Republicans Unrealistic

You think that the Republicans would be serious about reducing he deficit that they should look at ways to reduce the deficit without hurting the economy too bad. John Boehner is again sticking with the idea that as long as millionaires get more money poor seniors will somehow be able to pay for the drugs. Apparently the Republicans think that before we can give health care and drugs to the poor and the seniors. The rich in our society deserve justice as they are taxed already the lowest in the industrialized world in respects to income  tax.  As leader of the house of representative that represent the whole U.S.A he should look out for everyone not just millionaires. Taxing the rich a little more would be a nice start then move to put the taxes under Bill Clinton back and you already have 300 Billion. Raising the retirement age and medicare age would be much better than completely eliminating the programs.

John Boehner had a very interesting quote for the president about raising taxes on the rich 

"The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process," Boehner stated.

 It be more like the other way around if you ask me. John Boehner is being unrealistic by saying that Obama is dreaming when he says we can get money by raising taxes on the rich, when John Boehner what's to almost eliminate medicare.

"With a fragile economy, tax hikes on our job-creators in the name of debt reduction is bad policy, especially since our debt crisis is fueled by unsustainable spending," Hatch said.

 Hatch should know that before 2000 the U.S had a surplus and a strong economy. The reason we went into deficit was because of two wars, and a big tax cut to mostly the richest Americans. So it seems that taxing the job creators (which by the way isn't major millionaires it is small business owners) who by the way with a higher taxes than today created millions of jobs in the 1990's.  

Read more here

Let's get Real On Climate Change!

Many people like to point to the oil companies for the blame of Climate change, but households contribute to 45% of all emissions. That means if we wish to achieve the goal most climate scientist say will help us avoid disaster we need to reduce household emissions. We must reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. So even if all industries close there doors today we would still need to cut household emissions by more than half. An easy way to start reducing emissions considering the energy sector is responsible for 82% of emissions is a shift to cleaner sources of energy such as wind and hydro instead of oil and gas for heating and for industry.  Since motor fuel use is increasing it's share of emission promoting public transit will curve that. Products that we buy which contribute heavily to emission as in order to make and distribute a product CO2 a byproduct is released. In order to make it easier for consumer for consumers to by more Eco friendly product without hurting their bottom line. I have urge this forever a Carbon Tax that gives consumers a rebate so that the more Eco friendly product is actually the more cheaper product and can actually save you money. All of these proposals will make a big scratch, but all Canadians as citizens of the world must act together to conserve energy and the planet for generations to come. We must get real on climate change.

Read more here

Up then Down

Gay equality is on a rollercoaster this week. With New York legalizing gay marriage and a poll showing that a majority of Americans support gay marriage one would think that the U.S is heading in the right direction. like all good things it must come to an end or at least an obstacle. A women in Vermont where gay marriage is legal married another women who is living in the U.S on a visa, But wait since she married her wouldn't that mean that she get's a green card to stay in the U.S. Unfortunatly citezenship is a federal issue, and since the federal goverment doesn't fully regocnize the marriage her wife is going to get deported soon. Even in a state that legalized gay marriage there will still be inequality.She should be given a green card, but because the federal goverment is against full equality gay people even in Vermont is still no where near where it needs to be .This proves that we are going to need the federal goverment to start to regocnize gay marriage, but unfortunatly Obama only supports civil unions. Although he has given more benifits to gay copules there are many benifits left out. It seems that on the federal level equality will be deayed for at least 4 years and probably more depending who get's elected in 2016.


see more here

A Majority Has the Authority!

A new poll shows that 51% of Americans support recognizing gay marriage in the U.S.A . Now there is no reason that more states should allow Gay Marriage. In 2008 only 44% supported recognizing gay marriage. There will still be problems with legalizing gay marriage in the U.S. Democrats and Independents are  in favor of it.While Republicans are very much against it.

More than six in 10 Democrats support same sex marriage, joined by more than half of independents, but seven in 10 Republicans are against it," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

 This poll means if a state wide referendum was done in every state it could be possible that liberal leaning states that currently don't have Gay marriage would have the majority needed to pass it. This means states like Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine should have a relatively easy time passing the referendum. That means we can add 6 with another 9 very soon. I think all 50 states will eventually pass Gay marriage it is just a matter of time.

