and leftist governments that have shown prudence, even if their priorities haven't always been the best ones. (Sponsorgate still rankles for me, just so you know.)
Our debt to GDP ratio is substantially less than it was in 1995, when Paul Martin started to tighten the belt and put some semblance of discipline. With reasonable growth prospects as things start to turn around -- and I am not nearly as pessimistic as some forecasters -- we can keep growth in debt below growth in the economy so in fact our interest burden continues dropping.
But the whole idea behind running surpluses, and having surpluses as big as possible (or at least containing deficits to below GDP growth), is to pay down debt to prepare for a rainy day situation. From each tax dollar, about 14 cents goes towards interest on the debt (at one point in the early 1990s it was about 33 cents). Not bad, but it would have been better if we only had to pay 10 cents and better still if it was less than that (meaning the end of foreign borrowings).
In the States, the interest bite was about 20 cents -- in 2006, before things started to slide. They're up to around 25 or 26 right now. And as they slide further, people will flee the dollar (which will impact our currency as well since we're so reliant on the US for exports) and flock to the Euro -- and despite its problems the Eurozone as a collectivity is actually better prepared for this crisis than the US was.
No wonder both the Liberals and Conservatives stocked up on Euros here as a buffer -- who can blame them? Or why we're now pursuing a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU even in these tough times.
We were getting close to freeing ourselves from the evils of sovereign wealth funds once and for all. Now, we're trapped again. Forget the anemic changes to EI rules, or the ongoing screwjob on equalization and transfer payments. Being further indebted to terrorists and communist governments that support genocide, is enough reason for Iggy to pull the plug, in my humble opinion.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
WaPo shutters book section
A couple of months back, the highly regarded Christian Science Monitor announced they were ending their daily print format and switching to a weekly news magazine with updated online content. Now, WaPo is ending their standalone book review section, Book World, and moving the content to other sections in the paper. That leaves the NYT and the San Francisco Chronicle with the only widely read book review sections left in the US.
The Fourth Estate is dying the death it so richly deserves.
But canning book review sections is a lousy way to save costs while bailing out of the storm. How do we expect people to think when the crisis is over? As for the CS Monitor, it also had great editorial content as well as pointed book and movie reviews -- changing to a weekly format debases its credibility and doesn't leave much room for those reviews.
All hail, Web 2.x!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The Fourth Estate is dying the death it so richly deserves.
But canning book review sections is a lousy way to save costs while bailing out of the storm. How do we expect people to think when the crisis is over? As for the CS Monitor, it also had great editorial content as well as pointed book and movie reviews -- changing to a weekly format debases its credibility and doesn't leave much room for those reviews.
All hail, Web 2.x!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
They suspended Parliament for seven weeks, for THIS?
A quick glance at the 2009 budget, and I have to say that I am not impressed. Rather than cut the income tax rates (which would be more immediate in getting money into the pay stubs of those who are working), Jim Flaherty has increased the size of the brackets -- the 22% bracket kicks in at $40,726, (up from $ 37,885); and the 26% bracket kicks in at $81,452 (up from $75,769).
This means one has to actually earn more than $37,800 and change to get a tax break. Everyone else gets the offshoot from an increase in the exemption which works out to just about $4 bi-weekly. That doesn't even buy a bag of milk and most families go through three or more a week. And those who do get a cut, well they save about another $2 and change per paycheque.
Wow, $6. I can imagine it now: Those two characters on The Simpsons, Cletus and his wife / sister Brandine: "Hey maw! We got another six bucks this week on my paystub! Hows abouts we buy a porno on cable to spice things up?"
Yawn.
Wouldn't it have been better to keep the brackets where they were but cut the rate by 1% (to 14 and 21, respectively)?
Seniors get to keep another $150 per year, but many don't pay taxes to begin with so that's totally worthless to them -- how about giving those seniors an increase of $150 in the supplement? Nope.
