Telegraph Journal a bastion for conservatism?

This article by the Telegraph Journal today, to me, is the equivalent of the Toronto Star offering up advice to John Tory and the PC party of Ontario whereby [they] tell them they're out of touch with their conservative values and principles because, hey, we slummed for a couple of days in Calgary at a media conference sponsored by a conservative think tank. Here's a small excerpt from their proscriptive screed:

In Calgary and Ottawa, conservatism is very much alive - led by men and women who would be assets in any political party, supported by a broad and growing constituency of Canadians, invigorated by inventive ideas about public policy that embody age-old political values. At the provincial level in New Brunswick however; it is faltering - not for lack of potential public support, but due to the paucity of its ideas and weak leadership.

Now don't get me wrong here, the TJ could be right on a few fronts regarding the plight of local NB conservatives, however, should the fact that your media organization broke bread a couple of days with a few neo-cons and Libertarians suddenly make you the voice of reason on the right? especially considering you scewered those same folks, both federally and provincially, for the other 363 days of the year. (re: for a little media perspective, think Shawn Graham riding the white horse on the front page of the TJ midway through the 2006 election on the same day they released the delayed liberal friendly CRA poll which was very damning towards Bernard Lord and his tories). Oh yeah, to add a bit more light to the bias of that situation, the president of CRA's New Brunswick division [Maurice Robichaud] is now on Graham's payroll.

In other words, calling out New Brunswick conservatives and telling them that they don't speak out enough is a little hypocritical coming from the Telegraph Journal, don't you think?

Furthermore, not that I am overly political (as this blog is non-partisan), but aren't the tories provincially called "progressive" conservatives or did they legally change their name a year ago? Why do I ask? Because the Telegraph Journal has been constantly using the term "conservative" in their articles when referring to the PCs. I guess that means there are no standards when referring to political parties anymore; so in retrospect, we should call the NDP just "democrats" or the Liberals just "puffins". At least until the TJ agrees to call the PCs by their rightful name.

Oh yeah, one more thing, if the TJ gets the energy to offer up some more political advice down the road, then I encourage them to call out the NB Liberals on their lack of accountability, poor fiscal management and using our tax dollars to reward partisan donors and members.

MMP will allow a diverse group of voices to be represented and heard. Even anti-statist ones.

I found the following excerpt below by Greg Staples (aka Political Staples) very interesting indeed, especially considering he was on record [originally] as an anti-MMP advocate:

The fact the PC party is a "less left wing option" is why I am seriously considering MMP. You ask "Do we really have a greater need for nanny statism in Ontario?" and if the answer is no then who do you vote for? They are all statists to one degree or another as all parties chase the middle. Under FPTP a vote for a party like the Freedom Party of Ontario is a complete waste of time whereas under MMP a "classical liberal" party has a chance to grow and can shift the centre back towards less government intervention whereas the current situation have parties chasing the ever left moving centre.

On imposing higher taxes

Ottawa Mayor "as good as dead"

Shawn Graham and Dalton McGuinty learned the hard way. So did Mayor David Miller last month after trying to impose two new taxes [land tax and vehicle registration tax] on Torontonians. But just when you thought a good many had learned from their mistakes, this guy comes along.

When will these politicians learn, new unilaterally imposed taxes never go over well with the general public.

Frankly, it's political suicide.

Thatcherism: the state should shrink and individual freedom should grow

BBC News: It all started with chickens;

In the 1970s, Britain was a country being ravaged by discredited and failed socialist policies and strangled by gross abuses of trade union power. These documentaries chart the painful but vital changes that the Conservatives implemented which saved the country economically and rescued it politically from the grip of socialist idealogues. The medicine was bitter and many people faced serious hardship, but the cost of not making these changes would have been unimaginable deprivation and decline. The ideas of Seldon, Hayek and the US ideas of monetarism, implemented by the Thatcher government, brought the country back from the brink of collapse and despair - to the point where, with a population of just 60 million and relatively poor natural resources, it now has the sixth biggest economy in the world.

If you want more, check out the trailer for the three-part mini series, Tory! Tory! Tory! in the post below. It traces the history and ideas behind the ethos of Thatcherism - and how Britain was converted from a state-run monopoly (and billions in debt) to a workable and viable economy.

See also: Outsiders, The Path to Power and The Exercise of Power, here.

Tory! Tory! Tory! Trailer

Trailer for the Documentary series Tory! Tory! Tory! charting the rise and fall of Thatcherism.

