Interesting to compare two stories in the St.Catharines Standard on Mar.31, 2011 - first story on page 2 by Don Fraser (Fruit, veggie growers get relief in budget) and the other story on page 3 by Marlene Bergsma (Ex-farmers seek another golf exemption). Note how at the end of Fraser's story, he writes that MP Rick Dykstra was unavailable for comment.
[Now wouldn't it be interesting for the Standard to tell us how many times, say, ohh... in the last three decades have they ever used that phrase when referencing provincial issues in which Liberal MPP Jim Bradley's comments would have been appreciated by readers? answer: not too FLICKING many...]
In fact, where was Liberal MPP Jim Bradley's OWN COMMENT in Fraser's story?! Fraser didn't say a damn word about Bradley, nor did Fraser tell us whether Bradley was available for a comment.
Funneee, eh?!
Fraser mentioned in his report that 'rising labour costs' were a significant factor in the farmer's concerns, but, isn't Bradley's Liberal government instrumental in setting and affecting labour rates in Ontario?
Why didn't Fraser attempt to contact Jim Bradley for a comment even on that specific issue; why didn't Fraser report that 'Bradley was unavailable for a comment' ?!!
Then look at Bergsma's story about the Kowaliks, former farmers whose lands were expropriated for the QEW-406 highway exchange, and whose remaining land is subject to highway salt damage, and is too small for viable farming; they can't sell the land for development due to "provincial greenbelt legislation".
Hmm: but whose government created this "provincial greenbelt legislation"?!?
Bergsma doesn't say.
Bergsma didn't even mention the word "Liberal" in this story!
Bergsma didn't bother to provide ANY comment whatsoever from local MPP Jim Bradley - who is Niagara's main cheerleader for the greenbelt!
Wow! Why... it's as if Good Ole Jimmy suddenly doesn't have anything to, um... do with the greenbelt!!! Or labour costs!! Or global-warming fear mongering!
Hey, there, JimmyBoyFanClub members: was Liberal MPP Jim Bradley "unavailable for comment"... or did y'all not even bother to ask?
*
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Andrew Gill vs. Jim Bradley - which Liberal is telling the truth?!
Further to the stories here and here...
...let's see whether McGuinty's Liberal MPP Jim Bradley can explain to Ignatieff's Liberal candidate Andrew Gill about Ontario's positions on corporate tax cuts and on building new jails!
That'd be fun to watch.
Will anyone from the St.Catharines Standard's JimmyBoyFanclub bother to ask Jimmy - or Andy - to 'splain themselves? Running the same Dewar cartoon in the St.Catharines Standard over and over isn't a substitute for real reporting, Ms.Bullis...
Seeing that Gill lives in Ontario, and seeing that his own local Liberal buddy MPP Bradley's government just handed down a Mar.29, 2011 budget which includes lowering corporate tax rates and building new prisons, will Gill swallow the pill and immediately and publicly lodge his protest to Bradley?!
Thought so... what Liberal hypocrisy.
Will Liberal Iggy publicly challenge and ridicule Liberal McGuinty about yesterday's Liberal budget, which stands in stark contrast to the Liberalism which Iggy preaches?!!
Thought so... what Liberal charlatans!
Dwight Duncan - McGuinty's Liberal finance minister, the Grit who wrote yesterday's budget (...ya know: with the tax cuts and jail-buildin') - nevertheless says he will campaign for Ignatieff (...ya know, who is against tax cuts and jail-buildin'...!!)
The blatant partisan hypocrisy of these Liberal charlatans is exposed for all to see.
And speaking of charlatans, don't forget that our two-faced weasel Bradley himself doesn't really believe in tax cuts: during the Harris years, a sanctimonious Bradley made it abundantly clear that he opposed tax cuts!
But nowww...
*
...let's see whether McGuinty's Liberal MPP Jim Bradley can explain to Ignatieff's Liberal candidate Andrew Gill about Ontario's positions on corporate tax cuts and on building new jails!
That'd be fun to watch.
Will anyone from the St.Catharines Standard's JimmyBoyFanclub bother to ask Jimmy - or Andy - to 'splain themselves? Running the same Dewar cartoon in the St.Catharines Standard over and over isn't a substitute for real reporting, Ms.Bullis...
Seeing that Gill lives in Ontario, and seeing that his own local Liberal buddy MPP Bradley's government just handed down a Mar.29, 2011 budget which includes lowering corporate tax rates and building new prisons, will Gill swallow the pill and immediately and publicly lodge his protest to Bradley?!
Thought so... what Liberal hypocrisy.
Will Liberal Iggy publicly challenge and ridicule Liberal McGuinty about yesterday's Liberal budget, which stands in stark contrast to the Liberalism which Iggy preaches?!!
Thought so... what Liberal charlatans!
Dwight Duncan - McGuinty's Liberal finance minister, the Grit who wrote yesterday's budget (...ya know: with the tax cuts and jail-buildin') - nevertheless says he will campaign for Ignatieff (...ya know, who is against tax cuts and jail-buildin'...!!)
