Harry Reid Loves Stealing

From Powerline (via Instapundit):

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.

“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Yes, the private sector is doing just great. That’s why unemployment is over 9%, with “real” unemployment more like 20%. And, as I noted on Monday, government spending has done nothing but increase at all levels, even as many companies are cutting back.

Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to “put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that’s our priority.” He said Republicans are calling the bill a “failure” because they are “using a different benchmark for success than we are.”

And who is going to pay for all of those government jobs? The private sector, to liberals like Reid, is nothing but a fatted calf, or–to switch animals–a golden goose that will never stop laying eggs. They really believe that the people exist to serve the government, rather than the other way around.

I wonder if these government jobs include bureaucrats (i.e. government employees the populace is less likely to support than teachers and first responders).  So, Harry Reid wants to focus on public sector jobs?  The jobs with overinflated taxpayer-funded salaries and benefits, and the ones represented by powerful unions who constantly demand more?  Harry Reid evidently believes that the private sector is strong, the government should focus on strengthening the public sector.  But wouldn't that, in turn, indirectly weaken the private sector?  I'm willing to bet that that is exactly what Reid wants, given how the private sector is evil, or something.

"For the Good of Mankind"

After watching coverage of the "Occupy Vancouver" protest on CBC, I am disappointed.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a more one-sided news story here in Canada.  There was not a single criticism of the movement (unless lack of focus on a specific goal is one), and every person they interviewed was either at the protest or said they wanted to go, because they supported the movement.  There wasn't a hint of controversy in the story about the radical leftist politics of the movement.  But, any mere mention of the tea party here seems to be enough to incite accusations of right-wing extremism.

The main message of the "Occupy Whatever" movement seems to be that 1% of the population (what population, I'm not sure) controlls about 40% of the wealth.  So, their solution to this "problem" is to take wealth from that 1% and redistribute it to the remaining 99%.  I don't view this disparity as a problem.  If you want wealth, capitalism allows you to get it if you put in enough effort.  That is, as long as the government gets out of the way sufficiently.  So, whatever these people are demanding, doing the opposite would likely benefit them more (as long as they were willing to put in some effort).

According to the protesters, they are good people fighting evil corporations, and they're doing it "for the good of mankind."  And, after watching another biased news story on "Occupy Vancouver" on Global News, I am glad they at least mentioned an opponent to the movement, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.  According to them, the "[BC Government Employees' Union (BCGEU)] needs to 'occupy' common sense":

• Main beneficiaries of current political system are public sector unions

• BCGEU owns major equity in large, profitable multi-national corporations

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) responded today to an e-mail sent to BCGEU members across the province on Thursday encouraging them to “come out and support Occupy Vancouver.” 

The note from BCGEU president Daryl Walker says that “Union members belong to the 99 percent who are not benefiting from the current political and economic system. That message needs to be seen and heard.” 

“Walker is dead wrong,” said Jordan Bateman, CTF BC Director. “Public sector unions are provided for very generously by taxpayers, thank-you very much, and insulated from the economic uncertainties felt by those working outside the public sector. If there’s any group benefitting from the current political system, it’s public sector unions.” 

According to number released earlier this year by Statistics Canada, the average Canadian public service employee earned $1,023.20 a week in July 2011. Meanwhile, everybody else earned an average of $777.69. More than 86% of government workers have a workplace pension plan, compared to just 25.3% of private sector workers.  

“If 99% of the population is not benefitting from the current political and economic system it’s because nearly half their incomes are taken in taxes,” said Bateman. “Those taxes are largely driven by the demands of public sector unions—they want to cut everybody else’s pay to increase their own. As the president of the BC Teachers Federation said recently, teachers want BC’s income tax cuts reversed so they can increase their own pay and benefits by $2.2 billion.”  

Further, the BCGEU is a huge investor in the very corporations Mr. Walker whinges about. Three of the companies skewered in Occupy Vancouver promotional material are Royal Bank, TD Bank and ScotiaBank.  But through their pension plan, BCGEU’s members own more than $439.7 million worth of equity in those three banks alone. 

“The union foxes are hiding in the Occupy Vancouver hen house,” said Bateman. “Unions like the BCGEU invest in some of the largest corporations in the world—the very companies Occupy Vancouver so passionately disparages.”

If you ask me, these people should not be protesting corporate greed, but rather public union and government greed.  Those are the real forces behind economic inequality.

Occupy Canada

The Occupy [Insert Location] movement is coming to Canada.  Now, why can't the tea party movement come here?  It's not fair, dammit.  I guess Canada's conservatives are just too busy with their jobs and families (except for me).

Canadian organizers of the so-called Occupy movement are ramping up efforts to rally "against spiritual wickedness in high places" during a global day of action Saturday that now has the backing of at least a couple of major unions [unsurprisingly], and has put police and businesses on alert.

Thousands in at least 15 Canadian cities — from Vancouver to St. John's — were holding meetings Friday to complete plans for the weekend marches, sit-ins and other efforts to decry what the movement says is an uneven distribution of wealth caused by government policies favouring big business.

 So its communism they're demanding.

"I'm encouraged to see citizens rightfully stand up and take action against what are gross injustices in our economic and social structures," said CAW national president Ken Lewenza in a release Friday.