Business pork Cape Jourimain style

It is no secret that this blog is wholeheartedly against government interference into economic affairs. Here are a few reasons why:

• Market decisions should be made by the market, not by politicians, bureaucrats and their friends.
• It undermines confidence in our democratic institutions. In other words, government subsidies, while portrayed as helpful to economic growth, are perceived to be nothing more than payola for financial support at election time.
• Businesses who receive subsidies on a regular basis become more adept at securing government $$$ than they do at running a solid business (e.g. creation of wealth and maximizing product/service value).
• It creates an unhealthy culture of dependency as owners and managers of the business become so reliant on subsidies that they build expectations of such into their financial plans.
• Someone has to pay for it. Inevitably, it is individual and business taxpayers.

That being said, you can understand my beef with this recent grant awarded to Cape Jourimain Nature Centre. Let's just say this nature centre is the epitome (a model) of what happens when political interference into the economy, by way of politicians, trumps the market. Let's take a closer look, shall we.

Back in 2001, a local group in the Sackville/Port Elgin region, headed by then Liberal candidate Susan Purdy [see 2003], lobbied the federal government for funding to open the Cape Jourimain Nature Centre. With all the chess pieces working in their favour [Claudette Bradshaw, Minister of Labour and MP for Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, Honourable Marilyn Trenholme Counsell Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick and Honourary Patron of the project, local Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc], the group was successful in securing the funding needed from ACOA to get things rolling. Big shocker.

Yes, Lord's provincial Tories did jump on late to the project funding wise, but it was essentially the baby of the Liberals, not to mention, it was touted as a vote getter through job creation in a slow growth region. Here's a quote from Liberal Claudette Bradshaw on the project:

"It also acts as a boost for the region's economy by increasing the number of visitors to the entire area, with an ensuing increase in job creation."

So let's fast forward to 2007. The federal Liberals are no longer in power and funding for the project [corporate welfare] has decreased under the Harper Tories. So much so that the CJNC inc. issued a release stating this claim (think third & fourth bullet point above) and, in turn, hoped some level of government would bail them out.

Both levels of government have been supportive of the Centre since it opened in 2001, but that support has been diminishing. The Centre has increased efficiency over the years, and annual expenses have been substantially reduced. As a result, the profitability of the Centre has increased, however, it is clear that financial assistance is still required to maintain the Centre, deliver educational outreach programs and employ local residents.

Hmmm. Increased profitabilty??? Is that why they have to beg for more government cash wherein they even threatened to shut their doors early in August. Something doesn't make sense here. Anyway, regardless, it seems they got what they wanted from the provincial Liberals (via a $40k loan). Though just speculation, it probably didn't hurt that Liberal Sue Purdy is still on the Cape Jourimain Nature Centre board of directors (think first bullet point above).

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure their are a few who are probably celebrating this short-term victory (bail out), however, it is still very unfortunate IMHO, especially for the ppl of that region (and taxpayers) as another grant still doesn't change the fact that this project, born from political capital intended on winning votes, will likely continue to lose money and be a bottomless pit for New Brunswick taxpayers. I guess you can see why I despise the practice of corporate welfare so much as it is clear that it creates longterm economic instability, not strength and growth.

Lamrock defies Premier's word to not raise taxes

From the Telegraph Journal today: "He [Kelly Lamrock] said he supports rolling back higher-income tax cuts to get more money for education".

First of all, let's get a few things straight here. We all know that there has never been a promise of "higher-income tax cuts" [on record] from this Liberal government as all we have seen, thus far, is regressive income tax hikes. In other words, it's pretty much impossible for Lamrock to "roll back" something that doesn't exist in the first place, right?

Furthermore, not only is the above scenerio explained in the TJ totally impossible, it basically comes down to the fact that he [Lamrock] supports further tax increases so that he can collect additional revenue in order to spend his way towards his educational goals for New Brunswick. A strategy, I might add, that has delivered very little results in the past.

More importantly, it's obvious that he didn't consult the premiers office before uttering these tax increase threats because his boss [Shawn Graham] is on record last spring stating that his government will not increase taxes anymore in their first mandate. Methinks Lamrock is not listening. Either that or the premier's word is worth nothing to him.

A little defiant, don't you think?

The surplus is how much?

When federal budget talks roll around next year, it's definitely going to be a very tough sell for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and his department to consider denying Canadians that additional one percentage point cut to the GST, income splitting, or better yet, broadbased tax relief, especially if this becomes common knowledge in every household.

Related: Tax Cuts if necessary but not necessarily tax cuts.

Exaggerating accomplishments

I can remember back in 2000 when then Finance Minister Paul Martin claimed, during his budgetary speech, that his department would deliver on a "$103-billion dollar tax cut". However, after closer review and calculations, it was found that his cumulative tax reduction (1997-2004) was only worth a meager $8.8 billion. Quite a discrepancy.