The blatant partisan hypocrisy of these Liberal charlatans is exposed for all to see.
And speaking of charlatans, don't forget that our two-faced weasel Bradley himself doesn't really believe in tax cuts: during the Harris years, a sanctimonious Bradley made it abundantly clear that he opposed tax cuts!
But nowww...
*
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Don't forget Suzanne Aucoin
Shaun Francis wrote in "Ontario health care: constantly climbing cost; ever worsening service" (National Post, Mar.25, 2011):
"On Sunday, Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews reversed her ministry’s decision to not provide Herceptin, a cancer drug, to Jill Anzarut, a 35-year-old Toronto mother of two, as well as other people in Ms. Anzarut’s position. The reversal capped a remarkable two weeks that saw Ms. Anzarut pleading her case through such social media as Twitter and Facebook, as well as the mainstream press.
A regime of Herceptin costs approximately $40,000 a year. The Ontario Health Insurance Plan generally pays for herceptin only in those cases where a breast tumour is larger than 1 cm; and Ms. Anzarut’s was measured at only 0.5 cm. At first, Minister Matthews held firm to this position. “We cannot have a health system where the stories that land on the front page … determine our health-care policy,” she insisted, explaining why she absolutely, positively would not change her mind.
Others pointed out that the drug already was available for small-tumour patients in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan, and on a case-by-case basis in Newfoundland, Quebec and Manitoba. And Ms. Anzarut had a gene that elevated her risk of cancer recurrence.
The front-page stories showed little sign of stopping. So after several weeks of opprobrium, Minister Matthews decided to provide Ms. Anzarut with herceptin. “This is the option that I think makes real sense to me,” she said, explaining why she now was presiding over — to cite her own words from a few days previous — “a health system where the stories that land on the front page … determine our health-care policy.”
Ms. Anzarut’s adventures in drug policy illustrate the arbitrary nature of our system. During last year’s debate over Obamacare in the United States, right-wing critics accused reformers of promoting “death panels” that would make life-or-death decisions about citizens’ health care. Obamacare defenders insisted that such a notion was ridiculous.
Yet here in Canada, “death panels” dictate our health care every day — even if that is not the name they go by.
Experts decide who gets what medicine, which medical scans, what treatments. How many other people are there in Ontario, or other Canadian provinces, who have been denied potentially life-saving treatments, but lack the ability to engineer a media campaign such as Ms. Anzarut’s?
Jill Anzarut did not choose her health insurance plan. Instead, our health-care system forced her, and everyone else, into a situation where government bureaucrats choose what is best for us. “Do not worry, citizens,” the bureaucrats intone. “We have your best interests in mind. We shall decide what is best for you.”
But these bureaucrats also must consider the costs their decisions will create for the public system. Which is why people find the idea of “death panels” so scary.
Why do we allow this system to continue? Perhaps because we think of health care as something the government provides to us for free, and that we’re lucky to get it. But that’s wrong. There’s nothing “free” about health care. We all pay for it with our tax dollars. The average Ontarian pays $3,799.62 annually for health care, according to the Fraser Institute. Across Canada, because of the progressive nature of our government’s revenue collection, better-paid tax payers contribute a lot more than that. A recent Fraser Institute analysis by Milagros Palacios and Nadeem Esmail indicates that the top 30% of Canadian taxpayers by income (those who claim income of $97,486 or more) pay annual health-care costs starting at $10,612. The top 10% of taxpayers pay at least $32,056 annually.
Effectively, our monopolist health insurer keeps jacking up our rates, while providing less service. Competition law in Canada forbids such behaviour in most corporate sectors … except when the government is the monopoly holder. Not only is it OK for government to be the monopoly — they go one step further and make it illegal for competitors to even exist. And then they try to tell us it’s for our own benefit. Competition is bad, they say. It’s immoral. Yet in almost every other sector of our economy, competition is what makes us thrive and be “competitive” as a nation. What a disconnect.
Health Minister Deb Matthews’ reversal in the Anzarut case is intended to show us how responsive a monopolist we have in Ontario. Well, in fact, perhaps it showed exactly the opposite. Health care is in trouble when media stories spur the health minister to micromanage who gets what drugs, and for which size tumours. The Anzarut case has shown how frightened the monopolist is of a little public outcry. It showed the system’s fragility. Perhaps this monolith is beginning to crack."
*
Remember Health Minister Deb Matthews just two weeks ago smugly pretending that she can't get involved with patient health-care?!?!
Looks like another Liberal lie to add to the list...
We need to understand that what Ontario's monopolist Liberal scumbags Dalton McGuinty and his current health minister Deb Matthews tried to do to Jill Anzarut was the same thing which McGuinty and his former health minister George Smitherman did to Suzanne Aucoin.
Deb Matthews was just hoping no one would notice the similarities.
