Friday, April 29, 2005's out for summer! Regular Blogging to resume as of Monday

I tappered off there for a while and have only chimed in when I had a few spare moments. But I'm off to Manitoba over the weekend, so once I'm home regular blogging will resume from Manitoba! And believe me I have rage and bile directed towards the socialist machine at the moment - 49% of all income earned goes to taxes! ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Paul Martin and his Love affair with Alfonso Gagliano

(via the Shotgun)

Paul Martin knew nobody in Quebec, he was on the outside and didn't talk to anyone who had anything to do with it...

They how does he explain this video!

A political obituary: RIP Finance Minister Paul Martin

Paul Martin, former finance minister famed for reducing the deficit, fighting spending, cutting taxes and overall financial rectitude. He died yesterday in an orgy of spending, some would say he passed away after selling his soul to the socialists. The former finance minister is survived by spineless Prime Minister Dithers, who is lacking in scruple and principal, willing to do anything to desperately cling to power and a party fallen into disrepute. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers released statements mourning the previous finance ministers passing, saying it was a "sad day for the business community that Paul Martin had been part of for so long" but they stated they would continue to push for economic growth and tax reductions wherever they could be found "because that's what our Finance Minister would have wanted us to do."

So long Finance Minister Martin, I'm sure you'll be remembered fondly. I'm sure Mr.Dithers and his new socialist compariots will be able to explain to Canadians why they said no to 340,000 new jobs in Canada. I'm sure the business community will understand a highly nuanced answer to their current "et tu bruti?" Just like I'm sure Dithers can explain selling out his past, while Jack Layton tries to explain why he's suddenly "cool with corruption". "Hey a few more billions in social programs - what was that I was talking about before..corruption..ah forget about it. What's a few hundred million in graft? We're all socialists here now right?"

Apparantly there is no one including himself that Paul Martin won't sell out in order to cling desperately to power. While Smirkin' Jack has simply shown that the scent of corruption from vote buying, can be fanned away as long as each of his MPs has their vote bought at 250 million dollars a piece in spending. Buying votes to try and slither through a vote buying scandal - isn't it ironic?

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Election Buzz - Good time to be a Tory?

I think the most apt metaphor I've heard yet is that an election, like a war often starts because once the mechanisms to begin it have been put in place their very momentum drives towards the logical conclusion. Once the trains are schedualed it seems a bit late to be going back.

Mps are talking to their constitutents right now - at least the Conservative ones about whether they would like an election or not. But really, does anyone believe the question isn't whether "would you like an election now?" but "would you be terribly upset if we had an election now?" Its a slaes pitch as much as it is a consultation.

I'm quite certain that if Martin tries to make an issue out of the timing of the election, he'll find the impracticality of having an election in late December/early January thrown in his face, the litigous cloud hanging over the Gomery commission and the fact all the witnesses will be heard and Canadians can come to their own conclusions as a result. On the whole, I don't think "we didn't need to have an election yet" is not a very good election issue. I think it also becomes a whore election issue when its held in contrast to "there was systematic corruption and theft within the Liberal Party".

And really, politics tends to be a bloodsport. Hence if your opponent is down you kick him - repeatedly. Right now the Liberal party is suffering from disunity and low moral. If you speak to its active supporters alot of them are pondering sitting the election out, their dishearted - they don't want to go get yelled at while knocking on doors. You hear alot of people who casually describe their political leanings as liberal say - but "not that kind of liberal" While in parliament, in some appearances Paul Martin is looking 80 years old. While if you watch question period many liberal Mps seems to have all the joy and vigour to them of a convict on death row. Where it a military engagement you'd think they were about to break and run seeking to save themselves.

On the other hand, has Stephen Harper ever appeared more confident? Has he ever appeared more in control of the situation? He's even showed some passion in decrying the activies of the government. His personal popularity is growing in the polls, regarding both his desirablity as a prime minister and his trustworthyness. While his part now cruises around 35-36% in the polls which constitutes a strong minority and begins to knock on the door to a majority depending on how the chips fall. Harper is looking Prime Ministerial,and he's been quite adept at inocculating himself at many of the extremist changes leveled at him.

Ipsos Reid in their polling for Canwest is indicating the Paul Martin's televised remix of his litany of excuses just may backfire.

As part of the survey, 377 of the 2,000 interviews were conducted on the evening of Martin's nationally televised address. The poll found that of those interviewed that night, there was a "spike" in support for the Conservatives. Bricker cautioned that because of that smaller one-night sample size, the results can only be considered "in a directional nature."

While Team Martin while it still expected to cruise to power announced a number of "star candidates". The Globe and Mail reports today that this time around its "Team Tory" or "Harper's Heroes" if you will that are announcing a slick starting line up.

Last week there was already the announcement that former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon was planning to run in the Quebec riding of Pontiac. This is a riding the Conservatives have polled strongly in before, with a high profile candidate I can only expect we'll be very competetive there. Given that the riding is partially encompassing Gatineau I sincerely doubt it will go to the seperatists, which I think gives us a fairly even shot at it.

While Mike Harris' old front bench seems to be lining up to make the shift to federal politics. Tony Clement is set to take another run at things, since Ontario seems to be comming around. I'm glad to hear this, I genuinely felt bad for Tony. After he lost his provincial seat, the federal leadership campaign, and then the federal seat it really seemed that an articulate and intellegent guy like him deserved better. Good to see he's going to get another kick at the can.

John Baird had already announced his intent to transition to federal politics. While yesterday he was formally joined by Jim Flaherty - a former Harris cabinet minister and two time provincial leadership contender. Flaherty has cabinet minister material written all over him. He may even have some coat tails in Ontario.

