Conservatives back down on subsidy reform for political parties

Update: If this poll isn't proof that parliament, mainly the opposition, is at a disconnect with real Canadians on the ground, I don't know what is. Glad to see the public/voter is once again the voice of reason when it comes to taxpayers dollars in Canada.

***

Let's just say I'm very disappointed they blinked on this one as you know how much I dislike subsidies and/or corporate welfare, especially when they're earmarked to parties that want to break the country up. Looks like the fat wallets of political parties are the winners and taxpayers the losers, even in these tough, recessionary times.

Although, I see it [annual subsidies to political parties] all may be just cover for larger cuts to the overall size of government and its daily operations. H/T Kevin Gaudet

Debating the debate to nicely debate

If this isn't a harbinger of things to comein parliament, I don't know what is. From Silver-Powers:

Rob always teases me about borrowing material from the Conservative War Room. Today, I am appropriating some from my Liberal friends, particularly their commentary about the NDP and Bloc, sadly and reflexively saying they oppose the Speech from the Throne - well just because they do. It is unfortunate some people can't demonstrate enough maturity to recognize there are bigger issues at play than simple partisan politics. Anyway Rob, here are the points from your war room:
-- Once again the NDP and the Bloc are proving that they are nothing more than professional opposition parties.
-- Canadians don't want partisan bickering, they want solutions to this serious economic crisis.

Arguing about not arguing. Go figure. (H/T Tim Powers)

If this isn't a case for electoral reform...

...I don't know what is? From Andrew Coyne's Blog:

"I’ve seen this graph in a couple of places, but as someone sent it to me I’ll post it here. It combines falling turnout with growing electoral fragmentation to track the decline over successive federal elections in the winning party’s “mandate,” expressed not as a share of the popular vote, but of the overall electorate. (Not sure if this means registered voters, or the voting-age population, but it doesn’t make a huge difference either way.)















I haven’t checked the numbers, but they look about right. It’s a pretty depressing picture: governments are now claiming “mandates” with the support of barely two voters in 10." (H/T nbpolitico)

Obamanomics = Massive drain on wealth creation

National Post columnist Jacqueline Thorpe has an excellent acticle on Obamanomics. Here it is in its entirety (Hat tip Roy Eappen):

As the fervour fades, the world will have to get used to a new word: Obamanomics.

It means tax hikes for the rich, tax cuts for the poor and middle class, a promise to renegotiate NAFTA, greater union power, windfall taxes on oil and gas profits, higher taxes on capital gains and corporate dividends and more comprehensive health care coverage.


Obamanomics is essentially about taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor, plain old-fashioned "neighbourliness" as Mr. Obama has described it.

-

Or, as others have remarked, taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't.

Under his income tax plan, Mr. Obama says he will provide tax cuts for 95% of Americans. He will do this by repealing Bush tax cuts -- set to expire in 2010 -- and bumping the top rates back to 36% from 33% and to 39.6% from 35%. Individuals earning over US$200,000 and families over US$250,000 will see sizable tax increases. This includes sole proprietors of businesses such as lawyers, accountants or plumbers called Joe.

Since 38% of Americans currently do not pay federal income taxes, Mr. Obama will provide them with refundable tax credits. Under his plan, 48% of Americans will pay no income tax.

"For the people that don't pay taxes, he is simply going to write them a cheque," says Andy Busch, global foreign exchange strategist at BMO Capital Markets. "That is income redistribution at its worst and produces very little value."

Other plans include raising taxes on capital gains and dividends to 20% from 15% for families earning more than US$250,000. He plans to leave the corporate tax rate at 35%, which in a world of rapidly falling rates, looks positively anti-business. He will introduce windfall taxes on oil and gas companies but offer US$4-billion in credits to U. S. auto-makers to retool to greener cars.

Much has been made of Mr. Obama's plan to renegotiate NAFTA to make it more labour-friendly, though no one seems to believe he will actually make it more protectionist.

The bottom line is this: Obama's economic plan is likely to be a drag on growth and it will cost money. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates Obama's program would add US$3.5-trillion to U. S. debt over the next 10 years, including interest. His plans for health care-- which may be delayed by financial necessity -- would tack on another US$1.6-trillion.

Just a thought, but maybe he can start making good by returning some of the money that got him to the white house in the first place.

Hartsfield's Landing; The ultimate exit poll

[click on image]











Many West Wing fanatics will remember the 2002 episode "Hartfield's Landing" (a fictional town) which was "based on Dixville Notch, an unincorporated small village in the Dixville township of Coos County, New Hampshire, USA. Dixville Notch is best known in connection with its longstanding middle-of-the-night vote in the U.S. Presidential Election, including during the New Hampshire primary." Since 1960 election, all the eligible voters in Dixville Notch gather at midnight in the ballroom of The Balsams. The voters cast their ballots and the polls officially are closed one minute later. The result of the Dixville Notch vote in both the New Hampshire primary and the general election are traditionally broadcast around the country immediately afterwards. A similar tradition in the community of Hart's Location, New Hampshire began in 1948; theirs was discontinued in the 1960s in light of the abundance of media attention, and revived only in 1996. (Wikipedia) Twenty-six voters took part in the 2004 elections.

Anyway, according to the associated press: "Democrat Obama defeated Republican John McCain by a count of 15 to 6 in Dixville Notch, where a loud whoop accompanied the announcement in Tuesday's first minutes. The town of Hart's Location reported 17 votes for Obama, 10 for McCain and two for write-in Ron Paul. Independent Ralph Nader was on both towns' ballots but got no votes."

A harbinger of things to come? Josh Lyman would definitely say it is. But who knows? If anything, it's definitely a very good sign for Obama since "the notch" in NH has a slight lean to the right politically and has never been favorable to a democrat (not even winners like Clinton, Kennedy, Lyndon B or Carter). Other then Obama, Hubert Humphrey is the only Democrat to actually win the notch.

Here are some of the recent past results:

1984 (Reagan- 29, Mondale- 1)

1988 (HW Bush- 34, Dukakis- 3)

1992 (HW Bush- 15, Perot- 8, Marrou- 5, Clinton- 2)

1996 (Dole- 18, Clinton- 8, Perot- 1)

2000 (W Bush- 21, Gore Jr.- 5, Nader- 1)

2004 (W Bush- 19, Kerry- 7)

I guess only time will tell now. But judging from that odd trend in NH, this could turn into a possible mini impeachment (referendum) of George W Bush's unjust war. Anyway, have a great election night. For those who want a good election primer, I have posted one below.

BBC's Guide to US election night

Best policy course: Cut federal spending

It appears that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has heard Canadians voice their opposition to deficit spending. He is now looking at cutting federal budget costs which is good news for everyone!

Although, it's too bad it took an economic crisis to get there.