Harper = Bush Lite?

Byoliveridley

Harper's economic strategy, if it can be called that, is looking more and more like George Bush's: tax cuts and military spending. While gutting our revenue by $60 billion over five years, Harper laid out a plan to spend $490 billion in addition to the annual defence budget over 20 years to build up the Canadian military. This economic policy is well on its way to bankrupting the U.S. and could do the same to Canada.

We could instead bring together unions, capital, universities and provincial governments and make Canada a leader in green technologies, potentially providing hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs and literally thousands of profitable companies. But under Stephen Harper, Canada's economic ship of state just drifts.

Our economy is completely on its own, pulled this way and that, and ultimately down, by faltering corporate globalization and the catastrophic collapse of American casino capitalism.

Six Ways Harper Is Wrecking the Economy :: Views :: thetyee.ca.

The Tyee makes a compelling argument, not in the sense that Harper is a bumbling incompetent know nothing like Bush, but that the ideology of continuous tax cuts + deficit spending + cutting government programs will eventually lead us to where the U.S is at this point in time, and I don’t think too many Canadians want to be Americans at any time, especially the present.

That and his impotent and irresponsible approach to climate change make him a dangerous choice. Canada is where the US was in 2004, at the cusp of choosing a leader whose optics are better than his performance.

Similar Posts

  • Canada now has no legitimate government

    Byoliveridley

    Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has granted a request from Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament until late next month, the prime minister announced on Thursday, a move that avoids a confidence vote set for Monday that could have toppled his minority government.

    Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a two-hour meeting with Jean. When Parliament resumes Jan. 26, the first order of business will be the presentation of a federal budget.

    via GG agrees to suspend Parliament: Harper

    Funny, when a PM loses the confidence of parliament, it seems patently undemocratic to let him shut down parliament (the only mechanism of governance) for two months so he can pretend to still be a legitimate PM. Holy cow, I can’t imagine something like that happening in India, our president would laugh the PM out of the building if he/she wanted him to suspend parliament for 2 months, then ask him to hold a confidence vote.

    Sad, whatever country I move to eventually becomes a banana republic.

  • |

    Not looking good for Canada and Climate Change Policy

    Byoliveridley

    Meanwhile, the Conservative party received an F+ because it has chosen a "completely inadequate" target for reducing greenhouse gases and because it is relying on intensity targets to meet its goals.

    Greens tops, Tories flops in Sierra Club climate-change report card.

    So, all the other parties get at least a B grade. The conservatives are relying on so called greenhouse gas intensity targets, or emissions/dollar of GDP, which is a meaningless statistic. As many have pointed out previously, greenhouse gas intensity is a meaningless statistic and decreases naturally as processes grow more efficient and economies transition from a manufacturing to a service oriented economy. The GHG intensity dodge was invented by the Bush administration and the conservatives were happy enough to follow along.

    So, as Harper turns his high profile and the utter fragmentation of centre/left of centre vote into an opinion poll lead, a reminder that ever other party in this race has at least a half way realistic climate policy.

    Canada can’t really wait too long to get in front of this problem. I believe that the US will have something proposed/in place by 2010 and as Canada’s biggest trading partner, will be in enforce a carbon regime on Canada, so this may be moot.

  • |

    Opinion Polls and Yes Prime Minister

    Byoliveridley

    This story from the grist about a push poll arranged by Rasmussen showing 67% support for the reinstatement of offshore oil drilling in the United States reminded me of this most delightful exchange from Yes Prime Minister, still one of my all time favourite television shows and one that taught me almost everything I needed to know about parliamentary politics at a tender age. The show is about British politics through the eyes of an earnest but bumbling politician, his very experienced bureaucratic handler and his secretary with divided loyalties. The show is incredibly insightful and funny at the same time. But, before I get to my favourite part, some background…

    It’s that time of the year when the republicans want to enrich their oil buddies by opening up oil drilling offshore of the U.S. This year, the high price of gas provides a convenient excuse and rallying point. After all, who wouldn’t want to pay less for gas. Of course, a U.S government study done by the Energy Information Administration in 2007 indicates that at best, you would see a 3% increase in production by 2030, and we all know how much that would affect gasoline prices this summer. Yet, here’s the first question from the “poll”

    In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states

    No really, what are you supposed to say? Can such reputable firms lie to you like that? Anyway, Joseph Romm from the original gristmill post breaks it down completely so I don’t have to. but after reading his post, come back and read the following exchange from Yes Prime Minister, and do listen to the actual audio clip from the show.

    Yes Prime Minister – Season 1Episode 2 (warning: Strangely formatted website)

    Sir Humphrey: “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Oh…well, I suppose I might be.”

    Sir Humphrey: “Yes or no?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”

    Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”

    Sir Humphrey: “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”

    Bernard Woolley: “How?”

