No to Liberal Primaries

There is a proposition that we Liberals instate a primary system for electing our next leader. This was clearly iterated in the Board's document, "A Roadmap to Renewal." It suggests having a new category of people called "supporters" who would not be members, but would still have the right to vote in leadership contests. 

This is a bold, new proposal, especially in Canada. However, I do not think it would be a good idea to have a new category of "supporters." Instead, we have to work to get people engaged in Liberal activities, interested in our cause and when time comes to vote, they should be able to become a member easily and vote right away. No more of that 40 day crap. Membership fees should also go down from ten dollars to basically zero. Even though there is a cost to the Liberal Party for each member that signs up, it will be through engagement of our new and old members that successful fundraising will come.

To sum up, it is not through granting people the same rights as members that we will gain the support of more people. It is through engaging them by having a continuous policy-creating process and continuous forums that we will gain more members and thereby, gain more money.

The federal Liberal convention, which arrives in Ottawa on Jan. 13, will be a seminal event. Does it matter if the party survives? Few would say so with much passion, but I think it does matter. Failing that, we’ll be left with ideologues of the left and right. Liberals, by contrast, have few principles beyond survival and power, which at least makes for a keen attention to the public good.

Read more at the Globe and Mail. 

Economist: Universal Health Care is Good!

A new report done by top economist warns Canada that it should stay with Universal Health care. It states that although Health Care spedning is growing too fast for revenue's the principal of a public health care system should be kept. Him like me is worried about the future of our Public health care system. By 2030 Health care spending will explode and become between 70%-80% of the budget. In order to avoid this catastrophe the study states reforms that must be done. Including using technology for efficiency, billing rich seniors for their drugs and paying doctors on their quality and cost effectiveness. I say that there is other things we should consider. Like cutting back on administration in the health care system, target obesity so that their is less of a need to use the health care system and Tax junk food and put that money into health care. We don't need to privatize our vital public health care system what we need to do is look for efficiencies. Our Health care system isn't broke and wont be broke if we take the necessary steps to avoid catastrophe.

“A great deal can be done to improve efficiency in the system before privatization is considered,” Mr. Drummond says in the report prepared for the C.D. Howe Institute.

Canada should remain committed to publicly funded health care, and not open the door to two-tier medicine, says a new report by a top economist.

Read more here

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

Layton has no Power

Jack Layton can go on and on about how he will "work together" with the Conservatives, but it is not going to happen. The whole reason why Stephen Harper wanted a majority was so he could run things the way he wants without consulting the other parties. The NDP will not get government programs and they will not get funding for the things they want. The Conservatives do not care how much Layton opposes their bills because they can pass them without him.

In the next four years, I think we will see many fiscal cuts to appeal to the Tory base, but won't rile up the population. This will allow Harper to announce a tax cut just in time for the election. And the NDP will not be able to do a thing about it.

During his victory speech on election night, Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised NDP Leader Jack Layton with a warmth usually reserved for an old friend. 

“I think I can speak for the entire country in recognizing the determination and tenacity of Mr. Layton and his remarkable campaign,” said a smiling Harper, as Conservative supporters inside Calgary’s Telus Convention Centre cheered their new political rival.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Short Form Census

The Short form census is still  mandatory, but the all important long form census is no longer mandatory. Even though 1 in three Canadians are given the now non mandatory long form census more than the 2006 census, but now that the census isn't mandatory it is no longer a census. A census is polling the entire population even though mandatory census can't always get everyone they tend to get at least 94% while a non mandatory census (more like a poll) gets like 50% attendance. Statisticians throughout the country said that this would get extremely less accurate information. None the less the Conservatives want to spend 30 million dollars more for this less accurate information. Kind of like instead of buying a can of 20 gum balls for 1$ you buying a can of 10 gum balls for 3$. That is what we get from Harper a government that spends more money for lower quality. 30 million dollars is more then the amount of money that political parties get from the vote subsidy. So even if Harper repeals the vote subsidy, it wouldn't make a difference in the deficits, because Harper just blew it all away for nothing. A mandatory long form census helps the economy as it gives vital information even the UN secretary general agrees he said that statistics are a "vital tool for economic and social development." The Conservatives say that the census ask too many private questions, but of the past 20 years there have been no jail times served and only 50 complaints! 50 people out of 35,000,000 people. If the Conservatives are going to destroy everything just, because 50 people want it gone then they might as well abolish capitalism the communist parties in the last election 2925. The good news is that when Harper losses his reelection in 2015 the Liberals could be able to reinstate the mandatory long form census before the census year 2016.

