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.

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)

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.

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.

Vote!

                          I know since the election was called our Blog has been hoping that people throughout Canada will vote with the party that is fiscally responsible and has a clear vision for Canada. That Party is the Liberals, but now let's get away from what party you should vote for to a more pressing issue for me.
                          In the last election the party that got the most votes was the INGTV party which stands for (I'm Not Going To Vote Party) In the last election this party got 41% of the eligible voters of Canada. This party got 9.8 million votes nation wide. Beating out all the other parties. If these voters actually created a party on the ballot they could actually win an election, but some people think that voting doesn't matter, because one vote can't make a difference. That kind of thinking is what creates the rapidly growing INGTV party. This parties platform includes doing nothing and allowing other people to make the descion for you. If you don't vote May 2nd you can't complain about the result. If there is a Tory majority that cuts health care and you didn't even vote you can't complain saying if you voted Harper that you didn't know that's what you were voting for. And if you voted for another party you could complain, because you try to stop it. The strongest activist of this party are the youth. Apparently the platform appeals to the younger generation, but I don't think that that is true. This year many youth groups have been trying to get out the vote. Advance polls are showing a 30% rise in participation. We need to keep this moving in the right direction. The party that I want to lose on May 2nd more than the Conservatives is the INGTV party of Canada. They are bad for Canada and are the worst thing for our democracy. One of my solution to try and raise voter participation is to create proportional representation. Studies have shown that countries with proportional representation have much higher voter turnout then countries with FPTP (First Past The Post)

U.S Goverment Nearly Falls!

While we talk about our government falling, right under us below the U.S government is just inches away from closing. In the U.S there is a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is how high the U.S debt can be, and if it goes to the limit the government shutdown. The solutions are currently band-aid solution were the government cuts little tiny pieces here and there to delay the day when the debt reaches it's limit. The thing is discretionary spending only makes up 12% of the budget so just cutting here and there isn't good enough. An easy solution would of course be to raise the debt ceiling. Which means you raise the debt limit. The Republicans don't want to do it so it can't happen. Here is a solution how about finally take back the Bush tax cuts. Or at least the rich. The Republicans are quite happy to cut spending on the poor and food stamps, but the rich billionaires are the one's who are really in need. It is sick twisted way of looking at things. The Republicans are almost saying that it is the poor people's fault they are in a deficit. The U.S needs to reform. By ending the Bush tax cuts, raise the retirement age, and you already made significant cuts. The l;longer the U.S remains in deficit the higher the interest on the debt will be. In 2020 the U.S main expenditure could be the interest on the debt. Yeah not Medicare or social security, but the number #1 thing Republicans love to talk about. The Republicans need to look in the mirror. They are the one's who cause the deficit and now they want to fix it, by cutting help for the poor, because the rich are in so much need!

The Only Carbon Taxers.

The Green party is the only party that supports a Carbon Tax. While the Liberals said no to the Carbon tax, Elisabeth May is still sticking to it. Now this brings up a question what is so bad about a Carbon Tax. Well apparently it's labels you and your party as "Tax and Spend". But I think sometimes people forget that in order to be given more programs like free health care people need to pay taxes. A carbon tax won't tax the average Canadian a carbon tax wants to tax the big major oil industries who pollute, because the price of oil isn't truly the cost of using gasoline. Although oil prices are going up or at least for now hovering around $100 this cost for a barrel of oil is too cheap for the real cost of gasoline. In order to truly understand the cost of oil we have to understand what Co2 does for the planet economically. With more drastic weather farming would dramatically suffer. Meaning countries or parts of countries that need a good rainy season to make there economy work will suffer. (ex: Saskatchewan) Also in California a study produced showed that smog pollution cost the state 521 million dollars! The Liberals are promising about that on Child Care. We have to look at hat pollution does to the economy. Pollution causes storms that stops a whole day of economic growth. Katrina completely destroyed the economy of New Orleans and the whole state of Louisiana as well. to much pollution in lakes or oceans can kill fish which will hurt the fishing industry in the east or even in the great lake region. We need to increase the cost of oil to it's true cost. The only way to do that is to make a carbon tax so that oil is priced at it's true cost. Some would say that it will make oil more expensive and increased the cost of living. I don't disagree with that. But that increase in cost is equal if not less then the cost we as a nation will pay for the climate catastrophes in the country, or the price of the fishing or agricultural industry going under. A carbon tax doesn't make things more expensive it rather tries to avoid cost in the future that you will have to pay , and the next generation as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/07/cv-election-day13.html

