Canada stands alone amongst G7 nations as the only nation that did not bail out its banks during the recent financial crisis. It was not because our banks did not get hurt by the Sub-Prime meltdown. Several billion dollars in charges were taken by our banks and indirect effects hurt them as well. However they were strong enough to withstand the storm without going cap in hand to the taxpayers. Canadians should be proud.
Canada also went into the recent downturn with a history of budget surpluses. Many proponents of Keynesian economics favour deficit spending during recessions coupled with surpluses during periods of growth. Canada is the only member of the G7 to have practiced this. The other nations all had deficits during the growth years.
Now that we are past the worst of the recession (according to some), it is time to ask how we dig ourselves out of this deficit so that we can start paying down our national debt before the next crisis hits.
Obviously stimulus spending will end. However that is not enough. The current government has cut the GST twice since taking office to 5%. This was always a triumph of politics over sound policy.
There are only two ways to get the deficit back into surplus. 1) Cut spending massively 2) Raise taxes.
Spending will simply not be cut enough to make this happen. Taxes must go up. The question then is what taxes should go up.
On this point there is simply no debate as a matter of policy. The GST is a consumption tax that is applied fairly and evenly. It does not create disincentives to work and is most efficient in administration....especially since so many provinces have harmonized.
If the Tories want to show that they are reliable stewards of the nation's finances, they will bite the political bullet and raise the GST back to 7%. It's the right thing to do. Somehow i am doubtful that this will happen.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
No We Can't
It is remarkable how far Barack Obama's star has fallen. One year ago he had a favourable rating of 70%. Democrats, Republicans and Independents were hopeful that he did represent a change.
One year on Democratic leaning newspapers are struggling to conceal their disappointment over a year of relative inaction. Some are openly critical. The Toronto Star wrote that his administration is starting to get the air of a single term to it.
In the wake of the Massachusetts special election which reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate to 59-41, Obama urged his party not to "run for the hills." This is astounding. Losing a filibuster proof majority was simply losing a power that eluded every administration since early in the Carter administration.
Astounding as it was, he needed to say that. The loss of Massachusetts means that every Democratic seat across the nation is in play. California Democrats (who are used to being re-elected with token opposition) are planning to spend aggressively. In past election cycles, Democrats did not need to use resources in California. Bill Clinton in 96 and Al Gore in 2000 did not spend a single dollar in the state of California. They didn't have to. Millions spend to ensure the safety of Senator Boxer will not be spent on more marginal and vulnerable seats such as Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat in Nevada.
Faced with this changed landscape, Obama did what he does best.....he gave a speech. Sadly that is no longer enough. He has been in office for a full year and has little, save a Nobel Peace Prize, to show for his time in office. If Obama is as smart as they say, then he will pivot quickly as Bill Clinton did after the elections of 94 lead to the rise of Newt Gingrich.
Obama needs to move to the middle. America is not a Liberal country. He is out of step with his nation.
One year on Democratic leaning newspapers are struggling to conceal their disappointment over a year of relative inaction. Some are openly critical. The Toronto Star wrote that his administration is starting to get the air of a single term to it.
In the wake of the Massachusetts special election which reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate to 59-41, Obama urged his party not to "run for the hills." This is astounding. Losing a filibuster proof majority was simply losing a power that eluded every administration since early in the Carter administration.
Astounding as it was, he needed to say that. The loss of Massachusetts means that every Democratic seat across the nation is in play. California Democrats (who are used to being re-elected with token opposition) are planning to spend aggressively. In past election cycles, Democrats did not need to use resources in California. Bill Clinton in 96 and Al Gore in 2000 did not spend a single dollar in the state of California. They didn't have to. Millions spend to ensure the safety of Senator Boxer will not be spent on more marginal and vulnerable seats such as Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat in Nevada.
Faced with this changed landscape, Obama did what he does best.....he gave a speech. Sadly that is no longer enough. He has been in office for a full year and has little, save a Nobel Peace Prize, to show for his time in office. If Obama is as smart as they say, then he will pivot quickly as Bill Clinton did after the elections of 94 lead to the rise of Newt Gingrich.
Obama needs to move to the middle. America is not a Liberal country. He is out of step with his nation.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Legal Mumbo Jumbo - Update
On December 14th i wrote of the English case of Munir Hussain who, along with his brother, chased down and beat a home invader with a cricket bat leaving the criminal brain damaged. He and his brother were convicted and sentenced to jail terms.
