NBT: Boudreau's spending out-of-control

A $75.9 million dollar summer frenzy of spending

For a government whose Finance Minister made "finding more revenue" an excuse for raising taxes on NBers in '07 (not to mention, not reducing the debt.), they certainly appear to have rebounded quite well as they've spent more money in a week on industry subsidies, upgrades and pilot projects then most government's of small provinces spend in just under a year. Take a look at the corporate welfare [end of the month] June madness (June 23rd-27th):

• Cooke Aquaculture Inc. receives $3 million forgivable loan.
• Flakeboard Co. receives a $6.7-million term loan.
• Fraser Papers Inc. receives $40 million term loan.
• Atlantic Hydrogen receives $2-million grant.
• Boiestown's Red Pines Park receives $200,000 for "comfort station."
• TD Insurance Home and Auto receives $1.12 million forgivable loan.
• Agriculture producers receive $650,000 grant to bring land into production.
• Week long summer camps receive $440,000 cash injection.
• Multi-k pilot project announced to help young Aboriginal NBers discover basketball.
• York manor nursing-home receives $21.8 million forgivable loan.

Now I ask you, does the above spending pattern by your finance minister match his verbal commitment to maintain, and run, a fiscally responsible department so as to keep the books balanced and the debt down? Let me answer my own question, not by a long shot.

Moreover, the above is evidence that the March 2007 tax hikes were done for only one reason and one reason alone, and that's to satisfy this government's need to buy voters off with their own money.

In other words, it sounds like more of the same from these Liberals...tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend. Let's face it folks, out-of-control spending has two pernicious affects on New Brunswick's budget. Firstly, keeping debt on the books in Fredericton handcuffs the government's ability to spend where necessary (and to provide meaningful tax relief) as $607 million of our tax dollars are sent (in the form of debt service charges) to pay off the $6.5 billion dollar debt. Secondly, this type of spending will most likely be handed over to a future generation of NB taxpayers. Thus, putting their futures in jeopardy (that is, if any of them decide to stay after graduation).

Let's face the facts, NBers can't afford anymore spending sprees like the $75.9 million dollar one that Boudreau and co. just went on last week. Time to show a little (or make that a lot more) restraint boys.

A bit of this, a bit of that

Here is a round-up of the week's best articles (both Canada & US):

Dion carbon tax, NEP 2? - Juliet O'Neill, The Ottawa Citizen
Flaherty: Hey Premier Pinocchio, cut taxes! - CTV.ca
Naysayers begin to grow - Bill Curry, Globe & Mail

Hey BC, Happy CO2 Tax Day - Miro Cernetig, Vancouver Sun
Carbon Tax: It won't work in Canada - Jonathan Kay, National Post
Stephane Dion: King of Pain - Alan Caplan, Edmonton Sun

Republicans Must Rein in Earmarks - Rep. Jeff Flake, Human Events
The Energy Quagmire - Ken Blackwell, New York Sun
Obama's Social Security Fine Print - Donald Luskin, Wall Street Journal

NB Education Plan: Spend, spend, spend! - Elizabeth Church, G & M
If you do not succeed, then fail, fail again - Times & Transcript
Corporate welfare summer madness: $43 million in under a week - TJ

Let Millionaires Spend - Samples & Shapiro, Cato Institute
Senate GOP Not Ready to Act on Earmarks - Clarke & Hunter, CQ.com
McCain In Canada Strikes Nerve - IBD Editorials

H/T: Pat Toomey, Club for Growth

Harper Tories: Party of protectionism?

We all remember reading about the 1911 general election and how Liberal Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier would ultimately turn that election into a referendum on free trade in hopes Canadian voters would finally embrace reciprocity. Well, we all know how that worked out for the great statesman from Saint-Lin, Quebec.

Well, according to Maclean's scribbler Andrew Coyne, those days of federal Liberals fighting for free trade, lower taxes and individual liberty may well be back (as he sees an emerging political trend):

For fifty years or more, conservatives have also said that prices are the vital signaling device of a market economy, informing consumers, workers, investors and businesses as to the costs of different choices. But now, suddenly, they’re irrelevant. Subsidies — sorry, investments — are the new Tory orthodoxy.