I thought that's what the tea party was for.

"It's time for people to take ownership of their streets, their economy and fight back against corporations and governments championing right-wing, neo-liberal policies that support a select few, at the expense of the majority."

I thought that's what left-wing policies did.

Canadian police units, notably in Toronto and Vancouver where the G20 protests in June 2010 and hockey riots this past June, respectively, have led to violence and arrests, have for days been planning their strategies for handling the Occupy protests. 

Police officials have been as tight-lipped about how they'll handle Saturday's mass events as the Occupy Canada organizers, who keep a low profile and let their Facebook, Twitter and other social networking efforts drive their planning.

No matter what happens, I predict there will be complaints of police brutality.  There always seem to be when left-wing protests are concerned.  However, when a large, unruly crowd is threatening the safety of people and businesses, the police should be able to do whatever they have to (with reasonable limits, of course), to contain that crowd and prevent any further escalation of violence.  If the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver are any indication, hooligans will use any excuse to create further disorder.

Tom Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Securities Ltd., which has offices in Toronto and New York City, also isn't exactly sure about the Occupy movement's goals.

"The medium is the protest but what is the message?" he said.

I think the goal of the movement is communism, or at least socialism.  At the very least, it is an excuse for professional protesters to protest over nothing in particular.  I see this movement basically as a manifestation of an emotion-driven desire to turn North America into a left-wing "utopia".  But, with powerful American politicians that are sympathetic to the movement, such as Barack Obama, who knows how much influence this movement will have.  Perhaps Obama will take the movement as America wanting socialism, and I believe he is delusional enough to think that.  Maybe he will enact far-left policies in an attempt to appease the participants of this movement, thinking it will gain him votes.  Or maybe he will simply use this movement as an excuse to enact far-left policies.  Fortunately the Republicans control the House of Representatives.  I wonder what creative (/sarc) ad hominems Obama, the Democrats, and other liberals will use for the Republicans in this hypothetical situation.        

Alberta's New Premier

Alison Redford is the new premier of Alberta, after winning an upset election to determine the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, over Gary Mar.  I am disappointed in the result, as Redford promises to put "progressive" back in Progressive Conservative Party.  In other words, she will likely move the party leftward.  She also promises "change."

I haven't been paying very much attention to Alberta politics, but I didn't really think change was necessary in Alberta.  Given Alberta's relative success (relative to the other provinces) and conservative politics, the concept of "change" makes me uneasy.  Will a less conservative premier more heavily regulate the oil industry, thus weakening Alberta's economy?

Here's a chilling passage from the Edmonton Journal:

Jacquie Eales voted for Alison Redford on her way home from her 13-year-old daughter’s basketball game.
The 47-year-old Edmontonian, a liberal at heart, didn’t vote on the first ballot. In truth, she says, the Progressive Conservative leadership race wasn’t on her radar. 

Then, on the way into work one morning, she heard Redford on the radio.
“She talked about the importance of education and health care, and those are two things that are important to me,” Eales said Monday. 

“It’s unlikely that there will ever be a Liberal leader in Alberta, so I thought, if I want to make a difference in terms of education and health care, perhaps I need to buy a PC membership and vote for a candidate who might have a chance.” 

But she didn’t immediately buy a membership. That point came when a friend involved with the advocacy group Friends of Medicare sent her an email highlighting Redford’s support for public health care. “I thought, if I want to make a difference, I have to vote.”

Redford might as well be a Liberal.  The thought of a Liberal leading Alberta is frightening.  One of my favorite things about Alberta is its relatively conservative politics.  Here's an even more chilling passage (from the same article):

“I don’t think Mar did himself any favours musing about having a debate about privatizing health care,” Duffy said. “I don’t know which is worse, talking about it or trying to run away from it, but that’s the worst of both worlds.” 

He said Redford’s campaign ran on a classic public-services platform. 

“So here you’ve got Redford talking about education, reaching out to soccer moms, and then Mar starts talking about privatizing medicare,” he said.
“At that point, you’ve got a classic set up between an in touch, family-responsive candidate who wants to deliver public services, and an out-of-touch business guy. ... It’s a perfect contrast.

So, not only does Alberta now have a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) premier, but the favourite would have considered privatizing health care.  Think about what Alberta could have had!

Hopefully, Redford's premiership ends after the next election, which will apparently be soon.  While the Progressive Conservative Party has governed Alberta for about 40 years, that is because Alberta is a conservative place.  Fortunately, conservatives in Alberta have another option, the Wildrose Party, a formerly minor party, that has been making significant gains in polls, even winning one by a wide margin (in 2009).  To me, this party resembles the Tea Party movement.  It is a fiscally conservative, right-libertarian party with a social conservative branch.  With the Progressive Conservative Party moving leftward, the Wildrose Party's niche is expanding, and the Progressive Conservative dynasty in Alberta may hopefully end soon.  It is worth mentioning that the election Redford won had two parts.  Voters wrote two names on their ballots.  In the first part, only the first name on each ballot was counted.  If there was not a majority, the third place candidate's votes were given to the candidate whose name appeared on the ballots that originally went to the third place candidate.  After the first round, Gary Mar had a plurality of the votes, while Alison Redford gained a narrow majority after the second round.  What this means is that Redford did not win the election convincingly, which is good for the Wildrose Party, which will likely attract disgruntled Conservatives next election.  It is also worth mentioning that many people apparently joined the Progressive Conservative Party just to vote for Redford.  

