Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Iggy: The gift that keeps on giving

Do my eyes deceive me, or did Iggy just give us his version of "The Shrug"? From today's Globe & Mail online...

"Do you think it's easy forcing elections?"

Look familiar?

"Do you think it's easy teaching him leadership?"

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Senate Reform continues, despite Liberals attempts to thwart democracy

The man who hears everything, Stephen Taylor, is reporting rumours of Senate appointments to occur tomorrow, Thursday August 27th. Checked the Senate website, and there are presently NINE vacant seats.

So, despite all the Liberals attempt to thwart Senate reform, progress is being made. Here's hoping that balance can soon be achieved, and that we'll actually be able to discuss reforming the "Red Chamber", changing it from a retirement home for the Liberal elite, and make it more balanced and relevant to average Canadians.

Labels: , ,

The Wall Street Journal turns on Obama?

Say whaaat??? Whoda thunk that poster-child of left-wing journalism in the United States would take on the Obama Administration and Pelosi Congress to task over runaway deficits?

UPDATE: Yea, my bad... was thinking the New York Times. [wiping egg off face]

"The Pelosi-Obama Deficits" they're calling it. Somebody pinch me, I've got to be dreaming...
AUGUST 26, 2009, 5:12 A.M. ET
The Pelosi-Obama Deficits
Even $9 trillion might be too optimistic on current spending trends

Earlier this year when President Obama was selling his first budget blueprint, he promised to end years of "borrow and spend" budgeting. Yesterday, reality struck.

Mr. Obama's White House and the Congressional Budget Office told us that current U.S. fiscal policy is "borrow and spend" on a hyperlink. The good news is the deficit for 2009 will be "only" $1.58 trillion, about $250 billion lower than expected thanks to less need for TARP funds. But the Obama fiscal plan envisions $9 trillion in new borrowing over the next decade, which is $2 trillion more debt than the White House predicted earlier this year. The 2010 deficit also rises by about as much as the 2009 deficit falls from January, so even the TARP windfall gets spent.

We've never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019—and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is "unsustainable," but even this forecast may be optimistic.

Here's why. Many of the current budget assumptions are laughably implausible. Both the White House and CBO predict that Congress will hold federal spending at the rate of inflation over the next decade. This is the same Democratic Congress that awarded a 47% increase in domestic discretionary spending in 2009 when counting stimulus funds. And the appropriations bills now speeding through Congress for 2010 serve up an 8% increase in domestic spending after inflation.

Another doozy is that Nancy Pelosi and friends are going to allow a one-third or more reduction in liberal priorities like Head Start, food stamps and child nutrition after 2011 when the stimulus expires. CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth.

Federal revenues, which will hit a 40-year low of 14.9% of GDP this year, are expected to rise to 19.6% of GDP by 2014 and then 20.2% by 2019—which the CBO concedes is "high by historical standards." This implies some enormous tax increases.

CBO assumes that some 28 million middle-class tax filers will get hit by the alternative minimum tax, something Democrats say they won't let happen. CBO also assumes that all the Bush tax cuts disappear—not merely those for the rich, but those for lower and middle income families as well. So either the deficit is going to be about $1.3 trillion higher than Washington thinks, or out goes Mr. Obama's campaign promise of not taxing those who make less than $250,000.

A burst of sustained economic growth, which we'd love to see, would substantially boost tax revenues and reduce future debt. But there's nothing in the Obama budget that nurtures or rewards growth or small business. Most of the major policy initiatives, such as the $1 trillion cap-and-trade energy tax, are a drag on growth. Mr. Obama wants to raise capital gains, dividend and income tax rates, which will reduce risk taking, innovation and investment. The House health-care bill would impose an 8% payroll tax on millions of small business owners, which will destroy jobs.

The White House issued a statement yesterday that the President is "very concerned about these out-year deficits." But apparently not so concerned as to stop pushing for a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement that is conveniently not included in these latest budget forecasts.

The real fiscal crisis in Washington is that neither Congress nor the White House are offering any escape from these trillion-dollar deficits. Mr. Obama has not called for automatic and immediate spending cuts. He has not proposed eliminating hundreds of wasteful programs. To the contrary, the White House still hasn't ruled out another fiscal stimulus, as if a $1.6 trillion deficit isn't Keynesian stimulus enough. The Administration's celebrated scrub through the budget this summer identified $17 billion in agency savings. That's what Uncle Sam is borrowing every three days.

