There has been a lot of confusion about what Occupy Wall Street and its progeny really stand for (we'll henceforth refer to it as simply "Occupy"). People from across the socio-political spectrum have had difficulty identifying the meaning behind Occupy. This is no surprise as members and supporters of Occupy have refused to come up with a consistent message. Luckily, a quick look at the circumstances leading to Occupy, and the majority of the opinions that have come out of Occupy, give us a very clear answer.
The most dominant message has been the 99% versus the 1%. This has lead people to believe Occupy is anti-wealth and anti-wealthy. People believe this makes Occupy a socialist movement. It doesn't. The 99% versus 1% message is merely an attention getter. It fits nicely on a sign, and media types like how neatly it defines the terms for them. Occupy knows that not everyone in the 1% is evil. This is just a convenient way to summarize the conflict.
The real message is found in the choice of locations. For those out there who think this is about putting down the wealthy and stealing their money, think about why the name "Occupy Wall Street" and location was chosen over options like "Occupy Beverly Hills" or "Occupy the Hamptons" or "Occupy Palm Beach." The choice of location puts the enemy squarely in Occupy's sights: Wall Street bankers. Wall Street spent the past 15 years trading toxic assets like a game of hot potato. Finally, in 2008, some bankers were caught with the potato. The financial institutions that made bad bets and were eventually bailed out makes for a long list. A bail-out is one thing. A lot of these financial institutions were legitimately "too big to fail" (an issue onto itself). The real insult comes in the aftermath of the bailout. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, who were caught with a large portion of the hot potato, received approximately $170 billion in bail out money. Their executives turned around and paid themselves $35 million in salary and bonuses. Do the executives of a financial institution that failed and were saved by taxpayers deserve any bonuses at all? Of course not. But this is the type of "punishment" executives at banks across America received for their significant part in running the world economy into the ground. Over $18 billion was paid in bonuses on Wall Street in 2009 after the bailout. This is the heart of Occupy's protest. The people who's assets were critically devalued are paying the price. The people who caused it are walking away with the profits they made trading those assets, the tax money they received in the form of bailouts, and the bonuses. The people are paying. Why aren't the executives?
The other side of Occupy's protest is directed towards Washington. The cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street can be summed up in one person: President Barack Obama's Chief-of-Staff is former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley. You'll recognize JPMorgan Chase from the list of bailed out banks above - and Bill Daley was there right up until the bail out came. A closer look will reveal an even more incestuous relationship. The government agency that is supposed to police Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has done exactly the opposite. They've shredded records of investigations, they've called off investigations for no apparent reason, and they've had a revolving door at top leadership levels. Where does that revolving door lead? To big Wall Street banks being investigated. The above article shows the stunning coincidence of investigations being dropped and the decision-makers who dropped the investigation moving from the SEC into high-paid positions with the bank that was being investigated. Occupy knows that Washington should respond to voters, not donors. To the people, not the banks.
Of course there have been other reported Occupy demands. As with any movement, there are fringes. There are the anarchist, who would otherwise be squatting elsewhere anyway. There are the communists hoping to tax the wealthy until they're just average.
But the core of the Occupy movement is nothing of the sort. The core has been supported by leading economists like Jeffrey D Sachs and Richard Florida. The core wants the rich to pay its share. Common are calls for reasonable taxation on hedge-fund traders, a small "wealth tax", a break-up of the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions that required bail outs, and honest, meaningful enforcement of the laws designed to stop financial institutions from causing world economic collapses.
Occupy is not asking to have the 1% stripped of their wealth, for companies to forgo profits, or to end capitalism. The wealthy are wealthy because they've earned it (usually). Capitalism and profits are important motivators for individuals and economies. Occupy is asking for financial institutions and others in the 1% who have been cheating to play by the rules. Occupy is asking the super-wealthy to pay their share. Even some in the super-wealthy are promoting this argument.