We may be witnessing one of those historic exchanges in which the parties sometimes engage, where each takes on the ideological position that the other used to occupy. Just as the Liberals were once the party of free trade, and the Tories the party of protectionism, only to see those positions reversed in the 1980s, can it be that the Liberals are about to become the party of markets and tax cuts, while the Tories embrace regulations and subsidies?

It makes one wonder if we'll ever see the day when there is a true conservative party in this country. There hasn't been one yet. Geesh!

Section 13 (1) debate...Ezra wins!!

For anyone interested in section 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the ongoing controversy/debate over the limits of free speech, I recommend you watch this hour long CPAC video from the 30th annual Canadian Association of Journalists conference. It's basically a whole lot of Ezra Lavant letting loose on Ian Fine, the fallacious senior counsel at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Trust me, it's must see tv for anyone who believes very strongly in the protection of free speech. So don't delay folks. Pull up a chair, grab some beer and popcorn and enjoy the proceedings. I know I did.

Don't change the channel, this is as bad as it gets

Many who have taken the time to read this blog over the past year or so know perfectly well that I am absolutely no fan of the practice of corporate welfare, whether it be in the form of a loan (forgivable loan) to a declining industry or to a company that is churning out healthy quarterly profits. It's all bad.

In other words, I think that the free market should ultimately decide the fate of a company, firm or mill, not government bureaucrats and politicians who have a history of picking losers with our tax dollars.

It's interesting, because some strong advocates of corporate welfare in New Brunswick (and let me tell you, there are many) see my criticisms as far too harsh in that I am not being completely fair to the other side. Well, to them I say: maybe you're right. On second thought, I take that back, especially after reading this blunder.

H/T Gypsy-Blog

Just for fun, I guess?

I'm a bit bored this afternoon, so just to add to the silliness of the day, I bring you the Obama poster-maker (via IMAO):

















Trust me, I could have said worse. Not enough words I guess. lol

Medical marijuana to minors? Whadaya think?

Dion can learn a few more tricks from Graham

A snippet from today's Telegraph Journal (snip, snip, snip) :

What the federal Liberals label green-tax shifting, the Graham Liberals call re-balancing the tax system. The proposed policies in New Brunswick will, if enacted, result in a stronger, more dynamic economy. The province is on the right track - smart tax reform is being considered along with tax relief.

I'm glad Williamson is optimistic. However, I have to live under the current tax system in New Brunswick, and as far as I'm concerned, until these tax reforms are enacted, I'm still being unfairly gouged.

Furthermore, from what I have witnessed in the last twenty months, when it comes to this government, whether it be enacting election promises from the Charter for Change, moving forward with recommendations from the Self-Sufficiency report, following benchmarks from the appointed Population Growth Secretariat, sticking to reforms suggested in the report on Post-Secondary Education, their "will" to make the tough decision, and stick with it, is lacking in spades. So if we are banking on them to make the tough decisions recommended in the Green paper on tax competitiveness, then let me tell you, we will be "shift out of luck" once gain.

Plus, as I've said thousands of times on this blog, you can make all the changes you want to the tax code, but if you don't change the political culture of picking winners and losers via corporate welfare, then it will be all for not.

Unfortunately for NBers, it looks like we have a lot of "talk" going on with regards to tax reform and a lot more "action" when it comes to the status quo, especially corporate welfare and increased spending.

Definitely a lose/lose for New Brunswick taxpayers and business.

Update: I see at least one person values "record over rhetoric" when it comes to the current government's tax policies.

Related: 'Shift' hits the fan, N.B. Liberals increase taxes for all, N.B. Liberals face public scrutiny following difficult legislative session, More corporate welfare for AV Nackawic, The summer of Stéphane, Carbon tax primer, Dion to pair income tax cuts with carbon levy, Dion's carbon tax flip-flop, Dion's day of transformation, Dion's 'green shift' to reduce taxes by $15 billion, N.S. premier opposed to notion of carbon tax but not dismissing idea outright, Liberal 'Green Shift' plan to offset carbon tax with tax cuts, Low-income households would see biggest gains, Carbon taxes: Cash grab or climate saviour?, Don't believe Dion's carbon-tax claims: Prime Stephen Minister Harper.

