let's give our head a shake

London has the highest unemployment rate of any big city in Canada and employment policies are not in place to bring the rate down.

["from London Free Press, April 6 2013"]

London is not alone at making an inadequate response to rising unemployment. For decades 5 - 6% unemployment was the norm. The new normal rate is now much higher across the country. And government and big business practices are hopelessly inadequate to meet the problem head on.

["Will 9 - 10% become the new normal?" London Free Press]

Please note the last line in the above photo, i.e., 'Local Jobs Breakdown'. Though it actually acts as a heading of a list of job gains and losses across certain sectors, it made me think about possible reasons for the last decade of job breakdowns in our country:

Corporate taxes have declined in the last decade while jobs losses have mounted. The 'job creators' (and some of the wealthiest among us) are obviously not doing their job. Maybe they are too busy spending what should be considered our economic stimulus money. 

["Most job creators don't know you exist. Now what?" gah]

Government tax revenues have declined, chiefly thanks to tax cuts, and public service cuts have followed. More job losses. More people not spending money. Job creation is lost as well.

Governments hesitate to raise taxes to increase revenues to keep people at work. Governments aim for zero taxes rather than helping people get back to work. Modern priorities are 'fewer workers', not 'more workers.'

In government and business, expensive 'smart' machines are gaining employment faster than new graduates. Smart equipment is replacing middle-aged employees who are now expected to stay in the game until age 67, not 65. 

["Let's give our collective heads a shake" gah]

As well, consumers are in love with cheap goods from China and other countries.

Why is our thinking so 'outta whack?'

Photos by GH

***

Please click here to read 10% unemployment is coming

The Canadian Dream is dust: “Plan for a new normal... now”

[“ Good grief, Mr. Harper. We sure know we’re in trouble when foxes are in charge of the hen house.” GH, Feb. 6, The Canadian Dream is dust: Pensions are political footballs]

You may think otherwise, but I don’t imagine pension plans are going to get stronger in Conservative Canada. The whole idea of working hard for 40 years (thereabouts) and retiring in a good-sized house with a secure pension has seen its day, in my opinion, now that most corporations pretty well have their way with employees, primarily put profits ahead of people and communities, and earn tax cuts as if its their inevitable right.

Tax cuts for corporations are sacrosanct as far as most Conservative politicians are concerned. It’s Rule 1 in their song book. Does that seem right to you, especially as the gap between the haves and have nots is growing?

Because of such short-sighted, unsustainable thinking and its prevalence today, I now throw out a few more ideas about pensions.

Number Four. A very good idea. Reduce current spending. Good jobs seem to be fleeing the country and they will likely be a long time coming back. Our excessive lifestyle was built on the back of cheap oil over the last 7 - 10 decades and oil’s current price (approx. $100 per barrel) will not be coming down as the resource becomes scarcer and as production costs rise. Canada’s petro-dollar comes with no guarantee related to its stability.


["I think the new rule is... 99% of us are on our own."]

Idea Five. Another very good idea. Pay down debt in the next year or two - really go at it - in order to apply idea six.

Idea Six. A most excellent idea. Save money for tough times ahead. Since our Conservative government would like to move people toward voluntary private pension plans, weaken the veracity of the CPP and OAS, and put no energy into encouraging corporations to develop pension plans to assist workers once they leave their jobs, a significant portion of every pay cheque needs to be saved and sheltered inside an interest bearing savings account, Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), or some other trustworthy money-making vehicle (and not just under the mattress). What is a significant portion? As much as possible... then double it.

Idea Seven. Another excellent idea. Decrease household expenses by moving to a smaller home or apartment close to public transit and eating smaller portions at most meals. The Canadian Dream is dust and our government and wealthy corporations have no sustainable plans for a future that includes the average Canadian.

I apologize for not creating a guaranteed pension plan for you up to this point. I think is out of my hands anyway. But, as people reduce their financial costs and burdens now, they’ll be better able to prepare for life after work.

***

Please click here to read The Canadian Dream is dust: Pensions are political footballs

.

