What could possibly go wrong? 1

Much in the news about USA gun control and lack of it. So what could possibly go wrong if more guns appear in more places?

Scene 1: Disgruntled person open fires in crowded mall. Armed citizen yells at people to get down.

Scene 2: Eighty-four year old woman takes them both out with her Colt. Says the following to police:

"First person just looked so angry when he started shooting and the other guy yelled at me, screamed he was with him, was going to get me. Well, I showed him."

Photos by GH

Welcome to Harperville: “Curses! More smoke and fire down our pants”

[“The government has kept tight-lipped on details of its plans, only releasing bits of information in dribs and drabs.” Feb. 22, London Free Press]

If I wanted to sneak up behind you to steal your wallet, I’d probably try one of the oldest tricks in the book called ‘Hey, look over there. Is that your sister?’

Though you may call the trick by another name, it works like this: I don’t want you to see me slip ten bucks out of your wallet and into mine so I distract you. I point to your left and, in a very serious tone - to make myself sound very believable - I ask you to see if that person walking by is your sister.

Now, this ploy works very well if you in fact have a sister and want to engage her in a long conversation. If you don’t have a sister, then I get caught with my hand in your back pocket. Whoops.

While we speak, Prime Minister Harper is trying the same trick on all Canadians as he makes plans to reform Old Age Security (OAS) by making some or many older Canadians work longer, e.g., to age 67 (for now), before collecting hard-earned benefits.


["Is it out of this world to pay a bit more now than later?": Toon by GH]

Why, only last Tuesday, Conservative Human Resource Minister Diane Finley “tried to persuade Canadians that those changes are indeed necessary, warning doing nothing would create an undue burden on future generations of Canadians.”

Finley’s trick is very slick. She warns that we will all place an undeserved burden upon the shoulders of our grandchildren if we don’t follow the Prime Minister’s plan. Though there’s not a word about anybody’s sister, many Canadians will at least be a little more fearful now of the prospects facing children and grandchildren across this once mighty land. And when people are fearful, they’re a little more willing to sacrifice, a little more willing to spend a few more years at work in their later years.

In my opinion, though the information about PM Harper’s plan is only coming out in ‘dribs and drabs’, at least that’s better than the zero amount of information Canadians are receiving about all the reasons why revenues on the government ledger seem unable to support OAS benefits.

Yes, we hear about how people are living longer (from conservative think tanks, no less) but nary a word about how revenues have been affected by the Conservative decrease in the GST. We hear about more boomers “coming down the pipes” (Feb. 22, Free Press) but about how recent corporate tax breaks have affected the coffers - nada, as in ‘not a word’.

To help with giving Canadians even more useful information, maybe the Conservative Federal Government could conduct a poll and ask how many Canadians would like to see corporations pay 1 per cent more tax now, and be willing to spent one per cent more on the GST now, rather than work longer in the future.

Don’t hold your breath.

If you feel more heat around your ankles than usual, that’s just the smoke and fire our Prime Minister is blowing down your pants.

Get used to it, for now.

***

Please click here for More Smoke and Fire

.

Deforest City Blues: London will never be a cargo hub

[“... The massive concrete building is largely empty and has netted little business, the early predictions of a booming shipping terminal with 150 workers having fallen flat.” Oct. 15, London Free Press]

All cities chase dreams.

They want to be on the map, create a buzz, and be known for something significant.

They want to maintain a vibrant economy, keep their young people, provide a comfortable home, and “be a somebody.”

London, Ontario is no different. It dreams.

Two years ago the city dreamt of becoming a center for foreign trade, a distributor of cargo.


["Don't anchor your future on shipping stuff. Buy a scooter." GH, circa 1969]

A recent news report provides an update.

Headline - Cargo hub one pricey garage

Built by taxpayers at a cost of $11 million, London’s new airport cargo terminal has housed maintenance equipment, personal vehicles for airport executives and even a stag-and-doe party.

But in the year or more since the place was built - a project to help grow London’s economy and create jobs - it hasn’t attracted much new business, critics charge. (Oct. 15, London Free Press)

When I first heard about the cargo hub idea, two years ago, I penned a few thoughts about it for The Londoner, London’s community newspaper.

Shortly after it appeared I received a phone call from a hard-working city councillor who disagreed with my views, ones that questioned, for example, pinning a city’s hopes on shipping goods from here to there when we face a future of rising fuel prices.

At the time, though I felt I handled the criticism pretty well (32 years as an elementary school teacher helps in this regard), I was most proud of being able to express some of views succinctly in one of my favourite all-time lines, i.e., “we’re backing the wrong nag in this race, Pal.”

At the conclusion of our phone conversation, we simply agreed to disagree, and to this day, I still believe the cargo hub was a very poor idea.

Wrong nag, wrong era.

***

Please click here to read about disagreements I have with other recent articles.

Also, stay tuned to read my columns about the cargo hub from 2009.

.

100 Challenges Ahead: 2 “I won’t change”

["The cost of driving to work will rise. The price of going shopping for groceries and clothing will rise. The same can be said for going to the YMCA for exercise or movie theatre for entertainment." G.Harrison, Oct. 12, 2011]

Most people will have to face challenges associated with the rising price of gasoline, now and in the future, and some will respond by switching to a smaller car, others will call for more equitable sharing of limited, non-renewable resources, and others will respond with snippets from their personal philosophy of life, e.g., as follows:

“I don’t have to (change or share).”

“I don’t want to.”

“And I won’t.”

After six to seven decades of economic, financial and lifestyle growth, all of which was seemingly wrapped in the belief that it was without limits, there live among us a goodly percentage of people who feel or trust that life will go on and on as it ‘always has.’

I believe those who declare there is nothing much wrong with our current economic, financial and lifestyle models - and there is very little need for change - will make it more difficult than it already is to promote or actively seek change in the way families, homes, businesses and governments operate.

Please, don’t hold your breath waiting for a person with some degree of authority in a community, province, state or country to promote a retreat from the “growth without limits, culture of big” to a “live small and prosper” philosophy in order to conserve or equitably share natural resources.


And don’t expect an economic genius to come along anytime soon to figure out how to bring the price of fuel down or get everyone to adopt sound business or governmental policy. Americans Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims, recent Nobel Prize winners in economics have no easy answers to a global crisis one called simply “this mess.” World-wide panics, crises “what’s going on in Europe... that’s all about expectations about what other people are going to do,” Sargent said in an interview. (Oct. 11, London Free Press)

What will you do? Change? Not change?