Ultimately, in spite of everything you've read so far, Occupy is about one thing: "government of the people, by the people, for the people". When the President's top adviser is a former Wall Street executive, when Wall Street is in bed with the SEC (imagine if Al Capone and Eliot Ness were sleeping together), and when money buys politicians, it is clear that Lincoln's declaration has been ignored. Occupy demands that its government, the US government, resume representing the people. That is a message that I can get behind. That should be the goal of every government: represent the people. Until Washington gets that right, I'll continue to support Occupy.
17 November 2011
03 May 2011
The Worst Thing About Yesterday's Election
Believe it or not, I'm not going to say "Conservative Majority". I'm half hoping that with a majority, Stephen Harper will be able to put aside all the cheap, dishonest, partisan, stupid tricks he used with a minority, and start to govern the way he said he would as Leader of the Opposition so many years ago. I'm hoping that now, with the comfort of a majority, he will be able to clean up the scum on Parliament Hill, be able to lead with truth and honesty, be able to manage Canada's finances responsibly, and disclose the information he is legally bound to disclose. Here's hoping.
No, the worst thing about yesterday's election is not Stephen Harper's ill-gotten majority. The worst thing about last night's election is the scores of no-name NDP candidates who became MPs. The stories of nobodies, with no campaign, with no effort, who became NDP MPs is truly frightening. We've long known the days of the local candidate meaning anything are gone, but now we have irrefutable proof. Give a piece of stool a name, put it on the ballot next to the letters "NDP" and call it a Parliamentarian. I have no problem with anybody becoming MP. I'm not disrespecting these people for winning seats as unknowns. I would love it if that happened more! I think it would be good for democracy. My problem is that they did nothing to earn it. I expect, at least, that a candidate would have to at least campaign to win. But many stories indicate some of these newbies were nothing more than names on the ballot. What a shame. These people are going to waltz onto Parliament Hill without having earned a thing.
But enough about the bad. What good came of last night? The near-death of the Bloc Quebecois. Finally, a federalist party was able to conquer Quebec. Hopefully this means the return of classic Quebec: the economically competitive, culturally massive bearer of the french language in North America. I also wonder, with no Bloc to pander to, will Stephen Harper back away from his promise to pay Quebec for its HST adoption?
I am truly apprehensive about this Conservative majority. I worry that an emboldened Stephen Harper will irreversibly change Canada into something we're not prepared for. I worry that he will continue to ensure Canada is unprepared for the environmental crisis on the horizon. I worry that he will build jails and forget to build the bridges required to keep people out of those jails. I fear he will continue to commit to expenditures he doesn't know if he can afford (i.e. fighter jets), causing him to start cutting spending elsewhere. Will he continue to pursue measures that oppose each other (i.e. if you're going to cut income taxes, you can't also cut value-added taxes [HST])? Will he bother to keep promises like the HST payoff to Quebec or the continuation of the 6% escalator in health transfers? If he does, how will he balance the budget? He promised $11B in savings through efficiencies in the public service, but everyone involved doubts he can find even one-tenth of that.
I look forward to the Liberal Party finally having the opportunity to develop it's base, create some stable policy directions, and develop a leader outside the fire (which I'm still not certain will happen). Neither Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff had a chance to develop outside the dual fires of Parliament and Conservative attack ads. Maybe Trudeau, or Leblanc, or whoever, will be able to find their sea-legs before being tossed into the perfect storm. Maybe Liberal supporters will start to see the need to open their pocket-books a little wider. Maybe the Liberal Party will be able to more clearly define policy direction, and stick with that direction beyond the next question period.
A lot of good and a lot of bad happened last night. Here's hoping a Conservative majority, with an NDP minority, will balance into something Liberal.