Bathurst High School - "Celebration of the Spirit"

I just read the speech Ken Dryden gave to the graduating class at Bathurst High School on Facebook. Let me tell you, I had trouble holding back the tears. Anyway, I think all of you should read it (click links to remember the victims):

I am a father and I am a son.

As a son, I played basketball too. As you are the Phantoms, we were the Rams. And I loved playing high school basketball just as much as I loved playing hockey. Hockey we could only play on teams outside school. Basketball was my chance to play on the school team. To represent the school; to show off in front of my friends.

As a son, I didn’t fear. I only dreamed and fantasized about the future.

As a father, I watched our two kids, Sarah and Michael. I loved to watch them do whatever they were doing, sports included – basketball included. It was the chance to watch them grow up.

As a father, I dreamed and fantasized for them too, and sometimes I feared.

On January 12th, I was here in New Brunswick, in the midst of a national anti-poverty tour, giving a talk in Fredericton. And as a father and a son, when I heard the news, like everyone else in the country, I felt at least a little of what you were feeling here.


The Boys in Red.

I played all my minor hockey, year after year, for a team called Humber Valley – we wore red.

I played Junior B for the Etobicoke Indians – we wore red too.

I played university hockey at Cornell. We not only wore red, we were “The Big Red” – that was our nickname.

Then I played on the Canadian National Team – and wore red.

Then I went to Montreal. We were the “bleu, blanc et rouge”, the blue, white and red, but really we were the big, proud red of the Montreal Canadiens.

I played for Team Canada in 1972 against the Russians – and wore red.

All my life as a player, every team I played on, I wore red too.

The Boys in Red.

A team. Not just individuals doing whatever they want whenever they want to do it. Players and coaches – together. With personal and selfish needs too, with a personal need to do well, to feel important, to matter, to belong. But with an even bigger personal need to go through something with others, together, as a team – to hope together, to imagine and dream together, to work together and play together; to win together, to lose together; to fail, to triumph, to feel awful, to feel great, to feel down in the dumps, to feel over the moon – together. To do what teammates do – at moments when things go wrong, when you’re hurt or sick or not playing well, to have your teammate “pick you up”, as teammates say, and for you to do the same for them. A team. Working towards that goal you, as players and coaches, set for yourselves at the start of a season – an Etobicoke High School basketball championship or a Stanley Cup, a New Brunswick High School Triple A basketball championship. For what brought you together in the first place. For the biggest prize you can win. A team.

The Boys in Red.

Then on January 12th, your season changed.

Then what your season was about, what your team was about, what brought you together, the biggest prize you could win – changed.

It wasn’t about winning the championship anymore. It was about surviving, pain, deeper than you’ve ever felt before. About loss. About not knowing what to do, where to go.

But teams hang together. Players and coaches hang together. You hope and dream, work and play, win and lose, fail and triumph, feel down in the dumps and over the moon – together. And if someone is having a hard time, with the hurt and pain, if the mountain seems too high, player or coach, you pick each other up because that’s what good teammates, good friends, good neighbours do.

The Boys in Red.

In hockey, we talk of the “7th man,” in football the “12th or 13th man;” in basketball, the “6th man.” The fans, all those around us who hope and dream so hard they want to do whatever they can to help. Since January 12th, this community, this whole community, has been the “6th man.”

The Boys in Red.

This community has been that because all of you have needed each other more than you have ever needed each other before. Because life is a team sport and no one can do it alone.

The Boys in Red.

What is this team playing for now? For the future. For life. For each other. For those here today and those who aren’t. Still picking each other up, still needing each other – always, forever.

The Boys in Red.


Graduation is a time of memory. And because it is, this year it is a wonderful time and a difficult time. What to feel. What to do. What to say. What is right?

As human beings, we have a need to grieve – and we have a right to smile, to laugh, to celebrate.

We have a need to remember – and we have a right to carry on.