Here are some Wildrose Party ideas/observations that I particularly like:

• Restore the role of elected MLAs by mandating that all votes in the Legislature and caucus be free and reported to the public
• Non-confidence votes would be held as separate and stand-alone votes, allowing MLAs to vote on proposed legislation based on the interests of their constituents
• Implement legislation allowing for citizen-initiated referenda and voter recall (support thresholds to instigate both processes must be sufficiently high to eliminate frivolous initiatives)
• Institute fixed dates for general elections, senate elections, budgets, legislative sessions, and Speeches from the Throne
• Establish an independent Cabinet and MLA pay and benefits review process that prevents the Premier, Cabinet, and MLAs from setting their own salaries
• Create transparency in finances and budgets by ensuring government debts and cash deficits are reported accurately and in a timely manner
• Post MLA expenses online
• Take an aggressive stance with the federal government in regards to the equalization program in order to ensure that billions more of Albertans’ hard-earned tax dollars remain in the province, working for the benefit of Albertans
• Exercise our provincial constitutional rights by demanding that the federal government not regulate our industry or property in the name of “environmental protection”
• We will dismantle Alberta Health Services and gradually decentralize the delivery of health care to locally managed and integrated hospitals, Primary Care Networks, family physicians, specialty centres, long-term care facilities and other health services
• We will reduce wait times for specialists and procedures by opening delivery of publicly paid services to any accredited private and non-profit provider
• In terms of policing, our province is facing significant challenges as it tries to deal with organized crime, gangs, child exploitation, identity theft, and white collar crime. Too often, the rights of the accused and convicted criminals seem to supersede the rights of victims.
• Protect the rights of victims by advocating for federal legislation that would see convicted criminals financially compensate the victims of their crimes without the need for costly civil trials
• Over the last 20 years, the Human Rights Commissions in Alberta have probably been the single worst offender of Rights: i.e. freedom of speech; politically correct activists have used them to punish religious and right-wing social commentators. Even when found not guilty, its expensive and time-consuming
• Restrain per capita infrastructure spending to a level consistent with the national average.
• Streamline and decentralize procedures to ensure more funding flows directly to individuals and families in need, and would phase out regional PDD boards in favour of a more localized approach to funding decision-making
• Encourage small and medium business investment and growth by ensuring Alberta is the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in North America
• End the current government’s failed strategy of picking winners and losers by handing out corporate welfare grants to hand-picked corporations
• CFIB say over-regulation costs Alberta $4B per year. Their 2010 report says Alberta and Manitoba are ranked the lowest among the provinces when it comes to reducing this burden
• According to a Fraser Institute report, a sweet gas well that should take 10 days and $1,000 to get regulatory approval takes almost three years and cost $100,000
• Actively review and reduce the unnecessary regulatory burdens that compromise the competitiveness of our key industries

There were some ideas I didn't like, and many more that I did, but I like the party's overall message.  

Perhaps the election of Alison Redford is a blessing in disguise, as one-party dynasties tend to engender corruption.  Hopefully, the Wildrose Party will continue to gain momentum and make Alberta politics more competitive.

An Evil Corporation

From the Vancouver Sun:

BC Ferries says it is in the process of "discontinuing its sponsorship agreement with the Vancouver Canucks" in a letter accompanying its cagey reply to a Freedom of Information request regarding the amount it spends on tickets, luxury suites and advertising at Rogers Arena. 

BC Ferries has been a sponsor of the Canucks for years, an agreement which includes ads along the boards and access to a corporate box the ferry corporation can use to entertain guests.

But the publicly owned ferry corporation is refusing to tell the public just how much money it spends on the sponsorship and seats.

BC Ferries is the crown corporation that operates the various ferries throughout the province, most of which connect the Lower Mainland (Vancouver Metropolitan Area) to Vancouver Island.

I am glad that their sponsorship of the Canucks is ending, but why does a monopoly need to advertise?  They are spending taxpayer money to advertise something that people have to use if they want to take a ferry to Vancouver Island (or anywhere in the province).  The fact that taxpayer money is spent on tickets and luxury boxes is just outrageous.  Taxes are supposed to benefit taxpayers, not give VIPs a comfortable location from which to watch an NHL game.  These are the kinds of things that can be cut from the budget (instead of increasing fares).

Like many other crown corporations, BC Ferries should be privatized.  The government has no business running a corporation (particularly a monopoly).

Insurance "Fraud"

If you live, or have lived, in British Columbia, you are likely familiar with the bureaucratic behemoth that is ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia).  That crown corporation has been responsible for many scandals and controversies throughout my memory.  The most recent is quite egregious.  At least three separate cases in which victims of car accidents have been forced by ICBC to pay for the damage.

This is yet another example of why ICBC needs to be abolished.  There doesn't seem to be any accountability, and British Columbians do not have much choice when buying insurance.  I am sure many people have their own reasons for despising ICBC.  I am sure it would be quite a process to dismantle this behemoth, and it would take time, but it would be worth it.  The government is a cancer.  ICBC is just another cancer-infested appendage that cannot perform its function effectively and needs to be amputated.

