Leading is about priorities

Which is why instead of fixing the electricity situation in Ontario, the failing provincial economy, the brain drain and inability for Ontario firms to hire high-tech workers, healthcare, affordable housing, or any other important topic, we get our Premier talking about selling weed in government run liquor stores.

Pathetic.

I guess that is why four out of five Ontarians disapprove of the job the Premier is performing.

Liberals need to funnel money though Canada Post again?

Continuing my Canada Post theme tonight, I think we all really know why the Liberals are calling for the resignations of the thirty-three recent appointees. And it is not just because the Liberals are entitled to their entitlements. Well, not just because anyway.

As some of you may remember, crown corporations like Canada Post were found to have participated in Adscam by funneling money through questionable means. 

Could the real reason the Liberals are so bothered by the appointments be that they need to replenish their war chest for the next election? After all, it was a long and costly campaign.

What do you the readers think of this theory?

Another Liberal broken promise?

Looks like door-to-door service will not be restored for those who already have community mailboxes. And the minister wasn't categorical about not re-starting the community mailbox roll-out program either.

Though, if one was to be fair, if they re-instated the community mailbox program it would be a least the right policy decision (though another blatant example of Liberal's promising anything to get elected).

Regarding the whole community mailbox program, I always thought the whole hoopla about it was overblown anyway.

Here are the facts:

1. Every neighbourhood built post 1985 had community mailboxes. That is a lot of neighbourhoods.
2. Canada Post services more area then any other postal service in the world
3. The phase-out of door-to-door service affected less then a third of the addresses in Canada
4. It costs 283 dollars per year to service each address door-to-door. This is versus 108 for a community mailbox.
5. The amount of items mailed (not including parcels) has dropped by over a billion since 2006
6. A Conference Board of Canada report suggested that Canada Post was on track to lose a billion dollars a year by 2020, with the switch over to community mailboxes projected more then half that yearly deficit

The Conservatives are supposed to be the ones against change, and yet here are the Liberals promising more of the same.

Oink Oink Oink

The Liberals have returned to the trough! Is anyone really surprised? I have to admit, I am a bit surprised. (Only at the speed of the return!)

After nearly 10 years out of power, they sure are hungry for some all you can eat taxpayer dollars!

1. Nearly 400 delegates at the UN Climate Conference. "Canada has sent more people to Paris than Australia (46), the U.K. (96), the U.S. (148), Russia (313) and almost as many as host-country France (396)." That is quite the carbon foot print!
2. His entire family (and their nannies of course) for a week long European vacati^@&#& jaunt! Since the "first family" has no role in Canadian government, who pays for their airfare, meals, etc? The inclusion of them on the trip is purely for Canadian political consumption. The taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill.
3. Speaking of the nannies, he hires his two former nannies. The issue isn't that he has nannies, its that he has the gal to bill taxpayers for them after his attacks on the NDP and Conservatives during the election. In addition those attacks, these are the very same nannies he had when he was the leader of the third place party. I can only assume he paid for them out of his own pocket then, so why bill them now?

There is also scuttlebutt that the public sector can start hiring, and the taps are flowing in government to spend whatever they want, and this is all before their first official budget. Hold on to your wallets Canadians!

Trudeau doesn't need help with childcare.....

.......unless he is getting his nannies paid for by the state.

It is completely hypocritical for Prime Minister Trudeau to have the government pay for his nannies. He campaigned on the premise of him being the rich, and not needing taxpayer help for paying for childcare.

Once elected, his tune changes.

To be clear, these are the same nannies he had before he became Prime Minister,so why now does the taxpayer have to foot the bill?

To juxtapose, the Harper's didn't hire a nanny, Mrs. Harper looked after the children when her husband was elected Prime Minister.

Time to get back on the horse.

I guess it is time to get back on the old saddle around here. I have been gone way too long, and with the events of the last few months I really feel I should get back to blogging.

To be honest, it was hard to be motivated to support the last Conservative Party, with the negativity, hate (barbaric cultural practices hotline??), and frankly, small-mindedness.

That being said, I just cannot fathom this rock star persona around Prime Minister Trudeau, and the left's giddy behaviour with regards to him.