The Lord Chief Justice has suspended the sentence of Mr Hussain and reduced the sentence of his brother. He noted that he rarely sees defendants in such cases of the high standing that these two men had. He ruled that mercy was justified.
It is just that Mr Hussain should not serve time in jail. He and his family had been through a terrifying ordeal in which they were tied up and their lives threatened. It is offensive that Mr Hussain is deemed worthy of 'mercy' for it should never have even been at issue.
The subjective concept of what is "reasonable" is littered throughout Common Law yet is never adequately defined. What would a "reasonable" person do after being tied up along with his wife and children and having their lives threatened? Is it "reasonable" to expect him to assess what is "reasonable" under the law in the minutes after the sanctity of his home was violated and the lives of his family threatened?
There is a proposal to change the legal standard so that people like Mr Hussain are only charged if their actions are "grossly disproportionate." This is a sensible move since the judicial system seems to have a warped view of that which is reasonable and will engage in prosecutions that bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Lord Chief Justice has suspended the sentence of Mr Hussain and reduced the sentence of his brother. He noted that he rarely sees defendants in such cases of the high standing that these two men had. He ruled that mercy was justified.
It is just that Mr Hussain should not serve time in jail. He and his family had been through a terrifying ordeal in which they were tied up and their lives threatened. It is offensive that Mr Hussain is deemed worthy of 'mercy' for it should never have even been at issue.
The subjective concept of what is "reasonable" is littered throughout Common Law yet is never adequately defined. What would a "reasonable" person do after being tied up along with his wife and children and having their lives threatened? Is it "reasonable" to expect him to assess what is "reasonable" under the law in the minutes after the sanctity of his home was violated and the lives of his family threatened?
There is a proposal to change the legal standard so that people like Mr Hussain are only charged if their actions are "grossly disproportionate." This is a sensible move since the judicial system seems to have a warped view of that which is reasonable and will engage in prosecutions that bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bush Redux
President Barack Obama is beginning to show a pattern of repeating the mistakes of his two least favourite Presidents of recent years. His silence as he vacationed away after the attempted terror attack on Christmas day evoked memories of George H.W. Bush fishing at Kennebunkport as the nation prepared for war. He has gone on to adopt George W Bush's successful surge strategy in an attempt to pacify Afghanistan.
Perhaps his biggest mistake (and also biggest copy cat move) was to declare that he had a sweeping mandate for change in the wake of an election victory. After his 2004 reelection victory, George W Bush declared that he had "political capital" which he was going to use. Friendly majorities in both Houses of Congress would pass Social Security reform enabling Americans to divert part of their Social Security contributions into privately managed accounts that could invest in the never ending stock market boom. (that is even funnier/sadder when you thing about it now)
After the elections of 2004, pundits talked about how Karl Rove had fashioned a "Permanent Republican Majority." After the elections of 2008, pundits talked about the dispirited and disorganized Republican party which was a spent force and had lost its relevance.
Politics can be fickle because at its base it is all about people. The American people had not changed all that much from 2004 to 2008. By and large, it was the folks who put Bush into office who put Obama into office. They hadn't changed who they were, they just changed their minds and reserved the right to change their minds again.
President Obama has now campaigned for his party's candidates in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. He is 0-3 in elections where his party had held the seat and only Virginia could be said to lean Republican. The people are pulling him back towards the centre.
Obama and the Democrats should take heed of the message that is being sent. At this point they insist that they will get slaughtered at the mid term elections if they do not pass health care reform in some form or other. This might be true if Americans didn't have a health care system to begin with. However, the idea that "anything is better than nothing", in a political sense, is just dead wrong. The desperation with which the Dems will jettison any part of the Health Care reform package (ie. universality, public option, abortion, etc) is really rubbing people (including Liberals) the wrong way. It appears unprincipled and desperate. The Democratic leadership seems to be saying that they'll win the mid term elections as long as they pass something that can be called Health Care reform.
Democrats have already started breaking ranks. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has already called on the Senate leadership to stop all Senate votes on Health Care until Scott Brown is seated. As many as 11 House Democrats are said to be ready to vote against the Senate version of the bill. That is enough to defeat the bill.
The Democrats should not wait until after November to hear the voice of the people. If they do so, there will be fewer Democrats in Congress for whom it matters. They should go back to the drawing board and adopt an incremental approach to health care reform. If they can fashion a bill that increases coverage, reduces cost and red tape and improves health care overall, they will draw Republican support.