American Politics vs. Canadian Politics

Here is why I am more interested in American politics than I am in Canadian politics:

1. There is over a year until the next American federal election, and there is already a massive amount of interest.  The Ames straw poll and Rick Perry's presidential bid even made the news in Canada.  Having said that, federal elections in Canada have been frequent during the past decade.  This has provided more excitement, but it has also caused "election fatigue."  
2. It can be frustrating being as conservative as I am in Canada.  Canadian conservatives tend to be "progressive conservatives," which I assume are so referred to so as to appear more palatable to the general Canadian populace (particularly that back east).  As a result, I find the Conservative Party to be insufficiently far-right, even post-Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative Party merger (the Canadian Alliance was a party to the right of the Progressive Conservatives that was popular in the West; prior to the merger, it was the largest centre-right party in Canada, but wasn't large enough to win an election because of a lack of support in the East.  The merger remedied that by uniting the vote on the right.).  Although the US has its problems with socialist policies (as does Canada), I am sure I would feel right at home as a tea-partier in Idaho.  Some day, perhaps.  
3. Patriotism is quite rare in Canada, and for good reason.  Americans have the constitution, in which the spirit of the founding fathers lives on.  Those noble men admirably severed all ties to Britain, and, by doing so, became the world's largest power, one whose citizens enjoyed freedom envied by the rest of the world.  Although the US has been metaphorically poisoned by socialism, there is hope for a return to the noble spirit embodied by the founding fathers.  Canada, on the other hand, is nothing more than an extension of the British empire, despite posessing sovereignty.  Why should I be proud of Canada's Westminster-style democratic government?  Why should I be proud of Canada's "spirit," that which embodies compassion?  Some things are done right here, but most things are not.  There is a reason for the fleetingness of Canadian patriotism.  

See also, this post, wherein I argue for a reformation of Canada's government.  

I Think Obama is Skipping

Every time President Obama makes a speech, he seems to say the same thing.

We need Democrats and Republicans to work together to help grow this economy.  We’ve got to put politics aside to get some things done.  That’s what the American people expect of us.

Blah, blah, blah.  How many times have I heard this before?  What will telling the public this accomplish?  What Obama is saying seems pretty obvious.  Furthermore, surely Obama has some sort of influence in Washington.  Maybe, instead of making speeches, and telling Americans something they already know, he should being doing something himself.  Why is he just complaining?  Why doesn't he introduce a concrete plan that entails the steps he mentioned in his address, instead of lecturing Congress?

My conclusion is that Obama is campaigning, and that is all he is doing.  I hope the average American isn't dumb enough to buy Obama's rhetoric.  That is all he offers.  He offers no plan, only rhetoric.

Rhetoric, Fear and REAL Hope and Change

I can't get past Obama's rhetoric.  Many, many other people have pointed out what a hypocrite Obama is.  He promised post-partisanship, but it seems like every speech he makes contains some sort of vilification of Republicans (not to mention "millionaires and billionaires," and my personal favorite, "corporate jet owners").  Obama might have his rhetoric and the obsequious media to rely upon, but the reality of reality should hopefully be enough to evict Obama from the White House.  Obama's and the media's rhetoric cannot be enough to obfuscate the facts (low unemployment, high inflation, et cetera) when so many people are well aware of them, and since they are having such a profound effect on peoples' lives.

Any prosperity loving citizen of a Western nation should support the Tea Party Movement, given how inextricably linked the US's economy is to that of the rest of the world.  I really hope Americans nominate the right Republican to challenge Obama.  I do not believe a RINO like Mitt Romney would be able to effectively curtail government spending, and everyone in the Western world should be paying close attention.  It is too early to determine who the right candidate is, in my opinion, however.  At this point, I would probably support Herman Cain.  I think someone with leadership experience in the private sector may be the perfect person to deal with what the next president will inherit from Obama.  Yes, it would be a risk to elect an outsider, but, at this point, it would be a risk that is well worth taking.  Having said that, I would not support Herman Cain completely at this point.  It is too early.  And, if either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio enters the running, well, they are just too damn good not to support.  But that doesn't look like it will happen.

I am a concerned Canadian.  I am also a university student with a very tight budget.  I don't need a stagnant economy to make things more difficult than they will already be.  I don't have nearly as much at stake as most Americans, but the prospect of another Obama presidency, which will almost inevitably lead to an economic crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression (if my amateur reasoning can be relied upon), and hence one the likes of which Westerners haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression, frightens me.

UPDATE: After re-reading this, I realized the last sentence didn't make any sense, so I fixed it.

Does Obama Know What Fair Means?

President Obama has frequently demanded "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share."  However, I do not believe Obama knows the definition of the word "fair."  According to the Free Dictionary, "fair" means:

a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.

b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

So, if Obama really wanted "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share," he would propose a flat income tax or a sales-based tax.  Also, taxes aren't really fair in the first place.  Essentially, when the government collects taxes, it is stealing the hard-earned money of hard-working people.  Isn't that also kind of what labour unions do?  

The Anger of the Green Party is Proportional to my Happiness

The government of Canada is cutting funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by 43.1%, shortly after a 6.9% cut.  Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is outraged:

Harper’s Throne Speech in June committed to improving the environmental assessment process, and instead he is driving a stake into its heart, it makes absolutely no sense to be giving $1.4 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry while allotting a measly $17 million to CEAA. In what way is that protecting our environment? 