Well, the liberals are no longer in power and Paul Martin doesn't control the purse strings, although it appears as though this practice of overstating tax cuts still remains.

Update

I see former Bernard Lord press secretary turned Flaherty spokesperson Chisholm Pothier is backing his boss on this one (surprise, surprise):

"This government has in fact reduced taxes for Canadian individuals, families and businesses by $41 billion since coming to power."

"We've done that by reducing consumption taxes, excise taxes, personal taxes and corporate taxes over those three years (2006 to 2008)."

Unfortunately, Chisolm is way off on this one because much of the $41 billion claimed as a tax cut by the Harper government was either spending disguised as a tax cut (e.g. $1.2-billion Working Income Tax Benefit which cuts a cheque of up to $1,000 per family) or them taking credit for the previous government's tax measure (e.g. $500-million in personal income tax reductions made by Paul Martin's Liberals in the 2005 budget).

Also, if they are going to take credit for tax relief enacted by the liberals in 2005, it is only fair to count tax increases since that year wherein they took credit for forgone revenue from a tax hike they claimed never happened (e.g. they claim they cut the personal income tax rate for the lowest income bracket by half-a-percentage point last year when, in retrospect, they increased it by half-a-percentage point from the original full percentage point reduction in 2005 --- which btw was used on tax returns but was not enacted in law).

When all is said and done and everything factored in, the Harper tax cut works out to approximately $8.8 billion less or $32.2 billion dollars. That's not bad as it is still preferable to a $32.2 billion dollar increase in taxes. But it is a far cry from the $41 billion reduction the feds might like taxpayers to believe.

(Hat tip goes out to John Williamson who worked tirelessly crunching the numbers that I so righteously quoted above)

Wake up! Tory's talking tax cuts

Fighting the regressive health tax is definitely a vote getting strategy for the Ontario Tories, however, if their communications shop is content on framing it [the message] in a manner in which it appears as though a boring financial planner/accountant is trying to sell insurance on a cloudy monday morning, then there is absolutely no way this policy [tax cuts] will resonate with the average Ontario voter or taxpayer. I mean, if he wasn't already uncharismatic enough, they dropped a ring binder flat in his lap so as to allow him to peer down at talking points. Yikes!!

As the saying goes, "it's not what you say, it's how you say it". Methinks the latest poll numbers describe just how poorly the tax cut message is getting out as disenchanted voters seem to be parking their support with the NDP and Greens.

Where are your priorities, Mr. McGuinty?

Only in a province like Ontario, where taxpayer's hard-earned money is handed out to partisan friendly organizations without scrutiny, can an animal get an MRI before a sick kid on a waiting list. Shame.

Tax cuts if necessary but not necessarily tax cuts

Surplus ballooning under Tories?

Yes, I know, the title is a bit of a recalibrated effort on my part regarding the famous line made by former Prime Minister Mackenzie King on the draft.

However, according to Globe and Mail columnist Neil Reynolds, the above statement pretty much nails the position the Harper administration has taken [thus far] towards broadbased tax relief for Canadians. Why? Because much like the many governments that have preceded them, they are enamoured by their spending powers which in turn can be used during a general election to woo undecided voters. As Reynolds noted, this seems to be the congenital reason why the Prime Minister still seems to be wavering on whether ot not to make tax cuts a priority for his government:

Mr. Harper, however, elaborated. "First and foremost," he said, "this government is committed to running responsible fiscal policy where we can not only balance our budgets but continue to run modest surpluses so we can pay down debt. That's important. After that, we will, obviously, look at a range of tax reduction measures as well as investment in spending priorities where we think they are relevant to voters."

Here the important word, the predictive word, is the final one: "voters." He could have said "Canadians." He didn't. (All voters are Canadians but not all Canadians are voters.)

Here Mr. Harper says explicitly that the federal government will spend its discretionary revenue - all $10-billion a year of it - on things that it believes will prove "relevant to voters" in the next federal election.

Well, since the [government] still seems to be rather unconvinced on whether or not tax cuts should be a high priority, I will give them a little advice on what I believe is relevant to voters, or better yet, taxpayers. That being, the massive surplus sitting in Ottawa.

During the last federal budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty reported that the surplus for the entire year would be $3.3 billion dollars. Unfortunately, the best kept secret in Ottawa is that the surplus in the first two months alone was $3.5 billion --- a number which already exceeds what the Finance Minister said the surplus would be for the entire year. Let's just say that's a far cry from running modest surpluses to pay down the debt.