'Suzanne Aucoin?' the left will say; 'Who's that? Why should we care about some anecdotal anomaly from the past?'
Does anybody out there remember - or care - what McGuinty's Liberal scumbags did to Suzanne Aucoin?
Have we all forgotten what Dalton's disgusting Liberals put her through?
Have we forgotten that McGuinty forced this cancer patient to go to the United States, because McGuinty's Liberal-run health-monopoly denied her cancer coverage here in Ontario!
Ask Liberal MPP Jim Bradley about it: this disgusting Liberal even went to Aucoin's memorial service - as if HIS OWN MONOPOLISTIC LIBERALISM had nothing to do with what his own Liberal government did (or specifically, didn't do) when she was ill!!
The leftist single-payer-healthcare-monopoly-pushers DO NOT WANT anyone remembering what McGuinty's Liberals put Aucoin through.
Liberals want Ontarians to forget about Suzanne Aucoin.
McGuinty wants us to forget that Aucoin was a precedent for Anzarut.
The Liberals do not want Ontarians to ask about, or to remember, why Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin had to investigate the McGuinty government's pathetic behaviour in the Aucoin case: see Liberal Healthcare Duplicity: pages 8, 9, 45, 56, 62 ,69, 70, 71, 72 ,73 ,74, 75]
*
Many Americans are fully aware of Obamacare's inherent death-panels: even New York Times writer and darling of the left, Paul Krugman, has already said death-panels and tax-increases are part-and-parcel of Obamacare. Krugman confirmed what Palin had been saying.
(...and by June 2013, Americans, too, would sadly come face-to-face with Kathleen Sebelius' nightmare of state-run health-despotism in action, in their own country, foisted by their own government.
“Some people live. Some people die,” said Sibelius - and her government death panel decides! Tommy Douglas or Dalton McGuinty or George Smitherman couldn't have said it better themselves.)
*
Obamacare's 15-person death panel is in the works: the official name for this Demon-cratic Star-Chamber of Health-care Cuts is the innocuous-sounding Independent Payment Advisory Boad (IPAB).
*
Then, in the Sept.16, 2012 New York Times, Steven Rattner, another darling of the left, wrote an article pleading to Obama 'we need death panels'! Too bad wikipedia and politicheck somehow can`t get the updates about their mythical 'myth of death panels' on their sites!!
Rattner and Krugman yearn for death panels, yet the smug liberal-left still stubbornly pretends that 'Palin was wrong'; still insists that somehow Obamacare isn't about the state attacking the elderly; the helpless.
Maybe Michael Den Tandt will now grace us with some of his grand insightful criticism of Krugman's and Rattner's and Sibelius' positions!!
After all, look at the leftist garbage which Den Tandt was smugly spewing in the Mar.27, 2010 St.Catharines Standard (which, no doubt, the local Liberal Jim Bradley-voting morons giddily ate up):
"...Many Canadians, perhaps most, have been bemused by the tenor of the debate down south. Obama's plan extends health care to millions more Americans, but it is a far cry from a universal, state-run system.
To call it socialism, let alone a dictatorial abuse of power, or an invitation to "death panels," all terms being bandied about online and on the talk shows, is worse than stupid. These are grotesque fabrications and exaggerations ..." Really, Mikey???!!
Do ya, ummm... maybe wanna revisit your own bullshit, worse-than-stupid assessment now?!
The "grotesque fabrications and exaggerations" being bandied about, were YOURS, Mr. Den Tandt!!
Or, maybe Mindy Jacobs or some other St.Catharines Standard lefty hack will now honour us with their smug criticism of Krugman or Rattner... eh, how about that, Wendy Metcalfe...? (never happened; can't have that...)
*
"On Sunday, Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews reversed her ministry’s decision to not provide Herceptin, a cancer drug, to Jill Anzarut, a 35-year-old Toronto mother of two, as well as other people in Ms. Anzarut’s position. The reversal capped a remarkable two weeks that saw Ms. Anzarut pleading her case through such social media as Twitter and Facebook, as well as the mainstream press.
A regime of Herceptin costs approximately $40,000 a year. The Ontario Health Insurance Plan generally pays for herceptin only in those cases where a breast tumour is larger than 1 cm; and Ms. Anzarut’s was measured at only 0.5 cm. At first, Minister Matthews held firm to this position. “We cannot have a health system where the stories that land on the front page … determine our health-care policy,” she insisted, explaining why she absolutely, positively would not change her mind.
Others pointed out that the drug already was available for small-tumour patients in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan, and on a case-by-case basis in Newfoundland, Quebec and Manitoba. And Ms. Anzarut had a gene that elevated her risk of cancer recurrence.
The front-page stories showed little sign of stopping. So after several weeks of opprobrium, Minister Matthews decided to provide Ms. Anzarut with herceptin. “This is the option that I think makes real sense to me,” she said, explaining why she now was presiding over — to cite her own words from a few days previous — “a health system where the stories that land on the front page … determine our health-care policy.”