    Sir Humphrey: “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”Sir Humphrey: “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”

    That is what I think about opinion polls!

  • |

    The U.S Emperor's new edict on regulation

    Byoliveridley

    Wow, plutocracy-protectionary principle alert.

    Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – Changing The Rules On Regulations

    A new directive from President George W. Bush to federal agencies adds layers of bureaucracy to the process of issuing regulations and gives the White House greater control over agencies’ rules. Critics say the directive, issued Jan. 18, will slow down regulation. They say it also shifts regulatory priorities, which were set by Congress in federal laws, away from protection of health and environment to economic rationales. Some industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, praise the directive. “It’s the first truly significant attempt by an Administration to hold federal bureaucrats to account and insist they act with discretion when imposing new and expensive burdens on businesses and consumers,” says William Kovacs, the chamber’s vice president of environment, energy, and regulatory affairs. Under the new directive, agencies can regulate only when they can demonstrate to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) that the free market is not producing the desired results of the rule, such as health protection. To show that a new rule is warranted, agencies must identify what economists call “market failures”—such as when an industrial sector with unfettered pollution sells its products more cheaply than it would have had it included the cost of pollution control into the price of its goods.

    Sounds reasonable, does it not! All the good buzzwords thrown in there, “Cost-Benefit Analysis”, “Market Failure”, etc. But note that the burden of proof is on the regulating body to come up with a clearcut “proof” before passing regulation.

    In addition, the directive requires each agency to have a presidentially appointed “regulatory policy officer.” The agency cannot begin work on a new rule—even one required by Congress through a law—until it gets a green light from its regulatory policy officer or unless the head of the agency gives approval.

    The Emperor gets to appoint a viceroy to police the agency to ensure that no such regulation will get passed.

    Note the modus operandi:

    1. Appoint lackey to head agency
    2. Appoint viceroy to oversee regulation
    3. Rewrite rules to increase power of executive over legislative
    4. Shift burden of proof away from the regulated to the regulators
    5. Slash budgets so regulating agencies cannot do the work adequately
    6. Hound competent employees out of the agency
    7. Routinely bash said agency as an example of “big government”. Repeat steps 4-7 as often as necessary to ensure “success”

    Banana republic, indeed.

  • The Canadian Press: Income gap widens between Canada's rich and poor, OECD study says

    Byoliveridley

    The gap between the rich and poor in Canada widened significantly in a recent 10-year period partly because Ottawa spent less on cash benefits than many other developed countries, the OECD says.

    It was a reversal of the trend in the two previous decades when the gap was narrowing, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development said in a report.
    via The Canadian Press: Income gap widens between Canada’s rich and poor, OECD study says

    Just like our southern neighbour, of course. This is no liberal-conservative divide issue, but a consequence of the neoliberal deregulation and tax-cutting policies so popular since the mid ’90s. Inequality deepens divisions within a country and creates a ruling class that is increasingly vested in keeping the inequality going as it benefits them.

  • Canadian Elections October 14th?

    Byoliveridley

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper will later this week ask Governor General Michaëlle Jean to set Oct. 14 as the date for the next federal election, senior government officials said Monday.Harper will visit Jean at Rideau Hall, her official residence in Ottawa, to establish the election date, the officials told the Canadian Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.The prime minister will declare that, after having met with all three opposition leaders over the last few days, he no longer has the confidence of Parliament, the sources said. As per tradition, it will then be up to Jean to decide whether to dissolve Parliament and set the election date.

    Harper to ask GG to set Oct. 14 as election date: sources

    Just like most things Canadian, our elections will also be about 2 weeks before the American one, it’s Harper vs. Dion, also starring the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party. Climate Change will be front and centre, thanks to Dion and the Liberals’ Green Shift campaign:

    Our plan is as powerful as it is simple. We will cut taxes on those things we all want more of such as income, investment and innovation, and we will shift those taxes to what we all want less of: pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste.

    Energy costs are soaring all over the world. While energy prices continue to rise, we need to encourage energy efficiency. We need to change wasteful habits. We need to discourage polluting activities.

    In other words, a kind of Carbon Tax similar to the one the BC provincial government instituted this July. Of course, Harper called this a tax increase and has forecast gloom and doom for all Canadians if something like this happens. As such, his attacks have been successful and support seems to be dropping.

    It’s going to be very interesting and very tight, with the Tories and Liberals both polling in the Mid 30s. Expect yet another coalition government. The Greens could affect results in certain ridings, always good to follow. I hope to learn a lot about Canadian politics from watching this election. The system is quite like India’s and as such, is easily understandable.

    Also expect no soap operas, this is Canada, folks, if you were expecting the Jerry Springer feel to this weekend’s goings on South of the border!!