So, should this be a major priority relevant to voters? You're darn right it should as it is high time that the government put an end to managing massive surpluses, and instead, they should make a serious effort to put more of the surplus (our hard-earned cash) back in our pockets via a tax cut. Trust me, it's the right thing to do.

Feds must scrap air travellers tax

As a frequent flyer and a Canadian taxpayer, I was very disappointed to see that the federal government continued with its over-taxation of air travellers through the Air Travellers Security Charge.

According to a recent audit report released yesterday by the Department of Finance, documents indicate a whopping $80 million in profit from the fees in 2005.

It's high time that the Government of Canada stopped profiteering off of domestic air travellers. Yes, I realize the importance of funding airport security, however, the government should do the taxpayer a favour and eliminate this regressive charge and fund security measures the way it does all national security initiatives, out of general revenues. It's time to get rid of the airport tax.

Unacceptable intolerance

Could this be why we have had such a hard time [historically] retaining and attracting immigrants from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds in our province?

This is one New Brunswicker who realizes the damage that such a narrow view can have on the growth of a society.

Charest has this one wrong

Ordinarily, it is common courtesy and mutual respect for a competing political party not to field a candidate against a newly elected party leader in a by-election. However, if the party who elected its leader happens to be separatist in nature, should the same courtesy be afforded to them?

Unlike Jean Charest, I see that Action démocratique leader Marion Dumont doesn't seem to think so.

Low Taxes Make 'Icelandic Tiger' Roar

Iceland a supply-side success

Over the last decade or so, Iceland has steadily moved away from being a poverty-stricken economic backwater, overly dependent on its fishery, to a more robust and vibrant 21st century economy where two-thirds of its GDP is made up of financial services, software development, communications and tourism. How did they accomplish such a turnaround? Simple, they reduced their tax rates and changed their policies towards non-foreign born workers.

Inspired by Ireland's Celtic Tiger, Iceland went the extra step and installed both low corporate taxes and simple, flat-rate taxes on individuals.

According to Globe and Mail columnist Neil Reynolds, Iceland's successes through economic liberalisation and tax reductions could definitely be a lesson (or model) for Canada --- not to mention New Brunswick. Read on:

Iceland's tax reduction lesson for Canada. - What's the best way to expand a welfare state, irrationally assuming for the moment that you want to expand a welfare state? Cut taxes.

Especially cut corporate taxes. You will collect less revenue every time you nick a dollar but you will have many more dollars to nick - and you will almost certainly find yourself with more tax revenue than you know what to do with. Iceland is a good example. Though tiny in population (with 280,000 people, it has only twice the population of Prince Edward Island), Iceland provides a compact manual to supply-siding your way to public sector expansion, a large-type Big Government for Dummies guidebook.

Iceland now collects far more revenue (as a percentage of gross domestic product) from a low corporate tax rate (18%) than it used to collect from a high corporate tax rate (50%). Thoroughly Nordic in its instincts, the country has used part of this windfall revenue to buy more government - even as other countries have cut back on government. In 1992, Iceland's government spending accounted for 32% of a stagnant GDP.

Now it accounts for 40% of an expanding GDP, a 25%increase in public sector share in 15 years. Iceland now buys marginally more government than Canada buys (39.5% of GDP) with cut-rate taxes on personal income and corporate profits - indeed with less than one-half the Canadian rates. However you split up Iceland's increase in national income, this small country's economic transformation in the past 15 years has made it a supply-side example to the world.

A basket-case economy in the 1980s, with an inflation rate that hit 100%, Iceland is now the fifth-richest country in the world (based on per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, of $40,000 US). In the International Monetary Fund listing, the only richer countries are (tax haven) Luxembourg, (oil-rich) Norway, (low-tax) Ireland and the US (Canada ranks 10th with per-capita GDP of $35,600). Hannes Gissurarson, a professor of politics at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and author of a forthcoming book on what he calls “Iceland's renaissance,” says the decisive factor in the country's success has been the elimination of high tax rates on income - whether personal or corporate.

In a paper co-written with US economist Daniel J. Mitchell and published this month by the Washington-based Cato Institute, Prof. Gissurarson says “Iceland's paradox” - lower tax rates, higher revenues - “documents a strong Laffer Curve effect.” Before Iceland lowered its rates on personal income and profits, he says, these taxes collected revenue equal to 9% of GDP. They now collect revenue equal to 18%.

Named for Arthur Laffer, the California economist who inspired Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s, the Laffer Curve holds that there are two tax rates that will produce the same amount of revenue - one of them high, one of them low. A corollary is that, masochism aside, low rates are preferable to high rates. Iceland provides laboratory proof. It began cutting rates in 1992, incrementally reducing its taxation of “productive activity.” By the end of the decade, the rate on corporate income had fallen to 18% and the rate on investment income (dividends, interest, capital gains) had fallen to 10% (from 40%).