The Republicans are not allergic to Health Care reform. During the Clinton administration's attempts to reform the system, The late Senator John Chafee sponsored a reform bill that many Liberals marvelled at for its constructive approach. Very Liberal Senator Jay Rockefeller was especially effusive in his praise.
The people of Massachusetts have restored Checks and Balances in the short term. This is a good thing.
Perhaps his biggest mistake (and also biggest copy cat move) was to declare that he had a sweeping mandate for change in the wake of an election victory. After his 2004 reelection victory, George W Bush declared that he had "political capital" which he was going to use. Friendly majorities in both Houses of Congress would pass Social Security reform enabling Americans to divert part of their Social Security contributions into privately managed accounts that could invest in the never ending stock market boom. (that is even funnier/sadder when you thing about it now)
After the elections of 2004, pundits talked about how Karl Rove had fashioned a "Permanent Republican Majority." After the elections of 2008, pundits talked about the dispirited and disorganized Republican party which was a spent force and had lost its relevance.
Politics can be fickle because at its base it is all about people. The American people had not changed all that much from 2004 to 2008. By and large, it was the folks who put Bush into office who put Obama into office. They hadn't changed who they were, they just changed their minds and reserved the right to change their minds again.
President Obama has now campaigned for his party's candidates in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. He is 0-3 in elections where his party had held the seat and only Virginia could be said to lean Republican. The people are pulling him back towards the centre.
Obama and the Democrats should take heed of the message that is being sent. At this point they insist that they will get slaughtered at the mid term elections if they do not pass health care reform in some form or other. This might be true if Americans didn't have a health care system to begin with. However, the idea that "anything is better than nothing", in a political sense, is just dead wrong. The desperation with which the Dems will jettison any part of the Health Care reform package (ie. universality, public option, abortion, etc) is really rubbing people (including Liberals) the wrong way. It appears unprincipled and desperate. The Democratic leadership seems to be saying that they'll win the mid term elections as long as they pass something that can be called Health Care reform.
Democrats have already started breaking ranks. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has already called on the Senate leadership to stop all Senate votes on Health Care until Scott Brown is seated. As many as 11 House Democrats are said to be ready to vote against the Senate version of the bill. That is enough to defeat the bill.
The Democrats should not wait until after November to hear the voice of the people. If they do so, there will be fewer Democrats in Congress for whom it matters. They should go back to the drawing board and adopt an incremental approach to health care reform. If they can fashion a bill that increases coverage, reduces cost and red tape and improves health care overall, they will draw Republican support.
The Republicans are not allergic to Health Care reform. During the Clinton administration's attempts to reform the system, The late Senator John Chafee sponsored a reform bill that many Liberals marvelled at for its constructive approach. Very Liberal Senator Jay Rockefeller was especially effusive in his praise.
The people of Massachusetts have restored Checks and Balances in the short term. This is a good thing.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Race Card already!!!!
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/haiti/article/750785--underlying-racism-infects-crisis-response-study?bn=1
Professor Saucier states that racism explains the reactions of many people to disasters such as Haiti and Katrina. His study found that those with higher racist scores were less sympathetic to the predominantly African American victims of Katrina. He further predicts that the reaction to the earthquake in Haiti might be an unwillingness to help....a "blind eye" if you will.
I don't think that I needed a University study to figure out that someone with racist attitudes might not have much sympathy for the plight of my relatives in North Korea. I wouldn't expect much empathy for the victims of Katrina from a KKK sympathizer. This is the sort of study that should be met with a collective "Duh"!!!!
Besides which it is not racist to naturally feel more empathy with those who you feel more kinship with. I do think more about the suffering in North Korea than in Kashmir. That being said it is a mark of a civilized society with empathy for his fellow man that we will not simply concern ourselves with tribal loyalties only.
Thus far, the reaction of the world to the disaster in Haiti has been admirable. It is a race against time during which the first 72 hours are crucial. World leaders have dispatched supplies and troops to assist in distributing aid in a rapid fashion.
Professor Saucier should hold his second guessing for a while at least. Making such allegations as ships and planes race to save lives in Haiti is unseemly.
Professor Saucier states that racism explains the reactions of many people to disasters such as Haiti and Katrina. His study found that those with higher racist scores were less sympathetic to the predominantly African American victims of Katrina. He further predicts that the reaction to the earthquake in Haiti might be an unwillingness to help....a "blind eye" if you will.