This poll also means that for the future it will be more politically popular to support Gay marriage, and some Republicans are following along. In fact New York won't have been able to pass the bill if it weren't for a few Republicans in the legislature, but currently no Republican candidate for president supports Gay marriage only Huntsman support Civil unions which still doesn't give equal rights to Gay people.

Read more here

Raise the Debt Ceiling!

Some Republicans are living in a fantasy world thinking that there is way to continue business as usual even though the debt is above the debt ceiling. Even if the Government cuts hundreds of billion today the debt would still get above the debt ceiling, meaning one of two things must happen. Either the government will shut down and the U.S credit rating will lower or what is more likely to happen raising the debt ceiling. It's like someone telling a bank "I may or may not pay my payment in the end of the month." That sort of fiscal idea's are stupid and will make it harder to get out of a deficit. We all know that eventually (probably the day before) they will come to a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Both sides are just making a bit of political drama now. I blame many people for this problem, but the #1 person I blame is the Democrats who knew they would have to raise the debt ceiling again when they first raised it a year ago. Why didn't they raise it more so there would not be this mess. Did they really think they would keep the senate and the house in 2010 to raise the debt ceiling no problem. They controlled the house and the senate they should have risen it by at least a 2 trillion to give a lot of leg room for the future.

Is It Really a Win?

Canada managed to keep asbestos off the hazardous list. We in Canada don't use asbestos, because it's not safe enough for us, but we are glad to continue to export this material to India where we assume it's being used "properly". We are one of the only western nations to continue to sell it to other countries. We were the only western nation to push to keep the hazardous product off the list of dangers chemicals. The Marc Garneau stated that there is no way too know at all if the product will be used safely.

"This minister knows full well that it's very difficult to use chrysotile in the proper working conditions. The procedures, the training, the complex equipment to use it in a safe way so that fibres aren't accidentally breathed in," Garneau said.

Minister Paradis continues to say that Asbestos can be used properly with no risk, but again doesn't respond to the possibility as Garneau stated that there is no way too know if it is being used properly in under developed countries that don't have the equipment to use the chemical responsibly.

Read more here 

6 Down 44 to Go.

And now the major state of New York will join the 4 other new England states and the lonely Midwestern state in the equality of all people. Gay people can now marry freely (In a month if you want to technical). This again a very important step in full equality, and I hope I can soon says "All 50 down, No left to go". I want full marriage not just civil unions that make Gay people continue to seem inferior to straight people. When i was going throw NY to come back to Montreal I saw a sign that said "If you Don't like Gay marriage don't get gay married." How true if you don't like it don't do it. I have no doubt all 50 states will legalize full Gay rights it is truly just a matter of time, and people have got to get with the times. the truth is people there are Gay people and if you don't like why would they care? Because apparently unlike straight marriage you need to vote on whether it may be allowed. let's stop the stupidity and just allow Gay marriage to be legal fully.

What A Show!

I haven't seen a filibuster in a while, but boy was that something. The Conservatives got there bill passed and now workers will reluctantly go to work Tuesday. The NDP stopped there filibuster and it will take about a week in my estimate for mail flow to go completely back to normal. The government's bill was clearly very biased towards the negotiations. Forcing lower wages then were even on the table if they didn't get back to work. I think the parliament made too much of a big deal over nothing. The wage difference is truly a fraction if you look at the whole program. So why was there this major problem. It was more of an ideological fight then a true fight. The Conservatives don't need to compromise they have a majority. The NDP could have filibuster much longer, but of course eventually they knew it would be too much so they folded, and just made a big enough scene to get attention. I think if it were a minority government we would have been able to come to a compromise that didn't leave tension with the Postal union.

P.S Doggy and Owner will be gone for most of the summer he may pop in and out, but I promise now that my vacation to Washington D.C is done posting will go back to normal.

The Pawlenty Plan Part 2

First the U.S will spend 3.8 Trillion this year. Let’s say Pawlenty's plan would only cost 380 billion then you add that with 1.6 trillion you have a approximate 2.0 trillion dollar deficit. Even if you reduce the deficit to 1.9 trillion, because of the stimulus you will have to cut spending in half to pay for this plan. Discretionary spending today accounts for 24% of the budget. Meaning Pawlenty will have to kill all government agencies from the education department- to the transportation department, and will have to cut Medicare and Medicaid deep (even more than Paul Ryan is proposing) just to pay for his plan.

With all these spending cuts the economy isn't going to grow at five percent Pawlenty will be lucky if the economy grows at all under this plan, and revenue will not come back as he hopes so there will still be a major deficit.