As human beings, we have an obligation to life itself. To live.

To live well.

That’s what we owe ourselves. Player or coach – that’s what we owe each other.

The Boys in Red.

I am here today because all of us, all Canadians, want to play on this team.

I am here today because, like all Canadians, I am a “Boys in Red” too.

Brad "Big Brother" Woodside is watching you

Now I know it's not quite as bad as Britain's shouting spy cameras, but the latest news that Mayor Brad Woodside is serious considering installing live spy cameras in Nashwaaksis that will stock people's every move as they walk along the street near the field house is not good. Will the summer of 08 be marked as the season in which Fredericton politicians pushed for increased government intrusion into our daily private conduct? Let's hope not. As you know with these types of things, one thing leads to another and before you know it, our civil liberties have eroded so much that our society resembles that of the declining years of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia where everybody's paranoid and looking over their shoulder.

Let's not allow Mayor Wooside to force daily human/electronic surveillance down the throats of the people of Nashwaaksis. This is one time that you can't let the "It can't happen here" attitude towards totalitarianism get the better of you. Let the Mayor know you are displeased with his decision to spy on private citizens.

To reach Mayor Wooside’s office:

Home: (506) 472-8677
Phone: (506) 460-2085
Email: click here
Fax: (506) 460-2134

Charter for Chump Change...as far as I'm concerned

Taxpayers suffer another setback from the provincial Liberals

Local CBC reporter Genevieve Tomney has a great piece on the Liberal's broken promise to offer "provincial sales tax rebates to NBers who purchase alternative fuel vehicles." A promise which was made almost two years ago when the Liberals rolled out their much lauded Charter for Change platform in 2006. (see 18:28 mark of CBC New Brunswick @ Six)

It's quite comical because for over a year now I have been bugging (and practically harassing) anybody who will listen about the Liberal's lack of a comprehensive green strategy and how it's just a bunch of ministers driving around (or being chauffeured) in their hybrid vehicles which happen to be upgraded to the tune of $7000 a piece thanks, in most part, to hardworking New Brunswick taxpayers.

Actually, to add insult to injury, it turns out that not all ministers are driving fuel efficient vehicles. So they haven't even done that right.

Anyway, I don't know what else to say other than this is typical behaviour coming from a unilateral government whose policies only seem to benefit them and not regular NBers. Talk about elitist! As for their "Charter for Change"? It's turning out to be more like "Charter for absolutely no change" these days, unless you're a Liberal minister looking to drive your subsidized hybrid to the Royal Oak Club for a couple rounds of subsidized golf. Other then that, you're sh&t out of luck.

Update: I noticed Finance Minister Victor Boudreau was interview and he said the reason they haven't gotten around to the 'sales tax rebates' for energy efficient vehicles was because they're still only 20 months into their mandate. A bit of a lame excuse (because that's almost two yrs.), but let's give him the benefit of the doubt on this one for a change. However, where I won't cut him and his cabinet some slack is in regards to the entire cabinet's first year promise to drive fuel efficient vehicles as a way to set an example for the rest of the province. It was a small promise, but a promise just the same.

As it stands right now, according to Tomney, only 11 Ministers (and deputy ministers) are currently fulfilling that promise. And as far as I know, there are 20 ministers in the cabinet and 42 deputy ministers (I believe I am low-balling the deputies). Anyway, if you add those two up, it comes to approximately 62 ministers and deputy ministers. So at the rate they're going, only 18 per cent of them are fulfilling that simple first year promise to drive fuel efficient hybrid vehicles. Makes you wonder about the capabilities of this bunch, doesn't it?

Hat tip anon in the comments section.

Flat tax revolution...even in Estonia NB?

In my last post I linked you up to a blog by Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute as he praised the Government of New Brunswick and its policy makers for their part in looking into the possibility of adopting a growth-friendly 10 percent flat tax in their next spring budget.