2012 in Review PT 2: “For jobs, I grew up in the best of times”

[“2011 is gone and forgotten. Gone because 2012 has lurched into the room in soiled pants and most people can’t look away. Forgotten because there are many growing trends - all too familiar - to keep us fully occupied.” G. Harrison, 2012 in Review PT 1, Friday, Jan.6]

Many Canadians will lose sleep as the erosion of good jobs becomes an ongoing occurrence in our country.

Thoughts like “My job may be next!” and “I’m just a pay cheque away from tough times” will become common place.

While good jobs continue to disappear for a variety of reasons (e.g., down-sizing, right-sizing, corporate greed, weaknesses associated with the free market economy, short-sighted government policy, etc.), I must admit that, as I look back on my job history, I grew up in the best of times.

In small-town Ontario, 16 miles south of Woodstock and the 401 highway and 40 miles north of Long Point and Lake Erie, jobs grew on trees - or tomato vines - as far as I was concerned as a ten-year old. I had my pick of part-time jobs helping local growers bring in their harvest of tomatoes, asparagus, apples, strawberries, green and yellow beans, bales of hay and a variety of other crops.


["Jobs grew on trees - or tomato vines...": illustration GH]

At such jobs I not only earned decent pocket-money but learned valuable life lessons as well.

For example:

Cutting asparagus hurt my back

After picking tomatoes I could quickly wash my hands by squishing a ripe (but marred) tomato between my fingers

Wear a long-sleeved shirt when tossing hay bales

Ask for help when throwing a 50-pound sack of green beans onto a truck

If I saved up, tomato money would last until Christmas.

Full-time or year-round jobs didn’t grow on trees; one had to be in the right place at the right time.

In my case, I was offered my first year-round job while bouncing a tennis ball off the back wall of the Norwich public school when I was 10 -11 years old. Francis Webber saw me there, noticed I had nothing better to do than chase after a ball, stopped to chat and soon asked if I wanted his London Free Press paper route. 40 customers. $4.00 per week. Back home in less than an hour.

I took it and soon bought - out of my earnings - my own large metal carrier for my red CCM bicycle (the carrier was the perfect size for 40 copies of the Free Press and a complimentary canvas bag) and in good weather I could finish my route in 30 minutes and be back in bed by 7 a.m. Easy - kapeasy!

Why, I was earning almost 80 cents an hour without even breaking a sweat!

Stay tuned for more of “the best of times.”

***

Please click here to read 2012 in Review PT 1: Good jobs will continue to erode

.

2012 in Review: Good jobs will continue to erode

2011 is gone and forgotten.

Gone because 2012 has lurched into the room in soiled pants and most people can’t look away.

Forgotten because there are many growing trends - all too familiar - to keep us fully occupied.

I predict many will be kept awake as the erosion of good jobs becomes an ongoing occurrence in my home city, London, Ontario and elsewhere.

“My job may be next!” some Londoners will say.

“I’m just a pay cheque away from tough times,” others will say.


["Sorry, Old timer, but your services aren't required any longer": Get Low, the movie]

Why are good jobs disappearing? Is it because of the nature of the Canadian work market or the price of the oil that greases the skids of industrialization? Is it the outcome of globalization or the growth of U.S. protectionism. Or, as we consider the particular labour struggles at the Electro-Motive plant in London, is it the result of unionized labour or greedy, power-hungry corporations... or something else, i.e., one other thing, or many other things?

The erosion of good jobs is one of the key issues that will dominate 2012, like a grown man in soiled pants would spoil any polite conversation at a classy dinner party.

Good jobs relate to good communities and schools and health care and lifestyle and much of what Canadians have grown used to having and being in the last several decades. Good jobs relate to suitable, secure pensions and travel and recreational opportunities and the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the homes we live in, the cars we drive and all the other possessions we feel we want or must have.

However, good jobs, in my opinion, have gone from something of a guaranteed commodity to a shaky proposition in the course of my lifetime and I must shake my head at the future working men and women seem to face - including my sons and their families - over the next 25 years, what could be the course of the remainder of my life.

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read My New Economic Plan, inspired by ‘Get Low’, a small Hollywood movie.

.

Are we expert enough to right our wrongs?

[“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall...” Mother Goose, 1803]

Perhaps we’ve listened to experts about the economy for too long.

I feel the mighty have fallen. And some mighty men and once mighty systems seem to be in free fall.

