Tax money belongs to the taxpayers, not the government nor Larry Jewett.
For those of you who believe corporate welfare shemes are wasteful, we agree. For those of you who think Ottawa spends too much, we agree. For those who believe Ottawa still taxes too much, we agree. For those who believe we must balance the budget, cut wasteful federal spending and provide further, permanent tax relief, we agree.
Which is why we here at NB Taxpayers commend Minister Flaherty and Minister Skelton for introducing the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.
The 15-point bill of taxpayer rights - expanding on a 1985 declaration by the former Mulroney government - includes a promise of professional, courteous and fair dealings, as well as the right to an explanation after a complaint and "relief from penalties and interest under tax legislation because of extraordinary circumstances."Speaking of wasting taxpayers money and corporate welfare shemes, eugene (aka To Be Announced) has an excellent post on Liberal Larry "I am entitled to my entitlements" Jewett and his quest for boatloads of government cash. (sorry for the pun)
10 Comments:
You're kidding right? Harper has surpassed Paul Martin in throwing money at every industry in the country. While cutting social and environmental programs, he has ballooned military and police spending. It's odd that when people (I"m not sure who the 'we' is in this blog) argue about wasting tax dollars it always stops at military spending. Beating up poor people and shooting at people on the other side of the world always seem to be perfectly acceptable pastimes, but providing jobs or security at home is always 'downright wasteful'.
Just like in NB, just because a minister comes out and SAYS something, doesn't mean you have to believe them, in fact, most people DON"T believe them. If you think you'll be able to take those 'rights' to court you'll be quickly mistaken, its just a PR stunt to make people say "aha, you see, they ARE fiscal conservatives because they SAID so".
You're showing your political partisanship a little too much here. The tories can spout BS and you call it butter, but when NB liberals do it then its called what it is.
I guess I should clarify myself.
You're right in saying he has made some "cuts". However, you're wrong, in that, Harper has not made cuts to "important" and "essential" social programs (i.e. healthcare, welfare and EI).
He has simply reduced wasteful spending in areas of duplication as well as with inefficient special interest groups funded by out tax dollars.
As for the Military and police spending? I've always said here that tax dollars should be directed to purposes that offer the largest societal benefits.
Funding for national defense is one of the most important functions of the federal government. Particularly at a time when Canada is at war, there can be no higher priority for the Government of Canada.
During the first 10 years that the Liberals were at the helm ('93-'03), they cut over $20 billion real cumulative dollars from the defense budget. This decade of cuts is the reason why the current government has had to scramble to replace aging equipment with new capabilities. Plain and simple, the Liberals starved our military.
That's always the tory line, however, its not the fiscally conservative line. Even during the world wars fiscal conservatives were arguing against military spending.
And of course canada is NOT at war, that's another misconception. The idea that the Taliban have any interest in Canada is a joke. Its military spending for the purpose of military spending.
But like I said, it depends what you consider important. So 'defense' is super important, but in fact it isn't even defense, but offense in a country that we just finished bombing to dust but protecting people's life savings in a caisse populaire is 'wasteful spending'.
So it turns out you AREN"T worried about taxpayers money, you would be quite happy with 'big govenrment' so long as its a military government.
Thats the tory party line and I had hoped you weren't just another Harperite. Harper did more than cut 'inefficiencies', that's more Harper propaganda, again, its too bad this is turning into yet another party political broadcast. Entire environmental programs were gutted and social spending was cut, NOT 'made more efficient'.
Canada's military spending was completely on par with every country except the US. Hell, over in Switzerland they just held a national referendum on whether they should completely abolish their military. It didn't pass but it shows you just how much most of the world is in fear. That's something that is exclusive to north america, and of course getting worse as we go around with the americans bombing people.
That is of course why there are no real libertarians in this country, because canada is simply too rooted in 'big government' so even those who talk about 'small government' aren't REALLY talking about small government, just DIFFERENT government.
It would be one thing to say that government shouldn't be involved in bailing out caisse's, but of course you lose the libertarian argument when people quite rightly ask "why should my tax dollars be spent on police and sending the military around the world and not on canadians?"
You don't have an answer for that, because logically its simply an argument about priorities.
That's too bad, because Canada IS bureaucratically heavy, and some REAL libertarians would be nice to have around, however, there's a reason they are called 'liberty' arians, and the first and primary definition was to rebel against government military and police oppression.
Depends on what kind of libertarian you speak of? I just happen to be a proud Libertarian that favours globalization and free trade, individualism, public choice, and the moral and legal foundations of individual rights.
Unfortunately, socialism has always made promises to protect ordinary people from the hazards of life in a capitalist
society. However, only when it is convenient. When push comes to shove, they are nowhere to be seen when international dictators get out of line with their citizens.
If only you knew what was happening on the ground in Afghanistan then maybe, just maybe, you would change your tone. Unfortunately, you allow your love of collectivism to get in the way of true freedom and democracy. The freedom that many women and children are experiencing as a result of our military efforts overseas. Military efforts that I'm proud to say we are a part of.
You may have the last word as this debate is becoming overly centred on ideology and not the issue at hand. Let's both try to stay on topic, shall we. Good points btw.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with globalization, essentially you are bending an existing word to apply to what you like. Of course your allowed to do that.
I'm quite familiar with what is 'going on on the ground' in Afghanistan, far more than most people since it was brought up in a debate so I made a point of researching it heavily. But 'being proud of the military' is what every militarist tradition does from the outset.
However, that's irrelevant to the argument, because the point was about libertarianism and federal views. So for example, you may be fiercely proud that suspected terrorists are handed over freely to be tortured, that's your business. However, the Norwegians are not, so they have different policies, and have similar spending to past canadian military spending, and they also contribute to Afghanistan.