Some would say at least he is reducing taxes, but he of course is giving it to millionairess who don't need the money. the Top 20% will see the tax bracket reduce by 8.6% and for the wall street guys who are in the top one percent who of course need more money (Pawlenty will reduce there tax bracket by 14.6%). The bottom 20% income Americans will see there tax bracket reduce by 0.2%. That is about $23. I wonder how $23 will  give them enough money to pay for there health considering medicare and health care will be cut to oblivion.

This man would be a great Republican nominee against Obama as he will be an easy opponent. 

The Pawlenty Plan Part 1

Republicans talk about how the government is broke and we can't afford to continue to spend the way are spending. In the video Pawlenty sent to declare his candidacy he said "Are country is in big trouble we have far too much debt" (watch here). In Pawlenty economic and budget plan he stated that he would like to reduce taxes. Nothing new of course in the Republican Party, but Pawlenty is taking it to a whole new level. The Bush Tax cuts are worth about 3 Trillion over 10 years. Expensive enough, but Pawlenty thinks the Bush tax cuts don't go far enough. He would reduce income tax Corporate tax and

Under Pawlenty's plan, taxes on capital gains, interest income, dividends and estates would all be eliminated.

A non-partisan policy center said the Government would lose 7.6 Trillion in revenue over ten years. That is about 760 billion a year. The deficit this year will be 1.6 trillion. So how is reducing revenue going to balance the budget Pawlenty? His plan says that he would make up the difference in spending cuts, and economic growth.

Pawlenty's plan claims that the economy of the U.S will grow by 5% every year. And therefore he thinks he will increase revenue by 380 billion every year for ten years making up only half the difference. In Canada we have faced the recession relatively okay and we don't have 5% growth rate are growth rate is 3% roughly, and we went on a spending spree. If pawlenty cut all these taxes you think that it would increase the growth rate to 5%, but you haven't taken in to account the spending cuts.

The War on Drugs Isn't Working

The U.S tough on Crime agenda is slowly being reversed. Amid major Budget deficit the state's are seeing the true cost of putting people for minor offences in jail. California of course the prime example of how tough on crime agenda doesn't at all help you balance a budget or for that matter reduce crime. Prisons for the 2008 fiscal year  of California  cost 10 billion. Interesting.. Harper wants to spend 10 billion on just Prisons alone.  Canada has lower crime rates we don't need new prisons, and we don't need large sentences for small offenders. Harper is trying to impose minimum sentences for crimes something the state's have realized hasn't worked and now 12 states have repealed including Rhode Island which has completely abolished minimum sentences. We need to have Prisons for the major offenders. Currently are prisons are over crowded a little, and yes we should  be building new Prisons to accommodate a natural increase in prison population (as the Canadian population increases the number of crimes increases but crime rates can still be lower), but we should look to stop wasting Prison space for minor offenders that because we make them stay for prison a long time they will just re offend . In Canada we have a very low re offending rate and Harper wants to take us back to the war on drug says of the U.S. By building Mega prisons and minimum sentences.  I wonder how it's going to turn Out.......
Read more here

Soon is Too Soon, But Later is too Late

Today Liberals decide to not postpone the leadership election for 2013. The Leadership convention will be held in Fall. I think a convention in Fall with no money on hand especially (that candidates will have to fund raise the money to enter and some Liberal Candidates in 2006 convention couldn't  pay on time) isn't the really going to start a party if you ask me. Although I want a leadership election I think it would be wise to delay it. The current proposal which is going to be voted on Saturday says that the election will be between 2012 November to 2013 February. I think delaying a leadership race is smart, but I am worried that we may be delaying the race way too long. Harper will only have this majority for 5 years, and knowing many Canadian Majority Governments they tend to last around 4 years (And Harper has already lied twice about fixed election days). So waiting One year before an election to have a new leader is bad. the past two leaders we've had has only lasted 2 years, because we only gave them one shoot at the can. We can't keep changing leaders every time the sky turns Blue. We have too stick to a leader for at least two election especially when the Government only lives 2 years. I think we should delay the leadership race, but the date should be beginning to mid 2012 That gives us one year to rebuild and prepare. So November 2012 I think is too late, but better than this October. So given a choice between this October and November 2012 I would chose October 2012, but no later.