Consider the following from Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges:

Alan Greenspan, the former head of the Federal reserve Board, once treated with reverential deference by the power elite and the liberal class, announced in 2008, “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in their firms.”

Greenspan exposed the folly of the liberal experts and economists, who had promoted a baseless belief in the power of free markets to self-regulate and solve the world’s problems. In holding up what amounts to a strenuously defended utopianism, these leaders ignored three thousand years of economic and human history to serve a corporate ideology.

All the promises of the free market have turned out to be lies. (pg. 153 - 154)

And still, we place profit ahead of people in the hopes of shared wealth. We place the economy ahead of our environment and leave reparations to future generations.We place unsustainable lifestyles now ahead of a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. And there are many signs we are not clever enough to see or right our wrongs.

Proponents of the free markets and globalization still rule the media.


[Link to images by Rene Milot]

Chris Hedges writes, “The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a cheerleader for the Iraq war and globalization, became the poster child for the new class of corporate mandarins. And although Friedman was disastrously wrong about the outcome of the occupation, as he was about the effects of globalization, he continues, with a handful of other apologists, to dominate the airwaves.” (pg. 142)

As well, many North American political leaders are stymied, stuck in their ‘business as usual’ ways or just plain stupid.

Under the headline ‘U.S. lawmakers abandon deficit cutting efforts’ in Tuesday’s London Free Press I read the following:

...The admission of defeat by Republicans and Democrats on a 12-member congressional "super committee" is likely to cement perceptions among voters and investors that politicians are too divided to tackle trillion-dollar budget deficits and a national debt that now is roughly equal to the U.S. economy.

President Barack Obama has kept his distance from the talks, choosing instead to emphasize a job-creation package that has been blocked by Republicans. He said Republicans had scuttled the talks by refusing to consider tax hikes on the wealthy. [Link to full article here]

Doesn’t it seem that there’s no end to the difficulties that strangle the U.S’s chance to move forward?


["GH mantra: Reduce spending, pay down debt, save money"]

And while that is going on, in Canada, our own Prime Minister shuffles about the globe hoping to find buyers of the costly crude that is squeezed - not gently, in more ways than one - from his beloved Alberta Tar Sands, a deep dark hole where reasonable environmental standards and thoughts of a healthy, sustainable future go to die.

Our experts are falling and failing, it seems to me.

Over 200 years ago people were entertained my Mother Goose and learned the fate of one poor egg that fell off a wall.

“... All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.”

Today’s experts may think otherwise, but we may suffer the same fate soon with our belief in free markets, globalization, and unsustainable lifestyles.

It’s time for breakfast. I’m thinking... omelette.

***

Please click here for information about Catch-44 and the progress trap.

.

Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 2

[“Why occupy Wall St. and Bay? For starters... fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one... the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not.” Oct. 25, G.Harrison, It Strikes me Funny]

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that occupiers of Wall St., Bay St., and Victoria Park (London, Ontario), to name but a few places, are planning to hunker down where they are in tents and sleeping bags for the North American winter in order to show solidarity to one another and stand behind their message that some things important to them must change.

During the winter some media commentators will still be asking the question ‘why occupy’ for some of the following reasons, among others of course:

because they don’t know what many citizens are thinking

because they know what the occupiers are thinking but don’t support their ideas and believe they should get a job

According to a recent poll, 31 per cent of Sun Media readers believe occupiers should be looking for work, but based on the ongoing struggles in the North American economy and the resultant high unemployment numbers (London is the centre of high unemployment in SW Ontario), the lack of work and good long-term full-time jobs may very well be one of the major reasons why people are taking to the streets in significant numbers to say something to any who will listen.


Though many may know about London leading the province with rates of 9 per cent or more, they will not know by personal experience how no job or a low-paying job affects a single mother or father or family trying hard to keep a roof over their head or the heat on through a long winter.

I don’t know what 9 per cent unemployment means myself. I know numbers of visitors to local food banks will rise because of it, but does 9 per cent mean that 91% are employed with productive, well-paying, full-time, long-term jobs and have nothing to complain about? Does 9 per cent track those without jobs or does it include those who are chronically under-employed? If not, does anyone know the percentage of people, young and old, who only earn enough to scrape by and are unable to save up funds for an uncertain future?

In Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges, Earnest Logan reportedly says the following:

The winters [in New York State] are really hard. There are less jobs and the heating costs are high. It is a struggle [for me]. But at least I have not had to devote forty hours a week to a minimum wage job that does not pay me a living wage. People here are really hurting. The real underemployment rate must be at least twenty per cent. A lot of people are working part-time jobs when they want full-time jobs. (pg. 5)

I would suspect Ontario’s underemployment rate is under 20 per cent but I don’t know for certain. I do know, however, if I was a young person with no decent prospects for a good job in the future, I might consider joining with others of like-mind and raise questions about, for starters, why the world works the way it does, why the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and why steady work for adequate pay is so hard to find.

Why occupy?

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1

.

Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1

[“(Ernest Logan) Bell, who lives in Lansing, New York, is the new face of resistance. He is young, at home in the culture of the military, deeply suspicious of the (US) Federal Government, dismissive of the liberal class, unable to find work, and angry.” pg. 2, Death of the Liberal Class]

Some members of local and national media will express surprise when considering the occupation of Wall St. in the US and Bay St. in Canada, to name but two streets where a collection of people from various walks of life are gathering or have gathered to ask or raise questions or make bold statements.

“Why?” some will ask, often rhetorically.

“What does this have to do with anything? What are they trying to say?” some will add.

I read in a recent poll offered by Sun Media in a local paper (Oct. 20, The London Free Press) that 31 per cent of respondents felt, dismissively, the occupiers should just ‘go find a job.’

As I’ve been reading an international bestseller entitled ‘Death of the Liberal Class’ by Chris Hedges, I’ve encountered comments and ideas that may help the media and other observers (some unenlightened, others enlightened but resistant to any change to the status quo) answer for themselves and others the question ‘why’.

The following is taken from Hedge’s conversation with Ernie Bell, NY:

(Bell says,) I believe all signs point to a real systemic economic collapse in the near future... I assure you it’s going to hurt everyone, except of course, the corporate and banking elite... the political system as it stands offers little hope for influencing real change or social justice... we must stand in the streets and refuse to be silenced. We must reject corporate-controlled politics and focus on rebuilding a localized political structure and society. A revolution is the only alternative to complete surrender and defeat. pg. 3


["South Africa's symbol of justice": link to photo]

Why occupy Wall St. and Bay?

For starters...

fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one

the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not

the political system offers little help for positive change or justice for many individuals and families

to shake a fist at selfish corporate policies and seemingly powerless corporate-controlled governments

to express support for the rebuilding of the political structure and society

to resist the attitude of surrender and defeat

Are there other identifiable, concrete reasons to occupy streets of significant address in countries across the globe?

***

Please click here to read more about resistance to change.

.

Welcome to Harperville: PT 3 More smoke and fire down your pants

[“I think it’s doable (i.e. balanced budget) in the context of the recovery of the Canadian economy. But there’s going to be some difficult choices. I don’t want to sugarcoat anything.” Tony “Cement Hands” Clement, June 25, London Free Press]

The economy in Newfoundland and Quebec must be recovering.

According to the Winnipeg Free Press, online June 8,

“Search-and-rescue co-ordination currently run out of regional offices in St. John's and Quebec City will be shifted to Halifax and Trenton, Ont., as Fisheries and Oceans seeks to come up with $56 million in savings this year... the cuts would involve 12 "call centre" employees in St. John's and 12 in Quebec City.”

The cuts are just one of the many, many difficult choices MP Clement, president of the Treasury Board and Minister of ALL THAT ISN’T NAILED DOWN, was talking about.


And Newfoundland, with only 1 Conservative MP (out of 7), and Quebec, with only 5 Conservative MPs (out of 75), shouldn’t be expecting any sugarcoating any time soon.

Across Canada, corporations, big business have nothing to fear. Even if the economy doesn’t recover, they will receive another tax cut in 2011.

This from the same Winnipeg Free Press online article:

“NDP fisheries critic Jack Harris made a direct link between the safety of Canadians and continuing Conservative corporate tax cuts worth billions of dollars in lost revenue.

"We've got governments trying to save money on the backs of services to the people," said Harris.