Ms. Anzarut’s adventures in drug policy illustrate the arbitrary nature of our system. During last year’s debate over Obamacare in the United States, right-wing critics accused reformers of promoting “death panels” that would make life-or-death decisions about citizens’ health care. Obamacare defenders insisted that such a notion was ridiculous.
Yet here in Canada, “death panels” dictate our health care every day — even if that is not the name they go by.
Experts decide who gets what medicine, which medical scans, what treatments. How many other people are there in Ontario, or other Canadian provinces, who have been denied potentially life-saving treatments, but lack the ability to engineer a media campaign such as Ms. Anzarut’s?
Jill Anzarut did not choose her health insurance plan. Instead, our health-care system forced her, and everyone else, into a situation where government bureaucrats choose what is best for us. “Do not worry, citizens,” the bureaucrats intone. “We have your best interests in mind. We shall decide what is best for you.”
But these bureaucrats also must consider the costs their decisions will create for the public system. Which is why people find the idea of “death panels” so scary.
Why do we allow this system to continue? Perhaps because we think of health care as something the government provides to us for free, and that we’re lucky to get it. But that’s wrong. There’s nothing “free” about health care. We all pay for it with our tax dollars. The average Ontarian pays $3,799.62 annually for health care, according to the Fraser Institute. Across Canada, because of the progressive nature of our government’s revenue collection, better-paid tax payers contribute a lot more than that. A recent Fraser Institute analysis by Milagros Palacios and Nadeem Esmail indicates that the top 30% of Canadian taxpayers by income (those who claim income of $97,486 or more) pay annual health-care costs starting at $10,612. The top 10% of taxpayers pay at least $32,056 annually.
Effectively, our monopolist health insurer keeps jacking up our rates, while providing less service. Competition law in Canada forbids such behaviour in most corporate sectors … except when the government is the monopoly holder. Not only is it OK for government to be the monopoly — they go one step further and make it illegal for competitors to even exist. And then they try to tell us it’s for our own benefit. Competition is bad, they say. It’s immoral. Yet in almost every other sector of our economy, competition is what makes us thrive and be “competitive” as a nation. What a disconnect.
Health Minister Deb Matthews’ reversal in the Anzarut case is intended to show us how responsive a monopolist we have in Ontario. Well, in fact, perhaps it showed exactly the opposite. Health care is in trouble when media stories spur the health minister to micromanage who gets what drugs, and for which size tumours. The Anzarut case has shown how frightened the monopolist is of a little public outcry. It showed the system’s fragility. Perhaps this monolith is beginning to crack."
*
Remember Health Minister Deb Matthews just two weeks ago smugly pretending that she can't get involved with patient health-care?!?!
Looks like another Liberal lie to add to the list...
We need to understand that what Ontario's monopolist Liberal scumbags Dalton McGuinty and his current health minister Deb Matthews tried to do to Jill Anzarut was the same thing which McGuinty and his former health minister George Smitherman did to Suzanne Aucoin.
Deb Matthews was just hoping no one would notice the similarities.
'Suzanne Aucoin?' the left will say; 'Who's that? Why should we care about some anecdotal anomaly from the past?'
Does anybody out there remember - or care - what McGuinty's Liberal scumbags did to Suzanne Aucoin?
Have we all forgotten what Dalton's disgusting Liberals put her through?
Have we forgotten that McGuinty forced this cancer patient to go to the United States, because McGuinty's Liberal-run health-monopoly denied her cancer coverage here in Ontario!
Ask Liberal MPP Jim Bradley about it: this disgusting Liberal even went to Aucoin's memorial service - as if HIS OWN MONOPOLISTIC LIBERALISM had nothing to do with what his own Liberal government did (or specifically, didn't do) when she was ill!!
The leftist single-payer-healthcare-monopoly-pushers DO NOT WANT anyone remembering what McGuinty's Liberals put Aucoin through.
Liberals want Ontarians to forget about Suzanne Aucoin.
McGuinty wants us to forget that Aucoin was a precedent for Anzarut.
The Liberals do not want Ontarians to ask about, or to remember, why Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin had to investigate the McGuinty government's pathetic behaviour in the Aucoin case: see Liberal Healthcare Duplicity: pages 8, 9, 45, 56, 62 ,69, 70, 71, 72 ,73 ,74, 75]
*
Many Americans are fully aware of Obamacare's inherent death-panels: even New York Times writer and darling of the left, Paul Krugman, has already said death-panels and tax-increases are part-and-parcel of Obamacare. Krugman confirmed what Palin had been saying.
(...and by June 2013, Americans, too, would sadly come face-to-face with Kathleen Sebelius' nightmare of state-run health-despotism in action, in their own country, foisted by their own government.
“Some people live. Some people die,” said Sibelius - and her government death panel decides! Tommy Douglas or Dalton McGuinty or George Smitherman couldn't have said it better themselves.)