Tories Lie Again

There have been leaked reports from Auditor-General Sheila Fraser. The contents do not surprise me. The draft shows that the Tories passed a bill in Parliament meant to relieve congestion at the border. All parties were in agreement with it and so it was approved. Then, Steamboat, um, Industry Minister Tony Clement chose which projects were to be funded.

Of course, the Conservatives went around spending money in Tory ridings for no good purpose. They spent on gazebos, washrooms and other stuff that had nothing to do with a border initiative. This is the kind of reckless spending that Canada must avoid to get rid of our deficit. The Tories have a platform where they are going to have to find $11 B in spending cuts. Maybe they can start with this while improving openness in government. Surely, that will never happen and that's why we must vote Liberal this election.

Two buildings that cost $27-million in the lead-up to last year’s G8 meeting in Muskoka are now largely deserted, symbols of a new political headache for the Conservatives as they fight an election campaign in which they are accused of failure to be accountable and transparent with Parliament.

 Read more at the Globe and Mail.

Related articles

• Tories misinformed Parliament on G8 fund: AG (ctv.ca)
• Tories misquoted her to defend summit costs, AG says (macleans.ca)

Cuts to the Wrong Things

The Tories have come out with their platform. It is not really that bad, but there is one thing that bothers me. How can they support billion-dollar tax cuts for wealthy corporations, billions for F-35s and other stupid spending while cutting on 80 000 civil servants. And that's only what they say they're cutting. The Canadian Labour Congress estimates that it will require cutting even more government programs to fund their platform. How very convenient for the Conservatives to suddenly have to come up with extra money. You can say bye-bye to the CBC. The Tories are not telling us what they really want to do and if they get elected, it will be too late.

KITCHENER—The Conservatives are planning billions of dollars worth of spending cuts in a campaign pledge to eliminate the deficit a year ahead of schedule and deliver a $6.6 billion platform of tax cuts and modest investments. 

The platform, unveiled Friday in Mississauga, drew applause from right-wingers and fiscal conservatives, but warnings from the left about the size and targets of the spending cuts, despite Stephen Harper’s vow not to axe entire programs.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• Tories pledge to slash $4 B in spending to balance books (canada.com)
• Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly (theglobeandmail.com)

It's "Normal" not to be Treated Equally

Larry Smith, the Conservative candidate for Lac-Saint-Louis has no chance at winning whatsoever. Maybe that's why he said that it's "normal" for Tory ridings to receive more cash than other ridings. This is called pork-barrel spending. Bringing money to purely Conservative ridings. Unfortunately, that is all true. The Tories used the G8/G20 double summit as an excuse to send money to Tony Clement's riding for no good reason. Larry Smith thinks it's "normal" not to be treated equally. It's time to send a wake-up call to the Conservatives and boot them out of government.

It is "normal" for Conservative ridings to receive more cash from Ottawa than those with opposition MPs, a high-profile Tory candidate in Quebec said Thursday. 

Larry Smith, a former CFL commissioner now running for the Conservatives in Montreal, said it is part of the political process for governments to be favourable to their supporters.

Read more at CBC.

Related articles

• Larry Smith, Quote Machine (macleans.ca)
• Tory policies unpopular in Montreal riding: Liberals (ctv.ca)

There is No Need for Fighter Jets

There is no need for Canada to invest $30 billion for 65 F-35 fighter jets. We simply do not need them. Stephen Harper and his cronies keep saying that we must buy them to protect our Arctic from the Russians. The truth is, in this day and age, the Russians are very unlikely to attack Canada. These fighter jets were made for the 20th century cold war, not for modern Canada. Besides, even if the Russians were to launch an air attack against Canada, there is no way that 65 fighters would stand a chance against the massive Russian air force.

The F-35 deal is a complete waste of money. There are better ways to spend $30 billion, like the Liberals have made clear in their platform. Instead, Liberals will spend on education, senior care, family care, pensions and more. Stuff that will help Canadians, instead of shiny new toys for the military. It's time to vote Liberal and stop the spending spree gone out of control.

What man-child can resist a fighter jet? Nothing so infuses the male psyche with self-wow than a $75 million — or $150 million, if you prefer — stealthy, supersonic flying machine with four-barrel cannons, bombs, missiles and built-in video system.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• Does Canada need next-generation stealth fighter jets? (theglobeandmail.com)

Programs without Higher Taxes? Thank-you Harper

The Liberal Platform was released on Sunday, the first time in history that a leader of a political party has released the platform, streaming the event live, while taking unscripted questions from across the country. This was a true Open Mike. Already, and even before the platform was released the Tories have already said that it will raise taxes for all Canadians. That is simply another lie from the Tories.