"You know when this government decides to spend a billion-plus dollars on the corporate tax cuts — and then says we have to balance the budget — well, this is what they're doing. Their corporate tax cuts are being paid for by the reduction in services."

Conservative PM Harper and “Cement Hands” Clement would have something to say about that.

“Welcome to Harperville, the land of smoke and fire down your pants.”

Surely, there will be more to follow.

***

Please click here to read more “Smoke and fire down your pants.”

.

Deforest City Blues: PT 2 Sinkhole may lead to a big stinkhole

[“Sewers? Infrastructure? Yup, I find the whole thing fascinating.” June 24, G. Harrison]

Should London’s city hall consider public-private partnerships (P3s) to deal with its infrastructure needs (estimated at three quarters of a billion dollars)?

“Mayor Joe Fontana says city hall must consider using private financing to build future water and sewer works, an option that’s becoming more common in money-starved Canadian cities.” (June 20, P. Maloney, London Free Press)

I say, no. I say the Mayor and members of city council should do a bit of book reading and a lot of discussing and thinking first, especially thinking about the long-term consequences of P3s.


John Loxley, a Winnipeg economist and author of Public Service, Private Profits sounds a loud note of warning.

He says that though “a city such as Moncton would argue it incurred no debt for (their) new water treatment plant, there is a hidden debt in charges citizens pay - and a lease effectively is a debt, so you’re not saving anything.” (Free Press)

One reviewer of Loxley’s book writes the following:

PPPs/P3s have become all the rage amongst every level of government in Canada in recent years. 

Proponents claim P3s reduce the costs of building and operating public projects and services,that projects and services are delivered more efficiently through the P3 model, so that in the end taxpayers are better off economically and as consumers of public goods.

This book tests all of these claims, and more, finding them mostly empty, ideological assertions.

Through an exhaustive series of case studies of P3s in Canada — from schools, bridges and water treatment plants to social services and hospital food — this book finds that most P3s are more costly to build and finance, provide poorer quality services and are less accessible than if they were built and operated by public servants.

Moreover, many essential services are less accountable to citizens when private corporations are involved.

“One frightening consequence of the global financial crisis of 2008-09 is the renewed effort by private investors to force the privatization of public assets.  And their tool of choice has become the public-private partnership. 

In this devastating and incredibly timely critique, John Loxley exposes P3s for what they are: a phony fiscal shell game that enriches investors at our expense. 

This book is an essential tool in the ongoing struggle to preserve the public good.”


- Jim Stanford, Economist, Canadian Auto Workers

In my opinion, the book is essential reading for city politicians, and it wouldn’t hurt to invite John Loxley to our fair city (after all the sinkholes have been filled in) for a lengthy debate about alternatives to P3s.

In the opening chapter of his book he writes:

“Governments have generally engaged in P3s in order to spin off some element of the financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of public infrastructure and services.

With P3s, the large up-front capital costs associated with infrastructure projects can either be offset and spread over a number of years through a lease or passed directly to the consumers in the form of user fees.

Private firms can assume responsibility for things that may go wrong, such as project over-runs, problems resulting from poor construction, etc.

These features can be very attractive to public sector organizations, particularly smaller municipalities with minimal capacity and large financial constraints.

They might, however, threaten labour and, as we shall see, impose costs on taxpayers that may not always be evident.”

Did the mayor say anything about user fees or other imposed costs when telling city council it “must” consider P3s? Nope. Not a single word.

If London’s city hall isn’t careful, there’s a good chance our sinkhole problem will one day be replaced by a long-term stinkhole.

And I’ve heard it said that a stinkhole by any other name (unless it’s named after the mayor) is still a stinkhole.

[A PDF file pertaining to Chapter 1 of Loxley’s book can be downloaded by using the link under a short book review here.]

***

Please click here to read PT 1 Our sinkhole may lead to a big stinkhole.

.

Deforest City Blues: Our sinkhole may lead to a big stinkhole

["How can anything about sewers be interesting? Just wait and see." June 23, G. Harrison]

London Mayor Joe Fontana described one of his ideas as radical, which may be the half of it.

Oh, it’s radical all right. It may be just the thing (along with other ideas like it) that may set him up for a second term as mayor. And it may cost Londoners more money for some infrastructure in the long-term, long after he’s retired to his ranch north of town.

