Rick Perry Surges

                In a new poll of Republicans in the U.S Rick Perry is ahead. This isn't completely unexpected, but the margin he leads compared to the rest of the candidates is something to look at. Even before Perry was officially "in the race". He was polling considerably well for someone who wasn't running yet (13%). Now a poll has Perry at 27% of voters and Mitt Romney at 14%. All the other candidates are around 6% like Bachman, Paul and Gingrich. Sarah Palin who no one knows if she is running is in 3rd place with 10% beating more established candidates that I have just mentioned.

               This poll only deals with the nation as a whole, but that doesn't matter much. What matters is how the first four states vote. Let's look at Iowa a new poll came out a week a ago showed that Iowa is getting real tight. Perry is leading at 24%, but Bachman is at 22% and  Romney is at 19%. This means that if let's say Bachman wins Iowa then Perry is the loser no matter what the national polls say, because if you are the candidate that wins no early states you aren't seen as a viable candidate and money dry's up. So if Perry loses Iowa where can he look for a win.

              The next state is New Hampshire just after Perry became a candidate Perry got a solid second place showing with 18% and Mitt Romney the King Maker of New England is at 36% and even if Perry props his numbers a little in this state it looks like New Hampshire will be for now solid for Romney.  In Nevada another early state has no new poll that came out after Perry announcement, but I will go on the assumption that Romney is the best liked person in the state just looking back to his 2008 results.

             So it seems that Romney still for now has a hold on New Hampshire and Nevada for now. So what about South Carolina.  A new poll last week showed that Perry is at 1st place 11% ahead of Romney's 20%  and Bachman a distant 3rd with 14%.

            So Perry is leading in the polls nationally, but if he doesn't grab at least one of the early states then he isn't viable. For Now Perry is very viable with his South Carolina support and Iowa, and even if he grabs both if Romney grabs Nevada and New Hampshire then the race will be now where near over. So Perry is leading, but if he doesn't lock those early states especially Iowa then he may have a fight to the end to win.

The Republicans on the Enviorment Part 3

Now I am going to analyze the stance of the last three candidates in the GOP on the Environment. These candidates are Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, Business person Herman Cain and from Utah John Huntsman.
                
                  Rick Santorum went on Rush Limbaugh show and called global warming "Junk Science", and he continues to say that global warming is fake. When i go on his website I don't see a plan at all for energy, but he clearly will have no interest in saving the environment or regulating companies to lower there emission, because he doesn't believe in the "junk science" that 97%-98% of climate scientist actively working in the field believe in man made science.

                  Herman Cain also doesn't believe in Climate change, but he has a Ron Paul Approach to energy. Let the market to everything. He wouldn't be for government intervention. He thinks that Americans should wait until oil becomes to expensive that companies will move to other resources of energy like wind, solar  and hydroelectric, but he has no plan to try a and push companies to move to those other resources. He wants to wait until companies extract all the resources and hurt the economy so much that they will be forced to change there energy policies. That takes way too much time the world needs renewable energy right now!

                  Then comes John Hutsman. He actually wrote on twitter "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Finally a republican that believes in the science. Now I won't talk about evolution, but John Hutsman believes in global warming, but how much? Well he thinks that the Republicans are "the anti-science party", that Republicans "take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said" and that the Republican party is "on the wrong side of science." Isn't that a breath of fresh air, he doesn't question the science and doesn't escape it by saying he doesn't know how much man is involved, but while Hutsman supports reducing pollution he has since 2011 taken back his policy of Cap and trade. Which is a good thing Cap and trade is bad, but he has no plan on the environment.

                 Now that I am done looking up all the 8 Republican candidates policy on the environment let's see the results. 4/8 Republican candidates are fully against the science of global warming,  another 3/8 question the science and 8/8 don't have a serious plan to tackle it. The Republican party is the party of no action on Global warming.

BC votes NO on HST

In BC the results of the referendum came on Friday. 55% of BC residence voted to eliminate the young new HST while 45% wanted it to stay. That is much closer than I imagined. I knew BC would vote no on the tax thought it would be more like 67% 33%. I thought this because the people who are really against were energized to vote against the tax, but it seems the tax has been more popular over the course of time, and quite frankly I think one more year in and the HST would be popular enough to not have enough people sign a petition to vote on the tax., but the Liberal BC government has decided to move to eliminate the HST. What a shame! The HST actually helps the economy and is revenue neutral. B.C got 1.6 billion dollars for moving to the HST and is going to have to give it back now, because Harper isn't going to give BC money for doing nothing. B.C lost out on this referendum. 113,000 jobs were predicted to be created over 10 years because of the new HST, And companies would have been more competitive and have a better bottom line, and consumers would see the difference. My take BC should have kept the HST regardless of the vote. Being a leader means doing something that is right versus doing something that is popular.