More challenges ahead.

***

Please click here to read 100 Challenges Ahead: “The high price of gasoline”

.

Bits and Pieces: PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[It has become fashionable these days to view government spending as a tremendous burden on society. In fact, spending our money collectively through governments, with their strong emphasis on health care, education and welfare, is the smartest investment we, as a society, can make. Shooting The Hippo, 1995, by Linda McQuaig]

Sixteen years have passed since L. McQuaig wrote the above words. They are still true.

The average Canadian family may be getting a very good deal for the 41% it pays in taxes, 34% it pays for food, clothing and shelter and the 25% it has left over to spend on whatever it wants.

And what does the average Canadian family want? Well, if you're average, let me know!


Because, though Fraser Institute spokesperson, senior economist Niels Veldhuis, says, “Taxes have grown over the past 49 years to the point that the government is now the largest expenditure facing a family” (April 27, London Free Press), he doesn’t say what the average Canadian would actually gain by reducing taxes or the size of government or its programs.

The average Canadian could buy more food I suppose, though we are growing more obese by the day.

We could buy more clothes and more furniture for our home, I suppose. We could upgrade our transportation, communication and recreational choices, I suppose.

But perhaps there’s more benefit to putting money aside for collective choices as opposed to individual choices. More on all of us, others. Less on the individual, me.

I don’t know if Canadians will ever find out.

The more elitist organizations, such as the conservative Fraser Institute, propose fewer taxes and smaller government (without context, and usually for the elite’s overall benefit - what might that be? - and not the average Canadian’s), the more likely the average Canadian will, unknowingly, lean toward the goals of the elite.

And what are the goals of the elite?

“In many ways, what the elite wants now is to lower citizen’s expectations of what they can count on from society, to roll back the frontiers of government - to return to an earlier focus on enforcing more narrowly defined legal and political rights. It wants to wean us away from the notion of government as provider and equalizer, and re-establish the discipline of the marketplace in meting out those sorts of rewards where they are “earned.” Under the harsher discipline of the marketplace, we would have no automatic “rights” or “entitlements:” all we would have is whatever we could get by selling our services to those with the money to pay us.

“Presented this way, the new ideology might not sound appealing to most members of society; so it is rarely presented this way. Rather, proponents of rolling back government have focused on finding fault with the system of extended rights that we’ve come to enjoy, or presenting ordinary citizens as victims of an excessive tax burden apparently caused by government largesse.” pg. 7, Shooting the Hippo

Are ordinary citizens in Canada, e.g., the average Canadian family, victims of excessive taxes?

I don’t think so. The average family is growing big and strong on 34% of its income (maybe too big and strong) and has 25% leftover to buy additional stuff that will one day clutter up a big house and garage in the burbs.

Instead of worrying or questioning the size of government, we should ask for a lot more information from the Fraser Institute. They paint wild pictures and make claims that are completely unsubstantiated.

Perhaps we should even read Shooting the Hippo by Linda McQuaig so we’re better equipped to recognize a pile of guff when it appears in the news.

***

Please click here to read PT 3 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

.

This Old Economist: “Raise corporate and luxury taxes”

I stand by my title re raising taxes.

Sure, I’ll make my fair share of enemas. (That's right. I work at a medical supply center).

But based on a recent, short, economic blurb, I feel Canada and the US - by raising corporate taxes and income tax for big-rollers and taxes on luxury items - could slow runaway national debts, rope in growing budgetary deficits and beef up all-important educational programs for students and young adults caught in the grips of unemployment.

(Can the residents of Harperville hear me?)

Before you choke on your glass of Chateau Lafite 1787 (sold at Christie's London in 1985 for $160,000), here’s the blurb:


$359 billion - The amount rich Americans are forecast to spend on luxury goods in 2011, according to an American Express and Harrison Group (no relation) survey. That’s up 8% from last year. (Apr. 16, London Free Press)

Taxes are not nearly high enough on the upper crust of society. One less bottle of wine per year won’t hurt them.

***

Please click here for more from This Old Economist.

.

Welcome to Harperville PT 4: “Smoke and fire down your pants”

[Ottawa - Harper insisted the economy is his “No. 1 priority,” since the global economy remains “fragile,” hinting he’ll try to steer the election campaign towards the economy. Mar. 26, The London Free Press]

[“Mr. Harper will steer the election campaign toward the evil coalition. Stupid idea. He will also offer income splitting to some families... in the future, maybe. He continues to hinder the democratic process as he has done in the past, as in the Tar Sands. He relies on a negative ad campaign to do so.” Mar. 31, It Strikes Me Funny by G. Harrison]

Talk about smoke and fire down your pants.

Last night I was enjoying a program on TV and, during a break, one of Mr. Harper’s many negative ads appeared on the screen. Large white letters. Mr. Ignatieff linked to a coalition. Very small white letters. The date. 2008.

Old news it was. From an angry, insecure Prime Minister.

The ad helped me recall the time in 2004 when Harper wanted to lead a coalition himself to replace the Liberals. Was it a stupid, evil idea then?


["Is this head the home of all that is negative?"]

The reason why Harper, Harperites and all residents of Harperville love their blunt and bland negative ads is because Conservative support across Canada comes in at around 37% during elections, the majority of Canadians are completely willing to support someone who is not Stephen Harper, and negative ads encourage people to stay at home on election night.

That’s right, Canada. Harper doesn’t want all people to vote. Talk about a defender of democracy.


He wants Conservatives to vote (They love his ads, by the way. They’ll vote until the cows come home) but he doesn’t want the other 63% (approx.) of Canadians to vote.

He would rather blow smoke and fire down your pants, lead you to believe that there isn’t an MP in the House of Commons you can trust (except his band of merry men) and make you think there’s no good reason to vote.

Harper’s negative ads don’t work on me. They remind me of why Harper is the first PM in Canadian and Commonwealth history to be called into contempt of Parliament.

The Grand Wizard of smoke and fire is such a tiny little fellow when you get to know him.

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read ‘Smoke and fire PT 3.'

.

Series of Significance: Is ‘restaurant trouble’ big trouble?

[The following four posts were originally listed separately. They are resubmitted here in one package for your convenience. I’m all about convenience. No extra charge!]