Harper made it quite easy for the Liberals to propose new and great government programs without raising taxes. All that was needed was to stop his tax breaks for wealthy corporations and other spending gone out of control. All that was needed was to redistribute the spending to focus on helping Canadians instead of multinationals with billion-dollar profits. Thank-you, Prime Minister, for making it incredibly easy for Liberals to install new government programs, without raising taxes.

HALIFAX—Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is promising a family-friendly, green tinged election platform he says will “turn this country around” — and return Liberals to power. 

Waving a copy of the 94-page platform high in one hand, Ignatieff got a rousing welcome from supporters in the Nova Scotia capital as he rhymed off its pledges, including its emphasis on helping families throughout their lives, from early learning to strengthened pensions.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• Liberals unveil election platform (canada.com)
• Liberals pitch to middle class with $8.2-billion platform (theglobeandmail.com)

One Million in Four Days

That's what the Liberal Party has gathered from donations made in the first four days of the campaign. This is really unbelievable. It seems like the ads across the country are working. It also seems like the Liberals do have money and a lot of it. To sum up the first week of the campaign, I would have to say that Michael Ignatieff got off to a good start and obviously this shows in the amount of donations. However, this must continue if the Liberals want to even have a chance of winning. The choice in this election is clear: to vote for the Liberals. They just need to communicate the message like they're doing now.

Passports for the Future

The Learning Passport is a new initiative by the Liberal Party to help the poor pay for post-secondary education.  This would be provided through Registered Education Savings Plan to help cover the tuition costs, letting families  to pay the rest. Here are the facts:

• $1 000 or $1 500 per year, depending on family income will be deposited in high school students' RESP for a maximum of $4 000 and $6 000 respectively.
• If the student decides not to attend a post-secondary institution, the money will not be paid out.
• The Learning Passport replaces existing grants which do not pay money upfront for tuition or textbooks. The Liberal program provides more assistance than the existing programs would ever provide
• "If you get the grades, you get to go."

As is normal, the Liberals are concerned with providing young Canadians with a good, sustainable future while the Conservatives would rather spend the money on fighter jets and tax cuts to wealthy corporations. The Liberals spend, but smartly and on the right things. Only the Liberals can stop the Conservative spending spree gone out of control.

The Conservative Party was quick to try to discredit the idea, saying that it would cost students their eligibility for existing grant programs. This seems hard to fathom; surely it could be made compatible. The Conservatives would be better off putting their minds to how to continue to stimulate interest in education and training.

Read more at the Globe and Mail.

Related articles

• Leaders appeal to families, small business (cbc.ca)
• Students to get $1,000 annually under Liberal learning plan (canada.com)

Return of the Fake Lake

And there will be many more fake lakes unless Harper is booted out. He was the one who decided to hold the G8 summit in Huntsville, followed by the G20 summit in Toronto. That detour through Canada's largest city caused much disruption. How would erecting a fence through the middle of downtown and letting thousands of protesters loose in the streets be good for the economy or for the well-being of residents?

It would have been much easier and would have cost much less than the $1.1 billion spent. And that is considering if that price is even the real cost of the summit. Instead of wasteful spending, it's time to spend wisely, especially with a deficit. It's time to vote Liberal and support spending on education, health and pensions instead of stealth fighters, corporate tax cuts and various wasteful spending that is kept secret.

The G20 summit caused chaos in Canada’s largest city and accomplished nothing other than a $1-billion photo-op for Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday during a campaign stop in Toronto 

Ignatieff and Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering) used the fake lake and burning police cars as a backdrop during a news conference to attack the Conservatives on wasteful spending and raise questions about Harper’s judgment.

Read more at the Toronto Star.
(Bad) memories of a fake lake…

Related articles

• Spending on jets, jails a threat to Canada's health care system: Ignatieff (thestar.com)

Harper deserved what was coming

The Harper government has been found in contempt of Parliament for failing to produce information about the cost of  being "tough on crime," the F-35 fighter jets and corporate tax cuts. Again and again, the Tories continue to hide documents from Canada and they get away with it. Not anymore. In theory, as this is the first time a government would be in contempt of Parliament in the history of the Commonwealth, the penalty could be imprisonment.