There's $7.8 billion for new housing starts and renovations. Not bad, but consider the temporary credit for home renovations. $1350 sounds good, but it really only means $202.50.
EI premiums are frozen for the next two years. Probably inevitable as more claim benefits, but a payroll tax hits those who have the lowest earned incomes. If they're in a situation where they can reduce taxes to zero they should be able to carry forward those premiums to a future year when they earn more money so it can be deducted then. Nothing for that here.
Chalk River: $351 million for "safe and reliable operations" -- whatever that means. Chalk River is a joke, and it's interesting how valuable Harper sees it now after he fired the head of AECL for raising concerns about safety there.
Very interesting point: This gun-ho government did not make a single mention of the military in the budget document other than whatever appropriation they're getting this year. President Obama has said he hopes Canada can commit another 1000 troops to the more than 2000 we already have on the ground in Afghanistan, to compliment the 5000 or so Marines that are coming to Kandahar. I don't see anything for that contingency -- and the last thing we need right now is for Harper to piss off Obama.
I'd vote against this one. Too unfocused, not enough tax cuts, and our roads will remain in a state of bad and dangerous repair. I have to give Flaherty an F -- a first. But he blew it three years ago by cutting the GST, the revenues from which would have made this bailout budget unnecessary. Does it buy Harper time? Unfortunately, it does -- I think there are enough "sweeteners" for Ignatieff to take a pass for now.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This means one has to actually earn more than $37,800 and change to get a tax break. Everyone else gets the offshoot from an increase in the exemption which works out to just about $4 bi-weekly. That doesn't even buy a bag of milk and most families go through three or more a week. And those who do get a cut, well they save about another $2 and change per paycheque.
Wow, $6. I can imagine it now: Those two characters on The Simpsons, Cletus and his wife / sister Brandine: "Hey maw! We got another six bucks this week on my paystub! Hows abouts we buy a porno on cable to spice things up?"
Yawn.
Wouldn't it have been better to keep the brackets where they were but cut the rate by 1% (to 14 and 21, respectively)?
Seniors get to keep another $150 per year, but many don't pay taxes to begin with so that's totally worthless to them -- how about giving those seniors an increase of $150 in the supplement? Nope.
There's $7.8 billion for new housing starts and renovations. Not bad, but consider the temporary credit for home renovations. $1350 sounds good, but it really only means $202.50.
EI premiums are frozen for the next two years. Probably inevitable as more claim benefits, but a payroll tax hits those who have the lowest earned incomes. If they're in a situation where they can reduce taxes to zero they should be able to carry forward those premiums to a future year when they earn more money so it can be deducted then. Nothing for that here.
Chalk River: $351 million for "safe and reliable operations" -- whatever that means. Chalk River is a joke, and it's interesting how valuable Harper sees it now after he fired the head of AECL for raising concerns about safety there.
Very interesting point: This gun-ho government did not make a single mention of the military in the budget document other than whatever appropriation they're getting this year. President Obama has said he hopes Canada can commit another 1000 troops to the more than 2000 we already have on the ground in Afghanistan, to compliment the 5000 or so Marines that are coming to Kandahar. I don't see anything for that contingency -- and the last thing we need right now is for Harper to piss off Obama.
I'd vote against this one. Too unfocused, not enough tax cuts, and our roads will remain in a state of bad and dangerous repair. I have to give Flaherty an F -- a first. But he blew it three years ago by cutting the GST, the revenues from which would have made this bailout budget unnecessary. Does it buy Harper time? Unfortunately, it does -- I think there are enough "sweeteners" for Ignatieff to take a pass for now.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, January 26, 2009
40th Parliament, take two
So here we go again ... after the first session lasted just thirteen days before Stephen Harper pulled the plug, we begin the second session today with a budget to immediately follow tomorrow. And this time we pretty much know all the details. Hard to believe it's been twenty years since 1989 when reporter Doug Small caused a storm by obtaining a copy of the budget the night before and read it on the evening news. Now, it's as if a budget leak isn't that big of a deal.