The Republican and the Environment part 2

If any of you didn't look at my last post I am looking into the Republicans and there environment stance I already did Bachman now for Mitt Romney and Gingrich and Ron Paul.


                                Mitt Romney the front-runner of the Republican party has a very "Bush" and "Harper" position on Global warming. Mitt Romney said earlier in the year that he believes that the world is getting warmer. Horayyy! But he says "I don't know how much humans are contributing to that", but he still believes in reducing Co2 emissions. Then he talked about his solutions and he said use "Natural Gas." Yes Natural gas is better than Oil and I would rather have a Natural gas plant than an Oil plant, but both are non sustainable energy resources, and both still pollute the planet. Natural Gas can't be his entire solution to Global warming right? Well that all he has offered up so far. A few days ago in New Hamshire he said "What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to," Again the Republican party exaggeration of what needs to be done and understanding that we will all pay for global warming. This is Why Romney is a Bush and Harper guy. He kind of makes us think he believes in global warming, but offers no real solution for it, and isn't about to get serious at all about Climate change. (by the way Mitt Romney in 2007 said that he would support a global Cap and trade system)



                              Gingrich a few years back sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi asking the congress do to something about climate change now! Well today Gingrich has completely changed his opinion now he says he wants a national inquiry into climate change. Again questioning the science that has already been proven. Gingrich is going to be very slow on climate change because he refuses to look at the facts. I liked 2007 Gingrich much better than today. In 2007 Gingrich wanted action now and he even explained I think perfectly the situation. he sais that Conservatives don't move on the environment, because they think that to address the issue you are going to raise taxes and have more government, so the Republicans don't talk about Climate change.Then he goes off to say that Republicans need to have there way to reduce emission without having more government. In 2007 I would have welcomed that ,because in Gingrich said the U.S has to "Move towards most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading." So as you can see Gingrich now doesn't want to do anything right now.He went from "The Evidence is Sufficient" to "National Inquiry"


                              Ron Paul Isn't to much different. Although usually Ron Paul is the person who stands out on a issue. This time he has a very similar stance to these guys He questions the science of global warming, but really says that it doesn't matter for the federal government, because he thinks that the free market will handle everything. For example Ron Paul solution to moving to renewable energy get the government out of that . He would eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels, but would also eliminate subsidies to renewable energy. (this would be a win as fossil fuels are subsidized way more than renewable energy) The Only problem is that this won't fix the whole problem. Believing that government should not be in the solution will cause a slow reaction from the world. We need the government to give companies the push to be Eco friendly. Just waiting for it will take too much time.


Now that I am done with these guys I am going to concentrate on the last three John Huntsman, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum.

The Republicans on the Environment

I have decided to look at all the people who would like to become the President of the U.S and look at there platform. Issue by issue. Since I already talked about Rick Perry and the Environment. Let's check all the other candidates plan on the Environment today will be on Michelle Bachman. She stood in the house of representatives and said "that CO2 is a natural byproduct of nature" and therefor can't harm us. Yes CO2 is a natural substance, but what Bachman may have not been told that natural things can be toxic to ourselves. She says that CO2 is necessary for the planet to exist. Yes CO2 is necessary for the planet to exist that doesn't mean that too much of it isn't bad. Take this for example arsenic is natural yet having it can kill you! Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it can't harm you. Examples like animals or tobacco plants are natural, but a lion can kill you and so can smoking. The only thing is that the "does makes the poison" as Paracelsus would say. That means that everything can technically kill you. No matter how "natural" it may be. In fact eating too many apples or drinking too much water can kill you. Of course you have to have a lot, but it happens occasionally. So if you have enough CO2 on the planet even though CO2 is "Natural" and is important to the planet having to much of it has caused problems. Today we are currently seeing that humans are emitting an enormous amount of CO2 that is unprecedented .reducing are CO2 emissions is a good thing not to the point where there is no CO2 on the planet, but to sustainable level. The thing is that CO2 stay' in the atmosphere for 40 years that means that even if we emit zero today the effects of climate change have reached a bare minimum. People like Michelle Bachman who call CO2 "a harmless gas" make it easy to see there plan for the Environment and the future. Nothing! Next on my list Romney and Gingrich. See Bachman's entire speech on Global warming here

Farewell

Yesterday it was reported that Jack Layton has passed away. I may not agree with Layton politically, but he was someone who you just had to admire. he kept running in many elections even though he lost before numerous of times. My best wishes to his family and friends. Farewell Jack Layton. (age 61)

"Royal" Military made the New York Times!