His idea? He says ‘city hall must consider using private financing to build future water and sewer works, an option that’s becoming more common in money-starved Canadian cities.’ (June 20, P. Maloney, London Free Press)

Deforest City’s public infrastructure needs (about three-quarters of a billion dollars worth) may weigh heavily on the Mayor’s mind after a recent sinkhole appeared out of the blue - actually, out of the murk - at Richmond and Oxford.

A second term as our mayor may also be on his mind. If city hall allows the private sector to bear some infrastructure costs, Fontana may be able to freeze water and sewer rates in 2012. Then, who knows? Maybe he could swing freezes for three or four successive years and ride ‘the big waive’ all the way to a second term in the mayor’s chair.


[Photo by R. McDermott. Link to article]

What he definitely doesn’t say is that by inviting private enterprises to bear infrastructure costs now, taxpayers could face a burdensome stinkhole later.

Fortunately, Free Press writer Patrick Maloney presents another side to the story and mentions that John Loxley, a Winnipeg economist and author (of such books as Public Service, Private Profits and Transforming or Reforming Capitalism) “warns the deals pose ‘long-term inflexibility’ for cities and may end up costing them more.”

Costing them more?

As we think about how deep the Richmond/Oxford sinkhole used to be, maybe we should consider how deep costs could get - now there's a stinkhole - in the future with public-private partnerships (P3s).

More to follow.

***

Please click here for more Deforest City Blues.

.

Bits and Pieces: PT 5 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[The notion that a consensus existed on cutting social spending was misleading. If anything, a consensus appeared to exist not to cut social spending. An Angus Reid poll, taken in late April 1993... found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians opposed any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent opposed any funding cuts to education. pg 34, L. McQuaig, Shooting the Hippo]

Yesterday I said, “And what does the average Canadian family want? If you’re an average Canadian let me know.”

I said that because senior economist Niels Veldhuis (Fraser Institute) 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), perhaps hoping the average Canadian would fall for his line of guff, clutch his chest and demand smaller government and fewer taxes and reduced social programs.

I’m pretty sure that’s what the elite want, but I believe their goals in 2011 differ greatly from those of the average working stiff (even though I referred to a 1993 poll).

Kevin O’Leary, seen nightly on the Lang and O’Leary Exchange (CBC TV), is on record for saying he supports a corporate tax rate of 0 per cent.

0 per cent. Of course, he’s a millionaire, he can afford private education for any children he might have now or in the future, he can afford private health care wherever he can find it, he can afford to let corporations (he’s the head of a business empire) get away with zero taxes. Why, he’d absolutely frickin’ love it!

What he doesn’t say is that the tax rate (all taxes) of the average Canadian family (41% on income of $72, 393) will likely rise substantially three seconds after he gets his wish.

O’Leary would love small government, lower taxes, fewer social benefits. O’Canadians want something else.

As mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any funding cuts to medicare, and almost 90 per cent are opposed to any funding cuts to education.

From Shooting the Hippo:

This fits with the results of polls done by Environics. Dasko (pollster) said that support for social programs remains strong... the public supported the idea of reforming - rather than cutting - social programs. “People think there are inefficiencies and abuses in social programs and strongly feel that those should be ferreted out,” said Dasko.

Dasko also notes that while the public supports the idea of reforming programs, it is not primarily motivated by a desire to save money... the goal of ending inefficiencies ranked above the goal of saving money. Interestingly, however, the polling showed that people suspect that the government’s main motivation in overhauling the programs is to save money. (pg. 34)

Canadian readers are welcome to say the following:

Times have changed

McQuaig was referring to old news, e.g., polls from the 1990s

This is 2011. Liberals are out. Conservatives are in. Canadians want real change.

I have to ask. What kind of change does the average Canadian want?

Does the average Canadian family want a 39% tax rate, instead of 41%, and reduced government services (e.g., related to medicare and education) as a result?

Does the average Canadian feel that, in spite of what the Fraser Institute says, he is surviving in a satisfactory or excellent manner and doesn’t need to live by the same goals as the elite?

If you’re an average Canadian, let me know.