Actually it is, since it gives people a chance to profit from possible tax or loan guarantee changes before they are actually made. It's like someone benefitting from insider information except it's available for all to see -- but only usable by those who can afford to rearrange their financial situation.
But that's not the problem. Just three months or so after the election, the Conservatives have already run out of ideas, and what they're going to "officially" propose tomorrow probably won't help all that much. A billion here, a billion there, a few tax cuts but all in all just as disorganized and pointless as the bailout Dubya got through Congress around the same time and for what?
Ignatieff had better have a good reason for withholding a vote on the ways and means when the budget does come up for a vote. It can't be a weak-kneed reason like Dion kept coming up with which was about election readiness (and we all know how that panned out). A free pass has to be earned, not just given for grants' sake. Frankly at this point it's like Harper really doesn't care anymore how long he stays in power or how. He just wants the free residence and plane that comes with the job. He doesn't get it on the economy, on the environment or on human rights.
And that's not a leader. If Canadians voted the way they did because they wanted a change in the style of leadership, they got what they asked for. Besides which ... well, the way he smiles. He totally lost my trust the first time he released a picture of himself smiling. It looked contrived like something you see of the pics of the officers of a corporation in an annual report, not casually smiling like he's one of the people. Because he isn't, he's the boy of Big Oil.
That doesn't mean he's a bad man. But his connections with groups that promote policies contrary to the greater good makes him untrustworthy. Sure, the other leaders have that issue too to some degrees, but for him it's writ large.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Actually it is, since it gives people a chance to profit from possible tax or loan guarantee changes before they are actually made. It's like someone benefitting from insider information except it's available for all to see -- but only usable by those who can afford to rearrange their financial situation.
But that's not the problem. Just three months or so after the election, the Conservatives have already run out of ideas, and what they're going to "officially" propose tomorrow probably won't help all that much. A billion here, a billion there, a few tax cuts but all in all just as disorganized and pointless as the bailout Dubya got through Congress around the same time and for what?
Ignatieff had better have a good reason for withholding a vote on the ways and means when the budget does come up for a vote. It can't be a weak-kneed reason like Dion kept coming up with which was about election readiness (and we all know how that panned out). A free pass has to be earned, not just given for grants' sake. Frankly at this point it's like Harper really doesn't care anymore how long he stays in power or how. He just wants the free residence and plane that comes with the job. He doesn't get it on the economy, on the environment or on human rights.
And that's not a leader. If Canadians voted the way they did because they wanted a change in the style of leadership, they got what they asked for. Besides which ... well, the way he smiles. He totally lost my trust the first time he released a picture of himself smiling. It looked contrived like something you see of the pics of the officers of a corporation in an annual report, not casually smiling like he's one of the people. Because he isn't, he's the boy of Big Oil.
That doesn't mean he's a bad man. But his connections with groups that promote policies contrary to the greater good makes him untrustworthy. Sure, the other leaders have that issue too to some degrees, but for him it's writ large.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
What about victims rights?
We've had the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms now for 27 years and it has been for the most part very successful. While we may gripe from time to time about the political effect and whether courts should always be picking their noses into legislative actions, there is no doubt that this is a different and better country. The advances in rights for the elderly, children, the disabled and homosexuals -- as well as better protections for illegal immigrants facing deportation -- are just a few examples.
Yet there is a glaring fact that while the Charter defines legal rights for suspects (individuals as well as corporations) there is none whatsoever for the victims of crime. Whether people have been deprived of a loved one or defrauded out of their life savings, there is often no forum for victims to speak their minds -- it is solely at the discretion of the Crown attorneys and the courts.
That is not to say that crime victims should have the right to overturn plea bargains or obstruct the course of justice. But their rights need to be recognized as being equal to those of who victimized them. The only way one can reasonably do this, is via a constitutional amendment.