Harper has added "royal" to both the sea forces and the air force of the Canadian Forces. There is absolutely no point in changing the name. It's a waste of money and not many Canadians really care about it.

But, in the end, it's a name change and I do not really care what our military is named. As long as it exists and protects us, I'm happy. It's the money that I care about. Stephen Harper won his majority caring about the economy and Canadians trusted him to keep financial stability as we move into the future. Wasting money on rebranding Canadian military shows a lack of judgement. It's the economy that matters.

TORONTO (AP) — Canadians were thrilled when Prince William and Kate traveled across the country on their first official trip as a married couple. They barely noticed when their pro-monarchy Conservative prime minister appointed Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II's husband, an honorary admiral on his 90th birthday. 

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to restore the royal name to the Canadian armed forces and other recent moves to embrace the monarchy have raised hackles in this former British colony that has largely been indifferent to the fact that the queen remains the titular head of state.

Read more at the New York Times.

Perry and the World

Rick Perry has again proven that he doesn't believe in global warming. He thinks that just because the world has proven time and time again strange weather and heating climate is just "manipulated data." Maybe Rick Perry is talking about the Bush administration who have been manipulating climate data for years. Rick Perry thinks money on Climate change will cost the nations billion. Yes that is true, but no only is this money needed it helps the country. Green jobs are the jobs of the future, and yes turning to renewable energy does cost money, but they have savings in the future and don't forget Perry your state is going to run dry soon on oil and then you will have no energy if you don't plan. This is also funny because Perry if you didn't know fossil fuels are subsidized more than renewable energy, and fossil fuels subsidize are a waste on money.

"We are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change," the U.S. presidential candidate told an audience of several hundred voters, business leaders and local officials who gathered for a breakfast in Bedford.

 97% of Climate scientist the people who are trained in the field believe that climate change is man made. So even if few out of hundreds  think the science is bad it still doesn't make the 97% wrong. Climate change is real.

National Academy of Sciences findings that fossil fuel combustion is the primary cause of global warming and that earth surface temperatures have risen above the 20th-century average every month since the mid-1980s.

The U.N. has warned that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries.

The only person who is "manipulating date" is Rick Perry himself  he should know that Climate change is caused by humans and the world needs to move away from fossil fuels now! Rick Perry has no plan for the environment.

Read more here

Super Commitee best of the worst!

The debt deal that passed the U.S congress was seen as a compromise that no base of either side was happy about. I think that the first part was okay as it did address some problems with the deficit, but it didn't hit it's core. The core of the Deficit is much bigger than this deal. In fact even if the super committee comes with double than what they were asked for the deficit will still be unsustainable. The Super committee is being asked to find 1.5 trillion over ten years. That's 150 billion a year the deficit is much bigger than that. I like the idea of finally addressing the deficit, but 150 billion plus 100 billion equal 250 billion a year on average. Now this would cut the average Bush deficit in half, but now and in the future the deficit would still be much bigger. The U.S needs to increase taxes. The problem is that the people in the super committee are too close to the base. The Republicans are going to be against any tax increases or loop holes elimination, the Democrats are going to protect social security and medicare, and what going to happen is that they are going to agree in cutting 150 billion a year in discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is about only a quarter of all spending and declining because other parts of the budget are rising faster (Medicare, Military and Interest on the debt). Continue to attacking discretionary spending won't make long lasting effects on the deficit. Super committee isn't good , but the Congress is even worse. The only thing the super committee has going for it is that it is only 12 people not 535.

