Welcome to Harperville: “Smoke and fire up your pants”

[“Some critics of Ottawa’s economic approach say they’re concerned with (Canada’s) increasing reliance on petroleum revenue they contend comes at the expense of other regions.” Jan. 12, London Free Press]

Canada’s Conservative Federal Government (aka The Feds) has one plan and one plan only for the country’s economic future, i.e., sell as much dirty, expensive tar sand oil as soon as possible.

There is no Plan B, so if you feel the heat a-risin’ up your pant leg, a weak, short-sighted economic plan for 35 million people in a warming climate may be one reason.

Another reason. When Line Dance Minister Jim Flatulence, the man in charge of the largest debt in Canadian history and an unmanageable deficit, says, “It’s clear to me it’s not time for dangerous new spending” (Jan. 12, Free Press), he doesn’t mention the excessive costs related to purchasing fighter jets from the U.S.A. (the actual costs are unknown), to building new federal prisons in a country with a lowering crime rate, to expanding the size of the House of Commons, and to the largest Prime Minister’s Office in the history of Canada, if not the known universe.


[“Let me know how your debate goes”: see Dolighan.com]

Add to the mix a Prime Minister who doesn’t give a tinker’s toot for the environment (he may not even know that global warming, climate instability and Canada’s excessive exploitation of natural resources are related) and we have perfect conditions for a lot more smoke and fire up your pants.

Keep a water bucket handy if you can afford it.

***

Please click here for more Welcome to Harperville.

.

Welcome to Harperville: “Still more smoke and fire up your pants”

[There will be no golden eggs in this winter’s federal budget for Opposition MPs with their hands out. Nov. 26, London Free Press]

Line Dance Minister Jim Flatulence, never short for words, said a lot of interesting things about his upcoming budget recently, “left little or no room for anyone looking to derail the government’s cost-cutting agenda”, but also left several things unsaid, according to Conservative Prime Minister Harper’s tight-lipped plan.

What was said?

“As we do every year, we will hear from various groups, including the opposition, calling for more spending, new programs and bigger government.” (Nov. 26, Free Press)

What wasn’t said?

The Conservatives will thumb their noses at the opposition in the spirit of co-operation with the majority of Canadians, and will keep really quiet about the ‘more spending, new programs and bigger government’ of their own as the mystery bills for their ‘Omnibush’ Crime Bill, fighter jets and last Economic Action Plan come home to roost in the future.


["While Harper spends, spends, spends - suck on this, Canada!": photo GH]

What else was said?

“Although we stand prepared to be flexible and pragmatic should circumstances warrant it, we will stick to our low-tax plan to create jobs and economic growth.”

What wasn’t said?

The Conservatives have no plan or money if there is no economic growth because their current low-tax plan has reduced the size of the government coffers considerably, and it will shrink even more once their next promised corporate-tax reduction comes into effect.

What else was said?

“If European leaders continue to dither, future generations will inherit unsustainable debt burdens.”

What wasn’t said?

Canadian Conservative leaders will continue to dither with their low-tax plan to create jobs.

PM Harper has no Plan B.

Canadians already carry unsustainable debt burdens and future generations will inherit even more.

PM Harper and his Line Dance Minister will blow even more smoke and fire up our pants in the spring.

Stay tuned.


***

Please click here to read “More smoke and fire up your pants.”

.

This Old Economist: Jim Flaherty’s idea is off course PT 2

As I’ve said in the past, anyone can be an economist.

Even if you just have a library card, you can enter the ranks.

But as your first move, don’t propose a new pension plan like Canada’s Finance Minister Jim Flatulence did recently.


["Count my fingers. Many need to save twice as much."]

Sure, one might think he’s just thinking of others, e.g., the self employed or those who work for small employers. But is he?

Two paragraphs in a recent news article make me think otherwise.

The first:

“Officials will continue to study various CPP options (The Canada Pension Plan is in really big trouble.) - including higher regular contributions to the mandatory retirement fund - before reconvening on the issue in June.” (Flaherty touts pensions, Dec. 21, London Free Press)

This says to me that Flaherty would rather get busy and help a few people by starting up a new pension program than help many other people - along with the aforementioned ‘few’ - by simply fine-tuning the already up-and-running CPP.

