Thursday, July 31, 2008

What about the GST?

By now, everyone in the Canadian political blogging sphere has heard about the Liberal Green Shift plan. Many other "normal" Canadians have not. They are (not) enjoying the rainy weather.

We have heard from bloggers, pundits, Conservative and Liberal MPs alike. They attack the plan, defend the plan, or just attempt to explain it.

The Liberals call this plan revenue neutral. But it's not. According to their own document, the Liberals are going to spend or reserve 85 million dollars more then the carbon tax will raise.

Now, I realize that they are just estimates, and they can take that missing 85 million dollars out of the reserve fund, but why present it like that? Why not present it as $15,342 million in, $15,342 million out? And we all know that "reserve fund" really means "fund to bribe voters with non-budgeted expenses near election time".

Of course, there is one thing that everyone seems to be forgetting. What about the GST?

We (and the Liberals) know that this carbon tax will raise the cost of almost everything. It will for sure raise the cost of most carbon based fuels, and most electricity. What is charged on top of these things? Why, its our friend the GST.

Since the costs for things will go up, many more millions will be collect via the GST at the federal level. And millions more at the provincial level for that matter. Maybe this is why some Premiers are in agreement with this plan?

So I need to ask, what is Mr. Dion's plan to rebate the GST (and PST) back to the consumers to maintain the revenue neutral aspect of the plan?

Debunking the same old same old

Ok, so I guess I was trolled by a Liberal supporter, and I started to reply in comments. Then I realized that it was going to be a damn long comment, so I decided to make it a post.

I will tackle some of the points the anonymous poster made.

Traction with the Electorate
There is some truth to this, the Conservatives are still having issues getting (and staying) into the high 30's low 40's. Some of this is left over fear mongering from past elections, and some of this is related to the bad press the government has gotten in the past weeks, some is policy related, and some is communication related. The communications related should start to clear up with a new communications director already mending fences with the Ottawa Press Gallery.

Weak Caucus
The Conservative caucus is stronger then people give credit for.:
  1. Jim Prentice
  2. John Baird
  3. Jim Flaherty
  4. Peter McKay
  5. Lawrence Cannon
  6. Rob Nicholas
  7. Chuck Strahl
  8. Monte Solberg
  9. Peter Van Loan
  10. Jay Hill
  11. Jason Kenney
  12. James Moore
They can all hold their own with any of the Liberal front bench. Some of these come from the Reform or Alliance side of the party, some come from the Progress Conservative side of the party.

Conservatives want to outlaw abortion
I guess I am being trolled, but the official Conservative party position is not to change the abortion laws. This was passed in the policy convention held in Montreal. That position is that "a Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion". Period.

Failure to scrap the Gun Registry
The gun registry is there, but amnesty has been granted for non-compliance. It is gone in all but name.

Income Trust
As for Income Trusts, yes a big flip flop. However, I trust the government in their decision on this. Why? Not because they are Conservatives, but because it hit their base right in the pocket book. Hit their base more then the NDP or even Liberal base. Why would they lie about the reasons in order to attack their base? That would make no sense. Seems like principles to me. Do what is right, not what is popular.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Just Do It

The Leader of the Loyal Opposition, Liberal leader Stephane Dion threatens to topple the Conservative Government. The Liberals then back down.

They threaten to topple the government, they back down.

They threaten to topple the government, they back down.

Lather, rinse. Repeat.

Enough is enough. In the words of the most famous shoe company in the world, "Just Do It". Find your principles (don't forget to look under the couch cushions, heck you may find some extra cash in there while you looking, you could need that) and just bring down the government.

Let's go to the polls, and decide who is right once and for all.

Just Do It.

Pettiness is well, petty.

In today's Ottawa Sun, reporter (columnist?) Susan Sherring it out attacking Mayor Larry O'Brien for his campaign fundraising shortfalls. This fundraising shortfall is somehow indicative of the Mayors failure to keep good on his “Zero means Zero” campaign promises.

The logic on how she ties this together is somewhat convoluted. It would be the same as saying Stephane Dion will run deficits because he hasn't paid off his leadership expenses. I don't think Stephane Dion will run deficits, I think he will spend billions on state-run feel good accomplish little social programs.

It’s easy to be disappointed by the failed “Zero means Zero” promise. But let’s be fair, this campaign fundraising shortfall caused more by:
  1. No one knowing who the hell he was when he started
  2. No one really thinking he had a chance to beat the incumbent

This theory makes much more sense, especially when you consider that Mayor O’Brien raised more then a third of his total contributions after his victorious campaign.

Well that or maybe they were trying to buy influence.