The Super Committee could work if it's job is to find at least 8.5 trillion dollars to cut or tax over the next 10 years, and that will force the super committee to find more than just discretionary spending to cut. If their job was to balance the budget not to just cut minor amounts here and their then they would be forced to look at the big picture, but right now the best I can see the committee doing is nothing more than just cutting discretionary spending by 150 billion. As taxes is out of the question for the Republicans, and Medicare and Social security is out of the question for the Democrats. The U.SA will very soon be forced to tackle the deficit right now their still playing with it.

Ontario Libs With a Chance

In the Ontario election which is due this fall. Hudak looked like an easy winner, but i say don't rule out the Liberals in Ontario so fast. Even with the last election in May where Liberals faced a devastating defeat in the province getting third place. Recent polls show that the premier of Ontario looks like he may have a chance to win the province.

The recent poll shows the Liberal party is just 4.5% behind the Conservative, but on the issue of trust surprisingly the Liberals are ahead. Ontario trust Mcguinty more than they trust any other party leader in the province. On who would be the best premier Ontario still slightly prefer Mcguinty over Hudack, but this is within the margin of error. This still proves that the Liberals aren't out just yet on this race.

When asked about the Liberals thrust worthy on the issue's Liberals in Ontario lead in Health care by 6%, Economy 3%, Taxes 1%, Education 7%, Environment 5%, Electricity 2%. Now many of these leads are within the margin of error, but this proves again that the Liberals have a chance if they are currently being competitive on the issue's and thrust worthy. The polls show that the lead the Conservative have is within the margin of error, and Liberals in the province still have a chance.

see the polls here and here

The Scary Republican

In the Debate Last week the Republicans were asked some questions. Some I found slightly interesting, but one question just made me scared! The Question was that if their was a budget deal that for every 10 dollars in cuts their will only be 1 dollar in taxes would you support that? All the Republicans said no they would not be in favor. These Republicans scare me! They are against taxes more than Regan who did increase taxes on some people. They would rather see medicare destroyed then have a billionaire that has millions in safe heavens give one penny.

They forget the history of the U.S deficit. The deficit was first created with, because of the Bush tax cuts. Then with the help of a two wars the deficit ballooned. Then when the bubble burst revenue went down and the stimulus also increased the deficit. Eventually when the stimulus is out of the deficit the deficit will be mostly just be the Bush Tax cuts, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, interest on the debt, medicare and social security which under Clinton had money to fund it for the future, military and pentagon funding and lower revenue because of high unemployment. Spending cuts must be made, but if we want to get back to the Bill Clinton surplus we need to go back to Clinton tax rates. The Republicans will never eliminate the Bush tax cuts even though they were suppose to expire in 2010 now 2012. The Republicans say that loopholes are fine. They are against eliminating loopholes and using that money to actually save Medicare a little. Apparently eliminating loopholes on major corporations who are practically paying negative corporate tax is too harsh, but lowering help for poor and the elderly isn't at all important to them. The Republican say that the cuts will help save Medicare in the long run. I have an idea raise the social security age and the medicare age. You save a lot of money in the long run and you save those services from major cuts, and maybe just maybe make companies pay their full share of taxes so their will be money for the elderly, but the Republicans aren't interested in making as little harm as possible on Medicare. They don't care about losing money allowing Corporations to use loopholes to pay no corporate tax, but they do care about using money that goes helping the poor and the elderly.


The Republicans at that debate I hope lose the election, because not only do they not support tax increases, but they aren't at all open to compromise. Even with a 10:1 deal that completely support their ideas more than the democratic's by a large margin. They aren't open to compromise. electing any Republican in any chamber makes it harder to save any program that helps the most in need.

Pawlenty Out, Perry In!

After Pawlenty's bad showing in the Iowa straw poll Pawlenty is now out of the race for the White house. Tim Pawlenty who was said to have spend an enormous amount of money and time in the state was disappointed with the poor third place showing in Iowa. This isn't the first time a candidate left, because of a poor showing in the straw poll. Fred Thomson who was doing very good by most polls at one point in the 2008 Republican primary had a bad showing in a Straw poll and quite the race.

Now where do his voters go. In Iowa the most recent poll gives Pawlenty 5th place with 11%, and considering all the other candidates ahead of Pawlenty are at most 10% behind the leader these votes can really help. Bachman I suspect will grab a lot of these votes and Perry will probably grab some the rest.

In New Hampshire. Pawlenty is way down the pack and Romney looks like he is king maker in that state, so unless something happens Romney has not much to worry about.