Though nominally high at 36% (down from 48%), Iceland's flat tax on personal income contains a universal deduction that protects significant income from any tax. (Iceland funds municipal spending through a separate income tax; the central government's flat-rate income tax is 22%.) Only two countries have lower tax rates on “productive activity” - Ireland (with its celebrated 12.5% rate) and Hungary (with a 16% rate). In Iceland, the impact has been remarkable. In 1998, the country's 40% rate on investment income produced 2% of government revenue; in 2006, its 10% rate produced 14% of government revenue.

Economic growth accelerated, averaging more than 4% a year for the past decade, more than 6% for the past three years. Prof. Gissurarson and Mitchell do not herald Iceland as a low-tax country; rather as a country that uses low tax rates to encourage saving and investment. On the other hand, it taxes consumption in the usual European manner with high (24%) sales taxes. Yet the two economists insist that Iceland's tax rate reductions are, beyond any doubt, “a supply-side success.”

The lower rates produce faster economic growth, which produces an expanding tax base, which produces “healthy” rises in revenues. High tax rates are counterproductive - whether judged from an economic or ideological perspective. Yet Canada clings to them, champions them. Why?

Why? indeed. I mean, what level-headed Canadian or New Brunswicker could possibly argue with the economic model of a country with less than half the population of New Brunswick (with similar ethnic homogeneity) that boasts its own national university, an elite symphony orchestra, a national museum, an opera and ballet company and its own stock exchange. Not to mention, a country that reads more books per capita than any other country in Europe.

Why the federal government will never be the answer [economically]

For all those so-called experts in Atlantic Canada who base their economic development strategies on regional development agencies/policies (ACOA, DREE, DRIE, DIPP, TPC), 50/50 cost sharing schemes, corporate welfare, relocating federal government units, etc., I encourage you to scroll down to the bottom of the page below and compare blocks (or cabinet ministers).














Yeah, that's right, it's a fatuous [political] pursuit, to say the least, to duke it out for federal government handouts with Ontario or Quebec. Furthermore, the gap between central Canada and Atlantic Canada (in the federal cabinet) was much more pronounced under both Chretien and Martin as they had 24 additional ministers representing that part of the region. If anything, that should answer the question on why the majority of TPC grants (Industry Canada) went to Ontario and Quebec for their auto and aerospace industries.

Bits and pieces, this and that

I few links and observations on this Monday:

• Just a quick reminder to all those staunch libertarians out there that this weekend is the annual Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono, Ontario. It's a can't miss event. (although I will unfortunately have to miss it due to work commitments) *sigh* Oh yeah, check out Gerry Nicholls' Sun article on the upcoming weekend. Want more specifics? Go here.
• Are we complacent in Canada about productivity? London Chamber of Commerce president Chirag Shah seems to think so. Check out his article from Saturday's London Free Press.
• I know a lot of bloggers (and pundits) in this corner of the planet consider the amount of spending towards healthcare unacceptable. Some on the left think it's unacceptably low and those on the right think it's way too high. All I can say is, with the baby boomers about to retire in large numbers, there is no question that the current rate of annual government spending on health care is just wishful thinking at best, or as the Fraser instititute believes "financially unsustainable".
• Not sure if a bit of Stats Can data pulled by Jack Jedwab is going to change my mind on this contentious citizenship issue. (i.e. Canadians of convenience)
• Glad to see that Quebec's language law (Bill 101) has benefited someone since it's inception. (I know a few that may not be so kind)
• Hey NBers, any thoughts on this guys' accomplishments or legacy? I know that staunch followers of NB politico's blog would have been cheering loudly and proudly on sunday when they unveiled the monument, however, I [myself] have mixed emotions about the whole exercise, especially the talks about his "great" legacy. This is one NBer who believes that any province who loses its best and brightest year after year (I was one for a few years), not to mention, one that is extremely dependent on government --- is definitely not a province that was properly managed, nor is it one that should be boasting about its great leaders. Furthermore, I believe we may not be talking about self-sufficiency in the context that we are talking about it today had it not been for the satist policies implemented by Robichaud's government back in the 60s. Policies that became the status quo for many years to come regardless of the party in power. Unfortunately, that side of the arguement always seems to get overlooked or left out when legacy talks get thrown around.
• My only cabinet speculation (and updated I might add): Sask MP Lynne Yelich will be the only new face.

