Time to get payroll taxes under control --- for the sake of jobs

Acting AIMS president Charles Cirtwell has an interesting article in the Chronicle Herald regarding the ballooning surplus in the EI reserve account. (which he was reminded of when he read the latest Fiscal Monitor) Checks out a few of his facts on the issue:

First, EI premiums are collected to support EI payouts, not to fund general government revenues. EI premiums should not be treated, and they definitely should not be discussed by our financial managers, as if they were just another line item on a revenue statement. They are not a tax akin to business and personal income taxes – at least successive governments of all stripes have been telling us that they are not a tax. So we should not be seeking to "offset" losses. The goal of the EI managers should be to balance premiums with expected payouts plus a prudent reserve.

Second, there is a current surplus in the EI account of some $51 billion. That is $5 billion more than the $46 billion the government had already racked up in 2004 when Auditor General Sheila Fraser called the government to account over the massive surplus. At that time, she indicated that the government had not observed the intent of the Employment Insurance Act because "Parliament did not intend that a surplus would accumulate beyond what could reasonably be spent on Employment Insurance." The government already has more money than it needs to run the EI program, maintaining the flow of cash to federal coffers is a failure in good management, not something to be celebrated.

Third, that paltry $46-billion surplus was already three times larger than the chief actuary of Human Resources Development Canada considered sufficient to cover expected liabilities and to provide a prudent reserve in 2001. Presumably, with the passage of time, that prudent reserve figure has adjusted itself somewhat. There has also been some discussion of late about adding new programs or extending various allowances for compassionate leave and the like and paying those costs out of the accumulated EI funds. Even with the passage of time and the introduction of generous new benefits, however, it is unthinkable that the liability would have quadrupled in six years.

Finally, let’s be clear. Contrary to what governments have been saying for a generation, EI premiums are a tax, a tax on jobs. Organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) have made that abundantly clear time and time again. The higher the premiums, the higher the cost is for employers to have employees, the fewer jobs – simple.

He's right. The EI surplus is far too high and so are the premiums [payroll taxes] been paid into the fund by both employees and employers. Moreover, it is irresponsible for the federal government to be transfering the EI surplus into general revenues to be used to pay for other programs and projects. That's not why it was put there in the first place. However, on the other side of the coin, the acount should not be completely raided either as there needs to be a reserve to prevent it from falling into a deficit during a recession. Something Cirtwell takes into account:

Giving back the accumulated surplus is probably too much to ask for, but cutting premiums and ending the gouging once and for all is certainly within reason. The CTF recently estimated the necessary premium rate to sustain current payouts and a prudent reserve at $1.59 per $100 of earnings. For individuals, that is 28 cents lower than it is now. That’s about $50 savings for someone making $24,000 a year. It is $220 for their employer, who pays a considerably higher premium. Multiply that by 10 employees, or a hundred, and soon you are talking about some real money.

Indeed you are. I have to admit, the harmonization of premiums at a level $1.59 for both employer and employee is probably the best way to get payroll taxes under control.

I don't know how many times I have to say this...

...but high taxes, unreliable telecommunications infrastructure, an uneducated workforce and high costs are driving investment opportunities away from our shores, not to mention, they are making us a very unattractive outsourcing locale globally (i.e. we're losing opportunities to attract back offices, software development firms, etc.)

In fact, the recent appreciation of certain foreign currencies in relation to the U.S. dollar has begun to affect corporate decisions to outsource or set up their own operations in certain countries. U.S. companies have long outsourced work to Canada, where they've enjoyed a similar business environment along with a 20% reduction in labor costs because of the exchange rate. But the appreciation of the Canadian dollar has wiped out most of those savings and some U.S. companies are wondering why they should go to Canada if they can get the same thing locally without having to cross a border, says A.T. Kearney's Gott.

I also found the quote below very interesting since the NB government still seems content with policies that prop up old failing manufacturing industries (i.e. Textile and the Pulp Mill industry), not to mention, pumping more dollars and placing increased focus on the declining tourism industry.

"Most countries were trying to attract tourism and build a manufacturing economy, but locations like India have shown them that you can have a vibrant services economy that is more vibrant than a manufacturing economy," says Atul Vashistha, chief executive of management consultancy NeoIT.com and co-author of the book The Offshore Nation.

So true and just what we need here in New Brunswick. However, the unfortunate reality is that we have a few roadblocks in the way as our infrastructure, government policies and uneducated workforce have made it close to impossible for this province to develope such a vibrant service economy. There is no question that in order to achieve such a reality, all levels of government really do need to check their old way of thinking (I call it political baggage) at the door. Let's hope they do.