PT 1: Is ‘restaurant trouble’ big trouble?

Headline - ‘Trouble On Menu’

“Rising fuel prices are hitting restaurants hard, a double whammy in an industry where many already struggle to survive.

“Couple that with Ontario’s rising minimum wage and an extra 7% tax on food in the form of HST in B.C., and many in the industry are facing “death by a thousand cuts,” said the head of a national association representing restaurants.” (Kelly Pedro, Mar. 11, London Free Press)

Here’s how I’m feeling.

If I can’t eat out several times per week, then my life - my lovely, normal, delightful, easy, convenient set of routines - will be over. OVER!

If I have to pay more for an over-sized supper (nicely large enough for me to get tomorrow’s lunch or dinner out of it), then I’ll be hopping mad. HOPPING!


["I wanna live like it's the 1940s."]

If I can’t pull up to a drive-thru window and pick up a neatly folded bag of hot, fast, cheap, sweet-and-salty-smelling and fatty-tasting grilled fresh supper (like, tonight’s burger night) - while I wait about 30 seconds - then I’ll likely put my fist through a wall. A WALL!

I mean, what are the alternatives around here?

.

PT 2: Is ‘restaurant trouble’ big trouble?

Headline - ‘Trouble On Menu’

“Rising fuel prices are hitting restaurants hard, a double whammy in an industry where many already struggle to survive.

“Canadians love eating out. In a poll by the (national restaurant) association, going out to a restaurant was the number one activity Canadians did with friends and family.

“On a typical day, Canadians make 17.7 million visits to restaurants, the association says.” (Kelly Pedro, Mar. 11, London Free Press)

Here’s what I think:

As fuel prices and a dozen other thing$ go North ($$), the number of visits to restaurants will slowly decline to 17.6 million visits.

Some of our favourite diners will raise their prices on their ‘daily special.’ Real tears will be shed inside one of the Malibu restaurants by customers and management staff right here in Deforest City.

Some of our favourite eateries will close. Real tears will be shed outside one of the Malibu restaurants while a manager nails a big piece of plywood over the front door.

The price of nails will rise. The new price on an Estwing hammer will break my heart.

Slowly, gradually, begrudgingly, a small handful of Canadians will attempt to cook a meal of their own in order to save money. Again, real tears will be shed. The gnashing of teeth will be heard in Wortley Village but the exact location of the sound will elude listeners for some time.


A little-known columnist will write about how he saves real money by making his own Frontier Stew, breakfast cereal and lasagna. He won’t win a Pulitzer. He will be labelled a loon. One teenager will politely suggest he’s full of crap.

.

PT 3: Is ‘restaurant trouble’ big trouble?

“...London (England) became the world’s largest city during the coal-powered industrial revolution, a tipping point for the steep rise of Earth’s population. Wealthy countries use many times more resources per capita than poorer nations, but as global incomes rise, increased consumption may stress the planet more than population growth.”

“In 1975 only three cities worldwide topped ten million. Today 21 such megacities exist, most in developing countries, where urban areas absorb much of the globe’s rising population.” (National Geographic, Jan. 2011)

The Earth’s population reached 1 billion in the early 1800s.

It reached 2 billion about 130 years later in 1930.

It reached 3 billion 30 years later in 1960. I was 11 years old and cannot remember any big party at the time.

It reached 4 billion 14 years later in 1974. I was too busy teaching young students how great the Great Lakes were to notice. Bob Dylan released the album Planet Waves. Maybe he knew something I didn’t.

It reached 5 billion 13 years later in 1987. Bob Dylan didn’t put out an album that year. I was bummed out.


It reached 6 billion 12 years later in 1999. Bob Dylan didn’t release an album that year as well. I was bummed out again.

It will reach 7 billion 12 years later in 2011. I think Dylan has something in the works this time ‘round to mark the occasion.

According to National Geographic, it may reach 8 billion 13 years from now in 2024, then taper off a bit before hitting 9 billion 20 years later in 2045.

And the magazine states: “In the coming decades, despite falling birthrates, the population will continue to grow - mostly in poor countries. If the billions of people who want to boost themselves out of poverty follow the path blazed by those in wealthy countries, they too will step hard on the planet’s resources.” (pg. 40)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in London, Ontario, Canada, where many people spend a smaller portion of disposable income on food than anywhere else in the world, there is a growing concern about rising food prices and that restaurant menus will change to reflect higher costs.

Several people are also nervous about the prospect of having to fry their own eggs and sausages in order to save money.

Will the rising global population affect the price of food on our plate as well?

Is there a magic pill we can take to make the bad news go away?


["i'm goin' for a burger. 10 cents. That's with a shake."]

Can we return to the 1940s when a burger and fries cost 10 cents? (That may have include a chocolate malt).

I’ll look into it!

.

PT 4: Is ‘restaurant trouble’ big trouble?

Earlier I asked three very important questions. I now have the answers, thanks to my dependable and completely trust-worthy research department.

One. “Will the rising global population affect the price of food on our plate... ?”

The answer is YES. Most definitely.

However, there are three things that presently buffer Canadians somewhat from rising commodity prices, food costs and much-higher menu prices.

(According to economists, the three factors that currently buffer Canadians are as follows:

The high Canadian dollar

the high proportion of food costs unrelated to crop prices such as marketing and transportation

intense retail competition)

Two. “Is there a magic pill we can take to make the bad news go away?”

No. Many thing$ are going North ($$ co$t-wi$e $$), right along with global population, and will continue to do so. Menu prices at the Malibu Restaurant will eventually rise and cause weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Three. “Can we return to the 1940s when a burger and fries cost 10 cents?”

Dream on.

Rather than dreaming on, however, we should make an effort to discover ways (though they be transient, like the aforementioned buffers, i.e., the high Canadian dollar, retail competition, etc.) to deal with the inevitable higher restaurant tabs.

For example, if eating out is dear to your heart and you believe that the Canadian pace of eating out should be maintained (i.e., at 17.7 million restaurant visits per year), perhaps you could try the following:

Prioritize your monthly expenses in order of importance to your lifestyle, reduce spending in less-important areas, take the money saved and go grab a burger.

For example, maybe TV Cable isn’t really high on your list anymore now that Charlie Sheen’s TV career is in the toilet.

That fifty, sixty, or seventy dollars per month (depending on the cable package) will buy a nice evening out on the town or a pretty darn big bag o’ burgers every Friday, right?