Weekly Waste Round-Up 2

In the news this week:

Canada

[Champagne] Living on the Taxpayer's Dime - "The scandal involving a former defence department bureaucrat behind a $143 million invoicing fraud scheme continues to make headlines. [...] This summer, Paul Champagne plead guilty to fraud and breach of trust charges. "I am accepting responsibility for my actions," he told reporters. [...] Between 1994 and 2003 Champagne's activities, in which he received payment for bogus computer maintenance contracts that were never delivered to the government, went largely undetected. Champagne reportedly was able to dupe subcontractors who wanted more details by claiming the work for Department of National Defence was top secret. While working in the department's procurement branch, Champagne earned $80,000 a year. Yet his $1.35 million mansion, vacation homes in Florida and Turks and Caicos, luxury cars and jet-set lifestyle did not raise any serious red flags for nearly a decade." (Political Watch 11.08.07)

Gary Lunn wasting taxpayers money on 'spin doctor'- "...released documents, obtained through access-to-information requests, showing that Mr. Lunn's department signed a $15,989.04 contract last August with Lynda Naveda Consulting Ltd., to screen candidates for a position as the minister's director of communications. The work was required in a rush because the then-director was leaving shortly." (Globe & Mail 24.07.07)

In Ontario, it's easy getting $1M for cricket. But try being...- "Way to go, bureaucrats. Stick it to the guy in a wheelchair. Too bad Spencer didn't know somebody in the cricket club, eh. Maybe they could lend him some of the cool $1 million they got without the same hoops." (Toronto Sun 11.08.07)

United States

Murphy grabs $27.1M in funding - "Congressman Patrick Murphy, D-8, a vocal opponent of wasteful spending on Capitol Hill, has garnered nearly $27.1 million in federal funding for 28 pet projects that were included in massive federal spending bills that recently passed the House.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government watchdog group, Murphy won more money for more projects than any other Pennsylvania House members in the Philadelphia region." (phillyBurbs.com 10.08.07)

Bunks for Drunks: Costs of Seattle's Social Experiment - "If one lives in Seattle, there are clean, furnished apartments in the downtown area for less than $200 a month. It’s a great deal, with one catch: in order to move in, one has to be an alcoholic. Once someone qualifies and takes up residence at 1811 Eastlake, no one will ever tell him or her to stop drinking. [...] Some have called it "bunks for drunks." More than $11 million in local, state, and federal money has been used to construct an apartment building for 75 of Seattle’s worst "public inebriates," homeless alcoholics known for harassing people in the streets when not sobering up in jail. The city hopes that keeping them off the streets will save money and protect the public." (CAGW 26.07.07)

Britain and the UK

Gorbals Mick and a £17,000 bid to hide MPs' travel expenses - "A committee run by the Speaker of the Commons squandered more than £17,000 of taxpayers' money on barristers in an attempt to keep MPs' travel expenses secret. [...] The House of Commons Commission - chaired by Michael Martin - spent two years trying to keep MPs' car, train and plane claims, which ran into millions of pounds, from the public." (Evening Standard 11.08.07)

Every household pays £900 a year to cover bungled Government projects - "Every household in Britain is paying £900 a year to cover the cost of bungled Government projects. [...] Labour has squandered a staggering £23billion of taxpayers' money by failing to control the spiralling costs of hundreds of flagship schemes, figures reveal. [...] The 2012 Olympic Games in London, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, a super-computer for the NHS and the Eurofighter military aircraft are among the projects that have soared over budget. The wasted money would have been enough to build nearly 100 new hospitals." (Evening Standard 13.07.07)

*See also: Weekly Waste Round-Up 1

MP Rob Moore is way offside about the economics of hockey stadium

During last weeks Conservative caucus meeting in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, MP Rob Moore was asked about his support of taxpayer money being used to build a state of the art $12-million dollar NHL-size rink and hockey stadium (they call it a recreation facilty) in Quispamsis. Here is part of Moore's response:

The completion of this project will provide an outstanding recreational centre we can all be proud of. This project will benefit the entire region", concluded Moore.

He went on to say on 91.9 FM that there would be positive economic benefits to the project as it would put a whole bunch of New Brunswick folks to work, create strong labor jobs, and at the same time, create an enormous opportunity for economic growth throughout the town of Quispamsis. And as he said above, that's good for the entire region.

Frankly, Rob Moore is suffering from what is better known as the famous broken window fallacy. (sorry eugene, I had to mention it again) In other words, sports stadiums or hockey rinks are rarely, if ever, the economic engines the politicians claim. While some people will work [temporary] construction position to build the arena as Moore said, what he fails to mention here is that had the taxpayer's money gone towards something else to build a stronger and more viable economy, than other more sustainable jobs would have been added from that money, likely leading to even bigger economic growth in the province and region.