I don't think that I needed a University study to figure out that someone with racist attitudes might not have much sympathy for the plight of my relatives in North Korea. I wouldn't expect much empathy for the victims of Katrina from a KKK sympathizer. This is the sort of study that should be met with a collective "Duh"!!!!
Besides which it is not racist to naturally feel more empathy with those who you feel more kinship with. I do think more about the suffering in North Korea than in Kashmir. That being said it is a mark of a civilized society with empathy for his fellow man that we will not simply concern ourselves with tribal loyalties only.
Thus far, the reaction of the world to the disaster in Haiti has been admirable. It is a race against time during which the first 72 hours are crucial. World leaders have dispatched supplies and troops to assist in distributing aid in a rapid fashion.
Professor Saucier should hold his second guessing for a while at least. Making such allegations as ships and planes race to save lives in Haiti is unseemly.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Prorogue Parliament and the Senate while we're at it!
Critics of Prime Minister Harper's move to prorogue Parliament (again) miss the much larger point which is the dysfunctionality of our Parliamentary system.
It is a system where a minority government can effectively govern like a majority due to opinion polls that scare two of the three leaders of the opposition. It is often said that the only polls that matter are those on election day....that is not true in our system where a governing party will dissolve Parliament when the polls are favourable and where opposition parties will decline to bring down a government that does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons when the polls because the polls say that the opposition would lose.
Our House of Commons doesn't need to be a "House" as the vast majority of members are irrelevant. The math is very simple....if Harper wants to do something, all it takes is one of the three opposition leaders fearing an election to let Harper have his way. We saw the irrelevance of the backbencher a year ago when the three leaders of the opposition decided to get together and anoint one of them (Stephane Dion) the Prime Minister. This was unpopular with Canadians (who had decisively rejected that option). This was unpopular with Liberal members who were preparing to dump their leader. This was unpopular with Bloc members who could not forgive Dion's taunting letters on Separatism. This was unpopular with New Democrat MPs as well. After Parliament was prorogued, the united opposition fell apart and Harper was safe....now Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff take turns propping up the Tories for fear of an election.
Harper did not win a majority the last time around. The concept of the "confidence of the house" is the problem. Why does losing a government sponsored vote mean that a new election must be held? If Health Care reform fails to pass Congress, should Obama resign the Presidency and a new election held? Or perhaps if Obama thought that the polls are favourable now, he will orchestrate a failure of a bill to trigger an election and give himself a fresh 4 year mandate. Sound ridiculous? That is exactly what Chretien did and what Harper did and what Mulroney did, etc,etc.
However silly this all sounds, it pales in comparison to the absurdity of our Senate. During this prorogue, Harper will appoint Senators (as is his right under our current system) and will give the Tories the majority in the Senate. So the Senate will swing from a Liberal majority to a Conservative majority. Neither of these parties has managed with win a majority from the Canadian people since the election of 2000.
William F Buckley once said that Canada was saddled with the most feeble Conservative party in the English speaking world. How sad that we now have the most feeble Liberal party in the English speaking world.
Our democracy is weaker for it however the people don't really seem to care. Perhaps that is the real problem.
It is a system where a minority government can effectively govern like a majority due to opinion polls that scare two of the three leaders of the opposition. It is often said that the only polls that matter are those on election day....that is not true in our system where a governing party will dissolve Parliament when the polls are favourable and where opposition parties will decline to bring down a government that does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons when the polls because the polls say that the opposition would lose.
Our House of Commons doesn't need to be a "House" as the vast majority of members are irrelevant. The math is very simple....if Harper wants to do something, all it takes is one of the three opposition leaders fearing an election to let Harper have his way. We saw the irrelevance of the backbencher a year ago when the three leaders of the opposition decided to get together and anoint one of them (Stephane Dion) the Prime Minister. This was unpopular with Canadians (who had decisively rejected that option). This was unpopular with Liberal members who were preparing to dump their leader. This was unpopular with Bloc members who could not forgive Dion's taunting letters on Separatism. This was unpopular with New Democrat MPs as well. After Parliament was prorogued, the united opposition fell apart and Harper was safe....now Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff take turns propping up the Tories for fear of an election.
Harper did not win a majority the last time around. The concept of the "confidence of the house" is the problem. Why does losing a government sponsored vote mean that a new election must be held? If Health Care reform fails to pass Congress, should Obama resign the Presidency and a new election held? Or perhaps if Obama thought that the polls are favourable now, he will orchestrate a failure of a bill to trigger an election and give himself a fresh 4 year mandate. Sound ridiculous? That is exactly what Chretien did and what Harper did and what Mulroney did, etc,etc.