*
Obamacare's 15-person death panel is in the works: the official name for this Demon-cratic Star-Chamber of Health-care Cuts is the innocuous-sounding Independent Payment Advisory Boad (IPAB).
*
Then, in the Sept.16, 2012 New York Times, Steven Rattner, another darling of the left, wrote an article pleading to Obama 'we need death panels'! Too bad wikipedia and politicheck somehow can`t get the updates about their mythical 'myth of death panels' on their sites!!
Rattner and Krugman yearn for death panels, yet the smug liberal-left still stubbornly pretends that 'Palin was wrong'; still insists that somehow Obamacare isn't about the state attacking the elderly; the helpless.
Maybe Michael Den Tandt will now grace us with some of his grand insightful criticism of Krugman's and Rattner's and Sibelius' positions!!
After all, look at the leftist garbage which Den Tandt was smugly spewing in the Mar.27, 2010 St.Catharines Standard (which, no doubt, the local Liberal Jim Bradley-voting morons giddily ate up):
"...Many Canadians, perhaps most, have been bemused by the tenor of the debate down south. Obama's plan extends health care to millions more Americans, but it is a far cry from a universal, state-run system.
To call it socialism, let alone a dictatorial abuse of power, or an invitation to "death panels," all terms being bandied about online and on the talk shows, is worse than stupid. These are grotesque fabrications and exaggerations ..." Really, Mikey???!!
Do ya, ummm... maybe wanna revisit your own bullshit, worse-than-stupid assessment now?!
The "grotesque fabrications and exaggerations" being bandied about, were YOURS, Mr. Den Tandt!!
Or, maybe Mindy Jacobs or some other St.Catharines Standard lefty hack will now honour us with their smug criticism of Krugman or Rattner... eh, how about that, Wendy Metcalfe...? (never happened; can't have that...)
*
Some facts to temper Ignatieff's and Gill's Liberal rhetoric
We have seen Iggy, the Liberal carpetbagger, and Andrew Gill campaigning together in Niagara, trying out their talking points. Carmen Chai examines some of this Liberal rhetoric in "The Gritty Reality":
"On Monday, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused the Conservatives of being the highest-spending, most wasteful government in history, referring to a list of expenses from stealth fighter jets to the G8/G20 summits last summer. How thrifty were the Liberals when they called the shots?
- Corporate tax cuts
The accusation:
Ignatieff says the Conservatives' cuts to corporate taxes will drain the government of billions in annual revenue.
The facts:
The current corporate tax rate fell to 16.5 per cent, effective Jan. 1, 2011. The Liberals would raise it back to 18 per cent, last year's level. Based on their calculations, that would generate $6 billion annually.
Under Jean Chretien's Liberal government from 1993 to 2003, the corporate tax rate sat at 28 per cent. By 2003, the Liberals had brought those tax rates down to about 23 per cent.
The Canada Revenue Agency says tax rates were 19.5 per cent in 2008 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and slowly decreased. The Tories have said corporate tax rates will be reduced to 15 per cent by 2012; the Liberals say they will not do this.
But Stephane Dion, who led the federal Liberals' 2008 campaign, pledged to cut corporate taxes below the 18.5 per cent rate that the Conservatives proposed.
Dion argued that lower corporate tax rates were "powerful" weapons in helping with investing, and job creation.
- The cost of international summits
The accusation:
Ignatieff points to the $1-billion price tag for 72 hours of G8/G20 meetings last summer and says he would have held both summits in the Huntsville, Ont., region and saved millions.
The facts:
Officials decided the region couldn't house world delegates and international media. So the G20 summit, in Toronto, ended up costing $679 million. About $574.6 million was spent on security.
Canada shelled out a lot more, however, than other countries that have hosted similar summits. The 2009 G20 summit, for example, set the United Kingdom back $20 million, with another $28.6 million spent on security, according to research out of the University of Toronto.
In a July 2010 report, the U of T researchers say that between $129 million and $200 million was spent on Canada's 2002 G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alta.
- Fighter jets
The accusation:
Ignatieff says the Liberals would cancel a contract for 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets, instead spending $16 billion on health care.
The facts:
Costs of the program vary widely, with the parliamentary budget officer using a figure closer to $30 billion for the jets.
The Tories, however, say the deal not only helps the Canadian Forces, but contributes to the economy. Joining the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter program has provided Canadian companies with access to $12 billion in potential work over a 40-year period, they argue.
The Liberals significantly scaled back military spending in the 1990s to balance the books, but the decision angered U.S. officials who complained that Canada wasn't doing enough to help fight terrorism and protect North America.
- Government spending
The accusation:
Ignatieff says the government is out of control, because federal spending under Stephen Harper grew by 18 per cent in his first three years as prime minister.