However, it seems that the Conservatives have stuffed the agenda with other motions and reports that the vote could be put off far into the future before a vote in the House of Commons is held. By then, there could be an election and then it would not matter if the government was in contempt of Parliament. Nevertheless, this seems to be the only way to hold the Tories accountable as they don't care for open government nor do they care for the rights of Parliament or Canadians.

OTTAWA—A Commons committee recommended the government be found in contempt of Parliament, but the Conservatives could still avoid the historic censure if a vote on the budget or other confidence motion launches an election first. 

The Commons procedure and house affairs committee tabled a majority report Monday concluding the government is in contempt for refusing to disclose enough information about the cost of several big-ticket items.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• MPs: Conservative government should be found in contempt of Parliament (macleans.ca)
• Committee finds Tories in contempt for stonewalling on crime-agenda costs (theglobeandmail.com)
• Report finds Tories in contempt of Parliament (calgaryherald.com)

Money and elections

It is common knowledge that money wins elections. If we look at tables containing the candidates and the money they spent, there is a clear correlation between money spent and who wins. This is the whole basis for most of the uproar about sponsorship scandals. But remember : correlation is not causation. Although more money might cause higher chances of victory, it could be that higher chances of victory causes more money. Or it could be that a candidate's appeal to the voting public causes both money and high victory percentages.

Let's first use an analogy to simplify the issue. When do you cheer for a sports team:

A) When they have a sure win

B) When they stand a possibility of loosing

C) When they stand a possibility of winning

D) When they have a sure loss

Most people would answer A, B, and C. If you answered A, it is probably because you wanted to cheer for your favourite team, which is currently dominating. If you answered B, it is probably to encourage your team to play a bit harder to minimise the chances of a loss. If you answered C, it was probably to get the final push going and claim victory. But if you answered D, it is because the team is your favourite, and it is unlikely that you would ever not cheer for it. Now just replace "team" with "politician and party", and "cheer" with money.

But if you don't like the logic type of argument, because the situation is actually more complex, then entreat the statistical argument. In the book Freakonomics, authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner provide statistical proof that the candidates spending hardly matters at all when it comes to elections. They do this by comparing elections where the same candidates ran against each other (because the candidate is relatively constant). They found that when a candidate slashed their spending in half, they lost only 1% of their vote. (They used the 1000+ Congressional races where two candidates ran together for several times in a row, from 1970 until 2005, when the book was published. You can read the entirety of this argument on pages 8 to 11.)

But if you present the anecdotal evidence of various politicians who were elected "by money", as it would seem, allow me to present counter-evidence. Steve Forbes and Michael Huffington did not win their elections, and neither did Thomas Golisano, who spent $93 million of his own money over three elections, and won 4%, 8%, and 14%.

In conclusion, money does not win elections, and neither do elections win money. The chances of success of a candidate, based on their personality, their appearance, their charisma, and their platform win elections. Money is simply a byproduct of the of the chances, and has very little effect, the same way cheering has very little effect on the game at hand.

Don't Fund the Arena!

Ignatieff said yesterday that he would fund an arena for Quebec City and anywhere else for that matter as long as its purpose is to "present the culture, to present the economic success of the region." That's great, except that this arena will not be for this purpose. It's no secret: the goal is to lure an NHL team to Quebec City.

But don't get me wrong. I'm all for the government contributing to the new Colisée, except not substantially. It's not in the interest of the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a pro-sports venue. That money would be better spent on local sports facilities, to provide health benefits to all Canadians. The Quebec arena project could provide benefits to the region including an NHL team. But, the money spent on this project by the federal government should be reasonable and relatively little.

A Liberal government would support infrastructure projects including hockey arenas, party leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday. 

Speaking in Quebec City, the Liberal leader says he supports funding for a new arena if it's a multifunctional public space, and that he's said so for more than a year. He admits he hasn't seen the business plan but says there are a number of options and he's open to all of them.

Read more at CBC.

Related articles

• Liberals would fund Quebec arena, Ignatieff says (ctv.ca)
• Feds black out Quebec arena document (theglobeandmail.com)

Americans like High Speed Rail

A new poll in the United States shows that most Americans support high speed rail funded by public money. Again, another poll comes out showing that support for high speed rail is high, in the United States and Canada. This also comes at a time where Americans want more and more austerity. However, high speed rail must be funded in North America. Like the transcontinental railroad, we have an opportunity now to revolutionize transport all across the continent, creating a network of high speed rail across the US and Canada. This would improve the economy greatly as many new jobs would be created while providing travelers a more comfortable way of travel than the plane and a faster one than the car. It's time to invest in high speed rail.