I disagree with subsidies to oil companies, but this is good news to me.  Anything that infuriates Elizabeth May makes me happy (in general). 

The priorities of the Harper government are obviously not in line with those of Canadians.

Really?

A poll released this week found 45 per cent of surveyed Canadians said the federal government should make health care — a topic the government and federal politicians are often shy to talk about — a priority in next week's budget.  That's compared to 35 per cent who chose the economy, and 15 per cent who picked the environment.

Emphasis added.
In a throne speech, Harper stated:

“Our Government is committed to developing Canada's extraordinary resource wealth in a way that protects the environment. It will support major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance, such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada. It will engage the provinces, territories and industry on ways to improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects, while ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities, including Aboriginal communities.”

Perhaps eliminating excess spending on this environmental agency is what Harper meant when he said the government will “improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects.”

I direct you to Bjørn Lomborg, whose views are similar to mine:

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

 I don't agree with him about spending money on fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and water, but with everything else I agree.

The radical environmental movement is largely based upon emotion and fear rather than rational analysis.  Protecting the environment should be a priority, but it should be done within reasonability.  The Earth belongs to humans, and it is ours to exploit for our own personal gain.  But we have to keep in mind that protecting the environment is also in our best interest.  We just can’t let emotion dictate how we approach environmental protection.

Industrial activity does not equal environmental destruction.  Industrial sites can be reclaimed. In addition, the environmental friendliness of industrial practices has drastically improved in recent decades.  The role environmental regulations has played in that should not be ignored, but, in my opinion, the reach of environmental regulations is overkill.  It just doesn’t make sense to impede business with regulations, especially regulations that have questionable efficacy.  In some cases, environmentally friendly business practices are good for business.  For example, environmentally friendly products are ubiquitous and the efficient use of energy saves money.  

This brings me back to the original topic of this post, the federal government’s cut on the funding for the CEAA.  In addition to the obvious advantage (decrease in government is (generally) always good), I applaud this move for the reasons above.  That Elizabeth May and the Green Party are angry is always a bonus.  

Marco Rubio's Wisdom

On CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this on the debt problem:

Well, certainly the debt limit is an issue but I think the bigger issue here is the debt and I think what troubles me, Bob, is that no one is focusing on the real problem here. The real-- the real problem here is not the debt limit, the real problem here is the debt and a lack of a credible plan to deal with the debt. And it’s not me saying, it is the rating houses are saying it. If you read the S&P report, they made it very clear that simply raising the debt limit is not enough it needs to be accompanied by some serious effort to credibly deal with the American’s debt problem. And if that is not what we do we’re going to have a big problem, perhaps bigger than anything the administration has been talking about.  

...I think everybody in Washington would like to see more revenues. The question is number one how do you get more revenues? And number two, what do you do with it? I think more revenue should come from economic growth. And I think it should come from that because I think it’s impossible for it to come from tax increases. None of the tax increases the President is proposing solves the problem. They don’t raise enough money. In fact, they make it worse. They kill jobs. And by the way, I don’t trust Washington, because they have shown time and again that any time they get their hands on more money, they don’t use it to pay or avoid debt, they use it to grow the government. So, that’s what I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of-- of more revenue that comes from economic growth, the creation of new jobs. And if you talk to job creators, not politicians, not presidents, you talk to job creators, they will tell you that what they are looking for is a fair and simpler tax code, so I do support tax reform and I think there is a lot of support for tax reform in Washington. And they are looking for some regulatory reform as well because they think these regulations that are being imposed make America a more unfriendly place to do business.

And this on entitlements:

I come from a state that has a massive number of retirees and I’ve stood before cameras like this and made it very clear that if we don’t do something to save Medicare and Social Security they will bankrupt themselves and bankrupt our country. That those-- those programs are unsustainable as they are currently structured, that we are going to lose those programs unless we do something to deal with it. I did that during the campaign and everybody told me I’d lost my mind in terms of talking about these issues. So I think as far as I am concerned and many like me, we have stepped up and talked about some of these issues that face America. I mean, senator, I’m sorry, Representative Ryan, Congressman Ryan has played a terrible political price early on this year for even offering a potential solution to some of these problems. 

...we don’t have to do anything for current beneficiaries, people like my mom or people near retirement. I do think we have to look at the retirement age. I do pe-- do think that people like me, I’m forty, just turn forty a month ago, people like me have to accept the fact that there will not be a Social Security for us, unless we are willing to retire a little bit later. That’s-- that’s-- and people in my generation are going to have to accept that. And I am open to other people’s suggestions. Absolutely, I’m open to people’s suggestions, because I want to save Social Security and I want to save Medicare. As far as our solutions are concerned to the overall problem I think a credible solution to our debt problem has to have two components. It has to have budgetary reforms, in essence a de-- decrease in spending, of at least four trillion dollars or more and it has to come with some sort of growth enhancers, something that helps grow our economy. You cannot get yourself out of this debt problem at nine percent unemployment with over twenty-four million Americans either unemployed or underemployed.