Of all the things

This camper has been known to accept many atrocities that come his way. Let's just say, over the years, I have learned to roll with the punches. However, today was different as I had a hard time accepting the fact that my hard-earned tax dollars were going towards CBC president and CEO Robert Rabinovitch's limo and driver expenses. Are you kidding me? This has to be a mistake. Please tell me it's a mistake. It's a mistake, right?

Going mainstream. I think?

The reason that I blog on long, hot summer weekends is that I like to think that I'm getting through to more and more Canadians with each and every post.

However, I never anticipated this. (check out the "Blog Posts About This Topic") I think a buddy from San Diego who works for the Wall Street Journal (and is a regular reader of this blog) is throwing me a bone because the post and that article are definitely not related. Not to mention, the title is quite curious: Grants Kick Start Resort's Energy Project. Yikes!! A positive spin about grants. The absolute last thing that I thought this blog would be linked to. LOL!

Anyway, as much as I disagree with state funded projects, I won't complain about the extra traffic and global exposure the mention gave me. Always a capitalist. ;-)

How could this be allowed to happen in an open and democratic society?

Kudos to Daniel McHarty of the Telegraph Journal for breaking this story. It's simply unacceptable for these standing legislative committees to have sat dormant for as long as they did (18 months now), especially since the sitting members on the committees are reponsible for scrutinizing the books in Crown corporations and public accounts. To put it mildly, the New Brunswick government has spent billions of our hard-earned tax dollars without the proper checks and balances. The bottom line is, at the moment, they are completely unaccountable for their actions.

Their excuse? "The province's record-breaking legislative session and the 2006 election has caused the delay". That's comical! Because frankly what they are claiming here is that if the legislature had sat shorter instead of longer, they could have got around to the committee business. Is it just me or does that make no sense? Not to mention, Stuart Jamieson's election claim is very weak as well. Why? Because a serious and focused government should be able to transition into power quite smoothly with very few delays or problems. In other words, a past election is no excuse to delay governing. Furthermore, they [government] got around to auditing the books of the previous government right away without delay. So I guess it's OK for them to demand accountability from the former Lord government but not themselves. A bit of a double standard, don't you think?

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in the lack of accountability of this Liberal government. To be honest, I thought that they would have learned their lesson after showing such disregard for taxpayers after handing the financially troubled Caisses Populaire de Shippagan $60 million dollars without even opening the books to the public or consulting taxpayers first.

So far, this government deserves nothing more than a big fat F from NB Taxpayers when it comes to government accountability and democratic reform.

The Spinning Yarn of Corporate Welfare --- Part Deux

Atlantic Yarns: A bottomless-pit of government subsidies

I see BNB is on the dole once again. And who better to be on the receiving end then Atlantic Yarns Inc. in Atholville and Atlantic Fine Yarns, which is owned by the same company and operates in Pokemouche. I really don't know what more can be said about this corporate welfare [repeat] offender that hasn't already been said on this blog before.

However, I will note that this whole mess could have been avoided if the government had of left it up to the market to decide the textile industry's fate [in the first place] here in New Brunswick. Allow AIMS spokesperson Charles Cirtwell to explain, "By signing the first cheque, Business New Brunswick has essentially committed itself for the long-haul." True indeed. And what's even worse is it's our hard-earned tax dollars that are being flushed down the toilet in order to prop up these two very inefficient mills.

Update

Not that I have ever been an avid supporter of state sponsored programs when it comes to the economy, but if you're going to pump millions of our tax dollars into a venture, then why not invest it in essential infrastructure that will aid in the blossoming of the information era and the knowledge-based economy (KBE). However, I have to admit (for obvious reasons) that I would never have gone as far as the Saskatchewan government did.

Hooked on government subsidies

Earlier this week, the Ontario Auditor General released his report which exposed a year-end government slush fund which clearly violated taxpayers trust. In one specific example, the Ontario Cricket Association, which initially asked for $150,000 in assistance, receive much more --- $1 million to be exact.

Now since the optics of this situation are clearly publically damaging, you would presume that the Head of the Ontario Cricket Association would offer to return some of the overpaid loan? Or better yet, return the entire amount they didn't ask for? That would be the proper thing to do, right?

But get this, the head of the Ontario Cricket Association said in a statement released yesterday that not only would they NOT return any of the $1-million grant they received from the government, they should also be entitled to more funding. What? They're kidding, right? Wow!

I guess now you know what I mean when I say some folks get hooked on government subsidies. I mean honestly, have the Ontario Cricket Association ever heard of a fundraiser?

Please, Don't Tax My Big Mac

I know if it were up to McGuinty, Jack Layton or Shawn Graham, the Big Mac that I enjoyed immensely today in Moncton probably would have already been taxed.