The facts:
Government reports on fiscal spending show that expenses under the Harper government jumped from $222.2 billion in the 2006-07 year to $274.2 billion in 2009-10 — an 18.9 per cent increase. During Jean Chretien's first three years as prime minister, spending rose a modest 2.39 per cent, from $162.4 billion in 1992-93 to $170.2 billion in 1995-96. In 1996-1997, expenses were slashed to $158.6 billion from $170.2 billion the fiscal year before.
- PMO spending
The accusation:
The Liberals point to an "explosion" in ministers' and the prime minister's office budgets under Harper.
The facts:
The annual cost of Harper's office was nearly $10 million in 2009-2010, a 30 per cent jump over the previous two years. In 2009-10, the cost to run Harper's office was $9.89 million — compared to 8.1 million the previous year and $7.5 million in 2007-08. Documents tabled in Parliament show the entire Conservative cabinet's costs had increased by 16 per cent since 2007-08, when records of such expenses were first documented.
However, figures on government spending when the Liberals were in power aren't published, so there's no point of comparison. It was the Tories' accountability legislation that made it possible to track office spending."
*
Furthermore, it is really difficult to believe Iggy's sudden claim that he won't pursue a coalition in the future. That's an utter crock. With Ipsos putting the Conservatives at 43% support, the Grits 24% and the socialists at 16%, Iggy's best chance of power is through a coalition!
The Liberal and NDP pre-election charade will be to pretend that they are out to "win" an election as 'independent' parties; the reality is that with their existing combined 24%+16%, they are simply running to win a coalition, to take over government!!! [There's' your "Red Door" BACK DOOR analogy right back in yer face, Iggula]
The Cobblitionists' combined 40% vs. the Conservatives 43% makes Iggy's timing of this election call understandable - these are competitive numbers for them when seen this way: the upside is that the Libs could obtain a minority, being supported by Dippers (yeah, yeah, Ole Layton the "King Maker"...) and a separatist or two. So, that's the upside for Iggy, for pretending there is "no coalition"! The downside for Iggy is that the Conservatives obtain another minority, causing Iggy to do the whole Stephane Dion thing all over again - with Layton and a separatist or two!!
At that time, Iggy'll conveniently come up with a new nuance rationalizing his newly-changed-stance. Iggy'll tell us that a coalition, will... ahem... become 'a necessity', y'see, to 'save Canada from Harper' (or some such drivel) and that 'although we thought and said differently in March of 2011, in May 2011, things have changed, and so, we are 'forced' to enter into this coalition'... blah... blah...blah... y'see, how easy it will be for Iggy to do this?
The losers can get a win-win ! It's just that for the time being - until the election is over! - Iggy's gotta pretend that there's NO coalition! This would simply be a redux of Dion's 2008 gambit. The thing Layton and Iggy have learned this time around is to keep Duceppe out of it as long as possible.
We've seen a lot of Liberal liars; Iggy won't be the last to say one thing and do another,
We had the lying scumbag Dalton Pinocchio McGuinty in Ontario, with his 'I won't raise taxes' bald faced lies. Slimy Chretien with his GST lies and his free trade lies. Trudeau with his wage and price control lies. Even Stephane Dion was telling Canadians during the 2008 election that they couldn't have a coalition with the NDP; then, right after the election, lo and behold, Canadians found out the opposition had been contemplating coalition alliances as far back as the summer of 2008.
Trusting Ignatieff is just a waste of time. If Iggy and Layton want to merge their parties, and run under such a banner, then fine; but to carry on this subterfuge of under-the-table alliances and shared-but-not-spoken interests while also pretending to be running as 'independents', is a charade.
An honest Iggy would have said - correctly - that the coalition option is always there in our parliamentary system (at a political price, though...); and that, he would consider it if conditions warranted it. (...and Dion's conditions included the Bloc...)
But, for Iggy to now outright deny any coalition, thereby boxing himself in after the election, is patently idiotic, and truly unbelievable, deservedly leaving Iggy open to yet more flip-flop-liar ridicule down the road.
This all shows that professor Ignatieff is not ready for prime-time and is in way over his head; his theoretical Liberalism doesn't resonate. The only way for Canada to move forward is with a Conservative majority, not another costly minority fiasco-in-the-making. This would give us stability, and pave the way for the necessary political housecleaning that obviously needs to happen in our federal dysfunctional parties.
The Liberals, under professor Ignatieff's tutelage, clearly still have not truly understood their post-Chretien lessons. The Libs 'time-for-reflection-in-the-political-wilderness' has not yielded any new-found purpose nor promise.
Ignatieff''s tiresome, sneerful bromides can't - and won't - lead this country.
*
"On Monday, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused the Conservatives of being the highest-spending, most wasteful government in history, referring to a list of expenses from stealth fighter jets to the G8/G20 summits last summer. How thrifty were the Liberals when they called the shots?
- Corporate tax cuts
The accusation:
Ignatieff says the Conservatives' cuts to corporate taxes will drain the government of billions in annual revenue.