In Nevada Tim Pawlenty is at 1% no one should worry, and in South Carolina he has just 4%, and in this Poll Palin is included, and Perry isn't. I think IN south Carolina Perry might want to hit those socially conservatives people to try and beat Romney their.

The only other state Pawlenty voters make a big deal is his own home state which I am declaring that at this point will be all Bachman's.

Iowa Straw Poll

The results of the Iowa Straw poll are in, and Michele Bachman wins the Iowa straw poll  by just 150 votes. Ron Paul got a very strong second place showing with 4671. This isn't much of a surprise. Ron Paul and Michele Bachman were really pushing out the vote in the Iowa straw poll. Pawlenty who was the governor in neighboring state Minnesota got 3rd place even though he spent a lot of money and time in the state trying to make a big surprise in this straw poll. Santorum who is having some problems with money considering he can't fund raise a lot compared to the rest of the crowd got 4th place. The surprising thing is that Rick Perry who everyone knew was going to run a few days ago and even before that  got 718 votes. Way behind many of the people on the top of the straw poll, but he beat people like Romney and Gingrich without even being their. To be fair Romney and Gingrich really didn't do much to get votes in this straw poll. This straw poll doesn't always help predict the winner in 2007 it gave Romney the win in the Iowa straw poll, but he lost the state to Mike Huckabee. Right now Romney is still the front runner in my mind, but with Perry in the race some say Perry is the front runner in waiting. I don't know. I think right now Romney is still the front runner, and I think right now Michele Bachman and Rick Perry are tied for second place. Rick Perry is leading in nation wide votes against Bachman, but Bachman is leading in first state's like Iowa, but Rick who isn't in many regional polls is in second place in Nevada another early state, but these polls have all been taken before Rick Perry's official run so as soon as some new polls come out I think he is tied with Bachman.

A poll done on August 4th showed Bachman one point ahead of Romney with 22% in Iowa. Ron Paul at 3rd at 16% and Rick Perry is at 12%. Although to be fair Rick Perry didn't start campaigning yet. So right now Rick Perry I think is at most 3rd place, but yes I do think Rick Perry is defiantly something to fear.

Winners at the straw poll
Bachman showing she can rally her supporter's
Paul because he just slightly lost and clearly has proven again that his supporters are coming out for him
Rick Perry showing he can get a better showing then the front runner without campaigning and get votes without even being on the ballot

Losers
Pawlenty turned out to get a lower showing then expected in this even though he spent a lot of time and money in the state
Romney even though not trying to win he still put his name on the ballot and got trumped by minor candidates who he is beating in the polls like Santorum and Cain, but most importantly someone who wasn't even on the ballot.

Everyone else
did as expected.

Perry'a Fake Miracle!

Governor Rick Perry which by all accounts in the presidential campaign for the White House has been seen as the person to match Romney has been claimed to be the candidate who know something about Jobs. Texas has increased jobs. In fact Texas leads in job creation for the past decade, but if you look at whole picture of Texas what do you see. Texas has an unemployment rate smaller then the national average. Why? Oil does help, but the fact  it is the fastest growing state right now does help too. It just pumped up it's amount of electoral votes, and that is why many jobs have been created, because if more people live in a state that means more people need to given services well over half the jobs in Texas created from 2001 was because of the population surge. These jobs include public schools as more students are in the country their needs to be more teachers. in fact 1/5 of all the jobs created from 2001 were government jobs, and the public sector in Texas grew double the rate of the private sector.

The state started the year with a 25 billion dollar deficit hole to patch up. You may blame this on the recession, but Rick Perry has had budget shortfalls years before the recession.In fact during Perry's 11 years in office local debt ballooned 100 billion. State debt in Texas since 2001 to now has increased faster than the federal debt ( it increased 282%). here's something else Texas has a AA+ rating the same as the federal government (important to note this is a rating upgrade by standard and poor's,but the fact that Texas has the same rate as the federal government is important to note).

The state has the lowest health care coverage rate in the U.S and has the third highest poverty rate. The Education system in Texas is one of the lowest in the country. In fact Texas spent the lowest amount of money per person then any other state, and yet somehow they had a huge budget shortfall for years. The Reason for that is taxes. Texas has one of the lowest tax rates in the country. Texas has no income Tax! In fact when faced with the 25 billion dollar hole Rick Perry promised voters he wouldn't raise taxes at all instead cut spending to fix the problem. Even though the state spends the lowest amount of money per person than any other state. Rick Perry this year cut 31 billion to close the budget hole. programs that were cut. Public education was cut by 13%, four community college's closed, health and human services was cut by 25%, Medicaid providers now have a 10% rate deduction and 60,000 students would lose financial aid to go to college, and considering the cuts he is making are in areas that have been creating jobs the past decade job cuts are going to hurt Texas's so called "miracle"

Another Stimulus?