More than a year ago, I sent a letter to PMS addressing this very issue and suggesting Parliament at least have a debate on the issue. As usual with anything that doesn't fit his very narrow agenda, even something that would be in general agreement with his law and order approach, I have gotten nothing but silence.
So I'm putting forward the idea right here, on my board. Here is roughly what I would include in such an amendment:
What do you think about this? Give me your thoughts.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Yet there is a glaring fact that while the Charter defines legal rights for suspects (individuals as well as corporations) there is none whatsoever for the victims of crime. Whether people have been deprived of a loved one or defrauded out of their life savings, there is often no forum for victims to speak their minds -- it is solely at the discretion of the Crown attorneys and the courts.
That is not to say that crime victims should have the right to overturn plea bargains or obstruct the course of justice. But their rights need to be recognized as being equal to those of who victimized them. The only way one can reasonably do this, is via a constitutional amendment.
More than a year ago, I sent a letter to PMS addressing this very issue and suggesting Parliament at least have a debate on the issue. As usual with anything that doesn't fit his very narrow agenda, even something that would be in general agreement with his law and order approach, I have gotten nothing but silence.
So I'm putting forward the idea right here, on my board. Here is roughly what I would include in such an amendment:
Victims Rights
14.1 (1) Victims of crimes of violence and other criminal and quasi-criminal acts that Parliament and the provinces may define by law pursuant to subsection 3, shall have the rights to notice of and not to be excluded from all public proceedings relating to the crime; to be heard if present and to submit a statement at a public pre-trial or trial proceeding to determine a release from custody, an acceptance of a negotiated plea, or a sentence; to these rights at a parole proceeding to the extent they are afforded to the convicted offender; to notice of a release pursuant to a public or parole proceeding or an escape; to a final disposition free from unreasonable delay; to an order of restitution from the convicted offender; to have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release from custody; and to notice of the rights established by this section.
(2) The victim shall have standing to assert the rights established by this section; however, nothing in this section shall provide grounds for the victim to challenge a charging decision or a conviction, obtain a stay of trial, or compel a new trial; nor shall anything in this article give rise to a claim for damages against Canada, a province, a political subdivision, or a public official; nor shall anything in this section provide grounds for the accused or convicted offender to obtain any form of relief.
(3) Parliament, and the provinces and territories, shall have concurrently the power to enforce this section within their respective federal and provincial jurisdictions by appropriate legislation, including the power to enact exceptions when required for compelling reasons of public safety.
(4) The rights established by this section shall be applicable to all proceedings occurring after ratification of this section.
(5) The rights established by this section shall apply in all federal, provincial and territorial, military, and juvenile justice proceedings, and shall also apply to victims of those persons outside Canada who may have had a act committed against them by a Canadian citizen or a person having the status of a legal immigrant or a legal refugee; acting in official capacity and commiting an act considered criminal under Canadian or international law or deemed criminal according to the general principles of law considered criminal by the community of nations.
What do you think about this? Give me your thoughts.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Gilli -- WHO?
Despite some misgivings about Caroline Kennedy it appeared all but certain she was going to be appointed to fill the Senate seat left vacant when Hillary Clinton was confirmed as President Obama's Secretary of State.
After Caroline Kennedy suddenly dropped her bid to be Clinton's seat filler (it now appears because of an alleged "nanny problem" instead of what she originally claimed, to be near her still frail uncle Sen. Edward Kennedy -- although of course Ms Kennedy denies there is any such problem and for now I'm prepared to take her word), NYS governor David Paterson has made a rather surprising appointment -- Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. She represents New York 20, a quite sprawling district which stretches from the northern 'burbs of NYC through the Catskills and much the Adirondacks. Pretty much the bulk of the Hudson Valley.
She's certainly a resilient woman, refusing to take maternity leave when she was pregnant and committing to her duties as a Representative full time right up until she went into labour and getting right back to work soon after the birth. But she is also a favourite daughter of the NRA. NY20, being a mostly rural district, is also quite conservative and very adverse to gun control -- and that part of the world is a hunter's and fisher's paradise and reliant on tourism derived from that.