This is what French economist Fredric Bastiat referred to as "what is seen and what is not seen." For example, suppose that money had been spent on more police facilities in Quispamsis. The region could have upgraded the RCMP facility, which also require construction jobs. Or hired additional police. Or what if the money had never been taken from the taxpayers in the first place, allowing them to spend it as they wished (even on Saint John Sea Dog tickets) rather than have government take it to build a stadium which creates very little longterm economic growth (or jobs) and gets used 7 to 8 months of the year. Plus, the upkeep of these facilities usually leaves taxpayers on the hook for additional cash down the road.

I know that these facilities can be the lifeblood of a community, I'm not disputing that claim, but to tout them as strong economic engines is a little much (and wrong), don't you think? For example, Tantramar Regional Civic Centre in Sackville, NB was built a few years back and it has done nothing to curtail outmigration of educated youth, or better yet, encouraged more economic growth in the region. Let's call 'em what they are, a great place for youth to learn to play the game hockey on their way out the door to another province. We need real economic solutions in this province folks. And building hockey arenas isn't it.

Commission looking into pay scales

No soup tax-free allowance for you

Not sure what the end result of this review process will be? However, I will say that I was very pleased to see that the commission is looking into the elimination of the $22,000 tax-free allowance --- a perk which all MLAs, but not regular NB taxpayers, have enjoyed for decades.

According to the CTF's John Williamson, if the allowance were to be lumped into the base salary and adjusted for tax, their salaries would end up being around the $80,000 range --- a ballpark figure.

Now I know some individuals will be hot under the collar when they see the [increased] figure, but I for one will not. I've always said that legislators in NB deserve salaries which are fairly competitive to that of the private sector. Furthermore, how can I complain when it appears that the provincial review board is content on bringing more transparency and accountability into the system. It's a win-win for taxpayers and MLAs. No more free lunches or perks.

NB premier must put an end to wasteful subsidy grants

NB Taxpayers (NBT) is repeating its call for an end to corporate welfare in New Brunswick after word got out yesterday that the province is considering allocating millions of our hard-earned tax dollars to bail out a fledgling beef processing plant [Atlantic Beef Products Inc.] in Albany, P.E.I. Yes, that's right folks, Albany, P.E.I.

For those who require a bit of a backgrounder on the plant, ABPI [the only processing plant east of Montreal] opened its doors after receiving a slew of subsidy grants from both the PEI and the federal government back in 2004. To be specific, it received $2.4 million in traceability loans, another $920,000 forgiveable loan from ACOA and $1.5 million was invested into the plant from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Moreover, upon its completion, the plant was to create 65 full-time year round positions in PEI with an estimated total payroll cost of $2.5 million per year. Let's just say this initiative was definitely a win-win for a few scandal plagued Liberal politicians who were up for re-election on the island at the time.

Unfortunately, for taxpayers, both levels of government did not take into account the economic feasibility of this business project as the plant has been reported to be [at least] $10 million in the red, not to mention, it has put an additional $30 million of islanders tax-dollars at risk. All this in only three years of operation.

Recently, the financial situation became so bleak that newly elected PEI premier Robert Ghiz decided to put the plant on notice. (At the moment, it's about 25 days and counting before the P.E.I. government discontinues subsidizing the plant’s operating costs) From CBC New Brunswick:

The beef plant in Albany, P.E.I., is operating on a loan from the Island government that will run out in September. Atlantic Beef Products is losing $500,000 a month, and Premier Robert Ghiz has said he's not willing to put up any more money until other governments in the Maritimes contribute.

Even if more government money is forthcoming, eventually the plant needs to find a way to make money.

Huh? More government subsidies? For what? So that ABPI can continue to squander half a million monthly of our hard-earned tax dollars. I mean honestly, plant managers don't even seem to have a strong grasp of what the total cost or loss will be? Take a look at this excerpt from a full page add published in the Telegraph Journal on August 4th by the board of directors of Atlantic Beef Producers Co-op asking the premier of New Brunswick to contribute financially to ensure the plant’s survival (no link available):

It's not clear how much it will cost to make the Atlantic Beef Producers plant financially viable but we suspect it could be as much as $10 million over the next five years. It could be more. It could be less. New Brunswick's share would be about 35% of the eventual amount required.

So let me get this straight, under the current subsidy arrangement, ABPI wants New Brunswick taxpayers to foot up to 35 per cent of the total costs (which they don't seem to have a grasp on) of the processing plant in PEI – a plant which is located outside the province and has absolutely no New Brunswickers on the payroll. This is obsurd.