With more fear with the stock market some people in the U.S have been asking for another stimulus or spending package. Although putting money into the economy will create jobs the U.S can't afford it! Debt to GDP ratio is at 98%. The U.S doesn't have much wiggle room right now to lower taxes or to increase spending without paying for it. The U.S needs to reduce spending and raise taxes in order to lower the deficit. If the U.S doesn't reduce the deficit then it can face future downgrades, and will increase the interest of the debt. the Interest on the debt this year for the U.S is 200 billion and growing. With more downgrade and more stimulus that number will get bigger and force future cuts to be more sever and taxes to be raised more heavily in order to balance the budget. In 2020 under current projections the Interest on the debt will explode and be more expensive than the military, medicaid and medicare, and almost the exact same as social security. Another stimulus will make things harder in the future. The first stimulus wasn't all good either their was not enough spending on infrastructure and construction, and most of all it wasn't planned to be paid for. The Stimulus did create jobs and things would have been worse without it, but the U.S has no money or room to take any more cash for another stimulus. The U.S should invest in infrastructure and should extend the unemployment benefits , but this time they should pay for it. They need to have a plan that will eliminate the deficit all together within 7-8 years, and then if they want to spend any more they should have a new tax or cut to pay for the new spending. Stimulus season is over! The U.S made over 200,000 jobs last month in the recession they lost 700,000 a month in 2009 a stimulus made sense now not only is the U.S making jobs, but making another stimulus will make the deficit hard to handle .This May be an economic slowdown and the U.S might not employ to many people this month, but they are moving (slowly) in the right direction. the U.S may have to deal with sluggish employment for a while if they want to avoid being Greece!

Dion Is Right!

Stephane Dion the former Liberal leader for two years, and supported the Carbon tax has put the whole Turmel affair in perspective. He raised a few question that I found absolutely brilliant. He made it clear that a leader can change their  political stripes, but the fact that Turmel tried to hide something that happened so recently isn't transparent.

During and after the last campaign, Turmel was asked repeatedly about the support she had given Bloc candidates when she was a union leader. At that time she was presented with an opportunity to reveal her past membership in the Bloc, and her ongoing membership in Québec Solidaire. But she did not. That information only became public as a result of a reporter’s investigation, and that is completely unacceptable.

 Another thing Dion raised was Turmel's Explanation. She claimed that the only reason she became a member of the party that wanted to separate Quebec was, because she wanted to support her friend, but just because your friend is in a different party you don't have to be a card carrying member or for that matter vote for them. The Libertarian on the Blog is my friend, but  I am not joining the Libertarian party for him nor do I expect for him to come to the Liberal party, because he is my friend. Dion and me both agree that the NDP have to be more transparent. And I think that Turmel should decide now on whether she wants to stay a member of Quebec Solidaire or not.

 The NDP is now left with only one choice: it must opt for transparency. How many NDP MPs were, or still are, members of sovereignist parties? Will they remain so? How many would vote for independence if a referendum were held?

Read Dion's entire post here 

Replace the Champlain Bridge.

The Champlain Bridge is crumbling down. We need to replace the structure now! Before something bad happens. Because of problems with the bridge the city will lose productivity amounting 2 billion dollars. The Conservative party is moving slowly and not planning to do much.

 So far, federal Transport Minister Denis Lebel has only said the government is studying all options.

 Among the options are a new bridge — with a $1.3-billion price-tag — or a $1.9-billion tunnel.

20 billion in trade crosses the busiest bridge in Canada every day, and yes 1.3 billion is a lot of money, but not doing anything like the Conservatives isn't safe and make the city lose more money and jobs. We need to replace the bridge if we don't soon even if the bridge doesn't collapse the economy of Montreal will be in danger of collapsing. This bridge problem get's bigger every day. the longer we try to ignore it or place small band aids on it the more money we lose and the more problems we will face.

"The Champlain Bridge is really a key piece in the economic engine of the greater Montreal area," said Mai.