Moving to the Right

Ever since Obama came to power the Republicans were known as the party of no! They voted against almost every Obama plan. This caused major divide in the congress as parties stuck together on the votes. The republicans did the best at this they voted together on pratically anything Obama did and came together when it came to giving millionaires money on the back of poorer Americans. The Tea party also pushed many Republicans to move more to the right to satisfy the movement. Even John McCain even ran in 2008 and was always known as the maverick Republican who crossed the ail and worked with democrats. Even one time people say was thinking of switching parties. John McCain has dramatically changed his positions in order to get reelected in his home state of Arizona. Were he battled a tough fight just to get nominated in the state he even got some help from Sarah Palin to help him win. Now that one of the most centrist person in congress is now one of the most right wing politicians in congress the lame duck won't be able to do anything big because of this partisan divide. The U.S needs swift action now, but with this partisanship there will not be the type of action that is needed.

Read more here

Finally Someone With Brains

The U.S must raise the retirement age, and no not one party in Congress is proposing it, but one governor in the blue state of New Jersey is at least telling it like it is. Now I don't support all of Chris Christie's, but he said straight out loud that the retirement age will have to raised. The U.S has to raise the retirement age the thing is if you are president or a congressman raising the retirement age will be political suicide in some cases. The risk of doing nothing on retirement will almost ensure that the U.S will have to raise taxes even more than ever before just to pay off the interest on the debt in 10 years time. I wonder how many little cuts will it take till we have a congressman who would purpose the increase of the retirement age. I wonder if in the 2012 primaries someone will answer yes to increasing the retirement age.Now I can understand why many politicians don't talk about it, because they will almost for sure lose, but then we are surprised when things like this happen. It's definitely no secret that the U.S is broke! And the raise of the retirement age is not only a no brainier, but also absolutely necessary in order for the U.S to survive without getting to a budget bust!

Obama Cuts with Nail clippers

With major deficit the U.S President is proposing cuts which is a good thing I support cutting spending if the Government can't truly afford it. The U.S presidents will cut the deficit by 1.1 trillion over 10 years sounds like a good thing, but the fact stays that 1.1 trillion over 10 years means on average only 110 billion which is a blimp on the 1.1 trillion dollar deficit the U.S currently has, and even with deficit going to as low as 659 billion will not eliminate the deficit. These cuts are just the start the major budget items that will keep the U.S in even worse deficit for years to come will be much higher. Obama hopes to cut the deficit with nail clippers, but Obama needs to bring out the big scissors. Like cutting Defense, the one thing I think he shouldn't cut is the help for the poor with heating cost which will effect 9 million people. Easy solution make the super rich pay there fair in taxes. If the house passes this bill they will prove they care more about the super wealthy getting thousands more dollars in there biggy bank to leave there then they care about the poor people who need assistance. It's pure stupidity to help the rich while you make the poor fend for themselves. This bill should die fast and quick. What Obama needs to do is put the taxes back to the Bill Clinton area where there was surplus, economic growth and where social security was funded. Then lower the Corporate tax, and pay for it by creating a carbon . Raise the social security age and make more cuts in the in defense. Keep funding and assistance of the poor, and make the estate tax higher for the rich. These are real solutions Obama's little cuts will just hurt the poor and cut the deficit by an inch they need to dramatically change.

The American Gas Association, an industry group that represents natural gas companies, predicts 3.2 million households, and 9 million individuals, would be affected.

But before becoming law, the proposal will have to survive a marathon budget process, and House Republicans who favor far more severe cutbacks and Democrats in both chambers who think Obama went too far.

Read more here

Stopping the Filibuster.

The senate passed new rules that now make it harder to delay legislation. The new rules include that no senator can hold legislation from being voted on while being anonymous. Meaning that after 2 days the senator that stops a bill from being voted on will be published which will make it harder for some senators to stop legislation as they might get hit for stooping legislation that is popular. They passed rules that make it more difficult to force a bill be read allowed in full before voting on it. All this is small potatoes to what really needs to be done. The senate must stop senators from withholding legislation from being voted on, making it harder for a senator to talk forever to delay legislation by making them have to stand up and making the necessary amount of votes to pass legislation to a simple majority. This must be done if the U.S is ever going to be able in time of crisis be able to act quickly and easily.