Anyway, I was clicking around a few blogs tonight and noticed that Mitchell has a very good video on YouTube about the Flat Tax Revolution which is currently in place in countries like Estonia, Iceland and Hong Kong. For those who don't know much about the flat tax, or have just heard the typical rhetoric dismissing it as a "far right" policy favouring the rich, I advise you to give Dan's argument in favour of a flat tax a fair shot. It's interesting because a lot of the countries mentioned who have, or are thinking of having a flat tax, are far from being right wing in ideology. (The video is only 6 minutes)



For more interesting videos from the Cato Institute, click here.

Tax Freedom Day: New Brunswick finishes second

NB taxpayers spent 154 days working for the government this year

According to the Fraser Institute’s annual Tax Freedom Day calculations, New Brunswick finished a solid second this year (June 3rd) behind only "tax friendly" Alberta (and exactly 11 days earlier then the previous two years). Though it is a much earlier date this year, I wouldn't advise any of you to break open the Dom Perignon just yet as NBers are still working just under half the year for the government. Not exactly economic freedom for working class folks, now is it?

Anyway, I think this drastic improvement from last year is due, in most part, to the aggressive personal income tax reforms implemented by the Conservative government in Ottawa, not mention, an additional 1 per cent cut to the GST. Both of which had a modest, if not, significant effect on the annual take home pay and savings of many middle class families in New Brunswick. However, if you're an Atlantic Canadian, an earlier date can also be attributed to increased transfer payments, not provincial or local tax policy:

The Atlantic Provinces historically have had some of the country’s earliest Tax Freedom Days in part because a large share of their total revenue is transferred from other provinces through the federal government’s equalization payments. Tax Freedom Day in those provinces, as well as in Manitoba and Quebec, comes earlier than it would without these transfers.

The only losers? Those who made over $52,700 as provincial reforms by the Graham government resulted in higher income taxes for those falling in the third bracket. Too bad, because we could have edged our way into May if it were not for the March 2007 Boudreau tax hikes.

So, how do we improve our tax environment? We can start by putting a two year freeze on all public sector spending (with the exception of health care) while reversing the tax increases from the March 2007 Budget. Then, and only then, will we be ready to implement what I call "the economic decider", the growth-friendly 10 percent flat tax (a tax Alberta has had in their repertoire for quite sometime now).

Other than that, if Boudreau decides to keep the line on high personal taxes, nothing will change, and in the end, we will continue to work half the year, and maybe even more, for the "man". How sad.

In the meantime, I'm with National Post columnist Jonathan Chevreau when he said, "I find the idea of getting up in the morning and toiling away all day just to remit the fruits of that labor to three levels of Government too depressing. Instead, I choose to believe that each morning I work for governments, and each afternoon I work for myself. The effect is the same, but it feels much better."

Related: Canadian tax freedom day is Saturday, four days ahead of 2007: Fraser Institute, Finally free of taxes, for now, Now we're working just under half the time for Governments, Tax Freedom Day Comes Four Days Earlier for Canadians in 2008, Tax Freedom Day comes early this year, Canada approaches 'Tax Freedom Day', 'Happy Tax Freedom Day' from Voice of the Association.

If you're bored (and have time):The Flat Tax, Want a Flat Tax That Might Work? Try (Gulp) Russia, Critical Issues Bulletins, Flat Tax Folly.

Revenue neutral? Reach for your wallet.

It would be an absolute understatement to say that a lot of oxygen and even grease has been wasted this week discussing Dion's make believe carbon tax. But before you go buying into the former professors bluff of offering up a "revenue neutral" tax, I advise you to read the excerpt below from American Thinker Blog (which, IMHO, underscores the reality [and confusion] of revenue neutrality when it comes to politicians and their supposed promise):

One might argue that in the current economic environment, not raising tax rates is a good idea. There are no new tax reductions of course, when you merely maintain the current rates. But the way things are scored in Washington DC, keeping rates the same is treated as a tax cut, and hence scored as a big revenue loss for the government, since the current rates are supposed to expire in two years, and go back to the levels where they were prior to the Bush tax cuts in 2001.

Barack Obama supports ending the Bush tax cuts -- in other words he wants individuals' tax rates to go up. However, the way this is scored in Washington , Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, is "revenue neutral". So if rates go up, that is not treated as a tax increase. If rates stay the same, that will be reported as a tax cut for federal revenue purposes.