So, cancel your cable. Spend the savings on restaurant meals.

(I think I’m onto something here).

And, how much money are you spending on your cell phone, phone bill, iPad, gas, oil, tires and hubcaps for the car, Levis, Nike sneakers, new sweaters, books, street meat outside Canadian Tire, cartons or bags of cigarettes, cookies, ice cream, soda pop, cat food or doggie kibble and vet services for the year, curtains, couches, shag carpet, big screen TVs and Ottomans for the rec room, or on a myriad of other stuff too lengthy to mention?


["Forget about feedin' the pig. Support your local diner!"]

Admittedly, with rising prices everywhere, something will have to give, but many Canadians have hundreds of things on their lifestyle priority list and can easily shed a few. I bet some people don’t even know what they spend their money on. It just flows through their hands in a habitual consumerism-style frenzy each week. Heck, if it wasn’t for the flashing neon lights above the front door of restaurants and diners, some people would even forget to eat between shipping trips.

So, I don’t think the restaurant industry should worry too much about raising their prices a bit.

Do you?

And the headline that sparked four related posts, i.e., “Trouble on menu,” shouldn’t cause panic for the average Canadian for now.

Right?

Shop on. Eat out. Pay tomorrow.

***

How was that for a suitable ending?

Sure, I could have said ‘reduce spending, pay down debt, save money for tough times ahead,’ but “Shop on. Eat out. Pay tomorrow” has such a lovely ring to it.

***

What’s this world coming to?

Please click here to for more information about Thing$ Going North $$.

.

It Strikes Me Funny PT 1: Is ‘restaurant trouble’ big trouble?

Headline - ‘Trouble On Menu’

“Rising fuel prices are hitting restaurants hard, a double whammy in an industry where many already struggle to survive.

“Couple that with Ontario’s rising minimum wage and an extra 7% tax on food in the form of HST in B.C., and many in the industry are facing “death by a thousand cuts,” said the head of a national association representing restaurants.” (Kelly Pedro, Mar. 11, London Free Press)

Here’s how I’m feeling.

If I can’t eat out several times per week, then my life - my lovely, normal, delightful, easy, convenient set of routines - will be over. OVER!


["Thing$ are changing so fast. What's going on?"]

If I have to pay more for an over-sized supper (nicely large enough for me to get tomorrow’s lunch or dinner out of it), then I’ll be hopping mad. HOPPING!

If I can’t pull up to a drive-thru window and pick up a neatly folded bag of hot, fast, cheap, sweet-and-salty-smelling and fatty-tasting grilled fresh supper (like, tonight’s burger night) - while I wait about 30 seconds - then I’ll likely put my fist through a wall. A WALL!

I mean, what are the alternatives around here?

More frustration to follow.

***

What’s this world coming to?

Please click here for more information about Thing$ Going North $$.

.

Series of Significance: The free press follies fool no one

[The following five posts were originally presented over five separate days but are now presented below as one brilliant piece. No extra charge.]

Deforest City Blues Pt 1: Complete news? Ha!

Stand back. I feel a long and useful rant coming on.

Long, because yesterday’s editorial/point of view in the London Free Press raises so many interesting points inside my little round head.

For example: Why do some editorials smell so bad?

Is it because they are incomplete? Not balanced?

I’m not sure, but I’m willing to do some thinking out loud about this one.

I find it useful to do so.






[“The same-day DILBERT cartoon provides a hint to my true feelings about the editorial”]

If I kept all my feelings and opinions bottled up inside I might get acid reflux or indigestion - or ‘kick back,’ as I like to say at times.

The headline, i.e., ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes,’ wasn’t a bad start at all.

European debt is growing, so is Canada’s, debt can make our country vulnerable to many nasty consequences (e.g., kick back from future generations), and we all might be able to learn something from the debt crisis in Ireland and England.

So, hats off to an anonymous editorialist who lives somewhere deep in the bowels of the QMI Agency, i.e., the Quebec Media Inc. Agency, a media giant that, according to its mission statement “provides reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage...”

And that’s what we look for in the media, isn’t it? Reliability, completeness, up-to-the-minuteness?

Together, let’s see how QMI dishes out the news and discover what lessons we can learn here in Canada from the trials and tribulations of others.

More to follow.

***

First line of editorial:

“The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.”

Sounds exciting doesn’t it? But what’s that smell? Is it the lion's rump?

.

Deforest City Blues PT 2: News in London is by no means balanced

“The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.

“Ditto for the Irish economy.

“Saddled with massive debt and staggering under unaffordable social programs, both the British and the Irish are facing massive cuts.

So begins a recent editorial in our local paper, The London Free Press. (Dec. 28, 2010)

And shortly after I read it, I began to write this long but useful rant. (Some stuff you just shouldn’t hold inside!)

Though the headline, i.e., ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes,’ wasn’t a bad start (we all might be able to learn something from the debt crisis in Ireland and England), the first 3 sentences above left a lot to be desired, especially certain key words.

I.e., the welfare state... unaffordable social programs.

Does QMI Agency call this “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per their mission statement?

Don’t make me laugh. If social programs are the only or chief cause of fiscal problems in Britain and Ireland then I’ll eat my hat - the sexy straw number made in Caracas, Venezuela!


["The sexy straw number from Caracas": photo GH]

And if that’s the chief lesson Canada will learn from European debt woes then I’ll even eat the silk hat band.

The anonymous editorialist makes the point that “this country has weathered well the economic storm that has battered the U.S. and Europe. But we can’t sit smugly back on our laurels.”

Good for him or her. Smug is bad. Cocky, even worse.

But to suggest only the following remedies is way past smug, way beyond cocky.

“We cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten when we can't afford them.

“We must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control.

“We must get public sector pay hikes under control - now.”

Why, the writer’s list is so incomplete, so devoid of proper balance, it is little wonder the writer didn’t provide his or her name.

To conclude the above list by saying ‘they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations’ is so much a joke the whole piece deserves to be posted on the comics page.

In fact, on the comics page, the same day, I found a Dilbert strip that delightfully puts the editorial in proper perspective.

Below is Scott Adams’ second panel of three.


["Corporations actually transfer their tax burden?": dilbert.com]

So, what’s the punch line?

Stay tuned.

.

Deforest City Blues PT 3: Any news about private sector short-comings?

If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.