However, if the Canadian public has any say on this issue, the tax brigade above may never get near our fatty food;

Many adults in Canada oppose implementing extra taxes on specific foods in order to reduce both consumer demand and health problems, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 50 per cent of respondents think the proposal is a bad idea, while 43 per cent consider it a good idea.

Amen to that.

He's definitely no neophyte

Here's another reason why I like this guy and his ideas so much. Btw, I think it's high time that someone convinced Hugh to step down from his current senate post to run in the next general election. Tory or Liberal? I could care less. Just get this guy into the parliamentary debate.

Update --- Good point by a reader

I just got an interesting email from a Tory stating that if the conservative's win a majority government and elect a new speaker (most likely Strahl), then there will be no reason for Peter Milliken to stay on as an Opposition member since he has no interest in being a cabinet minister let alone a private member. In other words, we could very well be looking at a by-election in Kingston and the Islands sometime after the first year of the new government mandate (post election). Methinks Hugh just may make his run for parliament right around then. Remember, you heard it hear first.

Finally, Aliant does something right

I know I tend to ramble on and on about lower and fair taxation, excessive corporate welfare and irresponsible government spending, however, as I've stressed in the past, it is essential that we treat regulation with the same seriousness as we do taxing and spending. Which is why I was very pleased that Bell Aliant was seriously considering deregulating its phone services. No small feat since we all live in a society that is highly unionized, heavily entrenched with provicial bureaucrats, highly taxed and government dependent. Let's just say we could use a bit of competition.

Slush fund coming back to bite Minister Premier --- no surprise here

These are the consequences of March Madness (i.e. trying to ram through a plethora of pre-election spending [grants & projects] without final approval being granted).

According to the Ontario Auditor General, Jim McCarter, "nearly $32 million in year-end grants that were hastily handed out to 110 community groups as the past two fiscal years came to and end."

And get this folks, in one example cited in the AG report, the Ontario Cricket Association initially asked for $150,000 and got $1 million. Now I know cricket sticks and balls are expensive, but let's get a grip on reality here. Should Ont. taxpayers really have to foot the extra $850,000, especially when they didn't even want it in the first place? I guess it pays to be a cricket playing liberal slush puppy. ;-)

Update

John Tory says the McGuinty government violated taxpayers' trust with its year-end slush fund. (Watch the YouTube clip)

Update II

It appears as though this story may have serious legs, not to mention, the blame may trickle all the way up to the top.

Rumour mill beginning to heat up

With the Conservative National Caucus meeting in Charlottetown just a week away, rumours are beginning to swirl over a possible cabinet shuffle come the fall. One of the names that has consistently come up in shuffle discussions is that of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. And even though I'm a fan of the Finance Minister, I can't deny that he has demonstrated poor leadership skills when it comes to managing the nation's finances. Which is why he was one of my picks for demotion a month ago. (Well, they were actually Gerry's suggestions, but I agreed with all of them)

Moreover, it's probably not a bad political move for the PM in Atlantic Canada to move him out of finance, especially after his [Falherty's] infamous signed letter in the Chronicle Herald defending his government's budget [O'Brien report] as well as saying there would be no side deals. Let's just say if they don't, as CTF National Director John Williamson explains, "Jim Flaherty could single-handedly defeat more Conservative MPs from Atlantic Canada than the combined efforts of all Liberal organizers in the region." In other words, as the Newfs say, he's nutin' more than an Angishore.

It will be interesting to see how things round out.

It's that time of the year again --- 'mea culpa'

"Should Canadian taxpayers be on the hook for co-ordinator's inflated $348,661 salary?"

Those words appeared here in the title of a post written last week, and even though they were not meant to be an inference, they were still wrong. Plain and simple. Vaughn Blaney, the co-ordinator who was referenced, did not acrue a $348,661 dollar salary as mentioned in the post and my apologies go out to him for alleging that he may have accepted it.

It was predicted, based on sources who turned out to be wrong, that he [Blaney] might have received such a salary. Moreover, the sources were not in line with the common practice of accounting which has gone on for years at Public Accounts of Canada. Though the payment was reflected in one line beside the recipients name, in this case Blaney, there is absolutely no evidence to speak of that he accepted the entire amount. As he said in his defense, the full amount was allocated to such things as staff hirings, office space, equipment, etc. and was not just his personal salary.

While the Public Accounts of Canada catalog all payments in excess of $100,000 from programs such as Professional and Special Services for DND, the payments reflected in the one line are not an accurate accounting breakdown. My beef should never have been with Mr. Blaney instead it should have been with the lack of transparency at Public Accounts. IMHO, the accountability of parliament is placed in dire jeoparty if this is the way that money is reported or summarized. It makes you wonder why the government even bothers to put these Public Accounts online if they can't be accurately scrutinized by the taxpayers whose money is used to fund such programs. But that is an arguement for another day.