Obamanomics has turned into an unprecedented experiment in runaway government with no plan to pay for it, save, perhaps, for a big future toll on the middle class such as a value-added tax. White House budget director Peter Orszag promises that next year's budget will have a "plan to put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path." Hide the children.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
h/t goes to S.R. "Mr. Constitution" via Facebook (Carleton Model Parliament 2007, good times... "Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this Bill be ruled unconstitutional as it obligates the Government to spend monies...")

Labels: , ,

Humour - "Philosophical Differences"

Got this e-mail from a friend of mine...

Philosophical Differences

I asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.

She said she wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada some day.

Both of her parents, NDP supporters, were standing there, so I asked her,
"If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."

Her parents beamed, and said, "Welcome to the NDP Party!"

"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I told her. I continued, "But you don't have
to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my
house, mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50.
Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs
out. You can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in
the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I smiled and said, "Welcome to the Conservative Party."

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - "Puffin Paradise"

Okay, now this is kinda funny... I'm read to look for any info on Layton's meeting with the PM today, and what do I see as a new feature on their front page? A new photo feature entitled "Puffin Paradise".

Which, of course, brought this Iggy blunder back to mind...

Oh the fun one could have with these... a group shot from the most recent Liberal caucus meeting...

High level strategy meeting between Warren and Iggy...
"SQUAK... I say go for it Michael! Who cares what Ipsos-Reid says... JUST PULL THE TRIGGER!"

Perhaps this final photo with it's caption offers a warning to the Puffin Party of Canada...

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, August 21, 2009

"ObamaCare" to include Abortion?

On this point alone, he may limit himself to a single term...

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Red-Green Show alive and well in Guelph

Elizabeth May has ruled out Guelph as a riding to run in for the next election, thus ensuring that they don't take out the sitting Liberal MP. Looks like the "deal" between the Liberals and the Green Party is still alive and well.

Any expert will tell you that of all ridings in the country, Guelph was the only one where Elizabeth May stood a chance of taking a seat. (Scott Tribe and CalgaryGrit, for example) But for the Greens, it looks like the cost of getting their leader to Parliament was just too high. You see, running in Guelph would have meant taking out Liberal MP Frank Valeriote... a price they apparently aren't willing to pay.

When you have Greens actively seeking to protect Liberal MP's, you know something stinks. You've got to ask yourself, are they really looking for a seat?

Of course, there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye. You see, the Greens in Guelph are still really bitter with Elizabeth May, as many of them hold her directly responsible for their loss last year with her last minute call for strategic voting.

According to a Guelph Mercury article yesterday (sorry, they've now stuck it behind a firewall, if anyone can track that down I'd be greatful... an editorial today alludes to it though), the local Greens basicly told her to shove off, telling her that they'd prefer to run a "local candidate". Anyone who's spent time in Guelph, as I have, knows that there's no way the Greens can win without the "star power" of someone like their leader, it's just that simple. They had a phenominal candidate in Mike Nagy, who built up their vote totals over the last three elections, and there's simply no way they can pull that off again now that he's vowed not to run. They do also have a stellar candidate on the provincial level with Ben Polley, but again, having never run nationally before, he's a longshot at best.

Which brings me back to my basic point... the only reason that the local Green organization took a pass on Elizabeth May is because they know that she'd win in Guelph, and they don't want her to win. Rumour is that if Lizzy doesn't get a seat this time, she's gone, and one name that has come up for their next leader is their former Environment Critic... who is none other than Mike Nagy, Guelph's own former Green Party candidate. The feeling is that with the national profile he built up during last year's by-election, he'd be a potential front-runner in any leadership campaign. Also by "walking away" for this election cycle, when Elizabeth loses and moves on, he can basically relaunch his political career with a comeback to "save the Party", then having a legitimate shot at winning in his own home riding of Guelph.

That's my take on the situation, anyway. Comments are always welcome.

Looks like I'm back!

Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Gazette: "It's time to end the $1.95 political subsidy"

What, they can't possibly mean to say that Harper was right, could they? Discuss.
End taxpayer subsidies for political parties
The Gazette - August 16, 2009

Last winter Stephen Harper barely survived a too-clever-by-half attempt to take away the money that political parties get from the government of Canada. Nothing unites our fractious opposition quite so quickly, it seems, as the thought that they might have to take their hands out of the taxpayers' pockets.