Under the new rules, a senator's name will be published in the Congressional Record two days after the senator places a hold.

The Senate also overwhelmingly supported a measure that will make it harder to force a bill to be read aloud in the Senate chamber, so long as senators have had reasonable time in advance to review the text.

Read more Here

Stop the Filibuster!

In the U.S the system to pass a bill is as confusing as it is difficult. It may sound easy on paper just make a bill, propose it to the Senate or House, then have a committee vote on it, Then wait for it to appear on the floor, and it has to pass, Then it goes to the opposite body and they like to make some changes, Then it goes back to the body were it came from to either make new changes or pass it, After both bodies pass the same piece of legislation then it has to go to the president to either sign or veto. If the president sign's it the bill is then a law unless the supreme court says it unconstitutional. If the president veto's then the bill has to go back to the chamber and either the bill passes in both chambers with 2/3 of the vote or it dies. The problem today is that passing bills are very hard to do. The major problem comes from the Senate. In order for the Senate to pass a bill it needs 60 senators I say destroy that and make it 51 like the House. Then also try to limit filibusters by stooping the ability of one senator ( who can remain anonymous) to hold a bill from arriving to the floor. The senate needs to be changed. The longer the Senate waits to reform itself the harder it will be for it to be able to do it in the future. Unless reform is done now the Senate will not be able to move as fast as it could be and make major reforms and major actions take so much longer then needed.

Deficit's still there Obama.

There will still be a deficit when Obama comes back home to the white house the country will still be in deficit. In fact not a surplus will even be predicted in next 10 years and even by then the U.S GDP will be the same as there debt. Meaning that the U.S will owe the same amount as they are worth. At that point countries don't tend to continue to lend money to a country that can't get a surplus ever. Obama needs to cut the deficit, but how? Well he should have eliminated the pointless Bush tax cuts. Now he will increase the debt another 850 billion. Clearly the U.S can't afford this. create a national sales tax that the U.S doesn't have reduce consumption in the U.S so the country's economy isn't so dependent on consumption. Raise the retirement age create a carbon tax and reduce the military budget and stop building more missiles. End subsidies to big oil or fossil fuels. To all this and pass one more stimulus that actually works by first giving relief to states, extend unemployment benefits, give small business tax relief and that's it no more spending after that. Unfortunately the Republicans are more for cutting, which is fine with me cutting spending is a good idea, but cutting will never be enough the U.S may need to realise this now or face major consequences that they need in order to balance the budget increase taxes.

Millianaires before Soliders.

A vote to start debating on whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly in the military was stopped by the Republicans in the senate. In fact some were actually in agreement that gay people should have the right to openly serve, but they think it's more important to make sure the millionaires in the U.S get to keep there tax cuts that the U.S can't afford. Oh yes the old Republican value respect our millionaires then our troops. Some Republicans believe that it is more important to keep the U.S in debt then to stop the injustice that gay people can't serve openly in the military. The U.S is so far behind when it comes to equality. Many other countries allow gay people to openly serve. Here is a list Albania, Argentine, Austria, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, U.K and Uruguay. Here is a list of Countries that the U.S is following: Brazil, Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Korea, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela and Yemen.

Republican's stubborn on taxes.

A vote to keep taxes for families making less than 250,000 or less than 1,000,000 both failed in the senate, but of course Republicans were keeping sure that the rich in the U.S don't pay taxes.  Republicans wanted to keep taxes for all people, and yet they have to understand that it was because of the tax cuts the surplus Clinton gave them disappeared. The only way for the U.S to go back to surplus soon is to be "Fiscally responsible" as some republicans say , but raising taxes is a no-no. Apparently the republicans haven't haered the quote by Georg Wilhelm "We learn from history that we do not learn from history." The republicans don't learn at all that taxes have to go back to the same levels as they were in the surplus years of the 1990's. Even with Obama cutting the tax break for the rich it won't matter, because the government won't make enough revenue to reduce the deficit enough to actually be in shooting distance of a surplus. In order to make the country viable for it's debts the country must go throw many sacrifices like increasing retirement age ,creating a national sales tax, cutting subsidies to fossil fuels, creating massive reforms in health, reducing it's military strgnth and eliminating the Bush tax cuts, and for the U.S to be able to go throw these changes properly give one last relief to the states and one last stimulus to the country that has no pork and actually give money to companies that produce jobs in America.

Bush tax cuts up for debate.