So that has nothing to do with militarism, the point is, of course, there are lots of countries like Afghanistan, so how much debt does a libertarian agree to in order to finance all those things you are proud of?
I have no idea what collectivism means or what your references to socialism pertain to, I don't trust using 'isms' at all because most people make up their own definitions so that they can say "see why its wrong" You seem to be implying that mennonites, who have a general socialist structure, are not heard on international issues where dictators are concerned. That's completely false, and the central mennonite committee is actively involved in most of the worst countries in the world.
However, you don't have to be a socialist to point out atrocities. Currently there is no such thing as 'capitalism' OR 'socialism' except in ideology. Is Irving being paid for natural gas that the province doesn't need a capitalist venture? If Irving owns the only refinery where is the capitalism?
At the federal level it is even more convoluted. However, there the issue is simply a politician pandering to a constituency. In NO way can the conservative party be called fiscal conservatives, not even close. You might like them, that's your business, but again, that unfortunately taints your political analysis. What it comes down to is that you like what the federal government says because they are tory, but don't like the provincial govenrment because they are liberal.
Again, thats your business, however, it means any claims to 'libertarianism' is a joke, its simply the 'new conservative party'.
Completely false, this blog is not partisan, as well, it's not that old. To be honest, it just so happens (at the moment) that the Liberals are making it easy for those who don't like government interference --- especially all their recent tax policy flip flops, porkbarrelling and corporate welfare schemes. (Re: read about "Countering the Nanny State")
Moreover, I was very disappointed when the federal tories decided to follow in the footsteps of the Mulroney tories and the Chretien Liberals with regards to the subsidies they awarded to the aerospace industry in Quebec. Not to mention, I was on record on this blog against the additional subsidies awarded to Atlantic Yarns a few weeks back. Something the provincial opposition, again tories, chose to ignore because of their past involvement in it.
Anyway, I like talk about a variety of issues and topics (as you know). My passions are democracy, international human rights and economic issues; and sometimes those issues become intertwinded with politics.
For the recoed: I would appreciate it if you refrain from using words like "joke" to describe peoples thoughts. Not that I care, but I have notice that it is a turnoff to those people who come to have a civil debate. Plus, throwing around false accusations that I support torture is uncalled for. If that how you regard me as a person, it's best you find somewhere else to park your smear campaign.
That was far from a smear, that is what you said. You said you were proud of what was going on in Afghanistan and that is what is going on in Afghanistan. If you didn't mean that you should be more specific.
The joke comment is pretty benign, and is far less offensive than you claiming that I simply don't know what is going on in Afghanistan so my view is mistaken. So simply don't insult other people and they won't do it back, but again, thats pretty far from 'smearing'.
However, the point about this blog is simply that just because the tories SAY something that sounds good does not mean anything about policy. Under Harper government spending has increased radically over Martin and Chretien.
So the federal conservatives are far less 'small government' than the liberals, and so I would have expected a blog saying "how stupid does Flaherty think canadians are?" or something like that, because what he is saying is directly in contrast to how they act.
That would be the non partisan thing to say, that is my only point.
That's pretty far from a smear campaign, to simply say you are being partisan.
The non partisan thing to say would be "how stupid does Flaherty think we are?" or something like that. Federal spending has gone up markedly under Harper, growing even faster than it was under Martin.
So the conservatives are the OPPOSITE of 'small government'. In fact, they are creeping government into even more areas than previously. So to have a minister come out and say those comments is pretty hypocritical.
As for the 'joke' comment, that was pretty benign, but sorry if you took offense. However, your comment that I simply don't know whats going on in Afghanistan so am just wrong is far more insulting. When you assume that posters don't know what they are talking about when they disagree then that is just as unfair.
As you say, the blog is new so you have to expect that people are trying to figure out a posters background, especially when they are anonymous, so these are legitimate issues and certainly shouldn't be taken as any kind of 'campaigns'. Its great to see more blogs, and especially ones as detailed as this.
But when you weave away from criticizing government then thats when people get suspicious. So to be fair, what if Graham came out and said exactly what Flaherty said, since its just meaningly political rhetoric would you have made the exact same comments?
If so, then that's perfectly consistent, however, judging from what i've seen from the blog if Graham had said that you'd be on the floor laughing. Perhaps I'm wrong.
This blog is not partisan, its mandate is clear and I will publish it again so that there is no confusion:
What do you hate most about big government? Babbling, self-serving bureaucratic agents? Pork-barrel spending schemes that line the pockets of partisans? Entitlement programs that either create dependency or threaten to bankrupt future generations? Regulations written in drivel-speak that make life miserable for common citizens on the street? Local politicians who dream up "fees" for government services you've already paid for?
We hear you. That's why there's Countering the Nanny State, sponsored by the NB Taxpayers, New Brunswick's only taxpayer blog.
This is your blogspot for fiscal issues -- any size, anywhere, all the time. This hard-charging blog digs up the freshest facts on taxes, government spending, abuse of power, and anything else that serves to limit our freedom to strive and thrive.
But we're not just here to complain about what our government is doing to us. We want to change the way leaders act with our money and the power we've given them. Tax reform, constitutional budget limits, ballot measures to stop tax hikes, recall petitions, privatizing government agencies -- it's all on the table here.
Help us make Countering the Nanny State the best spot on the web for taxpayers:
Send us information on waste, fraud, abuse in government, federal, provincial, or local.
Clue us in to tax revolts in your town or city; we just might be able to help them.
Let us know about stories the national and local media missed.
Give us your feedback on the news and views we post. If we want the politicos to listen, taxpayers have to talk to each other first.
Let's move on shall we.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home