Let's be honest here folks, aside from the rhetoric gushing out of politicians and politicos, there really is no such thing as a "revenue neutral" tax, or as we sometimes see, no such thing as a tax increase...just a tax cut that's not exactly a tax cut but is a tax cut. So are you starting to see where I'm headin' with this one?

Anyway, the idea of Dion and Graham offering up a "revenue neutral" tax is about as laughable as the thought of removing the corporate welfare mentality from government friendly firms and businesses in Atlantic Canada. Which is precisely why I found this bullet point in the Chronicle Herald by Ian Munroe a bit curious (confusing part in bold):

Elimination of targeted tax incentives for favoured sectors, replaced by broad-based tax relief for businesses that takes politics out of the equation.

What does that mean "takes politics out of the equation"? Are they required to repay government loans (and the taxpayers who funded them)? Will corporate welfare be banned altogether? All legit questions from someone (yours truly) who wants to finally see some fairness in the market, not government interference like we've seen for decades.

Goldstein's argument way off base...again

[click on image for website]

Goldstein: "The campaign, designed to reach ordinary voters directly while bypassing media and academic elites, reveals Conservative thinking.

Clearly, they're worried Dion's carbon tax, whenever he releases it, could appeal to voters concerned about global warming, particularly if the Liberal announcement is backed by environmentalists, economists and business groups stressing it will be effective and "revenue neutral," a claim the Tories mock. You don't put this much effort into attacking someone you don't think is a threat."

Funny, I didn't see it that way at all. Mostly because I always thought it was good strategy if a party reached out to ordinary voters (especially when it's about their hard-earned tax dollars). And yes, that includes messages contained within a party ad campaign.

I mean, let's face it, "ordinary voters" are the very people who send politicians to Ottawa in the first place. So wouldn't it be best to represent their interest first? Well, not according to Lorrie Goldstein who believes our country would be much better off if the governing party bypassed ordinary Canadians and started making decisions, and crafting ad campaigns, based on the narrow advice of the elitist media (found primarily in the PPG), academics high up in their ivory towers and special interest groups. In other words, he's wishing the Tories would do what the Liberals did for well over a decade.

Plus, does he forget that a majority of ordinary Canadians are represented by both the NDP and the Conservatives? (A total of 157 MPs) All of whom do not support a regressive carbon tax.

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

Speaking of carbon taxes and higher gas prices at the pump, here's a line I found very interesting over at CTV.ca (in bold below):

However, Jane Taber and Craig Oliver, co-hosts of CTV's Question Period, noted that the Liberal tax -- which hasn't been formally presented yet -- rules out an additional tax on gasoline.

In addition, the carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral" -- meaning revenue raised by the carbon tax is to be offset by accompanying cuts in income and other taxes, Taber said.

No additional taxes on gasoline? I find that hard to believe since Dion formed a deal with Green party leader Elizabeth May, who herself has proposed a 12 cent tax hike at the pumps. I mean, come on, does he [Dion] really expect us all to believe that he formed a working coalition with an environmental party so that he could ignore their core policies on climate change? Who does he take us to be?

Related: Tory 'fuelcast' ads target Liberal carbon tax, Tories launch attack ads, Dion rejects Liberal pleas to trigger snap election, The Dion Tax Trick, Mr. Dion might want to look beyond B.C. for an eco-tax model, Election talk grips Liberal caucus, A Summer Election? What do you think?, Dion vows Liberals will block Tory bill that could reopen abortion debate, Ambrose defends Tory fetal rights bill, Death by vagueness, Carbon tax plan fuels Liberal unrest.

Would a carbon tax really be revenue neutral?

"Quite often revenue neutrality ends up being a tax hike on people. The plan needs to be revenue negative for the government."