 Read more here

The Liberals are UP!

A new poll shows that the Conservatives are at 36.2, The Liberals at 27.0% and the NDP at 26.8%. We are now just over a month past the last election the NDP and the Liberals are now in a tie. And the Conservatives are now at their minority levels. Not that this matters for an election, but it's good to see our poll numbers be above the teens. We went up in every province in the country. In the Atlantic we are now just 5% behind the conservatives, but comfortably ahead  the NDP with a 12 point lead. In Quebec the NDP are still in the lead with 34%, but have declined 8% since their election day results. The Bloc are below their election lows, but have risen to 17%, but below the Conservatives and Liberals at low twenties. The NDP honeymoon in Quebec has declined, but  it isn't over yet. In Ontario we are about 7% higher than the NDP with 32%. That's great considering on election night we lost 2nd place to the NDP by just 0.3%. Harper's Conservatives are down from their election highs of 44% to now 38%. In the Prairies provinces we got 10% on election night, and now we are higher than the NDP slightly with 22% versus 20%. The Conservatives dropped over double digits to now 50% still dominating the prairies provinces. In BC we went from our 20% gap between the us and NDP to our now 5% gap. Which considering the margin of error can be considered a tie. We aren't winning yet and we still have 4 years to go, but it's nice to see our party doing better than we were doing last month. 

In June, the Liberals were at 22.3 per cent support nationally but have seen their support increase in every region of the country over the past month.

The pollster notes Liberal numbers always improve when they don’t have a permanent leader. For example, their numbers increased when Paul Martin announced his departure and again when Stephane Dion resigned.

  Read more here

BC Votes On HST!

The year old tax is now being subjected to a vote. Even though Stephen Harper help get some provinces on with the tax I fully support the HST. It helps companies as it eliminates the possibility of a product being taxed multiple times before being taxed one more time when bought, because now many products won't be taxed as much when the product goes down the construction line all companies will save money. This Money will help the companies be more competitive, hire more people and reduce prices! Simplifying the tax system is a good thing. According to a recent report BC will actually create over 100,000 jobs in the next ten years and BC will make over 590,000 Jobs over the next ten years. The HST will help Canada, and if BC votes against the HST which seems very likely the BC primer Christy Clark should do what is in the best interest of Canadians which is to keep the HST which will only help her province. I hope to see the results next week. I am not expecting the HST to be voted to be keept, but if it get's more than 30-35% I would be surprised considering the HST was not at all popular just 1 year ago.

Debt Deal History

There is a lot of history on the debt ceiling in the united states. In fact for many decades the debt ceiling increased tremendously without the need of any compromise on spending. In fact JFK increased has the debt ceiling rise by 5% only. Some would say Obama is asking the debt ceiling to be increased way too much.But let's look at history  .every President has increased the debt ceiling. Johnson increased it by 18%, and then after that Nixon and Jimmy Carter both increased the debt ceiling by 35.6% and 33.6% respectfully. Then came the "fiscally responsible" Ronald Regan who increased the debt ceiling by oooh....199%!!!!! Bush senior in just four years increased the debt ceiling by 48%. Then came Clinton who also increased the debt ceiling by 43.5%, but mid way in his term he balanced the budget and the debt ceiling never had to rise ever again.Of course Bush Junior came and increased the debt ceiling by 90%. Obama with this deal of an extra 2 trillion to the debt ceiling has increased the debt ceiling by 44%. This isn't a good number at all considering Obama hasn't even finished his first term, but it shows that Obama wasn't the only one who has ever increased the debt ceiling. If Reagan can without the risk of default double the debt and increase the national debt ceiling by 199%. Why is it that Obama must be pushed almost to default in order to increase the debt ceiling. The fact that the U.S almost went into default is irresponsible of the Republicans. The Republicans should realize that the debt ceiling should be separat then a deficit plan which by the way is no where near good enough to eliminate the deficit.

Republicans Still Oppose Tax increases!

The Republican position on taxes has never changed over the past few years. They will be against any tax increases. Even tax reform which would actually lower the Corporate tax rate in the U.S by 7%, but makes more revenue by eliminating loopholes wasn't good enough for the Republicans. It seems anything that would even raise revenue would be completely against there values. Cuts are the only thing they can agree with. Even though one of the reasons we are in this deficit is, because of the Bush Tax cuts. That the Republicans would never dream of eliminating tax cuts. Even though it was set to expire in 2010. Now we must wait till 2012 for to expire, but people are still a little skeptical on whether they will really expire. In 2012 we will see the Republicans howling that taxing billionaire's and millionaires will hurt the economy. Even though forgetting eliminating medicare will probably eliminate more jobs than taxing billionaires who can afford to pay a little more. But taxing millionaires wouldn't solve the deficit alone people must admit that.