According to the NYT, Gillibrand's pro-gun pedigree (a continuation of the long time struggle that pits upstate and downstate NY against each other) could put Gillibrand in the sights (no pun intended) of a woman whose husband was murdered in the Long Island Massacre in 1993 and who won her seat on the issue of tightening gun regulations. Carolyn McCarthy has vowed to challenge Gillibrand for the Dem nomination for the by-election which will be held in 2010. (Again, that sucks -- I know NYS has budget problems but can't they afford to have a by-election in 90 days?)
Choosing Gilibrand is a calculated choice on Paterson's part. In these tough times he needs the state to remain united (to the extent that's possible) and by appeasing the pro-gun right-wing of the Democratic Party he may bolster his up ticket prospects in next year's election when he plans to run for re-election. Traditionally, the idea has been to have one Senator from upstate and one from down and after a very long long time of two bozos from NY Metro that balance may be restored.
I just don't know enough about Gillibrand to make a judgment about her -- on NYS issues, when I do read up on them, I mostly follow what goes on in Buffalo and NYC -- but the three most dangerous letters in America are N, R, A. They're still a very powerful force in American politics, and last time I checked even Michael Moore was still a card-carrying member.
My message to Ms Kennedy: If you're serious about wanting to succeed your Uncle Bobby, then run in the by-election to fill Gillibrand's now vacant seat. Prove you care about rural issues in NYS as much as urban ones, and then use that as a platform to make a Senate run next year. Otherwise, stop pretending you're entitled to be the "heir" to the Kennedy political dynasty.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
After Caroline Kennedy suddenly dropped her bid to be Clinton's seat filler (it now appears because of an alleged "nanny problem" instead of what she originally claimed, to be near her still frail uncle Sen. Edward Kennedy -- although of course Ms Kennedy denies there is any such problem and for now I'm prepared to take her word), NYS governor David Paterson has made a rather surprising appointment -- Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. She represents New York 20, a quite sprawling district which stretches from the northern 'burbs of NYC through the Catskills and much the Adirondacks. Pretty much the bulk of the Hudson Valley.
She's certainly a resilient woman, refusing to take maternity leave when she was pregnant and committing to her duties as a Representative full time right up until she went into labour and getting right back to work soon after the birth. But she is also a favourite daughter of the NRA. NY20, being a mostly rural district, is also quite conservative and very adverse to gun control -- and that part of the world is a hunter's and fisher's paradise and reliant on tourism derived from that.
According to the NYT, Gillibrand's pro-gun pedigree (a continuation of the long time struggle that pits upstate and downstate NY against each other) could put Gillibrand in the sights (no pun intended) of a woman whose husband was murdered in the Long Island Massacre in 1993 and who won her seat on the issue of tightening gun regulations. Carolyn McCarthy has vowed to challenge Gillibrand for the Dem nomination for the by-election which will be held in 2010. (Again, that sucks -- I know NYS has budget problems but can't they afford to have a by-election in 90 days?)
Choosing Gilibrand is a calculated choice on Paterson's part. In these tough times he needs the state to remain united (to the extent that's possible) and by appeasing the pro-gun right-wing of the Democratic Party he may bolster his up ticket prospects in next year's election when he plans to run for re-election. Traditionally, the idea has been to have one Senator from upstate and one from down and after a very long long time of two bozos from NY Metro that balance may be restored.
I just don't know enough about Gillibrand to make a judgment about her -- on NYS issues, when I do read up on them, I mostly follow what goes on in Buffalo and NYC -- but the three most dangerous letters in America are N, R, A. They're still a very powerful force in American politics, and last time I checked even Michael Moore was still a card-carrying member.