For QMI to say, as they did in a recent editorial, that public sector programs and wages are the chief reasons Canada is headed toward the same problems facing England, Ireland Portugal, Greece and Spain, is almost comic.

I actually got more truth from a same-day Dilbert cartoon.

For some unnamed editor to write that social programs are unaffordable and “we cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten... we must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control... we must get public sector pay hikes under control - now... they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations” is a far cry from “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per the QMI mission statement.

Why?

Because not one word is said about any expensive short comings in the private sector or business enterprises.

I can assure you, if there are time bombs in the public sector, there are far greater ones in the private.

For example:

Our own mayor recently expressed a wish to impose a special levy (and create an economic development fund) on local taxpayers so that monies could be collected and used to encourage local economic development.

(I wrote about it in my weekly column here.)

Here are the juicy bits:

“The city waives development charges — levied to help pay for the cost of growth — for new and expanding industries. Those charges totalled $9.5 million in 2009. Instead, taxpayers picked up the tab.”

“Homeowners are also paying $4 million a year in higher water rates than recommended, so business can get a break.”

“Those two policies alone amount to $13.5 million a year.” (‘Subsidies In Spotlight’ by Norman De Bono, The London Free Press, August 17, 2010)

If you can show me that London’s public programs and wages would be as unaffordable as QMI implies if our wise city fathers had $13.5 additional dollars at their disposal - annually! - then I’ll eat my hat.

And London is just one of dozens of medium-sized cities across Canada supporting private enterprise through public tax dollars. The total amount of subsidies, bailouts, no-interest loans, etc., must be in the billions.

I’d ask QMI Agency for a number but I’m sure they don’t know. They’re so busy painting the public sector black that they have no time to notice how quickly and deeply the private sector is bleeding the country dry.

Read ‘song for the blue ocean.’ Private fisheries are bleeding the oceans dry. (See ‘read This’ in right hand margin).

Read ‘The Politics of Oil.’ Private oil refineries are bleeding governments, whole countries dry.

Read ‘The Collapse of Globalism’ in which I recently read the following:

“It was noticed that from the second half of the 1990s on, two-thirds of American corporations paid no federal income tax. Yet corporate profits were soaring.

“Ninety percent of companies paid under 5 percent of their total income.

“In Equatorial Guinea, newly rich in oil, the national income is statistically sixth in the world. In reality the money goes elsewhere (i.e., not into the public purse, e.g., to help with public education) and the multinationals involved are complicit in its disappearance.”

On every corner of the globe private enterprise has degraded the land, sea, air and public purse for the sake of profit and power.

Yet QMI degrades the public sector, and like the upstanding private citizen that it is, forgets to mention any harm its fellow corporate friends have done to the public purse they all eat and benefit from.

According to a Dilbert cartoon featured on the same day as the unbalanced, incomplete editorial (note - I'm being very kind), there’s a common name for the type of sandwich that private enterprise wants the common man to eat every single day of the year.


["With a tip of the hat to Scott Adams and Dilbert.com"]

Can you guess its lovely name?

***


Some people might say, "Gee, I've never tasted a Sh_t Sandwich."

They would be wrong.

.

Deforest City Blues PT 4: Could QMI Agency be wrong? Biased?

If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.

Sometimes, a letter addressed to the editor contains more truth than a QMI editorial.

Case in point: Shortly after the editorial entitled ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes’ (Dec. 28, 2010) hit the streets, a reader responded with some valuable information.

Margaret Hoff wrote this letter:

“The QMI Agency editorial... concluded Canada must cut spending on social programs like full-day kindergarten so we won’t have the problems of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. None of these countries have full-day kindergarten programs.” (Jan. 3, 2011, London Free Press)

(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know stuff like that. Sorry, I digress).

“The countries in Europe that have outstanding childcare programs are the countries that are bailing out the others. They have learned that spending money on quality childcare is an excellent investment that reduces other government costs.”

(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know... sorry, I digress).

“The Ontario full-day learning system needs tweaking, but will demonstrate its value in years to come.”

(Geesh. Sorry).

I think QMI is short on details related to the good that public programs can accomplish and the high costs associated with subsidizing businesses across Canada because it’s too busy applying a thick coat of black paint, or ink, to the public sector.

Why so much black ink?

.

Deforest City Blues PT 5: Unbalanced dailies = unbalanced readership

Though many Londoners realize they shouldn’t look for complete news in The London Free Press, thanks to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind the paper, others eat up unbalanced editorials and parrot or champion editorials at many an opportunity.

A couple of days ago, Joe Carr wrote the following in a letter to the editor:

“Let’s get real. The economy is still in a fragile state. Provincial governments and municipalities are struggling to keep taxes under control and give relief to hard-pressed taxpayers.”

So far, so good. No need for me to crack the whip at poor Joe. He’s just venting.

And maybe he’s going to share a worthy idea related to tax control.

He says:

“It is time for the police, firefighters, teachers and others in that reasonably safe employment group to step up to the plate and help out. They are well paid (and deservedly so) and if they took a wage freeze for a year they would still be well paid.”

Certainly, the public servants mentioned would likely survive a wage freeze. But... and this is a big but... are public servants the only ones that should make a sacrifice to help “keep taxes under control and give some relief to hard-pressed taxpayers?”

There are other members of society too with money, some of them with bags of money, with some of the bags coming directly from taxpayers’ pockets.

Joe might change his tune if he heard more often that taxpayer subsidies to London developers and industries have been equal to $13.5 million annually in recent years. Joe might one day think that if he wants more bang for his buck for hard-pressed taxpayers he should look more critically at the private sector books, not the public’s.

According to recent news, one economic development group in London has an $800,000 surplus and still our Mayor thinks a special levy (upon the public, for the private sector) is in order to help with local economic development.

Mr. Carr laments, “Many (public servants) took large raises during the hardest portion of the recession...”

No mention is made of raises in the private sector or the ridiculously high level of compensation given to CEOs in private business at the same time.

He concludes, “It’s time to give the people who suffered through this scary time a chance to catch up. The economy needs these people to work and make a decent wage for the economy to fully recover.”

Excellent conclusion, in my humble opinion. I’m sure there’s not one among us who disagrees with helping people catch up or recover.

What I do disagree with, however, is the total absence of any mention of the equal, if not greater, responsibility of the private sector.