No, the worst thing about yesterday's election is not Stephen Harper's ill-gotten majority. The worst thing about last night's election is the scores of no-name NDP candidates who became MPs. The stories of nobodies, with no campaign, with no effort, who became NDP MPs is truly frightening. We've long known the days of the local candidate meaning anything are gone, but now we have irrefutable proof. Give a piece of stool a name, put it on the ballot next to the letters "NDP" and call it a Parliamentarian. I have no problem with anybody becoming MP. I'm not disrespecting these people for winning seats as unknowns. I would love it if that happened more! I think it would be good for democracy. My problem is that they did nothing to earn it. I expect, at least, that a candidate would have to at least campaign to win. But many stories indicate some of these newbies were nothing more than names on the ballot. What a shame. These people are going to waltz onto Parliament Hill without having earned a thing.
But enough about the bad. What good came of last night? The near-death of the Bloc Quebecois. Finally, a federalist party was able to conquer Quebec. Hopefully this means the return of classic Quebec: the economically competitive, culturally massive bearer of the french language in North America. I also wonder, with no Bloc to pander to, will Stephen Harper back away from his promise to pay Quebec for its HST adoption?
I am truly apprehensive about this Conservative majority. I worry that an emboldened Stephen Harper will irreversibly change Canada into something we're not prepared for. I worry that he will continue to ensure Canada is unprepared for the environmental crisis on the horizon. I worry that he will build jails and forget to build the bridges required to keep people out of those jails. I fear he will continue to commit to expenditures he doesn't know if he can afford (i.e. fighter jets), causing him to start cutting spending elsewhere. Will he continue to pursue measures that oppose each other (i.e. if you're going to cut income taxes, you can't also cut value-added taxes [HST])? Will he bother to keep promises like the HST payoff to Quebec or the continuation of the 6% escalator in health transfers? If he does, how will he balance the budget? He promised $11B in savings through efficiencies in the public service, but everyone involved doubts he can find even one-tenth of that.
I look forward to the Liberal Party finally having the opportunity to develop it's base, create some stable policy directions, and develop a leader outside the fire (which I'm still not certain will happen). Neither Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff had a chance to develop outside the dual fires of Parliament and Conservative attack ads. Maybe Trudeau, or Leblanc, or whoever, will be able to find their sea-legs before being tossed into the perfect storm. Maybe Liberal supporters will start to see the need to open their pocket-books a little wider. Maybe the Liberal Party will be able to more clearly define policy direction, and stick with that direction beyond the next question period.
A lot of good and a lot of bad happened last night. Here's hoping a Conservative majority, with an NDP minority, will balance into something Liberal.
02 May 2011
Election Day: Day to Point Out How Off I Was!
Every time there is an election I try to avoid making predictions. This comes from an awareness that I'm no good at making predictions. Every time there is an election I make predictions. This comes from a lack of restraint. Here are the three different prognostications I've made since the 41st Federal General Election was called:
March 25: Conservative minority, more Liberals, fewer NDP and fewer Bloc members.
March 25: Conservative minority, more Liberals, fewer NDP and fewer Bloc members.
- I believe I will be correct on just two counts: we will get a Tory minority, and there will be fewer Bloc MPs. Having said that, it seems clear that my prediction was as far off as everyone else's from around this time.
- This is the only time I called for a Tory majority (albeit a small one), and I don't think it'll hold up (even though I said it yesterday). I was still of the belief that the increase in support for the NDP wouldn't turn into as many seats as it seems. I may still be correct. I also may still be correct in thinking the Tories will get a small majority.
- It's election day, and Elections Canada, rest assured, I'm not broadcasting results before polls close, I'm just making a prediction. I think we're going to see a Conservative minority, a successful NDP surge into second, the Liberals getting demolished (much to the delight of still bitter PCers from the early 1990s), a shrunk Bloc (largely thanks to the NDP), Elizabeth finally finding a riding that likes her, and Helena Guergis retaining her seat.
16 April 2011
Election 2011: What's Happening
We're pretty well at the mid-point of the 2011 General Election. Looking back over the last few weeks, I've noticed some trends.