The facts:
The current corporate tax rate fell to 16.5 per cent, effective Jan. 1, 2011. The Liberals would raise it back to 18 per cent, last year's level. Based on their calculations, that would generate $6 billion annually.
Under Jean Chretien's Liberal government from 1993 to 2003, the corporate tax rate sat at 28 per cent. By 2003, the Liberals had brought those tax rates down to about 23 per cent.
The Canada Revenue Agency says tax rates were 19.5 per cent in 2008 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and slowly decreased. The Tories have said corporate tax rates will be reduced to 15 per cent by 2012; the Liberals say they will not do this.
But Stephane Dion, who led the federal Liberals' 2008 campaign, pledged to cut corporate taxes below the 18.5 per cent rate that the Conservatives proposed.
Dion argued that lower corporate tax rates were "powerful" weapons in helping with investing, and job creation.
- The cost of international summits
The accusation:
Ignatieff points to the $1-billion price tag for 72 hours of G8/G20 meetings last summer and says he would have held both summits in the Huntsville, Ont., region and saved millions.
The facts:
Officials decided the region couldn't house world delegates and international media. So the G20 summit, in Toronto, ended up costing $679 million. About $574.6 million was spent on security.
Canada shelled out a lot more, however, than other countries that have hosted similar summits. The 2009 G20 summit, for example, set the United Kingdom back $20 million, with another $28.6 million spent on security, according to research out of the University of Toronto.
In a July 2010 report, the U of T researchers say that between $129 million and $200 million was spent on Canada's 2002 G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alta.
- Fighter jets
The accusation:
Ignatieff says the Liberals would cancel a contract for 65 F-35 stealth fighter jets, instead spending $16 billion on health care.
The facts:
Costs of the program vary widely, with the parliamentary budget officer using a figure closer to $30 billion for the jets.
The Tories, however, say the deal not only helps the Canadian Forces, but contributes to the economy. Joining the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter program has provided Canadian companies with access to $12 billion in potential work over a 40-year period, they argue.
The Liberals significantly scaled back military spending in the 1990s to balance the books, but the decision angered U.S. officials who complained that Canada wasn't doing enough to help fight terrorism and protect North America.
- Government spending
The accusation:
Ignatieff says the government is out of control, because federal spending under Stephen Harper grew by 18 per cent in his first three years as prime minister.
The facts:
Government reports on fiscal spending show that expenses under the Harper government jumped from $222.2 billion in the 2006-07 year to $274.2 billion in 2009-10 — an 18.9 per cent increase. During Jean Chretien's first three years as prime minister, spending rose a modest 2.39 per cent, from $162.4 billion in 1992-93 to $170.2 billion in 1995-96. In 1996-1997, expenses were slashed to $158.6 billion from $170.2 billion the fiscal year before.
- PMO spending
The accusation:
The Liberals point to an "explosion" in ministers' and the prime minister's office budgets under Harper.
The facts:
The annual cost of Harper's office was nearly $10 million in 2009-2010, a 30 per cent jump over the previous two years. In 2009-10, the cost to run Harper's office was $9.89 million — compared to 8.1 million the previous year and $7.5 million in 2007-08. Documents tabled in Parliament show the entire Conservative cabinet's costs had increased by 16 per cent since 2007-08, when records of such expenses were first documented.
However, figures on government spending when the Liberals were in power aren't published, so there's no point of comparison. It was the Tories' accountability legislation that made it possible to track office spending."
*
Furthermore, it is really difficult to believe Iggy's sudden claim that he won't pursue a coalition in the future. That's an utter crock. With Ipsos putting the Conservatives at 43% support, the Grits 24% and the socialists at 16%, Iggy's best chance of power is through a coalition!
The Liberal and NDP pre-election charade will be to pretend that they are out to "win" an election as 'independent' parties; the reality is that with their existing combined 24%+16%, they are simply running to win a coalition, to take over government!!! [There's' your "Red Door" BACK DOOR analogy right back in yer face, Iggula]
The Cobblitionists' combined 40% vs. the Conservatives 43% makes Iggy's timing of this election call understandable - these are competitive numbers for them when seen this way: the upside is that the Libs could obtain a minority, being supported by Dippers (yeah, yeah, Ole Layton the "King Maker"...) and a separatist or two. So, that's the upside for Iggy, for pretending there is "no coalition"! The downside for Iggy is that the Conservatives obtain another minority, causing Iggy to do the whole Stephane Dion thing all over again - with Layton and a separatist or two!!
At that time, Iggy'll conveniently come up with a new nuance rationalizing his newly-changed-stance. Iggy'll tell us that a coalition, will... ahem... become 'a necessity', y'see, to 'save Canada from Harper' (or some such drivel) and that 'although we thought and said differently in March of 2011, in May 2011, things have changed, and so, we are 'forced' to enter into this coalition'... blah... blah...blah... y'see, how easy it will be for Iggy to do this?