Some Commentary on Obama's Leadership

President Obama has always been confusing to me.  It seems as if he is expecting the Republican-controlled house to to his job for him.  In the first post I wrote for this blog, I said this:

Obama talked about his leadership concerning people that have said that his leadership has been insufficient.  He said that he has had leadership.  He then said, “At a certain point, congress members need to do their job.”  He said he is doing all the work and that congress is not doing anything.  He said they are not making tough choices and not leading.  He said that he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden, and Greece, and that congress needs to lead on the domestic front.  This sentiment of his is important, because this part effectively summarizes his entire presidency.  He has relied on others to lead, while he takes credit for the success of others, again reminding America that he was in charge during the death of Osama bin Laden.  He heavily criticized congress for not leading with regards to the economy, while they, unlike Democrats, have put forward a budget. 

The reason Obama confuses me so much is that he says he is a leader but he is always saying that Republicans have the responsibility to lead when it comes to the budget and debt.

Regarding the debt ceiling debate, Obama has repeated ad nauseam his desire for a balanced approach, one that involves both spending cuts and tax increases, and one that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama has not offered specific details on his plan.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this:

OK, so where’s the plan? Where’s the president’s plan? I’ve never seen a piece of paper with the president’s name on it that’s his plan to solve this crisis. I’ve seen press conferences. I’ve seen lectures that he’s given to the Congress. I’ve seen these press avails where the camera comes in and takes a bunch of pictures. I haven’t seen a plan. Where is the president’s plan?

B. Daniel Blatt adds this:

Oh, and remember that 36-hour deadline the president was giving House Republicans to come up with a plan, a deadline which they wisely did not meet? Why did the president not come up with his own plan in that timeframe?

He was asking Republicans to do something that he himself refused to do. Guess that’s what you call leading from behind?

This Isn't Bush's Fault

Whatever the results of the debt talks in  the United States are, and whatever happens to the US economy as a result of its debt, it is important to remember that it was President Obama and his stimulus that are what got the US in this situation.  Sure, this economic crisis started while George W. Bush was president, but it was Obama's stimulus that caused the US's current debt problem.  He failed to deal with the economic situation, and, if the US does default, and even if it does so because Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, Obama is ultimately responsible.

Furthermore, since it is Obama's fault that the US is in this situation, I will say that is it Obama who has the responsibility to compromise.

I hope people can see through Obama's rhetoric and fear mongering:

 Let's "set politics aside" and "do some tough stuff," Obama told reporters at a White House news conference. But "if Washington operates as usual and can't get anything done, let's at least avert [uh] Armageddon."

If Obama is so hell bent on averting "Armageddon," then why doesn't he listen to Republicans?  Surely he recognizes the roll he played in the US's debt problem, so, if he's reasonable, he will do what is necessary to prevent "Armageddon."  In addition, he could have raised the debt ceiling when Democrats controlled congress.  Like I said, it Obama's responsibility to compromise here.  He caused the problem, he failed to act when he could have, and he is the one claiming how terrible things will be when the US defaults.

I hope the Republicans don't compromise and demonstrate that they actually have metaphorical spines.

A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma

The fact that President Obama failed to raise the debt ceiling when he had the opportunity and is now saying how vital it is to do so is confusing.  My hypothesis is either he was expecting the Democrats to keep control of the house in 2010, or that he didn’t think that he would ever have to raise the debt ceiling because he thought his stimulus would have worked and that the revenue the government would have gained because of that would have allowed them to reduce the debt.  Or, maybe Obama has some sort of ulterior motive, or maybe he is just clueless.  

What is even more confusing is Obama's attitude:

When Democrats were in power, they ran up the tab, acting as if they [sic] would never be no consequences to their spendthrift policies.  And now they’ve left the Republicans to clean up the mess they left behind and is now faulting them for not doing it the way the Democrats (claim they) would have done it when they had the chance.  They had the chance but didn’t take it.

Is it just me, or is Obama really, really confusing?  Maybe, in order to understand him, you need to let go of any sense of reason.  Kind of like analyzing abstract art.

Debt Talks Continue

The negotiations between the Republicans and the Democrats have resumed.

 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said afterward that Democrats are "still hopeful for a large bipartisan agreement," one that will do "no harm to the middle class or to economic growth (and) protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries."

Is Nancy Pelosi supporting Paul Ryan's proposed budget?

"What is really appalling is to see our Republican colleagues essentially providing a form of extortion -- if you don't agree to deficit reduction the way we want it, we'll put all the jobs at risk, because we will allow the United States to default on its debt," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, on the CNN show "State of the Union." "That's irresponsible."

Wait... what?  The Democrats have been putting jobs at risk since they gained power.  But, I guess it wasn't irresponsible of them because they're Democrats. 


My question is which scenario is more desirable:  the United States defaulting on its debt now, and all the repercussions; or having this economic crisis dragged out indefinitely.  Look how the Democrats have handled the economy thus far.  Their leftist economic policies have failed.  However, the Republicans may have a way to avoid both scenarios.  The leftist approach has proven not to work, so why not try something that has proven to work in the past (see Reaganomics)?  To me, to allow the Democrats to enact their proposals is what is irresponsible.