Obama old plan was to extend tax cuts for the people making 250,000 or less, but the Republicans want to keep the tax rate for everyone. Now it seems that middle class tax payers aren't going to have to worry about a tax increase considering that there seems to be a general consesses, but what I find confusing is that the Republicans want to spend billions on Bush tax cuts for the rich, and want to cut spending on what some Tea party cadidate calls useless. Like spending money on education, science, Uneployment benifits, Health care, Social security. When will they realize that in order to make the country reduce it's enormouse deficit you need to actually stop all Bush era taxes, stop corporation loopholes, make minor cuts and make reforms like a real uneviresal health care and a national Phramacare system. With Republicans in the house and having major fillibuster power in the senate non of this is going to get done, and I can see in 2012 some Republican candidate saying that Obama didn't cut enough. The U.S looks right now very hard to fix, but I still remain hopeful that at some time taxes will eventually rise for everyone, and better now than at a point when taxes will need to rise just to pay off the intrest on the debt.

Let's Follow the U.S. Baird Tells Us.

Are new environment minister John Baird told Canadians that he wants to make are environmental regulation equal to the U.S. Which is kind of saying we are going try follow the diet plan of the guy who goes to a fast food chain every single day of the week. Canada is going way behind compared to other countries in Europe. The U.S and Canada are doing terrible when it comes to the environment, but at least Obama is trying to do something. Harper is just going to follow whatever the U.S does, but if Obama imposes a carbon or a Cap and trade system I wonder if Harper will follow. The thing is Harper knows that the U.S congress doesn't have enough support to do any major changes, so he will just make the U.S lack of action as an excuse. This is stupid don't wait for the U.S to do something do something by yourself. Harper be a little creative or Canada will find someone who can.

Mr. Baird noted that the new regulations apply only to new plants and major expansions. To be effective, regulations will have to require that existing plants start to adapt to the best available technology, he said.

It now appears that efforts to pass a U.S. bill that would create a cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse-gas emissions are doomed, so the Obama administration has taken steps toward regulating polluters with its own executive power, through the Environmental Protection Agency.

Read more here

Australia Thinking About the Future

In the Last Australian election just months ago the Labor party was tied in the election results with the Liberals, and after some co operation the Green party and some other ind pendants decided to support Ms. Gillard to create a Government. Since then People have been motioning that in order to keep the Green party with her she needs to put a carbon tax in place. Now I like that idea very much, because it is way better than the former Prime Minister's plan Kevin Rudd who was trying for a carbon trading system with a latter on addition of a carbon Tax. Now the Labor party is looking into the idea of a carbon tax, and might be going for it. This i find great now in a long while a another country could join the Carbon tax countries. Countries like India, South Korea, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Costa Rica and in States or provinces like Maryland, California, Colorado, British Columbia and Quebec. I hope to Australia on that list shortly.

"No Earmarks" say's Republican Leader.

Mitch Mcconnell said that he would support a ban on earmarks that many Tea party candidates support. This is strange considering Republicans were one of the biggest cause of earmarks in the Obama administartation. What some Republicans did was that they added earmarks and then voted aginst the bill then complained that the bill was a big waste of money (in fact more earmarks came from the Republicans then the Democrats) (considering that the Democrats had overwemmingly majority in the House and Senate). The only Republican I know who kept much away from Earmarks was John McCain who was anti earmarks a long time ago. I say if the Republicans ( all of them) and the Democrats can both agree on no earmarks then okay more power to them, but I think that there are some times the goverment can spend money without it being wastefull spending. Minor spending from the goverment that are within reason are fine.

And Now Compromise.

Many Republicans in the Senate and in the House would like to destroy the Obama Health care bill. The half done bill that Obama Promised, and really who could blame him that is all he could get throw. Now the some Republicans believe that they can destroy the bill, but Obama still has the Senate and the Veto so forget it. Obama said that he wants now to compromise some parts of the health care bill and Bush tax cuts. Problem is that Obama is doing things half done (not full universal health care and only ending tax breaks for the rich) more compromising towards the right will be even worse.  Obama didn't do such a good job on the stimulus. He should have spend much more on investments. Obama isn't terrible he wants to do most of the things I have motioned, but because some Republicans he couldn't. Now I would like to see what they can compromise?

Related articles

• Washington press asks wrong guys to compromise (dailykos.com)
• Obama Talks Need Of Compromise With GOP (huffingtonpost.com)