Update: just learned about Jeff Jedras proposal and I must say it is what the party needs as a compromise to the leadership election being in 2013.

Junk Science week!

The National Post is having their annual Junk Science week! In it, they discuss some of the junk science that has cropped up in the last year, as well as the science that has reverted to junk. They also discuss the impacts said junk has on public policy. check it out here.

G8 funds Miss Used I am shocked!

We knew that the funds were misspend. On projects that had nothing to do with the summit whatsoever. The summit wasn't even that long and yet somehow building gazebo's or new construction on a parks very far away from the G8/ G20 summit. if you don't believe me check it out here it's incredible how many projects Tony Clements riding got. Not that this is knew in many governments. I remember in 2009 when a Conservative won a by election against the incumbent party Bloc in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup the riding went from getting below 1 million in stimulus to in one month be given 2 million more dollars after the by election. Again this isn't anything knew. This idea of giving money goes way back and many governments have done it in the past. Like Maurice Duplessi in Quebec I wish we could stop the partisan funding and move to funding riding's by need not by votes.

Should We Keep The Royals?

The Royals are coming to Canada this summer. With the comments from people like Amir Khadir saying that the Royals are Parasite's. It may bring to Question on the Issue of whether we should stay in the monarch.  According to recent polls the idea of staying in the monarchy is somewhat more popular than leaving. The main province for the leaving of the monarchy is of course Quebec, and the main supporters are of course the west.

It's sometimes very funny to hear people say that we spend so much money on the monarchy. It's true we do give the monarchs some money. But if you compare the money that Canadians spend on the monarchy (50 million) to the total spending our government spends over 280 Billion. 50 million isn't even a rounding number. I think that if we are going to have a debate on whether to keep the monarchy or not it shouldn't be the savings of a few million (which is what it is in real terms) it should be the principle of the matter.

So the real question is why should we give money not why are we giving this x amount of cash. You could say that the monarchy holds a lot of history in Canada , and that is true and in Canada we spend a lot of money protecting historical parks and battle fields that are directly linked to the times of New France and the monarch. We still give a day off in this country for Victoria day (while in Quebec they have rebellion day). I think  the monarch is somewhat useful as it gives real tangible people to represent that time in history. If there was a referendum on keeping the monarch I would vote in favor.

First Real Debate!

The race for Obama's opponent is now almost at the beginning. It's not quite there to say many candidates are still not fully in. Candidate's like Bachman, Palin and Giuliani all major factors at this point at least according to the polls aren't even in the exploratory phase, but currently we have 10 candidates in the race for sure and 3 in exploratory phase. Here's something interesting. there is going to be a debate in New Hampshire and 7 candidates are coming 5 of which are fully declared candidates 1 is in exploratory and Banchman the one who isn't officially looking interested in the White House is going to the debate. This will be the first real debate as major candidates Like Gingrich, Banchman, Mitt Romney will be attending a debate. This debate will be interesting. I can see most Republicans attack Romney on Health care (because in Massachusetts Romney passed a law that forced all people to get health care insurance like Obama health care bill) I can see Paul and Banchman attack each other on who will best represent the Tea party. This debate will be fun and if you think seven is crowded then just wait for the debate's in the Fall with possibly 14-15 people tops. The front runner now for me is Mitt Romney.

The "Page" Was Out Of Line!

In our democracy we are allowed to have opinions, and I encourage all those who have opinions to express them. I do on the other hand am against a page who works for the government voicing her opinion. She may have a political opinion and i would be happy to hear it, but disturbing the senate isn't the way to do it. It is not her job as an employee of the Government to voice her opinion, but if she wants she can make it her duty to voice her opinion to the world by starting I don't know a Blog!!!! I would be happy to read it, but unfortunately she decided to voice her opinion in the wrong way. What she did rather than pointing to Harper's mistakes she rather deflected it to her, and it is a shame. A true shame that people feel that the only way to be heard is to do something crazy like this. She made the issue of the day not Harper's policy on the economy, environment or the deficit. She made the issue of the day herself. She didn't support her cause she destroyed her cause. I don't think we should be supporting people to voice their opinion this way. Even Green party leader Elisabeth May agrees.

"I sympathize enormously with youth in this country who feel they've been abandoned when the single greatest threat to their future isn't mentioned in the speech from the throne, and that, of course, is the climate crisis."

 Read more Here

The House Sits! Let the Politics Begin!