Again, my apologies go out to Mr. Blaney.

Photo of the week 2: add your own caption

Come on, I know you want to. [Courtesy Toronto Star]












Photo of the week 1

Signs that Americans are becoming more like Canadians

Their [patriotic] self-esteem is dropping, their dollar is shot and they now have their own beer swilling version of Bob and Doug McKenzie.

Update

As funny as some of the questions were during lastnight's Democratic Youtube Debate, it looks as though some candidates are starting to take Bloggers/Youtubers seriously. Btw, this question/song was my favorite! To which no good answer was given by Senator Biden. (See Question 31)

Good for PR but not for potholes

I see the federal government [Rob Moore] was boasting about the "first payment of $2,555,057 under the Canada-New Brunswick Agreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues and the Provincial Gas Tax Transfer Top-up Fund".

Let's just say this is nothing to sneeze at, however, the figure is very misleading to New Brunswickers as a significant portion of the money [announced] for Saint John, as well as the entire province, is not earmarked for essential infrastructure such as the upgrading of roads, highway construction and bridge building. Some of it will be dropped into environmentally sustainable infrastructure such as water and watershed treatment, local energy systems and solid waste. Here's an excerpt from Moore:

"Canada's New Government is moving forward on its commitment to support environmentally sustainable infrastructure in communities across Canada," said Mr. Moore. "I am pleased that the City of Saint John will be able to proceed with water and transportation infrastructure projects that will benefit the residents of Saint John, the environment and the economy. Today's announcement demonstrates what can be achieved when we work in partnership for the benefit of all Canadians."

Now don't get me wrong here, the Harper government has done quite a bit to ensure that more money from gas taxes is dedicated to critical roadway infrastructure --- $1.8 billion [this year] to be exact or 36 per cent of the gas and diesel tax revenue. However, it would still be nice to see the feds eliminate the 1.5 cent per litre tax which was earmarked in 1995 as a deficit reducing measure. The deficit is under control fellas...time to remove that regressive tax and put it towards more roadway infrastructure and pothole repair. I know the front shocks on my car could sure use a break. ;-)

Mayor David Miller really will go to any lengths...

...to justify his regressive tax increase plan. This time he's saying without it, the country's financial situation could plummet into ruin. Yeah, and I have a few waterproof towels I'd like to sell you.

Update

CTF's Ontario Director Kevin Gaudet has a few great suggestions on how the province should move forward fiscally.

US Gov: Our tax cuts are better

Here's some interesting language which I noticed in a press release issued from the Whitehouse [yesterday] regarding a few budgetary facts:

Since The Tax Cuts Took Full Effect In 2003, Our Economy Has Added More Than 8.2 Million Jobs In 46 Months Of Uninterrupted Job Growth. In addition, since tax relief legislation was first enacted in 2001, our economy has expanded by more than $1.9 trillion - an amount larger than the entire economy of Canada.

Is that a dig or just a friendly comparison? Methinks a few republicans in Washington could be developing a bit of an inferiority complex due to our rising dollar?

Hey gamers: "time to exercise"

Tom Palmer: The Chinese government is set to force Chinese internet game companies to limit access by teenagers and to display admonitions that it is time to “do suitable physical exercise.” Yeah, that’ll work. On the other hand, the bureaucrats did show a little deeper understanding of (teenage) incentives when they required changes to the rewards system, as Associated Press points out:

“If they continue, the software slashes by half any points earned in the game. All points are wiped out if players stay on more than five hours.”

And to think, I thought Kelly Lamrock was statist for forcing Ronald MacDonald out of the New Brunswick school system. He's got nothing on the communist. lol

Should Canadian taxpayers be on the hook for co-ordinator's inflated $348,000 $348,661 salary?

Let's see, he only worked 49 total days, so that a little over $7,000 a day of our hard-earned money! EGAD!! That's quite high. However, there seems to be a little discussion brewing over whether or not Vaughn Blaney ever actually accepted such a salary as fact-finding and outreach coordinator [Agent Orange Study] in the first place? I have to admit, at this point, I don't know what to think as both sides have a very different take on the matter. Frankly, if the story coming from Blaney is true? then there could be a serious case made for sloppy government accounting (poor accountability) as it is simply unacceptable to run the books in this fashion (place all the spending by one name) when it is actually earmarked for office purchases and staff hirings.

Furthermore, it should be noted that if Fredericton Liberal MP Andy Scott says it's OK [above board], then it must be OK, right? It's not like he and his party have ever been known to glaze over the truth, especially when it comes to spending our hard-earned cash.