~Adam Taylor, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

No doubt. Which is why I have my reservations about a revenue neutral carbon tax for NB. As BC CTF spokesperson Maureen Bader explains, it may be revenue neutral for the provincial treasury, but when it comes to individuals and business, it's anything but:

Premier Gordon Campbell's overly-hyped claim that his government's carbon tax is revenue neutral might be true for the provincial treasury, but it is certainly not neutral for individuals or businesses. It will drain family income directly with higher gasoline and home heating costs, and indirectly as municipalities and businesses pass on their energy cost increases. Equally devastating is the economic hit to some of the province's biggest industries when the carbon tax leaves them less competitive in the world marketplace. The government's own estimates show the carbon tax will do little to help it reach its greenhouse gas reduction goal. Carbon taxes will have unintended consequences for families and the economy in B.C.

Those include:

higher property taxes as municipalities pass the carbon tax cost increase onto ratepayers;

higher costs for everything we buy as businesses past the carbon tax cost increase onto consumers;

fewer jobs in energy intensive industries such as mining, as they leave the province for carbon-tax free provinces.

The carbon tax will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will hurt B.C. families and businesses, and won't go away when the wheels of the global warming bandwagon fall off. Canadian taxpayers should hope - and ensure at the ballot box - that Ottawa and other provinces do not follow Premier Campbell's agenda. His quest for a political legacy has put him out of touch with the realities of B.C. families.

IMO, the same consequences hold true for Victor Boudreau's potential "made in New Brunswick" carbon tax as well. And yes, that's even with his latest promise of a "reimbursement credit to off-set the impact of such a measure on low-income New Brunswickers."

Moreover, NBers should all be trained by now to take the grandiose reimbursement promises from this government with a grain of salt. Or as they say in latin, cum grano salis.

Update: Maybe the provincial tories should come out with an attack ad/website like this one. lol Quite funny, and they're even distributing t-shirts like it's a summer blockbuster for gosh sakes.

Related: Cap & Trade: Why It's Tax and Spend, Ontario Cap-and-Trade: Just Another Tax, The Real Cost of the Dion Carbon Tax, Business, environment groups dismiss carbon tax.

Three smart rules to go by, at least here in NB

Rule #1: Always be weary of a competitive tax plan, or should I say discussion paper that contains additional regressive tax hikes, not to mention, policies that prompt buzzwords like "raise" and "impose".

Rule #2: Be doubly weary if the tax changes "supposedly" being delivered down the road are by a Finance Minister whose government already wears the mantra "only jurisdiction in Canada to raise taxes."

Rule #3: If blogger Charles Leblanc says it's true, it must be true. :)

I knew you'd like rule number three.

Too much conservation is economically harmful

At least that's what Cato senior fellow Jerry Taylor is saying in today's New York Post:

Should the government mandate even more conservation? No, "too much" conservation is as economically harmful as "too little." Just consider the economic harm that would be delivered by, say, capping speed limits at 30 miles per hour, or banning recreational long-distance travel. Both would save gobs of energy - but at the cost of doing more harm than good.

The only thing government should do on this front is ensure that prices are "right" - that is, that they reflect total costs. That's mainly an issue for electricity, where retail power prices typically bear little relation to wholesale prices. State governments need to encourage real-time pricing of electricity - so that consumers will get the signal to, for example, run the clothes dryer at night, when power is cheaper.

(Incidentally, those who argue that gas and diesel prices don't reflect important "external" environmental and national-security costs are simply wrong - at best, those added costs are trivial on a per-gallon basis.)

But there's a fair bit to do on the supply side. Congress could take four positive steps - if it really wants to bring prices down.

There's some validity to Taylor's argument, especially since "US Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said Sunday that there was no quick fix to high oil prices, which he called an issue of supply and demand," reports The Washington Post. "Paulson said inflation in the Persian Gulf is "significant but suggested that Gulf countries pegging their currencies to the weak dollar was not the only reason for it."

Anyway, regardless of all the musings coming from a host of international speculators, I know that high prices will keep me away from unnecessary trips in my car, like the one I took yesterday where I blew an extra 50 bucks on gas touring from Sackville to Shediac to Moncton and back to Dorchester/Sackville. Although, I guess I did help the local economy out by buying four large clams dinners at Fred's Restaurant in Cap-Pelé. Trust me, it was worth every penny.

Tomorrow: my views on Jack Mintz' "carbon tax" proposal in the green paper.