(Mr. O’Leary. No need to write).

***

Please click here to read PT 4 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

.

Bits and Pieces: PT 2 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

[In 2010, a family with an average income of $72,393 spent 41.3% of its income on taxes. Spending on food, clothing and shelter added up to 34% of the family income, the study found (i.e., a new study from conservative think-tank the Fraser Institute). April 27, London Free Press]

When I see a headline like ‘Taxes take 41% of pay’ I don’t gasp, clutch my chest or fall over due to weak knees.


["Where do I stand concerning tax rates?": photo of GH, 1969]

When I read that an average Canadian family pays 41.3% of its income on taxes I feel I need more information. What benefits do I receive for my tax dollars? What does the average family receive? What do the growing number of Canadian millionaires receive? 41.3% might be the bargain of a lifetime.

I’d also like more information about the corporate tax rate. I know it has gone down over the last few years and will go down another 1 - 2 per cent this year or next, thanks to the federal Conservative government.

So, I’d like to know how much revenue will be lost to the government because of the lower corporate tax rate. Will the 41% average family tax rate or beneficial government programs be under pressure because of the decline in corporate tax rate?

How much has the corporate tax rate declined since 2000? Since 1990? Since 1980? Since 1970? And what’s happened to our national debt from 1970 to the present time? Maybe time spent focusing on the average family would be better spent focusing on big business and a fairer, more-productive tax system.

And now that the conservative Fraser Institute has got me thinking about the average family and corporate tax rates, I want to know more about tax rates in other countries.


Do average families in the US or Europe, making $72,393 per year, pay more or less tax than Canadians? What benefits do they receive, or not receive, compared to Canadians? Perhaps we’d see, again, that 41.3% is an absolute bargain. Perhaps we’d see, in order to receive benefits common in other countries, that a slight increase in taxes would provide some very important improvements in our lifestyle.

Oh. Something else. I have some questions about the 34% that the average Canadian family - in the $70 - 75,000 income range - spends on food, clothing and shelter.

Stay tuned.

***

Please click here to read PT 1 “Taxes take 41% of pay” Gasp??

.

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

.

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.

.

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.

.

Live Small: THRIFT - RIP. Who is to blame?

According to my handy dandy copy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary, the key words associated with ‘thrift’ and ‘thrifty’ are as follows:

frugality

economical management

thriving

prosperous

Notice how ‘frugality’ is so closely linked to ‘prosperous.’

Without piles of debt (and yes, we have piles), many individuals would actually be quite well off.

Also, according to my recent thoughts (I’ve got a million of them), the line up of suspects associated with the death of THRIFT is quite long.

The suspects include the following:

economists

politicians (including US and Canadian leaders)


banks (Bob Hope once said that a bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don’t need it)

reckless consumers (How many credit cards in your wallet?)

In my opinion, the line up of ‘usual suspects’ must also include many large corporations and corporate philosophy.

When did you first realize you were viewed primarily as a consumer or an economic statistic and not as a citizen or person with important rights and responsibilities?

And who primarily views you as a consumer or stat on a financial spreadsheet?

I would say the corporate world, and through a prism chiefly governed by self-interest and profit, and not kindness toward you.

As I’ve been reading The Collapse of Globalism by John Ralston Saul, I’ve been underlining key phrases that suggest corporate philosophy doesn’t promote thrift, or health or prosperity for all consumers.

For example;

“The moralizing message (re the negative aspects of public debt) came from the private sector and from economists who didn’t believe in public programming. Yet the Globalization era would see the most extravagant and irresponsible indulgence in debt by the private sector since the days of the South Sea Bubble.” (pg. 84)

In other words, the private sector will call for thrift in the public sector but not care about it in their own.

“By 2000 the yearly world total value of mergers and acquisitions was $3.5 trillion. That is $3.5 trillion of debt, often attributed to the corporation taken over.” (pg. 81)

High debt loads led to downsizing and loss of jobs on the bottom floors - and the disappearance of thrift and prosperity in millions of homes and thousands of communities world wide.

One of the biggest blows to thrift and prosperity - for the individual - in the US and Canada comes from the corporate world in the field of agriculture.

Want to live close to nature?

I wouldn’t advise it.

Stay tuned.