My message to Ms Kennedy: If you're serious about wanting to succeed your Uncle Bobby, then run in the by-election to fill Gillibrand's now vacant seat. Prove you care about rural issues in NYS as much as urban ones, and then use that as a platform to make a Senate run next year. Otherwise, stop pretending you're entitled to be the "heir" to the Kennedy political dynasty.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The $64 billion question
So we now learn that the budget deficit in Canada over the next two years could hit as high as 64 billion dollars, which effectively puts us back in the accumulated debt to where we were before 9/11. The Conservatives can't entirely blame the global economy for this, a big part was the irresponsible 2% cut in the GST when we still couldn't afford such a cut. But we have to deal with the here and now.
So how to spend the stimulus money? One word: Infrastructure.
Anyone who has seen the state of our roads and sewer systems would know that we are dealing with a ticking time bomb. Just the other day, we saw an over hundred year old water main burst in Montréal, and an "unexpected" flood blacked out a big section of Toronto. To think that some of our sewage is going through pipes built in the 19th century is simply unthinkable for a developed country like Canada. And let's not forget, the state of schools and water supply on First Nations lands.
Spend the money on a good state of repair program, fixing what we have and building only smart transportation projects for new roads and transit lines, and we'll have a major competitive edge so when times get better the goods get there on time and businesses actually want to do trade here because they know the roads are good.
Bail out the banks the way they did in the States and the UK, and it will be just money down the drain.
That's what Michael Ignatieff needs to set as his bottom line. If the money won't go to provident projects, and at that projects that can be audited for value for money, then the Liberals will pull the plug.
The least one can say is that despite it all, our situation is still less than half as bad as it is in the States. At the rate they're running up the bills, their debt to GDP ratio will soon hit 100% -- that is, they'll become a banana republic. Sweet justice after the way the Fed's screwed the Third World all these years. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is still quite low, according to the government about 28% (although it's probably about 5 to 6 percent higher than that since it probably includes the surpluses in the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance which both should be segregated) but this is no time to be complacent about our state of affairs which are pretty bad.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
So how to spend the stimulus money? One word: Infrastructure.
Anyone who has seen the state of our roads and sewer systems would know that we are dealing with a ticking time bomb. Just the other day, we saw an over hundred year old water main burst in Montréal, and an "unexpected" flood blacked out a big section of Toronto. To think that some of our sewage is going through pipes built in the 19th century is simply unthinkable for a developed country like Canada. And let's not forget, the state of schools and water supply on First Nations lands.
Spend the money on a good state of repair program, fixing what we have and building only smart transportation projects for new roads and transit lines, and we'll have a major competitive edge so when times get better the goods get there on time and businesses actually want to do trade here because they know the roads are good.
Bail out the banks the way they did in the States and the UK, and it will be just money down the drain.
That's what Michael Ignatieff needs to set as his bottom line. If the money won't go to provident projects, and at that projects that can be audited for value for money, then the Liberals will pull the plug.
The least one can say is that despite it all, our situation is still less than half as bad as it is in the States. At the rate they're running up the bills, their debt to GDP ratio will soon hit 100% -- that is, they'll become a banana republic. Sweet justice after the way the Fed's screwed the Third World all these years. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is still quite low, according to the government about 28% (although it's probably about 5 to 6 percent higher than that since it probably includes the surpluses in the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance which both should be segregated) but this is no time to be complacent about our state of affairs which are pretty bad.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
First business: Shutting down Gitmo
President Obama has wasted no time getting down to business. One of his first official acts, late last night, was a 120-day suspension of proceedings at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- with a view to ceasing the hearings all together. Obama has said that he would like the process replaced with something "better." Whether that winds up being courts martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or civilian trials is yet to be decided and it will take about a year to wind up the current kangaroo courts and jails.
But at least the end is near. In one particular case, Omar Khadr can actually get something like a real trial and not one based on tainted evidence. At least now we know why Maher Arar still can't get into the US -- it's because Khadr apparently was coerced into saying Arar was in Afghanistan when in fact he was nowhere near South Asia at the time.
