Subsidies to Political Parties are about Fairness

I often find myself reading the comments on news articles on CBC.ca. And I often find myself enraged. Surprisingly, I have yet to create an account and start posting my own comments. That might just suck up way too much of my time.

In response to the Harper goverenment's plan to cancel the $30-million in subsidies that federal political parties receive, I have seen so many people saying things like "put your wallet where your mouth is" or "I don't want my tax dollars supporting some leftist commie party."

Are these people for real? Do they really believe that the rich have a greater right to have their voice heard than the poor? Also, the funding to the parties is based on how many votes they receive, so your tax dollars are only going to the party you voted for. Sure, you might argue that you pay more taxes than most of the poor people who vote for these "leftist commie" parties... but that's the whole point of taxes. They're not your tax dollars. If they were, we'd just let you keep them in the first place. Revenue collected by the government is owned by everyone, to be used for the greater good of all Canadians equally.

I'm not sure what's going to happen now, but I hope that the public see this for what it is - a blatant attack on democracy. I think the Conservatives will be forced to reconsider, given that the talks of a Liberal-NDP coalition are starting to sound pretty serious. Unless they can spin this as the other parties being greedy. But I'm hoping Canadians are intelligent enough to understand that that is not the case. There are many other things of far less consequence that could be cut to reduce spending by a mere $30-million.

Liberal Ridings Lost by the Green Vote

There were at least 20 ridings in the 40th General Canadian Federal Election where the Liberals would have won with the help of some or all Green supporters in that riding. Most of these were won by the Conservatives, with a handful going to the Bloc and NDP (including Trinity--Spadina!).

Egmont
West Nova
Saint John
Ahuntsic
Brome--Missisquoi
Brossard--La Prairie
Haute-Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia
Jeanne-Le Ber
Kitchener Centre
Kitchener--Waterloo
London West
Mississauga--Erindale
Oak Ridges--Markham
Ottawa--Orléans
Sudbury
Trinity--Spadina
North Vancouver
Saanich--Gulf Islands
Vancouver Kingsway
Nunavut

List of Harper Faux-Pas

Commenter Salem5 on CBC.ca writes:

Is it ethical, moral or right to:
- bribe a dying a man, then lie about it and drag his family through mud and back;
- To fire a Liberal appointed Nuclear watch-dog for doing her job when the Conservative appointed head of Atomic Energy of Canada is at fault;
- to lose Canadians millions over a broken promise on income trusts;
- To claw back on resource royalties from have-not provinces through a broken promise on the Atlantic Accord;
- To fix elections then call one, siting parliament as disfunctional despite passing every bit of legislation you want;
- To brand your opponent as not a leader, without any knowledge in support, only days after his appointment;
- To welcome a floor-crosser to your party, having just spent Liberal money to get elected, and make him a minister;
- To take the electorate for granted by not realing a plan until days before the election;
- To run disgusting and defamatory ads;
- To use scare tactics to discredit your opponents platforms despite the fact that they are signficantly supported by the scientific and economic communities;
- To commit election fraud;
- To squander a surplus, running a budget that will trun a deficit, then suggesting your opponents will run a deficit;
- To suggest the economy is fine, that we aren't headed for a recession, while simultaneously saying that we are in uncertain times;
- To bride families with tax cuts and $100 child allowance when clearly that won't buy you shorter waits times for health care or a child care spot;
- To lie to Canadians, suggesting your opponents are raising taxes when;
- To suggest the environment is fine when scientists say otherwise and the Alberta Oil Sands environmental devastation is visible from space;
-To publicly humiliate someone with a hearing impairment;
- To stand behind your ministers, when they leave classified information behind, call your opponents dogs in the House, make jokes about Listeriosis...;

Ladies and gentlemen, I could go on but my character limite is looming. The Harpers have accomplished the above and more in only two and three-quarter years in power. To my neighbour who still sites the Sponsorship Scandal as a reason to vote Harper, if you add the costs associated with all Steve's gaffs, scandals and controversies, the Sponsorship Scandal is literally just pennies in a pot. Does that justify a Liberal vote? Not really. But Dion has conducted himself with dignity and respect, two words Harper is unfamiliar with.

Cap and Trade

For all you NDP supporters out there, I have a question. Have you stopped to consider how a cap and trade system would actually be implemented? Thousands of auditors would be needed to assess the carbon footprints of every company, and enforcement would be needed to ensure that polluters are operating within their cap or purchasing sufficient credits from greener companies. The cost of implementing such a program could be enormous. A carbon tax is much simpler to implement; we can start now while figure out the logistics of a cap and trade system with real limits on green house gas emissions. Saying you support cap and trade is not a plan. The Liberal platform, and specifically the Green Shift component, is specific and lists the amount of tax one would pay on each type of fuel - typically pennies per unit. There will be no additional tax on gasoline, as it is already taxed the equivalent of $42 a tonne. In the 4th year, home heating oil would have a tax of 11.3 cents per litre (the price has increased by 57.5 cents, or 71.5%, in the last 2 years due to market forces alone). For a typical home, this amounts to under $250 a year in the 4th year in taxes, which is way more than offset by income tax cuts.

How much would cap and trade cost consumers? No one knows. With a carbon tax, consumers and business know what to expect. The Liberal plan also phases in the taxes over 4 years so adjustments can be made gradually. With cap and trade, a market is created for carbon credits. If companies are having difficulty cutting their emissions, carbon credits will be scarce, making them expensive. These costs will be passed on to the consumer.

Quotations from the Campaign Trail

Here are some of my favourite quotations from the campaign trail so far. I was planning trying to dig some up for all of the national party leaders, but that is proving difficult. Please comment with any gems you've heard!

This is just a small sampling, as almost everything I've heard from Stéphane Dion in his interviews with the media has been logical and inspiring. I'm sure there are lots more scathing remarks from the likes of Harper as well.

Stéphane Dion

"Nobody muzzles Janine Krieber; it's one of the reasons why I love her" - in response to the supposed media restrictions on his wife, also a political science professor.

On the Conservative's recent cuts to arts funding: "There is more culture in a container of yogurt than in this Conservative government."

Couldn't find an exact quotation of this one, but speaking about the fiscal merits of the Green Shift and Liberal platform, Dion said something like "Economists call this plan small-c conservative. I guess that's a compliment coming from an economist."

Stephen Harper

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people, you know, at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have actually gone up - I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people."