I understand the desire to change. I understand the hope he purports to bring. I cannot understand the people posting to Facebook about his, or his wife's looks. Posting his glamour shots, being proud of having a "handsome" Prime Minster. It smacks of sexism.

Nor, can I stand the free ride Prime Minister Trudeau gets from the press, examples like

1. Equal gender cabinet, where nearly all the women are second-tier Cabinet Ministers, or reporting to men. And if we want to be honest, there are only a few more women in PM Trudeau's cabinet then there were in Stephen Harper's. 
2. A dubious Science Minister shilling a decidedly non-scientific MS cure.
3. The free ride he is getting on explaining why we shouldn't bomb ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But have more trainers.
4. Explain how we will screen the refugees, to ensure security. Or why we should bring in twice as many as the Americans.

That is just four, I am sure I could come up with more if I really tried.

Liberal Desperation?

On the way into work today I heard the latest Liberal Party of Ontario attack ad on the radio. You can watch it below.

Outside of the fear mongering and outright lies (who knew that firefighters were provincial and not municipal), I was shocked by the begging and pleading for a strategic vote from the Liberals.

I don't remember any other ads from political parties asking for strategic voting before. I have heard special interest groups advocate for strategic voting, I have heard leaders and candidates imply that strategic voting was the right thing to do at campaign stops, but I do not remember anything quite so blatant as below.

Has anyone else?

Is Hudak Peaking too Early?

I have to admit, I am having a lot of issues with the polls this election.  They are all over the map!

Progressive Conservatives up. Liberals up. Liberals leading in voter intention. No, the Progressive Conservatives leading in voter intention. Its a damn bloody mess. In fact, it gives damn bloody messes a real bad name!

So I (like I am sure most) are following threehundredweight.com to try and make sense of it all. The latest numbers seem like good news for the Progressive Conservatives, they are trending up in all areas at the expense (mostly) the Liberals.

However, looking at the region tracker of threehundredeight.com I begin to wonder if they might be peaking a day or two too early.

See below, and tell me what you think!

Peaking too soon?

23 out of 26 peer reviewed taxation papers show that.......

...tax cuts create jobs and promote growth. Period.

"This review of empirical studies of taxes and economic growth indicates that there are not a lot of dissenting opinions coming from peer-reviewed academic journals. More and more, the consensus among experts is that taxes on corporate and personal income are particularly harmful to economic growth, with consumption and property taxes less so. This is because economic growth ultimately comes from production, innovation, and risk-taking."

Some money quotes of particular interest in this election:

• "Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. Fiscal consolidations based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to succeed at reducing deficits and debt and less likely to create recessions." -Alberto Alesina & Silvia Ardagna, Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 24 (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010)
• "Taxes directed towards public investments first add then subtract from GDP." - N. Bania, J. A. Gray, & J. A. Stone, Growth, taxes, and government expenditures: growth hills for U.S. states, 60 National Tax Journal 193-204 (2007).
• "Tax-financed spending reduces growth in developed countries, increases growth in developing countries." - Stephen Miller & Frank Russek, Fiscal structures and economic growth: international evidence, 35 Economic Inquiry 603-613 (1997).

Sure you can quibble that Tim Hudak's Million Job plan won't create a million jobs, but you cannot honestly state that the main thrusts of lower taxes, lower spending, reduced corporate and home expenses, and reduced regulation won't have a positive impact on the economy. Almost every study agrees that it will.

The Liberals, the NDP, and their union and media lapdogs are simply economic deniers putting their children, and their children's children at financial risk so they can continue down "me me me only about me" path.

h / t to Jack Minz's article in the Financial Post on May 29th. I had to fix his link to get it work.

Hudak Emerges Victorious

I believe Tim Hudak emerged victorious in the debates! And it seems the poll at CTV Ottawa agrees. At least at the time of this blog post writing :)

Unfortunately, I don't believe it was a knockout for Mr. Hudak. He wins on points, but I am not sure he connected enough with voters to swing the electorate firmly in his camp. Andrea Horvath exceeded expectations tonight.

Tell me, what did like and dislike from the leaders debate?