Can problems related to unemployment, wage loss and uncontrollable taxes only be laid at the feed of the public sector?

No.

QMI Agency is wrong. Joe Carr is wrong.

We’re all in this together, and where sacrifices and changes (perhaps to employment and tax structures) can be made, they should be made.


We’re also in this equally, and there is no one among us without equal and growing responsibility to right many wrongs that exist.

In conclusion, I say there's nothing wrong with news agencies, editorialists or letter writers saying that there is much the public sector can do better. Savings can be made, many efficiencies can be considered. But there is also much, if not more, that the private sector can do better and Londoners should be able to read about it in their dailies.

To use Joe Carr’s words, it’s time for the private sector to “step up to the plate and help out” as well, and QMI should recognize that fact and editorialize about that side of the equation as often as they slam the public sector.

I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better already.

***

Please click here to link to more Deforest City Blues

.

Live Small: Do we need another medium-sized potato chip company?

There’s a first time for everything.

(Have you tried my oatmeal recipe that includes diced cranberries and ground almonds? If you’re feeling a bit peckish, call me).

A recent letter to the editor (Feb. 16, London Free Press) got me thinking about small- and medium-sized companies. Not to open one, mind, but where, and what should they make.

Bill H. writes:

“It’s depressing to see the powers that be at city hall planning for the next 50 years, using ideas from the last 50 years.”

I’m pretty sure Bill is referring to the talk about developing more land for industrial use out by the 401, a super-highway that connects London to Windsor, Detroit, and the American mid-west on the one hand (incl. Route 66 if you can find where it starts in Chicago), and our arch-rival Waterloo, then Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Labrador and the Eastern Seaboard (incl. the Maritimes and NYC and all that The Big Apple entails) on the other hand.


["I thought, the things we touch disappear!"]

Sure, smog and diesel fumes are associated with super-highways, and the price of oil will one day put the kibosh on many manufactured goods, but if we can get those miles of expensive tarmac to help us back into the Top Ten of Canadian cities (i.e., population-wise; the Happiness Index, aka HI - Ya, is another story) we should maybe start digging ourselves a deep hole - for solid foundations, I mean.

What’s Bill think about this?

“Handing out corporate welfare to large companies and hoping they make a few jobs doesn’t work anymore.”

“More jobs are created by small- and medium-sized companies than large ones.”

Bill gave several reasons to support his assertion, e.g., “their owners are more likely to live in the community , raise their families here...” etc.


["More chips? More soda? More beef? More pork? More?"]

However, rather than giving a thumbs up to Bill and thumbs down to more big business as usual, or visa versa, my mind went in another direction.

It happens on occasion. I have just learned to go with the flow. Something I learned in the 1960s perhaps.

I thought, should we consider what any small-, medium- or big-business is producing before we throw support behind it?

For example:

In light of North American consumption patterns, do we need a medium-sized potato chip company within driving distance, or even a small one?

In light of rising oil prices and global consumption, do we need industries that rely on huge trucks for supplies and distribution? Remember how quiet the 401 became when oil prices hit the $130 - 140 range a couple of years ago?


["Maybe we need to train for tough times ahead": photos GH]

Should municipal governments (all levels really) be driving sustainable lifestyles, including reductions in production of many non-essential goods, rather than driving the economy with expensive growth near the highway?

Should City Halls consider and discuss what goods, food stuffs, jobs and resultant lifestyles will be sustainable for the next 50 years?

Sure, I’ll have to live until I’m 111-years old to find out but... there is a first time for everything.

***

Please click here for a series of posts with a Live Small frame of mind.

.

It Strikes Me Funny: It’s not like we don’t know

We know - we have for quite some time - US national debt is going North.

(It will surpass $15 Trillion this year).


We know Canadian debt is going North.

(It will surpass $600 Billion this year).

We know personal debt is going North.

(Canadian per capita debt is now at $150 per $100 income for the first time).

All these things we know.

What we don’t know - this strikes me funny - is what to do about it.

We know the days of $15 oil (price per barrel), as in the early 1980s, are over.

We know oil prices have increased four-fold in the last ten years alone.


We know global oil consumption has grown steadily since 1984.

We know global oil consumption, as from 1996 - 2006, cannot be sustained.

1996 - 71,669,000 barrels, a 2.19% rise over 1995
2006 - 84,977,000 barrels, a 1.16% rise over 2005
(Source: United States Energy Information Administration)

We know the oil bubble will burst, that it may have an unstoppable leak already.

These things we know.

What we don’t know - and this also strikes me funny - is what to do about it.


I’d recommend, just off the top of my head, long distance training.

***

Please click here to read a series related to US debt.

How exciting is that!

.

Yipes! Dead economist slams municipal budgets. Or does he?

A recent and highly imaginative letter to the editor gets full marks for waking me up.

Really, it’s not every day a quote from a dead French economist is cited here in Canada to encourage municipal politicians to hold the line on public sector wages.

The letter from Jim Rodgers (Blenheim) begins as follows:

“With the annual municipal budgets upon us and the usual demands for higher wages, I am reminded of the saying of the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat...”

Wait. Stop the movie for a sec. I’ve got to catch my breath. A man from Blenheim realizes budgetary matters are being discussed in his region and a saying from a long dead economist enters his mind.

Yipes. My education has been sadly neglected.

But not today. I’m going to Google this one! Back in a minute.

... (Hum the Jeopardy theme song while waiting)

I’m back with good news. Information about Bastiat is plentiful.

This from Biography of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo:


CLAUDE FREDERIC BASTIAT was a French economist, legislator, and writer who championed private property, free markets, and limited government.

After twenty years of intense intellectual preparation, articles began to pour out of Bastiat, and soon took the form of his first book, Economic Sophisms, which to this day is still arguably the best literary defense of free trade available.

While Bastiat was shaping economic opinion in France, Karl Marx was writing Das Kapital, and the socialist notion of "class conflict" that the economic gains of capitalists necessarily came at the expense of workers was gaining in popularity.

Bastiat's Economic Harmonies explained why the opposite is true, that the interests of mankind are essentially harmonious if they can be cultivated in a free society where government confines its responsibilities to suppressing thieves, murderers, and special-interest groups who seek to use the state as a means of plundering their fellow citizens.

In other words, some things change and other things stay the same.

Many governments today support free markets and free trade but have stiff competition from major corporations - some of the most powerful of special-interest groups - when it comes to plundering citizens.