Debt Talks Stalled

House speaker John Boehner walked out on talks to reduce the US debt and prevent the US from defaulting.  It appears that the Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling (so they can spend more money, presumably) and raise taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit, while the Republicans want to cut the budget:

The Treasury Department has warned that failure to do so by August 2 could lead to a possible default, which could push interest rates to skyrocket and cause the dollar to plummet. But Republicans, including those controlling the House, have insisted on large-scale budget cuts before raising the ceiling.

Both parties have thus far been unable to reconcile their radically divergent strategies to solve the nation's economic crisis, as Republicans refuse to raise taxes in a weak economy and Democrats denounce proposed cuts to entitlement programs as draconian and unacceptable.

The Democrats want to continue using their Keynesian approach, which so far, has worked out very well.  Or, at least, according to “experts,” has shown unexpectedly poor results.  So, if the poor results were unexpected, then it means that good results were expected, so it follows that the best approach would be to continue using the same approach that failed in the past (what is that called again? Insanity?).  The Republicans want to do something, that according to basic economics, might actually solve the debt crisis and stimulate the economy at the same time.  But, of course, doing so would entail performing unspeakable, evil acts such as pushing grandma off a cliff and not stealing so much money from people who actually deserve it.  How evil and “draconian.”  I mean, they use draconian as if it were a bad thing.  If they weren’t so blinded by their compassion they might actually realize that most people who deserve it would actually benefit from entitlement cuts because of the aforementioned economic stimulation that budget cuts would provide.  People might actually be able to find a job so they would not need to rely on the government to babysit them.

However, it does seem that maybe President Obama is not completely insane:

President Barack Obama had signaled a willingness to include reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare as part of a broad agreement for $3 trillion to $4 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, said Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.

I will reserve judgement until the president actually acts.

But Boehner's announcement Saturday appears to diminish the chances for such a sweeping deal, although he kept open the door for some sort of less grand agreement.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the group, spearheaded by Biden, has identified "between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion in spending cuts that could represent the framework of the agreement." But he said that any tax hike cannot, and will not, be part of any deal."A tax increase cannot pass the House, and it is the last thing Congress should be doing with so many people out of work," said Brad Dayspring, the Virginia Republican's spokesman.A House GOP leadership aide said earlier this week that both Cantor and the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Kyl, voiced reservations at a White House meeting Thursday about the prospects for getting a $4 trillion package if it included $1 trillion in new tax revenues. Republicans were hesitant, the aide notes, to agree on any proposals that go much farther than simply closing loopholes.

The republicans should be resolute during these negotiations, given that they seem to have some grasp on reality.  And, if the United States does default, perhaps that would be an opportunity to get things over with so prosperity may resume sooner, rather than later.

While he didn't specify what tax hikes, if any, the president had proposed, Pfeiffer said it was important to spread the burden of any deal."We cannot ask the middle class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts," he said. "We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree."

Yes, because the evil rich people (some of whom actually earned their money) are always the ones responsible for destroying the country.  If the Democrats really wanted to be fair, they would end the redistribution of money and enact a flat tax across all income brackets or a sales-based tax.  Oh, and since when do budget cuts cost money?  I would think that they would actually save money.  I mean, that is the whole point of cutting the budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, said he was "disappointed that Republicans are unable to work with us to take a dramatic step forward that would have dramatically reduced our deficit."

"We asked Republicans to consider a balanced approach that would have required shared sacrifice, but they would not," said Reid, D-Nevada. "We still need to make sure we avert the economic catastrophe that would occur if we were to let America fail to pay its bills for the first time in our history, and I am confident that we will."

Harry Reid is always reliable to offer some sort of twisted logic.  They want to raise taxes to close the deficit, while increasing the debt ceiling?  And they are disappointed in Republicans, whose proposal is much more viable?  And Reid wants the shift the burden from the people who are living off the government to the people who are actually suffering?  Am I not understanding this properly?

Beer Party

Although the Conservative Party won the most recent federal election with a majority, and they no longer have to appease the opposition, their most recent budget did not reflect that.  They retained much of what was originally designed to appease the left-of-centre opposition, despite the fact that they didn’t need to.  The very existence of the government in its current form causes me to feel some sort of confusion.  Any government should logically be as small as possible.  It should be built up from the populace as a means by which to perform necessary functions, and nothing more.  Below is my argument for the radical reformation of the Canadian government. 

Social Programs

Canada emerged as a European-style welfare state after the depression.  Although many social programs were reduced in recent decades, many still exist.  What I would consider one of the more egregious policies regarding social programs is the prohibition of access to private healthcare for what is deemed “medically necessary.”  I see progress being made in this respect, but problems persist.  Canada’s healthcare system is notorious for the long waiting times that exist for access to healthcare services; and, in my amateur opinion, I would attribute that problem to the inefficient way in which the system is run (see Private Sector vs. Public Sector, below).  With respect to healthcare, my solution would be to completely privatize the healthcare system and allow health insurance companies and healthcare providers to compete for patrons.  Having said that, my expertise in healthcare is very limited, so I cannot postulate on what that system’s actual efficacy would be; only on what it should be, in theory, according to my own reasoning.  It is based on the below hypothesis (see Private Sector vs. Public Sector, below).  In theory, the following things would happen:  people who do not take care of themselves (i.e. smoking, eating unhealthy foods, et cetera) would need to pay more if that lack of care resulted in more need for healthcare (which would also act as a disincentive for unhealthy lifestyles), as opposed to being a drain on the public system which provides no such disincentive; people who do care for themselves would be rewarded with lower healthcare costs;  healthcare would be prompt, and, if not, or if the healthcare provided by a company was unsatisfactory for some other reason, healthcare providers could be switched;  the system would need to be run efficiently in the interests of profit, which would also benefit the consumer with lower costs; and innovation would be made possible. 