Now I can somewhat understand the idea of not increasing taxes on anyone, because it is bad for the economy, but eliminating loopholes of major corporations while reducing the Corporate tax rate I thought that could be the big compromise on taxes, but no! Eliminating loopholes on major profitable companies is still a tax on the country! This super committee will have triggers if nothing get's done, which I hope will not only include Tax reform, but eliminating the Bush tax cuts for all (Although knowing American politics it will probably just be the rich tax cuts on the line)

The Fedaralist Sovereigntist Party?

Even though the current NDP leader does consider herself a federalist. recent events begs the Question is the NDP turning into the Bloc trying to look like the Bloc?

Some would be quick to say No, but consider this Jack Layton even said that Quebec only needs 50% +1 to be it's own country after the election. The NDP has moved much of it's policy towards pleasing Quebec while still calling itself a federalist party. The NDP even named a new leader from Quebec. Even though there are many other MP's in the party that come from other parts of the country (that by the way have loads of experience more than their current interim leader). The NDP are trying to hold on to their new found friend Quebec. Even though they will definitely lead to problems. They can't image themselves somewhat pro the idea of Quebec allowed to be it's own country or having more power, and be completely for federal unity and a central goverment. The Conservatives are going to have a field day. Being in Montreal I can hear the new ads being targeted at federalist in the island. If the NDP don't start to think as too what kind of party they would like to be seen by Quebec then Harper will do it for them. Which means Montreal could start to turn more red and blue with only a little orange on the side. The NDP may not be the Bloc, but if they keep trying to keep former sovereigntist to their campaign it may mean trouble in the other side's of the country. Which would be a good thing for the Liberals and Conservatives.

Our Crubbling Infastructure!

Our Montreal mayor is right we need more money into Infrastructure I quite frankly am happy to see that the Montreal mayor has taken an unpopular stance on increasing fees in order to help Montreal infrastructure. Montreal needs infrastructure help. The Federal Government should help, by increasing the Gas tax. Even if this will be a tax on motorist over 80% of the Montreal population are worried about the infrastructure in Quebec. I think paying more for the oil to drive a car  more safely in Montreal sounds like a good deal!

"When you look at citizens' comments, when you read the newspapers, citizens are feeling insecure — they're worried," Tremblay said.

Fixing this problem will take time considering economist predict that the cost of fixing all of the Infrastructure in the city will cost 120 billion, but we need to start (stop) now putting little band aids on the issue (that) will only make it cost more in the future. We need to start helping our infrastructure not only in Montreal, but also in Toronto, Vancouver and other major cities that need help now!

"When I talk to my colleagues in other big Canadian cities it's the same issue — we have a $120-billion hole...

Read more here

Debt deal is Okay!

The debt deal that is currently being rushed to in the last few days before a default. This deal supports 1 trillion in cuts first over the next decade then having a joint committee that would look into another 1.5 trillion in more cuts. Medicare and Social security will not be cut right now. But in the joint committee I have no doubt in my mind that they will be subjected to be cut. The sad part about this deal is that currently no tax increases have been apart of the deal, not even tax increases on the richest Americans! The U.S can end the deficit without cutting too much into medicare or social security. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts entirely would generate 300 billion dollars a year, (and to make the number look bigger) 3 trillion over 10 years. That is more than this entire debt deal. True this tax cut being eliminated will not eliminate the deficit, but if we raise the social security and medicare age, look at ending fraud in Medicare, cutting the military by billions, Cut the pentagon, reform the tax code, and look at ending subsidies to big oil and ethanol, create a carbon tax and cut discretionary spending. I hope that the the joint committee looks into proposals that will not harm Americans too much, because in order to destroy the deficit the U.S needs to make sacrifices, but let's look at easy sacrifices before elderly people need to give there social security payments to big oil companies. This deal isn't perfect, but right now I think it may just be the compromise U.S must accept, as tax increases could still be a part of the deal in the joint commitee and currently medicare and social security is safe.