The campaign started with the Tories determined to brand the election as government versus coalition on the economy. The Prime Minister has shameless mislead Canadians by telling them the coalition didn't like the Conservative budget and that's why we're having an election. While the other parties in the House of Commons may not have liked the budget, that's not why we're having an election. My suspicion is that none of the opposition parties in the House could have been able to justify defeating the government on the budget alone. The Tories were too high in the polls, the budget was too neutral, and Canadians weren't ready. What actually felled the government was a lost no-confidence vote. The Prime Minister shrugs it off saying his party doesn't agree that they were in contempt. Well, of course not, but this was not a mere vote in the House, it was a confidence motion, losing which means the Prime Minister has failed to do his job properly. So, legally, technically, speaking, the governing Tories were found in contempt by Parliament, and, more than just that, the Speaker of the House, the neutral leader, also found the Tories in contempt. The Prime Minister's flippant dismissal of these basic facts reinforces the need for this election.
The Liberals started the campaign seemingly determined to slowly introduce Michael Ignatieff to the electorate. They decided instead to leak small portions of their platform until it was finally released in full early in week two. After which, Ignatieff has been thrust front and centre. The Liberals, on the back of a solid, popular platform and a surprisingly comfortable rookie leader began to make small steps in the polls. Then came the turning point.
At some point, for some reason, while the Tories were being dragged through the mud by the media, Canadians decided they'd had enough of the Liberals. Outside of Ontario, the Liberals have stalled 6 to 10 points behind the Conservatives. The Tories had to struggle to explain why a student in London was booted from a Conservative rally. Then they desperately released a damning draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8/G20 Summit because it was less damning than the one previously released by (I hear) an NDP supporter. That was followed by an alleged attempt to steal a ballot box at a University of Guelph special ballot while former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis took aim at her former boss for throwing her under a bus driven by secret allegations of indiscretion. All this adds up to a disastrous week of campaigning. Except that Stephen Harper, appearing overly medicated behind rimless glasses and under hair that would make Kerry Fraser proud, keeps trolling along proving his inexplicable invincibility. With a quick flick of the tongue, Harper manages to shrug all of this off as partisan politics and redirect the debate back to the economy.
The economy is where the Conservatives hold a real advantage. While we might be inclined to think that massively over-inflated deficits and exorbitant expenditures on jets, jails, and G8 summits would overwhelm the obvious advantage a sitting Prime Minister has in metrics like leadership and economic stewardship, it hasn't happened. The Conservatives continue to float above the rest on a cloud of voter apathy and willful blindness.
So now, half-way through the campaign, nothing much has changed. Polls are indicating anything from a very narrow Conservative majority to a weakened minority. That is to say, of course, pretty close to what we have now. The legions of Liberals who supposedly stayed away from Stephane Dion and the vote in 2008 don't seem to have been flooding back into the picture. The one place where the Liberals are showing strength is in social media. They seem to be winning the support of the connected youth. Unfortunately, these people are historically less inclined to show up on election day, meaning all the social media support in the world may not be enough to swing the vote.
Where do we go from here? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need to continue to float along, not straying from their strict message. Scrutinized guest lists and 5 question limits may be offensive to those with democratic sensitivities, but they are working. The Liberals, readying to release their crop of living (former) Prime Ministers, need to make a switch. Their message of respect for democracy has had little influence. While they need to continue to hammer this message, they also need to introduce something new. They haven't been able to dent Harper's advantage in leadership or economic stewardship, so those should be considered no-fly zones. The message needs to be health care. That's what Canadians care about. That's where Harper is seriously vulnerable. And that is where undecideds can be lured into the Liberal camp.
Let`s see where we go from here!