Who exactly is representing the interests of taxpayers in New Brunswick? It appears as though ABPI and their board of directors are trying to play the New Brunswick government like a fiddle, drawing them into this black hole subsidy mess that got started by the feds and the PEI government. It’s a race to the bottom where nobody wins, not even the beef producers.

When will corporate welfare recipients like ABPI learn? The reason they don't have a viable meat processing plant in PEI (and Atlantic Canada) is strictly to do with government policy. Their current tax system includes a regressive personal tax, provincial sales tax on business inputs and a high corporate income tax rate. What exactly do they expect will be the result? If subsidization were a successful jobs strategy, then there is no question PEI and the rest of Atlantic Canada would be outpacing the rest of the country in economic growth.

If the government really wants to expand the economy (and help the beef industry), then they should seriously take a look at the fundamentals of taxation and regulation and not throw hard-earned tax dollars at businesses, especially fledgling bottomless pit subsidy sinkholes.

Which is exactly why we are calling on premier Shawn Graham to reject the plea by Atlantic Beef Products Inc. as there isn't a strong enough case for NBers to fork over their hard-earned tax dollars via a corporate welfare loan to ensure the plants short-term survival. The bottom line is that this investment is nothing more than a waste of taxpayers money. Plain and simple. And we should not be on the hook for millions of dollars to a company that has demonstrated year after year that it is not economically viable.

Caving in to leftist censorship

Looks like Stephen Taylor, co-founder of the Blogging "Nanny" Tories, has some serious explaining to do with regards to his decision to moderate free speech on his site:

Just a moderator's note: Please do not repost material from FreeDominion that is the subject of the CHRC complaint. Doing so exposes us, and this warning serves as clear notice that we will pursue civil action against anyone that in turn exposes us to CHRC action related to this complaint against FreeDominion.

Translation: here's a warning that says if you get us in trouble with the CHRC for material we've warned you not to post, we will do what we can to recover our damages (from you) because this warning also indicates that as moderators and site owners, that we don't want to have anything to do with the material that lands a person (rightly or wrongly -- which is another debate) with a human rights complaint.

We think that a country is freer with true free speech and the Canadian laws are not ideal. Regardless, imperfect as they are, we must comply with them and we'd ask that you do the same. Also, please do not post the name of the complainant or any information about her as there are specific laws against harassment that we must be aware of as well.

Funny, because I can remember a time when the BT site stood behind solid tory and libertarian principles [like free speech]. I guess those days are over.

(Hat tip Paul Tuns, Let Freedom Reign and Kathy Shaidle)

Update

Good news for all those who believe in free speech, the Canadian Human Rights Commision have dropped their complaint against Free Dominion. (HT: anon in the comments sections)

PM Harper to meet with Premier Graham Lord in Moncton today

In politics, perception is reality

Who's running this province anyway? I could have sworn that it was Shawn Graham. For the record, I think the only dynamic missing from this meeting this afternoon is that it isn't taking place in a fishing lodge at Larry's Gulch (the former premiers favorite meeting place). As the saying goes [in politics], big things get done by unaccountable elites behind closed doors, not by ordinary politicians and ppl in the public domain. So much for the perception of acountability.

I guess Mr. Lord is still trying to govern this place by stealth or at least it appears he's running an underground business cabinet using his political connections in Ottawa. This really is taking his former campaign promise of "stronger ties with Ottawa and the Prime Minister" to a whole new level. Reminds one a lot of the aggressive business tactics practiced by former Newfoundland premier Frank Duff Moores (who became a prominent Ottawa lobbyist himself during Mulroney's tenure in government).

However, no matter how you slice it, I'm quite certain the current premier [Shawn Graham] isn't all that amused. lol

Obstruction of justice legislation

I agree 100 % with CTF president John Williams, in that:

"Although the opposition is blocking these sensible reforms, the government should not yield --it is one thing for the opposition to tie a bill up in Parliament and an altogether different ball game to explain in an election why senators ought to remain appointed or that aboriginals are not entitled to the same legal protections other Canadians take for granted. The Conservatives are well positioned here, but it will be a protracted campaign.

Aside from senate obstruction, with the NDP continuing to block vote (three line whip) in a minority parliament, it will be next to impossible to deliver on such things as broad-based tax relief, scrapping ACOA and the long gun registry, serious senate reform as well as expand human rights laws to native Canadians. It's funny, because I can remember NDP House leader Libby Davies, on a number of ocassions, state that her party "will continue to work for average Canadians in the House of Commons to get things done." Hmmm, I wonder just who her party considers an average Canadian?