However silly this all sounds, it pales in comparison to the absurdity of our Senate. During this prorogue, Harper will appoint Senators (as is his right under our current system) and will give the Tories the majority in the Senate. So the Senate will swing from a Liberal majority to a Conservative majority. Neither of these parties has managed with win a majority from the Canadian people since the election of 2000.
William F Buckley once said that Canada was saddled with the most feeble Conservative party in the English speaking world. How sad that we now have the most feeble Liberal party in the English speaking world.
Our democracy is weaker for it however the people don't really seem to care. Perhaps that is the real problem.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Barrack Herbert Walker Obama
Those with short memories will not recall the thrashing that George H.W. Bush took in the media for vacationing in Kennebunkeport during the Gulf crisis in 1990.
While troops were massing to liberate Kuwait, the Commander in Chief was seen on the nightly news casting a fishing line at his family's property in Maine. Many parents of servicemen about to risk their lives in a faraway land were mightily annoyed at the scenes of relaxation.
In truth I think that the criticism was unfair. A President ALWAYS has important matters to deal with and should still be able to take a vacation. In fact, I think that the nation and the world would be better served with a President who wasn't couped up in Washington at times like that.
However, in the 24 hour news cycle that exists in the world today, perceptions matter. Bush was damaged politically by that impression and wise political heads took care not to repeat that mistake.
In the wake of the recent attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines, it is worth asking if Obama has any experienced political advisors on his roster. It did not create a good image to continue his vacation in Hawaii while his Homeland Security Director declared that "the system had worked." In truth, only a failure of the detonation prevented tragedy......the system did everything possible to allow this terrorist to do his work.
It seems that the system had worked in so far as identifying the individual and placing him on a watch list. When the terrorist father (a prominent economist) raised the alarm to the US Embassy, the information was passed along to the CIA However the various agencies did nothing with that information and he eluded screening systems to smuggle the explosives on board. The system did everything except its one overriding goal which is to prevent terror attacks.
This happened on Obama's watch. It was his Homeland Security director who declared that all was fine with the system. The agencies that failed did so on his watch.
Quite apart from the merits of the screening systems, it is important for Americans to have faith in their government to protect them. That faith was shaken partly based on merit and partly based on the incredibly dumb ways in which the aftermath was handled.
Preventing terrorism should not be a political issue....neither Dems nor Republicans favour terrorists. However Obama is President and he must exude more competence than he has on this matter. The public is not being unreasonable to expect their President to appear to be handling this seriously from the start.
While troops were massing to liberate Kuwait, the Commander in Chief was seen on the nightly news casting a fishing line at his family's property in Maine. Many parents of servicemen about to risk their lives in a faraway land were mightily annoyed at the scenes of relaxation.
In truth I think that the criticism was unfair. A President ALWAYS has important matters to deal with and should still be able to take a vacation. In fact, I think that the nation and the world would be better served with a President who wasn't couped up in Washington at times like that.
However, in the 24 hour news cycle that exists in the world today, perceptions matter. Bush was damaged politically by that impression and wise political heads took care not to repeat that mistake.
In the wake of the recent attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines, it is worth asking if Obama has any experienced political advisors on his roster. It did not create a good image to continue his vacation in Hawaii while his Homeland Security Director declared that "the system had worked." In truth, only a failure of the detonation prevented tragedy......the system did everything possible to allow this terrorist to do his work.
It seems that the system had worked in so far as identifying the individual and placing him on a watch list. When the terrorist father (a prominent economist) raised the alarm to the US Embassy, the information was passed along to the CIA However the various agencies did nothing with that information and he eluded screening systems to smuggle the explosives on board. The system did everything except its one overriding goal which is to prevent terror attacks.
This happened on Obama's watch. It was his Homeland Security director who declared that all was fine with the system. The agencies that failed did so on his watch.
Quite apart from the merits of the screening systems, it is important for Americans to have faith in their government to protect them. That faith was shaken partly based on merit and partly based on the incredibly dumb ways in which the aftermath was handled.
Preventing terrorism should not be a political issue....neither Dems nor Republicans favour terrorists. However Obama is President and he must exude more competence than he has on this matter. The public is not being unreasonable to expect their President to appear to be handling this seriously from the start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