Overall, the various levels of the Canadian government provide various social programs.  All of them should be eliminated, or at least reformed, so as to generate the ideal of equity.  In addition, the encroaching, inefficient behemoth, popularly known as “bureaucracy,” should be reduced to its basic necessity and upgraded with efficient, modern technology.  In addition, equalization payments to the less-wealthy provinces (i.e. socialism) must end.  

A Division of Power

Governmental powers in Canada are divided between the federal government and provincial governments.  Unlike the United States, where the power of the federal government is limited by the constitution, in Canada, the power of the provinces is limited by the constitution.  Everything else is under the power of the federal government. 

This needs to be changed.  The provincial governments are much more capable of dealing with the specific problems that exist in each particular province, as well as the difference of opinion that the populace of each province has.  Therefore, the provincial governments are more qualified to handle domestic problems than is the federal government.  The federal government’s sole purpose should be to handle foreign policy and other interests that are specific to the country as a whole and cannot be effectively handled by the provinces.   

Private Sector vs. Public Sector

The efficacy of the public sector versus the efficacy of the private sector can be broken down to simple logic.  The various private entities must compete with each other.  This means that they are competing for business, which means that they must improve their product or offer some sort of incentive.  And, because they must compete with each other, and because their goal is to maximize profit, they must run efficiently.  Since the funds of the government are largely derived from taxes, the money of taxpayers is being wasted in the inefficiencies that are inevitable given a lack of competition.  Furthermore, every taxpayer is likely paying for some service he or she does not use.  It would be much fairer to pay only for the services you use.  The expenses of paying for the services directly may seem unappealing, but this would allow people to have more control over their expenses.  In addition, a lack of governmental social services would theoretically punish those that do not contribute something to society.  Those who lack initiative would therefore be forcefully required to either get some initiative or learn a lesson in reality.  As I see it, our current system punishes those who have initiative and rewards those who do not.  Based on my analysis, I would conclude that the size of government is inversely proportional to the equality of its “subjects.” 

In addition, the size of government increases the opportunity for corruption.  As a safeguard against corruption, the government should be as small as possible. 

More on Canadian Republicanism

Basically, the monarchy is the foundation of Canada’s Westminster-style parliamentary democracy in which it shares power with the democratically elected government over the various institutions of Canada’s government and acts as an apolitical unifying entity.  However, government is, by definition, political and does not need an “apolitical unifying entity.”  According to the Monarchist League of Canada, and according to the latest census data, the Canadian government pays approximately $52,798,770 (a year) to support the monarchy.  That number is growing rapidly.  According to them, the “great majority of these costs stem from: a) maintaining the historic buildings (Government Houses) occupied by vice-regal representatives; and b) from honouring Canadians who have performed outstanding acts or given a lifetime of service to the country.”  According to them, “Whether a republic or monarchy, Canadians would maintain these heritage buildings and recognize achievements through an honours system.  A president would likely be more expensive—look at the proportional costs of the White House and Elysée Palace! There may be arguments for a republic, but cost-saving is not one of them.”  Comparing Canada to the United States or France is quite weak, especially since, immediately before they brought those two countries up, they stated that maintenance of historic buildings is already paid for (including the residences of both the head of state (governor general) and the head of government (prime minister)).  Therefore, I do not see what point they are trying to make by bringing up the White House or the Elysée Palace (i.e. under a president, the cost of maintaining buildings would not be any higher than it currently is).  According to them, “the founding principles of Canada ... [are] our constitutional monarchy and federal state together with the special place of the First Nations, the existence of two European founding peoples, the inpouring of new Canadians of other backgrounds enriching our diversity through the centuries and our special status as a Northern country.”  I am not sure what that means, but it sounds like nonsense.  Maybe I am way out there on this, but I believe the founding principles of a country should only be celebrated if they make sense (see the United States).  I am not saying that Canada should abolish its traditions, per se.  I am only saying that Canada should abolish the ones that do not make sense or have any relevance.  The monarchy is a superfluous institution that has no practical value.  I am for anything that reduces the size of the government and the incomprehensible inefficiency and redundancy that exists therein.

Conclusion

From my above paragraphs, I draw the conclusion that the government should be as small as possible.  If I were an American, I would be a natural supporter of the tea party movement.  The American-style governance that I would support would have little support in Canada, but I am going on record saying that I would like to see the United States, or the values that are espoused by the tea party movement, emulated in Canada.  At the very least, I look forward to what the Conservative majority government’s future budgets will entail.    

Simply put, in a hypothetical situation in which the government is abolished and must be completely re-established, this would be, in my opinion, the most logical way in which a new government would be built.  The government, as it exists, can be intensely simplified.  Furthermore, it should not try to create prosperity, but it should create the conditions in which prosperity can exist.  The latter is demonstrably more feasible than the former.