More to come on this one.

Update

Here's the Public Accounts link to professional and special services. Scroll down to page 86 under "other professional services". The amount is listed by his name "Vaughn Blaney". For the record, there are administration cost cited separately under other categories. Not sure what to think? I guess I'll let you, the taxpayer, make the call.

Update II (To Mr. Blaney)

Mea culpa

The grey tsunami is coming

How to avoid it? According to London Free Press columnist Licia Corbella, the best way is to cut taxes:

The figures show the youngest province by far is Alberta, which also happens to have the lowest taxes and the most robust economy. While the recent economic boom is fuelled in large part by the spike in oil and gas prices, most economists also acknowledge that low taxes in Alberta has helped attract investors and made having children affordable.

The only way to prevent the baby boom from busting Canada's economy is to make it easier and more affordable for young Canadians to have more children -- not through more onerous social programs, but through lower taxes.

Quite a contrast, especially to those [individuals] who suggest we should put our seniors back to work here in New Brunswick as a means to counter an aging population (workforce). *sigh*

And do what specifically?

A quote from today's Telegraph Journal: "Most of us hope that when we get to the more senior levels, we can transfer back east."

~ Stephanie Brunets (a 28 year old Bathurst, New Brunswick native working in Ottawa as a bureaucrat) speaking about her 20-30 friends from Bathurst and Mount Allison University who currently work in the nation's capital. (as bureaucrats?)

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

Just a quick note here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people usually transfer away from so-called have-not provinces (I hate that term) in Atlantic Canada so as to move up the corporate or government latter, or to take a better [paying] opportunity in stronger industrialized provinces? Our last premier did.

Who knows, maybe they'll both come back to retire? Btw, if they do, I'm sure they won't have any difficulty finding a few people to play shuffle board with when they return to draw an old age pension.

Putting New Brunswick [Liberal] tax policy into perspective

Is there relief for the average taxpayer?

When it comes to tax policy in New Brunswick, my advice to you, try not to focus on just one report by the CD Howe institute, or in this particular case, one specific tax.

That's unless you're willing to ignore minor details like the fact that personal taxes [under the current Liberals] have increased by $60 million, forgivable [corporate welfare] loans continue to flow freely to government friendly firms, small business taxes have increased from 1.5 to a whopping 5 per cent, corporate tax rates have risen significantly, power rates have increased by more than $100 million this year (9.6 per cent increase), liquor prices have risen, not to mention, more burden has been placed on homeowners as their [property] taxes have gone right through the roof.

So there you have it. Not as rosy a picture as was initially painted by the CD Howe institute in their report a few weeks back, is it? I guess it is really easy to see why I favour broader, across-the-board tax cuts over targeted tax relief for selected industries. Because, in the end, somebody always ends up paying to offset the increases elsewhere.

Tax plan shelved by a narrow 23-22 vote

News:
New Toronto Taxes Vote Delayed (CTF Blog)
Miller suffers tax plan defeat (Star)
Council Votes to Delay Decision (CBC)
T.O. TAX VOTE DEFERRED (Post)
It looks good on him (Toronto Sun)
Vote swung on two councillors (Star)
Council defers vote on taxes (Star)
Council postpones vote on new taxes (680 News)
Councillors send mayor "message" (Toronto Sun)
Tax dodge buys Toronto nothing (Toronto Sun)

Rules of the Trade

Rule #1145: How to know when a political decision is [seriously] damaging? People attack you in church about it.

Update on today's tax vote

If these "new" taxes are so essential to the services afforded to the people of Toronto (as Mayor Miller is claiming), then why is a staunch socialist saying: "I'm reluctantly voting in favour of the new taxes." Reluctantly?? Now that doesn't sound like a strong endorsement, does it? (see video)

Methinks if these former Jack Layton socialist' decide to vote "reluctantly" in favour of this regressive land tax/vehicle tax, you may just see many people in the GTA "reluctantly" vote the federal NDP out of Trinity--Spadina and Toronto--Danforth in the next election. Did I say reluctantly?? I meant happily. lol

Let the exodus begin

This whole thing reminds one of the Canadian political situation after the resignation of Jean Chretien. (click on photo for the Gurdian story)









Update

From the Guardian: the [British] Conservative Party announced it was withdrawing the whip from Black, who has sat in the House of Lords as a member of the Tories, after his fraud conviction. In a statement, the Tories said: "In the light of this verdict the Conservative whip will be withdrawn from Lord Black." However, correct me if I'm wrong, he still keeps his title "Lord Black of Crossharbour".

Update II (Why I don't like the government)

From Steyn: Lead Black counsel Ed Genson has just pointed out to reporters that the US government is still holding $9 million it seized upon the sale of Conrad's Park Avenue apartment - a charge on which the defendant was just found not guilty. Presumably the Feds will now promptly return that money to him, won't they?