Frankly, it's hard to know what if anything the vast majority of detainees could be charged with if anything at all. Violating the "customs of war," maybe -- but don't most countries, even democracies, do that on a daily basis on the battlefield even if inadvertently? Why aren't Western countries held to the same standards? Do you see Canadian soldiers, or British ones, being held in stockades for years at a time without a set trial date? And are any of them facing a life sentence for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or for just joining an insurrection?
Most of the "terrorists" arrested during the Bush administration, the vast majority, were in fact not terrorists at all but people who were being held for immigration irregularities. The mean sentence in the so-called "War on Terror" against such suspects -- fourteen days. Not years, days. Is it possible that innocent people who were rounded up have become terrorists in that time due to resentment of being detained for so long?
They could only get six months for Osama's chaffeur, for heaven's sake!
I think this is the right place to start -- to say that America is a nation of laws and that it will abide by the rules of habeas corpus for everyone, even those accused of being the worst of the worst.
Promise made, promise kept. Good job, sir.
UPDATE (10:01 am EST, 1501 GMT): An earlier version of this post made reference to Barack Obama's driver. Of course, I meant Osama Bin Laden. That's as bad as getting Benny Hill and Benny Hinn mixed up -- which I have.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But at least the end is near. In one particular case, Omar Khadr can actually get something like a real trial and not one based on tainted evidence. At least now we know why Maher Arar still can't get into the US -- it's because Khadr apparently was coerced into saying Arar was in Afghanistan when in fact he was nowhere near South Asia at the time.
Frankly, it's hard to know what if anything the vast majority of detainees could be charged with if anything at all. Violating the "customs of war," maybe -- but don't most countries, even democracies, do that on a daily basis on the battlefield even if inadvertently? Why aren't Western countries held to the same standards? Do you see Canadian soldiers, or British ones, being held in stockades for years at a time without a set trial date? And are any of them facing a life sentence for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or for just joining an insurrection?
Most of the "terrorists" arrested during the Bush administration, the vast majority, were in fact not terrorists at all but people who were being held for immigration irregularities. The mean sentence in the so-called "War on Terror" against such suspects -- fourteen days. Not years, days. Is it possible that innocent people who were rounded up have become terrorists in that time due to resentment of being detained for so long?
They could only get six months for Osama's chaffeur, for heaven's sake!
I think this is the right place to start -- to say that America is a nation of laws and that it will abide by the rules of habeas corpus for everyone, even those accused of being the worst of the worst.
Promise made, promise kept. Good job, sir.
UPDATE (10:01 am EST, 1501 GMT): An earlier version of this post made reference to Barack Obama's driver. Of course, I meant Osama Bin Laden. That's as bad as getting Benny Hill and Benny Hinn mixed up -- which I have.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Welcome number 44
Barack Obama was sworn in today, and he gave an inaugural speech that was more hard-hitting than I expected. But that's a good thing, I guess. He's clearly very serious and knows that it's going to take more than mere words to get the job done in repairing the breaches created at home and abroad, but that he's ready to do it. He also made it clear he can't do it alone -- and reminded his listeners his unofficial slogan was Yes, we can. Read the speech for yourself if you haven't heard it -- it covered pretty much all that needed to be covered.
The hard work begins tomorrow and the road extremely rough in the months ahead as a lot of damage that has been done has to be repaired. Whether he can live up to the hope as well as the hype will depend on a lot including circumstances beyond his control. But he has a lot of goodwill on which to start which is important.
For now, all I can think of is, thank heavens the eight year nightmare is finally over -- except to think the guy who left office today gets a pension plus free mailing privileges for the rest of his life. Ugh.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The hard work begins tomorrow and the road extremely rough in the months ahead as a lot of damage that has been done has to be repaired. Whether he can live up to the hope as well as the hype will depend on a lot including circumstances beyond his control. But he has a lot of goodwill on which to start which is important.
For now, all I can think of is, thank heavens the eight year nightmare is finally over -- except to think the guy who left office today gets a pension plus free mailing privileges for the rest of his life. Ugh.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)