So, I’m surprised that Mr. Rodgers doesn’t make any mention of the private sector or corporate budgets and CEO wages.

For example: When he quotes Bastiat’s reasonings, i.e., “when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it...” how is it that the private sector didn’t come to mind?

***

A bias against the public sector and for the private sector has existed for many years in some quarters.

A balanced approach is more important, in my opinion.

.

Newspaper Clipping: It’s the FINAL corporate tax cut, eh?

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper boasted Friday about the country's job creation record under his government's stewardship and warned opposition parties that more corporate tax cuts are vital to keep the economy growing.” (Jan. 8, Timmins Press)

So begins a recent news clip that sends a warning to all those who work in, or appreciate having, a healthy public sector in Canada.

We have a PM who crows about jobs even though most are part-time and some economists are fretting that our job creation is very problematic and “less than optimal.”


["PM Harper is giving it away."]

We have a Conservative government that will crow to the end that more corporate tax cuts are vital while not saying one word about the attack from all sides our public sector is experiencing.

Though Harper will argue “that it is vital that the last of an annual series of corporate tax cuts be allowed to proceed” (on Jan. 1, the corporate tax rate fell to 16.5% from 18% and next year the rate is scheduled to fall further to 15%) you have to ask yourself the following:

If national debt is growing faster than we can rein it in...

if household debt is higher than ever...

if several provinces can’t pay their bills...

if conservative and corporate editorialists are saying, “We must get our (public) spending under control... we cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten when we can’t afford them... we must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control... we must get public sector pay hikes under control - now - (because) they are ticking time bombs...” (Dec. 28, London Free Press)

then where will PM Harper get the money to replace corporate taxes?

Won’t he need to replace even more money if a further cut in corporate taxes is on Harper’s agenda?

How will he raise the Conservative government’s first payment ever toward our country’s record setting $600 billion national debt?

If you’re an average citizen, go look in the mirror.

Then hide your wallet.

***

The public sector is under attack. Why?

.

Follow Up: Are Conservatives fair to the average taxpayer?

I would say ‘no.’

I would also say I only bring this up because I produced a long and useful rant last week (some things you just shouldn’t hold inside) and a little news clip about Canada’s Federal Conservatives really seems to connect with that.

So, here’s the thing in a nutshell.

(Nutshell really seems to fit as well whenever I refer to Conservative John Baird. Sorry, I digress).

Related to toxic pollutants in the Alberta oilsands, then Environment Minister Baird said, “We acknowledge that we’ve got to up our game.”

[I’ll explain who has to up their game in a sec.]

“Industry’s got to do the same, the province has to as well. If there are costs, we will find a way to make it happen.” (Dec. 22, 2010, London Free Press)


["Let the little guy pick up the tab": Cartoon GH]

The news clip went on to say ‘how the government will cover those costs isn’t clear. While the (expert) panel recommended a user-pay system, Baird wouldn’t commit to charging industry.’

In other words, industry can kill the waters in Alberta but not have to pay costs related to upping the game in cleanup.

So, who will have to step up to the plate and help out?

Go look in the mirror. If you pay taxes, the person staring back at you will have to pay more.

Is the Conservative government fair to the average taxpayer?

No, and it gets worse.

Stay tuned.

***

Some editorialists and letter writers believe only the public sector needs to step up and help out.

.

Newspaper Clippings: The taller the trash pile, the better

I tip my hat to Ian Gillespie, columnist for The London Free Press, for saying what I was thinking (well, almost) about grievances from local residents related to Toronto’s trash.

(Ian. G.’s full article here.)

Yes, Toronto produces a lot of trash, dozens of truckloads per day will enter a landfill site in our backyard, our sight lines along the 401 will change and the smell SW of town will ripen.

But Ian rightfully nails our complaints to the wall.

He says:

“London, we should remember, is the city that’s ranked 10th out of 12 larger urban centres in Ontario in terms of waste diversion.”


[Fresh Kills landfill: "On a clear day you can smell for miles"]

In other words, if we’re going to complain about sight lines, look closer to home.

Ian says:

“When it comes to trash, nobody does the “out of sight, out of mind” attitude better than London.”

“We refuse to take any real responsibility for limiting our waste, and we’re shocked when another city does the same.”

“And here’s the kicker: London did almost the identical thing about 30 years ago when the city disregarded objections from the annexed township of Westminster and built a giant landfill site there.” (Jan. 5, London Free Press)

All fair and good observations.

In my humble opinion, the taller the pile of Toronto trash the better. If it one day rivals the (now-closed) Fresh Kills landfill site on Staten Island, N.Y., fine.

Maybe then we’ll take notice of our own trashy habits, excessive consumption levels, and endless waste.

***

What’s that smell?

I don’t always compliment articles in the local paper, like a recent one that rips the public sector. Click here for the whole kit and caboodle.

.

Deforest City Blues PT 5: Where do Londoners get complete news?

Though many Londoners realize they shouldn’t look for complete news in The London Free Press, thanks to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind the paper, others eat up unbalanced editorials and parrot or champion editorial at many an opportunity.

A couple of days ago, Joe Carr wrote the following in a letter to the editor:

“Let’s get real. The economy is still in a fragile state. Provincial governments and municipalities are struggling to keep taxes under control and give relief to hard-pressed taxpayers.”

So far, so good. No need for me to crack the whip at poor Joe. He’s just venting.

And maybe he’s going to share a worthy idea related to tax control.

He says:

“It is time for the police, firefighters, teachers and others in that reasonably safe employment group to step up to the plate and help out. They are well paid (and deservedly so) and if they took a wage freeze for a year they would still be well paid.”

Certainly, the public servants mentioned would likely survive a wage freeze. But... and this is a big but... are public servants the only ones that should make a sacrifice to help “keep taxes under control and give some relief to hard-pressed taxpayers?”

There are other members of society too with money, some of them with bags of money, with some of the bags coming directly from taxpayers’ pockets.

Joe might change his tune if he heard more often that taxpayer subsidies to London developers and industries have been equal to $13.5 million annually in recent years. Joe might one day think that if he wants more bang for his buck for hard-pressed taxpayers he should look to the private sector, not the public.

According to recent news, one economic development group in London has an $800,000 surplus and still our Mayor thinks a special levy (upon the public, for the private sector) is in order to help with local economic development.