Or maybe now. Chief prosecutor Eric Sussman is now demanding Conrad be taken into custody immediately as a "flight risk". If he was a flight risk, he'd have fled long ago. Most European countries wouldn't extradite to the US over a cockamamie case like this with trumped up charges like racketeering. Conrad Black chose not to flee because he believed himself to be an innocent man, and he believed in the US justice system. (I also believe him to be innocent, especially of the charge on which he was convicted - the APC payments - which was a bookkeeping wheeze dreamt up by David Radler that I'd wager Conrad wasn't even aware of until afterwards.)

Black-Tax-Friday: Taxpayers taking to the streets of Toronto

You gotta love it when people take action municipally. Maybe it's time to speak out here in NB??

86 per cent of Toronto residents surveyed said there was little or no debate in election about new taxes

Hmmm, so what to do? Here's a thought, how about listening to the people before you impose 8 new taxes on them:

69 per cent said they want open debate ahead of the next election on the new taxes. (Read entire article, tax survey)

Like I said earlier this week, I think the same type of mindset exist right here in New Brunswick with regards to the regressive taxes imposed, without debate, by the Graham regime last spring. Just a hunch.

Keep the great articles rolling

When Neil Reynolds was editor-in-chief of the Telegraph Journal, there were many so-called experts who criticized him for being way off track when it came to economic development. Funny, because the way I see it, if you are being criticized by the political establishment and economic developers here in New Brunswick, then you must be saying or doing something right. I mean, it was the mainstream thinking from that bunch that got us here in the first place, no?

Anyway, here's another terrific article by Mr. Reynolds. One I'm sure will ruffle a few feathers in the status quo corner, or better yet, the guy controlling the provincial purse strings. Regardless, I think it's time some people started listening.

I can't emphasize this stuff enough

Broader tax cuts are much better for economic growth than targeted tax points or subsidies. There, I said it. Why? Because the former benefits everyone fairly, both corporations and individuals alike, while the latter is marred by political interference.

Moreover, expecting the government to micmic or replace the judgement of the free market is fundamentally flawed. In the end, it comes down to bureaucrats and politicians with no experience in private investment picking winners and losers. And as the saying goes, "loser are very good at picking the government". Furthermore, it is common knowledge that both federal and provincial government's attempt to mask spending (subsidies or grants) in the form of a tax cut. Let Janet from Liberty is Good explain the difference:

A tax cut (or tax relief) has been put in place when, after implementation, Canadians are able to keep more of their money. The government never touches the money and has absolutely no say in how Canadians spend it.

Spending is when the government collects the money of hard-working Canadians and then redistributes it as it sees fit. Any money that goes through the government before being returned to the Canadians from whom it was wrested is spending, and in no way constitutes tax relief. It is spending even if it is done through the tax system, and especially if the money is returned only to groups arbitrarily specified by the government.

The former shows respect for Canadians by allowing them to make their own decisions with their money. The latter is nothing more than forced subsidization of the lifestyles and values the government wants Canadians to live at the expense of the lifestyles and values Canadians espouse for themselves.

This is an interesting point by Janet because many so-called experts like to claim that tax cuts don't work, when in retrospect, what they deem a tax cut is not a tax cut at all. (but "targeted" subsidization) And it's in this type of economic climate where uneven playing fields are created. Playing fields where corporations hold all levels of government hostage for more of our hard earned tax dollars.

And what is even worse is that credit and capital are diverted from successful firms to less successful, politically connected firms, not to mention, firms who are not at the receiving end of government subsidies end up supporting their government supported competitors through their corporate taxes. A huge factor in why so many small businesses go under here in New Brunswick. (the playing is too uneven as they have to pay for the handouts given to declining industries and politically friendly firms)

So to say that tax cuts don't imporove economic conditions is ludicrous, especially since the individuals making these claims don't even know the difference between spending and tax cuts or corporate subsidies and fair taxation. Let's just say, when it comes down to the crunch, I'll choose broader tax relief over targeted tax cuts every time.

Coyne: Mulroney owes taxpayers some money and an explanation

From The National Post:

The basis for this belief seems to be, as she has written, that "I never had a contract, never was paid, never had a coded number" on the RCMP's files. That, and the fact that she had agreed to waive her demand for confidentiality in the event that Mr. Mulroney ever faced prosecution. But as Judge Then observes, "the mere declaration in advance of the circumstance in which Ms. Cameron would waive her privilege does not in principle negate" that a privilege existed.