And Canadians, perceiving on the basis of no evidence that the change might give Harper's Conservatives an unfair advantage, also rejected the idea, to judge by opinion polls. True, chopping the subsidy would have given the Conservatives an advantage, in that they then raised far more money from individual contributions than any other party. What we don't see is how that's unfair. What's really unfair, it seems to us, is that every taxpayer is tapped to support the range of major official parties, even if she disagrees with them all.

In any case the subsidies - now up to about $1.95 a year for each vote the party received in the last election - survived unscathed.

Now it is time, we believe, to re-think this idea. The latest figures on party fund-raising, just released by Elections Canada, show that all the national parties are doing just fine, thank you: The Liberals actually raised more in the April-May-June quarter than the Conservatives did, although Harper's party had almost twice as many individual donors.

What do parties do with all that money, anyway? With the big parties raking in $4 million or so per quarter, why do they need more from taxpayers? With a federal deficit of over $50 billion, surely the government could save a few million by reining in subsidies for attack ads.

There's another interesting point here, too: The weakest donor base, by far, belongs to the Bloc Québécois. Because that party campaigns in just one province, it spends much less money than the other parties; its taxpayer subsidies leave it rolling in cash. Sensibly enough, the Bloc barely bothers to ask its supporters for donations; it asks them to give their money to the Parti Québécois instead. In a sense, then, federal taxpayers across Canada are subsidizing the PQ.

In response to this bizarre reality, some in Western Canada are proposing that the $1.95-per-vote subsidy should be available only to parties that present candidates across Canada; Green Party yes, Bloc no. This would be a mistake. The Bloc, however wrong-headed, is a legitimate democratic expression of some public opinion in Quebec, and to manipulate the rules against it would be unjust - and would be a whole new opportunity for sovereignists to manufacture outrage. Although Steven Fletcher, minister in charge of "democratic reform" has discussed this idea, he quite rightly doesn't support it. The Bloc has the right to be treated like every other party, and should not be penalized by any cunning contortions of the rules.

Which is all the more reason to shut down these subsidies altogether. Even today, in an an age when government subsidizes almost everything, helping already popular political parties remain popular and powerful at the expense of ordinary Canadians is bad politics, bad economics, and bad for democracy.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, August 08, 2009

This one oughta throw you all for a loop

Many people seem to think they know where I stand on all the issues, based on my blog name...

Took one of those online "Political Spectrum" quizes. Check the results and discuss... (and maybe take the quiz yourself to see where you fall, see if the quiz is just whacked out)

My Political Views
I am a centrist social authoritarian
Right: 0.24, Authoritarian: 6.64

Political Spectrum Quiz

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, August 03, 2009

The German criminal is where he belongs... a German jail. Sing it with me now... "Bye, Bye, German Arms Dealer Guy!"

Now it's time for the real questions... why has the Liberal Party of Canada been helping to harbour a known international fugitive? Isn't that in and of itself a criminal offense? Perhaps in lieu of the Sponsorship Scandal, they're just protecting one of their own?

Here's another thought... Schreiber has got to be the only arms dealer in the entire world that the Liberal Party of Canada would be willing to defend. You'd think they'd think that all arms dealers were bad people. But this guy, just because he alleges he's got something on a former Tory PM, and they bend over backwards to run to his defense. Allegations, mind you, that have proven to be without merit.

Some Liberals have got some explaining to do, methinks. Here's hoping the media does its job on this story.

Labels: ,

Sunday, August 02, 2009

Bye Bye Schreiber

Oh PLEASE say it's so... Karlheinz Schreiber has been issued a surprise deportation order, and may be deported as early as tomorrow.

It's a well deserved ending for the man who tried to falsely smear a former Prime Minister, all to save his own skin. It's also about time that we as a nation said that just because you're rich and have lots of political connections (though his links used to be with the Tories, they seem to be more with the Liberals these days), you shouldn't be allowed to play our justice system like a fiddle with all your fancy lawyers. It's time to show some equality in legal system.

Looks like it's time for some German justice for you, Karlheinz.

UPDATE: Bye, Bye, German Arms Dealer Guy...

Labels: , ,