The campaign started with the Tories determined to brand the election as government versus coalition on the economy. The Prime Minister has shameless mislead Canadians by telling them the coalition didn't like the Conservative budget and that's why we're having an election. While the other parties in the House of Commons may not have liked the budget, that's not why we're having an election. My suspicion is that none of the opposition parties in the House could have been able to justify defeating the government on the budget alone. The Tories were too high in the polls, the budget was too neutral, and Canadians weren't ready. What actually felled the government was a lost no-confidence vote. The Prime Minister shrugs it off saying his party doesn't agree that they were in contempt. Well, of course not, but this was not a mere vote in the House, it was a confidence motion, losing which means the Prime Minister has failed to do his job properly. So, legally, technically, speaking, the governing Tories were found in contempt by Parliament, and, more than just that, the Speaker of the House, the neutral leader, also found the Tories in contempt. The Prime Minister's flippant dismissal of these basic facts reinforces the need for this election.
The Liberals started the campaign seemingly determined to slowly introduce Michael Ignatieff to the electorate. They decided instead to leak small portions of their platform until it was finally released in full early in week two. After which, Ignatieff has been thrust front and centre. The Liberals, on the back of a solid, popular platform and a surprisingly comfortable rookie leader began to make small steps in the polls. Then came the turning point.
At some point, for some reason, while the Tories were being dragged through the mud by the media, Canadians decided they'd had enough of the Liberals. Outside of Ontario, the Liberals have stalled 6 to 10 points behind the Conservatives. The Tories had to struggle to explain why a student in London was booted from a Conservative rally. Then they desperately released a damning draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8/G20 Summit because it was less damning than the one previously released by (I hear) an NDP supporter. That was followed by an alleged attempt to steal a ballot box at a University of Guelph special ballot while former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis took aim at her former boss for throwing her under a bus driven by secret allegations of indiscretion. All this adds up to a disastrous week of campaigning. Except that Stephen Harper, appearing overly medicated behind rimless glasses and under hair that would make Kerry Fraser proud, keeps trolling along proving his inexplicable invincibility. With a quick flick of the tongue, Harper manages to shrug all of this off as partisan politics and redirect the debate back to the economy.
The economy is where the Conservatives hold a real advantage. While we might be inclined to think that massively over-inflated deficits and exorbitant expenditures on jets, jails, and G8 summits would overwhelm the obvious advantage a sitting Prime Minister has in metrics like leadership and economic stewardship, it hasn't happened. The Conservatives continue to float above the rest on a cloud of voter apathy and willful blindness.
So now, half-way through the campaign, nothing much has changed. Polls are indicating anything from a very narrow Conservative majority to a weakened minority. That is to say, of course, pretty close to what we have now. The legions of Liberals who supposedly stayed away from Stephane Dion and the vote in 2008 don't seem to have been flooding back into the picture. The one place where the Liberals are showing strength is in social media. They seem to be winning the support of the connected youth. Unfortunately, these people are historically less inclined to show up on election day, meaning all the social media support in the world may not be enough to swing the vote.
Where do we go from here? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need to continue to float along, not straying from their strict message. Scrutinized guest lists and 5 question limits may be offensive to those with democratic sensitivities, but they are working. The Liberals, readying to release their crop of living (former) Prime Ministers, need to make a switch. Their message of respect for democracy has had little influence. While they need to continue to hammer this message, they also need to introduce something new. They haven't been able to dent Harper's advantage in leadership or economic stewardship, so those should be considered no-fly zones. The message needs to be health care. That's what Canadians care about. That's where Harper is seriously vulnerable. And that is where undecideds can be lured into the Liberal camp.
Let`s see where we go from here!
17 January 2011
If an election is coming, here's how the Liberals can win it
My former co-blogger Pat McIver tweeted today in reference to a recent Globe and Mail article. The article explores Liberal Party and Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff's options should an election everyone thinks is coming actually come this spring. The numbers show a slight Conservative advantage (generally in the range of about 5% +/- a couple). So where should Iggy and the Grits be looking for votes? Should they target the NDP, who has long been stealing left-leaning Liberal voters, or the Conservatives themselves?
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)