Jim, just ask people to increase their level of CPP contributions. They levels are too low. Have been for a long time!

Don’t propose another round of studies, Jim. You already know people aren’t saving enough for retirement. (Really. How many more reports or studies do you need to read, Jim?)

Just take the small hit in the polls for the sake of doing the right thing and move on.

But Jim likely won’t, based on what he says.

“We are all concerned about a fragile economic recovery... so there is concern about not putting more burdens on employers right now.”

When would be the best time to do the right thing? Now.

More burdens on employers? They’ve had a break for years. So have many employees if they haven't been saving enough for retirement. That’s one of the main reasons the CPP is suffering.

Get with it, man. Be tough.

By the way the PRPP is a Stup - rpp - id idea.

***

See Jim Flaherty’s idea is off course PT 1 here.

.

Letter to Editor (re HST) is long on angst, short on accuracy

Arn Brown's angst is so vividly portrayed in a recent letter to the editor (Sept. 23, The Londoner) that I regret pointing out weaknesses in the accuracy deptartment.

Then again, somebody should. Why not me?

Mr. Brown begins:

"When you wake up in the morning, the last thing you are thinking about is HST."

Now, that's almost true in my own case. There are 142 other things I think about first.

E,g., "get to the bathroom quickly" is number one. Number two "make coffee." Then 140 other things before "the HST."

However, then 12 other items follow, including "put pajamas back under the pillow."

So, Arn starts off in dramatic fashion, but let's be honest, the HST isn't last on everyone's mental list.

Arn writes:

"However, while you were sleeping you were racking up an HST bill."

Again, high points for drama (I mean, my gosh, what if we left on every light and appliance in the house, including the oven at 500 degrees and the electric lawn mower in the dining room, and left every tap on in the house full throttle, our hydro and water bills plus the dreaded and dang-fangled HST would be what - 10 dollars?) but the HST for one typical night's rest in cozy country I like to call my home would be what- 10 cents?

Arn continues:

"When the alarm rings, HST kicks in; when you stumble to the bathroom, more HST."

I'm completely befuddled. Unless Arn's alarm clock is the size of his dining room and draws a huge amount of hydro and turns on every light and opens every tap in his house when it rings, how will he notice any difference in the amount of HST that has already been "racking up" - one penny at a time - while he was snoozing?

And how does the government know when he's stumbling to his bathroom? Is Arn charged more HST for falling down? What if he turns around halfway down the hall and returns to bed? Does he get a rebate?

I like the drama, the mood ("That dadgum HST is up my snoot!"), but I think Arn is incensed beyond reason and needs to tighten up his argument - if he even has one.

I'd like to make some suggestions.

Tune in tomorrow.

***

Link to my most recent column - see It Strikes Me Funny: Weekly Column - side margin.

Finance Minister Jim Flatulence brags about Canada’s economy...

...Like a used car salesman brags about an old Buick.

Recently Mr. Flatulence boasted that Canada’s economy is getting better faster than expected and I felt like I was a teenager again and listening to some guy with slicked back hair tell me about the exotic features of some old clunker.

“You’ll love how easy it is to reach the volume control on the radio.”

Translation: The a/c hasn’t worked since 1964 and the car dealership won’t put a dime towards it.

“Look how solid the body is.”

Translation: Don’t look under the car.


“There’s only 59,000 miles on this baby.”

Translation: This year alone. The total is over the moon.

When Flatulence says “we have virtually recouped a recession’s worth of economic decline in less than a year” (June 22, London Free Press) he wants us to skip over the fact that our nation’s overall debt and annual budgetary deficit are at record highs.

When he says “Canada has been able to have a vigorous stimulus package” he forgets to mention that taxpayers will have to spend the next decade digging out from under it.

When he says “at the same time, our deficit and debt levels are way below what they are in other advanced countries” he means, some countries really, really, really suck right now but we just really, really suck.

Yup, only 59,000 miles on this baby.

***

Finance Minister Jim Flatulence does have one plan to try to save Canada some money. But it won’t work.

Please click here to read my careful, and brilliant, analysis concerning his plan.

http://itstrikesmefunny.blogspot.com/2010/05/pennies-pennies-pt-2-does-it-make-sense.html

.