NEW YORK, N.Y. - February 24, 2011 - President Obama announced in April 2009, and reconfirmed during his recent State of the Union address, his commitment to develop high-speed intercity passenger rail across the United States. 

High-speed rail is a type of passenger rail transport between major cities that operates at substantially faster speeds than current intercity passenger trains in the U.S. It is designed to provide fast, reliable, and convenient service, operates using electric power and often includes onboard amenities such as food and beverage service and Wi-fi access.

Read the poll results here.

Related articles

• High-speed rail 'will bring £44bn to UK' (independent.co.uk)

Stop Being Tough on Crime

As has been proven many times before, being "tough on crime" as the Conservatives like to call it does not work. Instead of reducing crime, it has the potential to harden petty criminals and make them repeat offenders, committing worse crimes. Besides, crime has actually been decreasing since about a decade ago. Why stop a system that has already been working for an inferior system already proven wrong?

Moreover, being "tough on crime" also costs more money. A lot more.The Tories are planning to spend at least $2.7 billion on new prisons and other "tough on crime" policies (the budget watchdog says it's more like $5 billion). Even some conservatives in the United States are starting to recognize that this is not the way to lower crime. Being tough on crime just isn't a smart fiscal or crime policy.

The Conservative administration in Ottawa continues to advocate U.S. Republican-style legal solutions even though the American justice system is in a shambles. 

Prison populations are exploding, police and prosecution budgets are strapped and in many states the legal-defender system has all but collapsed.

Read more at the Vancouver Sun.

Related articles

• Provinces want Ottawa to help pay additional costs for prisons (theglobeandmail.com)
• Playing the politics of slogans and fear (theglobeandmail.com)

Prosecutors must Win

The Charest government has forced striking prosecutors to go back to work. These lawyers are some of the lowest paid in Canada and the salary cap is almost one-half of that in Ontario. Also, there is a need to hire more prosecutors to ease the workload. Our Crown prosecutors are being overworked and they simply do not have the resources to compete with rich members of organised crime who can hire a ton of defense lawyers. It's impossible to win when you are outnumbered. Now is the time for the Quebec government to start paying prosecutors what they deserve.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest claims that he has faith in the justice system to get to the bottom of allegations of mob-linked corruption and collusion in the province’s construction industry. 

But his Liberal government’s handling of its striking Crown prosecutors – culminating in back-to-work legislation passed Tuesday after an all-night sitting – will not leave any gangsters trembling.

Read more at the National Post.

Related articles

• Quebec lawyers hand in mass resignations in labour dispute (thestar.com)
• Que. prosecutors back-to-work bill debated (cbc.ca)

Bieng healthy is Contraversial?

Who knew that trying to teach children to eat healthy and give healthy tips would create such a controversy. Micheal Obama who started a "let's move" campaign started by creating a garden and is now trying to tell mothers to breast feed there children, because it helps reduce childhood obesity. Now people namely Micheal Bachman who said that since the IRS now considers medical expenses as breast feeding equipment and mothers could be given a tax deduction would create a nanny state.

The IRS has a fairly broad interpretation of the term "medical expenses" in the federal tax code, including wigs, acupuncture, artificial teeth, eyeglasses, contact lenses, certain home improvements, lead-based paint removal and television equipment for the hearing-impaired as deductible expenses.

Calling this a nanny state is silly the Government gives tax deduction for many things, because it helps people. The government taxes cigarettes and alcohol. The sad thing is there are tax subsidies on fossil fuels which has more than 70 billion dollars in subsidies. The U.S also subsidies renewable energey by 12.2 billion, Ethonal and carbon capture. Now tax subsidies for fossil fuels, ethonal and carbon caturew is silly and doesn't even help people. In fact all three of them have been proven to increase CO2 which causes a lot of health problems yet the Goverment subsidises that . And when the IRS dears to subsidies something that help people's health it's a nanny state. It actually helps reducing the deficit

A 2010 cost analysis of low breast-feeding levels published in the American Academy of Pediatrics' medical journal Pediatrics found that if 90% of U.S. families followed medical recommendations to breast-feed for six months, "The United States would save $13 billion per year and prevent an excess (of) 911 deaths, nearly all of which would be in infants."

13 billion dollars the Republicans would like to add to he deficit. Yet again how many Republicans say they want to cut when it comes to helping average families and give money to big oil companies with subsidies that hurt the planet for these average families.








http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/18/nanny.state/index.html