The best that can be said for Ms. Cameron, then, is that she is in denial. She has done her own credibility, by her strenuous public disavowals, a great deal of harm, but more important is the potential harm her too cozy relationship with the Mounties may have done to journalism, and to other journalists. As she herself has written, "I believe journalists should never cross that line," and for good reason: by doing so, she exposed not only herself, but other journalists to the suspicion that the information they gather might be shared with the police. People will tell reporters things they would never tell the cops. That trust can only be weakened after this.

So Ms. Cameron's reputation is shot. What of Mr. Mulroney's? If his long-time antagonist has been discredited, does that mean he has been vindicated? Not a bit. It was partly as a result of those same Eurocopter hearings that evidence came to light of Mr. Mulroney's dealings, shortly after he had stepped down as prime minister, with Mr. Schreiber -- namely, that he had accepted a total $300,000 from Mr. Schreiber, in cash, in a series of hotel-room meetings.

That Mr. Mulroney had taken money, after leaving office, from the very man he was accused of taking bribes from while in office, in the Airbus affair, was a shocking revelation -- particularly so, since Mr. Mulroney had stated, under oath, in his famous 1995 libel suit against the government of Canada, that he "had never had any dealings" with Mr. Schreiber, short of meeting him once or twice for coffee. Whether Mr. Mulroney deliberately misled the court is an open question, but it is a certainty that the government of Canada, had it known of the Schreiber payments, would never have agreed to settle with him, or to pay him $2-million in compensation.

Mr. Mulroney does not deny -- now -- that he took Mr. Schreiber's cash. And he insists that the money was declared, and taxes paid. But he has an obligation-- to the public, to the office he once held, to his own reputation -- to explain himself further, including what he did for the money, and when he declared it.

At the very least, he should give us back our $2-million.

Conservative factions back in vogue

With Bizarro Harper tugging massively to the left lately, it was only a matter of time until this happened. However, I will remind Mr. Silvestro et al. that this was tried by a few Quebec dissidents prior to the last election ... and we all know how that ended up.

But this movement is nothing to sneeze at because if these dissidents or factions gain any traction, you can bet your life savings that the words "conservative opposition" will be back in vogue in this country very soon. Not to mention, with a conservative faction publically advocating anti-bilingual sentiments, you can also bet on the fact that the words "conservative bigots" may soon resurrect as a starting point for most national journalist. Just a thought. (Hat tip Greg Staples)

Update

Full disclosure: I could support an alternative conservative faction that scores at least an A- in each and everyone of these 10 policy priorities.

Labour lost to strikes

I remember when John Ibbitson wrote in his book [The Polite Revolution] about how Iceland, with its similar geography and staple industries, could be a real model for Newfoundland and Labrador. Not sure if he was thinking of this when he wrote that:















Not that the country Newfoundland joined in 1949 is fairing any better.

Are you kidding me?

This definitely has to be the biggest laugher yet. Why? Because I know Canadians and there isn't a hope in hell that pleading to supporters is going to change anything amongst common voters, epecially when you're attempting to "clear the air" in a province where the stench of distrust began in the first place.

Taxpayers are no fools

I bet you if Corporate Research Associates had the gonads to commission a poll to see who supported the NB Liberal government's recent tax hikes, they would probably find similar results to what Holinshed Research Group found amongst municipal voters in Toronto. That being, a resounding 74% of them opposed the massive tax grab. (Hat tip Taxpayers Blog)

For now, I guess we will just have to put up with the CRA's soft soaping of the general public towards incumbent Liberal governments or those that oppose the feds in Ottawa.

Will that be bottle or can??

Outside consultant to guide the process of bringing canned pop and canned beer to P.E.I. a waste of taxpayers money

You really got to wonder about a political administration who has to hire a consultant at $200 an hour to make a decision like this. Sheesh! Has George Webster ever heard of a bloody telephone? Methinks island voters, and even the zombies, are going to start missing Pat Binns sooner rather than later.

State funded child care won't increase fertility rates

Jody Dallaire in the Telegraph Journal:

"If we had quality, affordable child care that is available to families in their communities, families would choose to have the amount of children they want, and not the amount of children they can afford." (Telegraph Journal)

Not only is the above statement false, it is also seriously unsubstantiated. What we truly need in New Brunswick is opportunities that will sustain a robust economy, mitigate outmigration and encourage a greater influx of immigration.

So regardless of the claims being made today in the Telegraph Journal by the province's population growth secretariat's CEO, Humphrey Sheehan and New Brunswick's Child Care Coalition spokesperson Jody Dallaire, higher fertility rates will never be realized if the methods to obtain them are targeted tax breaks or state funded child care. As I've said in the past, taxes must be reduced right across the board (business and personal) before NBers will ever see a significant increase in birth rates.