Now that the house is now going to work we will see the the truth of the Conservative Government. The Conservatives now have there first speaker of the house. The Bloc will be sitting in four seats way in the back right next to Elisabeth May! Who was sworn in just recently! Harper stated he will reduce the voter subsidy every year and eventually eliminate it all together. When the Liberals get back into government we will reenact the voter subsidy and eliminate the new control the Conservatives would like to hand over Big oil companies. The Problem I see coming up is that the Finace minister said that the deficit target will be meet, but if they continue to reduce taxes on major corporations that are already profitable in Canada I wonder how they will stay on target without cutting. Harper will have to chose between a rock and a rough place. Either cut into popular programs or scrap the early deficit target and blame the Liberals for only giving him 15 billion dollars in surplus. If history is any indicator the Conservatives will probably cut here and there, but will not meet there deficit target like Brain Mulroney. I can see Harper put another deficit target in 2-3 years, Kind of like his CO2 targets they get worse every year! Hopefully Harper doesn't put up too big of a deficit.

Illinois Has a Lot More to Go

As of today homosexual couples will now have some of the rights as a heterosexual couple does, but it is no were near enough. It may be a step in the right direction, but nowhere near full equality. I think that Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. I don't think Civil Unions are the way to go, because civil unions first of all give the impression that Homosexuals aren't equal to heterosexual when it comes to marriage or even rights of married people. Many countries in the world have already legalized Gay Marriage and guess what the sky didn't fall down. Countries like Canada have had Gay marriage for years nothing significant and detrimental happened except maybe that Gay people in Canada feel more like equals and less afraid of being judged. Harper actually promised to make Gay marriage illegal. Now Illinois seems to be moving in the right direction, but the governor can't call civil unions as full equality. apparently some in the U.S appose to civil unions

Illinois Family Institute, a nonprofit group that says it wants to reaffirm marriage in the state, called the law "divisive."

"Gov. Quinn should reject this anti-family bill and reject the efforts of the homosexual lobby to impose this highly contentious and controversial policy on the people of Illinois," David E. Smith, executive director of the group, said earlier.

First how is giving some rights to people who should be given all marriage rights imposing on the people of Illinois. Second this bill would still  make gay marriage look inferior to heterosexual marriage

An Interesting Poll to Consider

A new poll shows that a majority of Canadians don't really support Conservative policies. 53% said that they didn't want the Corporate taxes to drop and only 39% agreed. On the Fighter jets 52% disagreed with a purchase and 37% agreed. On the Long Gun registry the country is split on what to do, but currently it's 46%-43%in favor of keeping the registry.  So how did Harper get elected.

Well he didn't really run on these policies in the first place, and guess what he only needed to get 40% to get his majority around where his policy approval is. Yet again a reason to reform the house. As it shows once again the only right wing party just needs to get the right wing vote to get a majority even though a majority didn't like the Conservative policies. Here is another interesting fact. A overwhelming majority support senate reform I wonder how much support house reform. The poll doesn't even mention abolishing the senate, but if people are interested in senate reform I don't know why they aren't interested in abolishing the senate.

On the issue of a merger I am glad to say that both our parties said No! by a huge margin might I add. 75% of NDP voters said no and 72% said no. A merger isn't happening. It seems Liberals want to keep the core centrist and fiscally responsible party.

The poll also found little support for a merger between the NDP and Liberal Party, an idea that re-surfaced after the Liberals lost official opposition status in the House of Commons.

Three-quarters of NDP polled and 72 per cent of Liberals said they oppose a merger between the two parties. 

Read more here

Just Abolish The Senate Already

Premier of Ontario said to just abolish the senate all together. There is really no use of the senate. We have a house that is actually elected and only need one elected house having two elected houses is silly. As it would allow for dead lock just like in the U.S were progress becomes to hard to do. We have one elected house and we should consider on reform it with proportional representation. The senate also favours the Atlantic and is unfair to the western provinces like Alberta and British Columbia. Why waste money on senators that are appointed by the PM almost making Canada not look like a democracy. With having a senate that kills bills that were passed in Parliament it doesn't truly show democracy. Canada needs to reform the house and eliminate the senate. I may be a Liberal, but I want fair representation for Alberta which is one of the least represented by the senate, and if eliminated Alberta will be more properly represented by the House of Commons.

Premier Dalton McGuinty says he's talked with other premiers and believes the best option is to simply get rid of the Senate altogether.