Mr. Carr laments, “Many (public servants) took large raises during the hardest portion of the recession...”

No mention is made of raises in the private sector or the ridiculously high level of compensation given to CEOs in private business at the same time.

He concludes, “It’s time to give the people who suffered through this scary time a chance to catch up. The economy needs these people to work and make a decent wage for the economy to fully recover.”

Excellent conclusion, in my humble opinion. I’m sure there’s not one among us who disagrees with helping people catch up or recover.

What I do disagree with, however, is the total absence of any mention of the equal, if not greater, responsibility of the private sector.

Can problems related to unemployment, wage loss and uncontrollable taxes only be laid at the feed of the public sector?

No.

Joe Carr is wrong. QMI Agency is wrong.

We’re all in this together, and where sacrifices and changes (perhaps to employment and tax structures) can be made, they should be made.

We’re also in this equally, and there is no one among us without equal and growing responsibility to right many wrongs that exist.

In conclusion, I say there's nothing wrong with news agencies, editorialists or letter writers saying that there is much the public sector can do better. Savings can be made, many efficiencies can be considered. But there is also much, if not more, that the private sector can do better and Londoners should be able to read about it in their dailies.

To use Joe Carr’s words, it’s time for the private sector to “step up to the plate and help out” as well, and QMI should recognize that fact and editorialize about that side of the equation as often as they slam the public sector.


I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better already.

***

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 1 here.

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 2 here.

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 3 here.

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 4 here.

.

Deforest City Blues PT 4: Where do Londoners get complete news?

If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.

Sometimes, a letter addressed to the editor contains more truth than a QMI editorial.

Case in point: Shortly after an editorial entitled ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes’ (Dec. 28, 2010) hit the streets, a reader responded with some valuable information.

Margaret Hoff wrote this letter:

“The QMI Agency editorial... concluded Canada must cut spending on social programs like full-day kindergarten so we won’t have the problems of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. None of these countries have full-day kindergarten programs.” (Jan. 3, 2011, London Free Press)

(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know stuff like that. Sorry, I digress).

“The countries in Europe that have outstanding childcare programs are the countries that are bailing out the others. They have learned that spending money on quality childcare is an excellent investment that reduces other government costs.”

(Geesh. You would think a newspaper editor would know... sorry, I digress).

“The Ontario full-day learning system needs tweaking, but will demonstrate its value in years to come.”

(Geesh. Sorry).

I think QMI is short on details related to the good that public programs can accomplish and the high costs associated with subsidizing businesses across Canada because it’s too busy applying a thick coat of black paint, or ink, to the public sector.

Why so much black ink?

***

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 1 here.

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 2 here.

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 3 here.

.

Deforest City Blues PT 3: Where do Londoners get complete news?

If you want complete news don’t look to Quebec Media Inc. or the QMI Agency, the money and mindless muscle behind our local paper, The London Free Press.

For QMI to say, as they did in a recent editorial entitled ‘Canada must take lessons from European debt woes’ (Dec. 28, 2010), that public sector programs and wages are the chief reasons Canada is headed toward the same problems facing England, Ireland Portugal, Greece and Spain, is almost comic.

I actually got more truth from a same-day Dilbert cartoon.




["Final panel and punch line below"]

For some unnamed editor to write that social programs are unaffordable and “we cannot continue to fund costly programs such as all-day kindergarten... we must get civil service salaries and lavish pensions under control... we must get public sector pay hikes under control - now... they are ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in the faces of future generations” is a far cry from “reliable, complete and up-to-the-minute news coverage” as per the QMI mission statement.

Why?

Because not one word is said about any expensive short comings in the private sector or business enterprises.

I can assure you, if there are time bombs in the public sector, there are far greater ones in the private.

For example:

Our own mayor recently expressed a wish to impose a special levy (and create an economic development fund) on local taxpayers so that monies could be collected and used to encourage local economic development.

(I wrote about it in my blog here.)

(I wrote about it in my weekly column here.)

Here are the juicy bits:

“The city waives development charges — levied to help pay for the cost of growth — for new and expanding industries. Those charges totalled $9.5 million in 2009. Instead, taxpayers picked up the tab.”

“Homeowners are also paying $4 million a year in higher water rates than recommended, so business can get a break.”

“Those two policies alone amount to $13.5 million a year.” (‘Subsidies In Spotlight’ by Norman De Bono, The London Free Press, August 17, 2010)

If you can show me that London’s public programs and wages would be as unaffordable as QMI implies if our wise city fathers had $13.5 additional dollars at their disposal - annually! - then I’ll eat my hat.


["Trust me. The hat is safe": photo GH]

And London is just one of dozens of medium-sized cities across Canada supporting private enterprise through public tax dollars. The total amount of subsidies, bailouts, no-interest loans, etc., must be in the billions.

I’d ask QMI Agency for a number but I’m sure they don’t know. They’re so busy painting the public sector black that they have no time to notice how quickly and deeply the private sector is bleeding the country dry.

Read ‘song for the blue ocean.’ (See ‘read This’ in right hand margin). Private fisheries are bleeding the oceans dry.

Read ‘The Politics of Oil.’ Private oil refineries are bleeding governments, whole countries dry.

Read ‘The Collapse of Globalism’ in which I recently read the following:

“It was noticed that from the second half of the 1990s on, two-thirds of American corporations paid no federal income tax. Yet corporate profits were soaring.

“Ninety percent of companies paid under 5 percent of their total income.

“In Equatorial Guinea, newly rich in oil, the national income is statistically sixth in the world. In reality the money goes elsewhere (i.e., not into the public purse, e.g., to help with public education) and the multinationals involved are complicit in its disappearance.”

On every corner of the globe private enterprise has degraded the land, sea, air and public purse for the sake of profit and power.

Yet QMI degrades the public sector, and like the upstanding private citizen that it is, forgets to mention any harm its fellow corporate friends have done to the public purse they all eat and benefit from.

According to a Dilbert cartoon featured on the same day as the unbalanced, incomplete editorial (note - I'm being very kind), there’s a common name for the type of sandwich that private enterprise wants the common man to eat every single day of the year.


["With a tip of the hat to Scott Adams and Dilbert.com"]

Can you guess its lovely name?

***

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 1 here.

Please visit Deforest City Blues Pt 2 here.

Some common men will say, "I've never tasted a Sh_t Sandwich."

They would be wrong.

.