***

THRIFT PT 1

THRIFT PT 2

THRIFT PT 3

THRIFT PT 4

.

Freedom 75: Great Britain not doing so Great

How far away are we - here in Canada, land of the burly and home of the rutting moose - from the following headline?

“Britain slashes spending, will cut 500,000 public jobs”

Yikes.

A recent article began this way:

“Britain will cut half a million jobs, raise the retirement age and slash welfare as part of an unprecedented cost-cutting drive announced on Wednesday that will test the strength of the economy and the government.” (Oct. 21, London Free Press)

I also read the following details:

$130 billion in cuts

$29 billion cut from the welfare bill

Some gov’t dept. will shrink by 19%


["Who can afford to go to the Circus?"]

State pension age will rise to 66 by 2010

(Is Freedom 75 in the works?)

490,000 public-sector jobs will likely disappear over the next four years

The financial sector (blamed for the economic crisis) will have to pay its fair share

Oh. I didn’t read the following details:

Other parts of the corporate sector will also pay their fair share since they live in Great Britain along with the rest of us public-sector blokes

Sorry, I digress.

So, the cuts have begun. Unfairly distributed in my mind, but maybe that’s just me.

Citizens in Canada and the US, with national debts mounting and few ideas being thrown about related to how to slow increasing costs, may well be reading the same headline soon.

***

Some corporations will not want to make any sacrifice.

The age of austerity is not just for certain individuals.

We should all have a retirement plan beyond winning the lottery.

.

Live Small: Some corporations (Weasels!) hate sacrifice

Sorry. I lied.

Some corporations are actually interested in sacrifice. That is, your sacrifice. Not their own.

Weasels!

Headline - Murdoch champions deep cuts

“Media magnate Rupert Murdoch called on Thursday for Britain’s coalition government to press ahead with deep cuts in public spending, saying the financial crisis should not lead to an assault on economic liberalism.” (Oct. 22, London Free Press)

In other words, take away as much cake as possible, just not his cake.

Weasel!


["We're all in this together. Except for some CEOs"]

Though “81 billion pounds of spending cuts to address a budget deficit of 11% of GDP” have been announced in Britain, Murdoch only wants to support cuts at the expense of the public, not for private corporations.

Weasel!

“Murdoch said the current government needed to emulate (former prime minister Marg) Thatcher’s views on individual freedom and responsibility even if they proved unpopular.... the only real security is the security of opportunity.”

Quite the corporate philosophy, eh?

Take freedom away from the individual. Don’t touch corporate freedom.

Make the individual bear the responsibility of handling the nation’s debt. Don’t put such a responsibility upon the corporate world.

Remove security from the individual. Continue to provide security to the corporation.

Murdoch is a weasel, and so is any corporation that’s not willing to share in any nation’s effort to right the books and chart a more sensible philosophic and economic course for the future.

***

If individual pensions, lifestyles and responsibilities are under the microscope throughout the world, corporate principles and responsibilities should be as well.

Rampant commercialism may have affected my brain.

.

Is Sarah Palin fishing for a new job? Pt 2

Earlier I wrote that ‘I think Sarah Palin is looking for a career as a spokesperson for a private, for-profit health care system’ because she told Mary Walsh (one of my favourite people), “Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit.”

Palin obviously hasn’t taken the time during her book signing tour to get a read on how Americans actually feel about their health-care system.

Hint: The majority of Americans are not satisfied with their health system.

Then I wrote the following:

“Nonetheless, Palin would be a great spokesperson for private, for-profit health care in the US because she ignores the majority of US citizens, just as private health-care providers do. Why, they’re made for each other.”

A reader - from the USA - made the following comment:

“They are made for each other for sure. Sarah scares the beejeebers out of me.”

I like it when someone agrees with me but I find it amazing that, on both sides of the border between Canada and the US, there are people who are scared by some people in the political field.


["Let's dismantle this fish"]

I mean, I’d be scared too if a Canadian politician looked at our health-care system and said ‘Canada needs to dismantle its public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit.’

What kind of person wants to rip apart a public-minded system and allow private, for-profit corporations to have that much control over our lives?

Do we have politicians in Canada who would echo Palin’s words?

And if so, who are they? What party do they support?

.