(Hat tip Dave Campbell)

Not the same as in '78

Over the weekend, I heard a few of my Liberal friends talking about how the six possible by-election in the fall would be just like the seven October by-elections of 1978. (which I believe were held across Ontario and the governing party lost all seven?) Now I will admit, there are a few similarities today to that fateful October evening some 29 years ago. Beginning with the fact that the Liberals previously held four of the six ridings in the 39th parliament. (they held five of the seven back in '78)

However, things were much different back then. As some of you may very well remember, in 1978, the anti-Trudeau sentiment was rising at a feverish pace. His administration had made some difficult and unpopular decisions, not to mention, the predators in his own party were out in full force to take him out. In other words, they knew what was at stake if the PM were to lose those by-elections and, in turn, some party members chose to either sit on their hands or work against their own party candidates so as to sink their leaders chances in the next general election.

Now as for PM Harper, he is still at the early stages of his political mandate and the tension amongst Canadians towards him and his party are not as strong as they were for Trudeau back in '78. Not to mention, the internal workings of the Conservative party appear to be intact. (although anti-Harper sentiments are starting to resonate [a bit] amongst his core base)

Plus, he [Harper] has absolutely nothing to lose since his party held none of the six ridings which are up for grabs. Furthermore, his popularity is still much higher than that of the Leader of the Official Opposition. (whose party is still plagued by scandal) Morover, of all the party leaders in parliament, Dion and Duceppe have the most to lose in these up-and-coming by-elections as the Bloc previously held two of the seats and the Liberals five. As well, they have both suffered some serious parliamentary defeats at the hands of the Harper government which has led to some unrest within both their caucuses.

To make a long story short, the bottom line here is that it's a total win-win for Harper because, even if his party is shut out in these by-elections, he will still come out unscathed amongst his supporters.

The dishonesty of a movement

Well, the secret is out of the bag as it appears that most Canadian environmentalist have heavy Liberal ties, or a touch of amnesia when it comes to their previous [poor] record. At least Jamey Heath seems to think so: [Canoe]

"People like ... Louise Comeau need to be intellectually honest in that you can't validate extraordinarily backwards policy from the Liberals, and then the moment a Conservative party comes into office demand that Kyoto targets be met come hell or high water. At some point you have to have some introspection and recognize that we might have been nominally involved in Kyoto, but we have been an embarrassment in the world."

Live Earth Marathon Concert

Just about 4 hours or so left until the kick off of Al Gore's Live Earth concert (in Sydney, Australia) on CTV.

I don't know about you guys, but I will be headin' down to the shore (where there is no TV) so that I can avoid having to listen to the long and painful 24 hrs. straight of limo ridin'/private jet flyin' celebrities backslapping their de facto 'enviro' god --- Al Gore. Let me tell you, if I don't, the entire [saturated], low fat, vegan experience is libel to drive me to drugs.

(Hat tip Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty)

All together now: Spend, spend, spend

And to think, a few years back, I thought these guys would reduce wasteful government spending. *Sigh*

Oh yeah, since we're on the topic of excessive spending, I wouldn't want to leave out Heritage Minister Bev Oda's cultural capital boondoggle, especially since her department handed over a $500,000 dollar cheque (of our money) to a municipality that didn't even have a cultural plan. Not to mention, not one job will be created. Sheesh!

Moreover, since the Conservative summer spending spree started 13 days ago, which provinces do you believe topped the list of government handouts?? If you guessed Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, you are right. (NB to the tune of $221-million) Now that's what I call pure government dependency.

The CBC's facebook faceplant experiment

I love it when things don't always turn out how the Mother Corp intended. (Kudos to Dave Gilbert whose wish "abolish abortion" was the most popular amongst Canadians)

What is Flaherty thinking?

Like I said before, there definitely must be something done with the corporate tax rate in this country. However, shifting the burden from business to personal taxpayers, like Minister Flaherty is urging, isn't the solution.

Update

On a completely different note, it appears as though Timmy Ho's will be targeting Atlantic Canadians and Manitobans with higher coffee prices. Ouch!! What's even worse is that our Ontario counterparts will still be able to enjoy a double-double at the same price while paying 2 cents more for a couple thousand more timbits. Where's the justice? (Hat tip Gerry)

Happy Canada Day NB Tax Day?

For those of you who are completely unaware, the regressive tax hikes implemented by Shawn Graham's Liberal government take effect today, July 1st. But before you get overly excited people (tongue-in-cheek), just remember, the tax hikes were retroactive as of January 1st, 2007. Which means NBers will be digging twice as deep into their wallets over the next six months to pay for this riddiculous tax increase. Not what I call a great way to celebrate being a Canadian or a New Brunswicker for that matter.