The losers can get a win-win ! It's just that for the time being - until the election is over! - Iggy's gotta pretend that there's NO coalition! This would simply be a redux of Dion's 2008 gambit. The thing Layton and Iggy have learned this time around is to keep Duceppe out of it as long as possible.
We've seen a lot of Liberal liars; Iggy won't be the last to say one thing and do another,
We had the lying scumbag Dalton Pinocchio McGuinty in Ontario, with his 'I won't raise taxes' bald faced lies. Slimy Chretien with his GST lies and his free trade lies. Trudeau with his wage and price control lies. Even Stephane Dion was telling Canadians during the 2008 election that they couldn't have a coalition with the NDP; then, right after the election, lo and behold, Canadians found out the opposition had been contemplating coalition alliances as far back as the summer of 2008.
Trusting Ignatieff is just a waste of time. If Iggy and Layton want to merge their parties, and run under such a banner, then fine; but to carry on this subterfuge of under-the-table alliances and shared-but-not-spoken interests while also pretending to be running as 'independents', is a charade.
An honest Iggy would have said - correctly - that the coalition option is always there in our parliamentary system (at a political price, though...); and that, he would consider it if conditions warranted it. (...and Dion's conditions included the Bloc...)
But, for Iggy to now outright deny any coalition, thereby boxing himself in after the election, is patently idiotic, and truly unbelievable, deservedly leaving Iggy open to yet more flip-flop-liar ridicule down the road.
This all shows that professor Ignatieff is not ready for prime-time and is in way over his head; his theoretical Liberalism doesn't resonate. The only way for Canada to move forward is with a Conservative majority, not another costly minority fiasco-in-the-making. This would give us stability, and pave the way for the necessary political housecleaning that obviously needs to happen in our federal dysfunctional parties.
The Liberals, under professor Ignatieff's tutelage, clearly still have not truly understood their post-Chretien lessons. The Libs 'time-for-reflection-in-the-political-wilderness' has not yielded any new-found purpose nor promise.
Ignatieff''s tiresome, sneerful bromides can't - and won't - lead this country.
*
Monday, March 28, 2011
Iggy conveniently ignores McGuinty's prison plans
Ignatieff was on Newstalk 1010 with John Tory on Mar.28, 2011; a sanctimonious Iggy once again blathered about the Conservative federal government building "super-prisons"; yet, isn't that exactly what Iggy's Liberal colleagues Dalton McGuinty and Jim Bradley are doing in Ontario?!
Seeing that Liberal carpetbagger Ignatieff is a (parachuted) Ontario MPP, has Iggy publicly advised his own premier, McGuinty, to stop building 'super prisons'?
*
Seeing that Liberal carpetbagger Ignatieff is a (parachuted) Ontario MPP, has Iggy publicly advised his own premier, McGuinty, to stop building 'super prisons'?
*
Jim Bradley still silent about wasteful Liberal eco-tax fiaso
When Liberal monopolists such as Jim Bradley, Kim Craitor, Dalton McGuinty, Dwight Duncan, Brad Duguid, and Deb Matthews deny coverage to cancer patients, close hospital emergency rooms, continue with health-care cuts and cancellations, underfund the health monopoly, cut previous supposedly-"universal" health-care coverage, and raise new health taxes while downloading costs to municipalities, it would be nice to see, oh, say, MPP Jim Bradley explain why it's all right for the Liberals to blow another $18 million on their eco-tax fiasco, as patients in the Liberal health-care monopoly suffer.
Funny how the St.Catharines Standard's Earth Hour GreenFear TM spreaders conveniently can't find Jimmy or Kimmy to explain their wasteful ways.
Feh... what's 18 million, when Jim Bradley is Trying To Save The Planet?!
*
Funny how the St.Catharines Standard's Earth Hour GreenFear TM spreaders conveniently can't find Jimmy or Kimmy to explain their wasteful ways.
Feh... what's 18 million, when Jim Bradley is Trying To Save The Planet?!
*
Sunday, March 27, 2011
McGuinty's swan song
It's amazing how Alberta Liberal David Swann and his medicare-monopoly-pushin' buddies are agitating for a "public inquiry" into Alberta's health-care system; if only Swann would say the exact same thing about Dalton McGuinty's far-worse Liberal-run health-care monopoly in Ontario! Albertans just need to look at what Liberal scumbag monopolist McGuinty has done to Ontario to see the kind of disaster a Liberal future would bring.
Ontarians are heading to the polls in October of 2011, hopefully to get rid of McGuinty and his Liberal lies. Ontario - now a have-not province thanks to McGuinty - has to put up with McGuinty's Liberal bullshit until October; thankfully, this Gritty white-noise will be McGuinty's swan song.
*
Ontarians are heading to the polls in October of 2011, hopefully to get rid of McGuinty and his Liberal lies. Ontario - now a have-not province thanks to McGuinty - has to put up with McGuinty's Liberal bullshit until October; thankfully, this Gritty white-noise will be McGuinty's swan song.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