Elsie Wayne aka Halifax's Raging Granny is pondering comming out of retirement to continue her distinguished tenure of public service. A Mulroneyite Mp Barry Turner is feeling nostalgic about his brief stint as a parliamentarian and pondering a come back.

Heck Blair Lancaster, a former Miss Canada is intending to run for us. This will only continue the trend if she should win of Conservatives Mps being able to claim "we're prettier than you."

Former Global news anchor Peter Kent is likely to run in Toronto for us. While across the country Russ Courtnal who has a bit of experience playing right wing is seriously weighing considering a move into politics.

Now seriously who wouldn't like to see Russ Courtnal as Minister for Ameteur Sport? How many ministers could we send out to sports functions were people would get their autographs?

Reynolds is indicating that there are going to be more prominent candiates comming forwards. While the Liberals so I've heard are simply going to keep the same candidate of record, unless they drop out. Anyone with a Conservative inclination is now smelling blood in the air and throwing their hat in the ring. While whom have the Liberals announced?

I rather expect we'll see a number of Liberal Mps decide "they'd like to spend more time with their families" or are suffering from "nagging health problems" and various other reasons to take early retirement as opposed to venturing into the next electoral campaign.

It's a good time to be a Tory.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Bye, Bye Mr. Liberalman Guy

I'd like to start off my assessment with a musical response watching last night's video. That's right kids, hum along to the tune of American Pie.

Bye, bye Mr. Liberalman Guy
You took your party to the people
But their pity ran dry
Now those good old boys
Those conservative guys
are singing this will be the day that you die!

Paul Martin

Well after the musical interlude you can graspe the substance of how I feel about Paul Martin's video presentation. To be fair the video itself was very good. Martin's demeanour seemed sincere, and his delivery of his speach was good. Stylistically, Martin gets full marks. The problem is, that a speach cannot subsist on style alone. While Paul Martin may try and plead with people not to punish the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal, the simple fact of the matter is - the Liberals stole money from the Canadian taxpayers and rna election campaigns with it.

You can sugar coat that all you want, but the fact of the matter is - it happened, and its absolutely disgusting. I don't think Martin's mea culpa where he admitted that he was negligent in not having seen what was happening to the money helps him politically. It may preserve people's good opinion of him - i.e. he was only incompetent not criminal. However, I don't think it does anything for the Liberal brand at all.

In fact I think the entire exercise of going on national television during prime time to bring the sponsorhip scandal to people's attention as some sort of national crisis was about the worst thing Paul Martin could have done. Perhaps, he's made it slightly more difficult for Harper to call an election. But not really, Martin is essentially promising a Decemeber election - that's premised upon legal action by Chretien not interferring in the Gommery report. I think if you asked people "Would you rather have an election in June or in Decemeber" they'd pick June. Furthermore, I don't genuinely think outside of political junkies that many people ever truly get fired up about an election. They just reluctantly shuffle out when they have too.

Furthermore, I think some people are going to be turned off that Martin went off TV to do some shameless self promotion. It wasn't the nation's business, it was rather transparently an attempt to save his own hide. Which is typically liberal, completely unable to distinguish between the national interest and the interests of the Liberal Party.

Stephen Harper

Some people have criticized his delivery from last night. I thought he did okay. It wasn't a knock it out of the park, ooze JFK style charisma speach, but what he did do is he looked like a leader. More importantly he moved back and forth between english and french fairly smoothly. He also made a pitch directly to Quebecers. I think that alone accomplished a lot for him. Firstly, he presented himself as a younger, reasonable figure. He didn't seem scary at all. He also demonstrated his billingualism which helps dispell the accusation that he's some sort of crazy westerner - as everyone knows crazy westerners ne parle pas francais.

On the substance he came out swinging in rejecting everything Paul Martin had to say. Well, you'd pretty much expect opposing from the opposition wouldn't you. He hammered home his points fairly ruthlessly, and I was pleased to see him making his pitch to Quebec rather strenously. Conservatives have been gaining some traction there, and its important to try and lure every federalist voter away from the BQ. I don't care if they vote for us, or for the NDP but if the Bloc polls at 60% that would be very..very bad for the country. I think his call for federalist voters to rally around the Conservative party and for Canadians as a whole to do so, went along way to difusing the Scott Brison "we are the cause and solution to this national unity crisis" argument. It was ridiculous to begin with but Harper's statement that "the Liberal Party can no longer go to Quebec with clean hands to represent the federalist cause" had a ring of truth to it. I personally think it will help us in Ontario. Ontario always seems nervous about upsetting Quebec, kind of like whipped boyfriend desperately afraid to upset his girl so they vote Liberal to "keep the country together"...well that argument is no longer on the table for the Liberals. I will feel my dose of gleeful spite if that begins to work against them.

But it's no secret I'm a Conservative. If Stephen Harper came out there and offered a Dean scream, and yelled "I hate the Liberals I want them all to die!" I would be "You tell them Harper!"

Gilles Duceppe

Duceppe scares me. He is far too good at what he does, which unfortunately is work to promote the disolution of the country. Stylistically he delivers his message with a passion the other leaders seem to lack, he seems genuinely enraged and indignant and its rather infectious. Furthermore, he stays perfectly on message. I kind of wish he was on our side instead of a seperatist and a quasi-communist. You have to stop yourself from nodding along as he makes his points..he's developed into a terribly effective politician.

Jack Layton

Alright..I can't stand Jack Layton. He comes across as slimy, insincere and on some sort of happy pills to me. But if you can get past that, and the fact he's a flaming socialist I guess your okay. I know I wouldn't consider voting for him unless my other options were Mao Zedong, and Joe Stalin, but if your into the "lets spend money on everything imaginable" mindset and think money grows on trees rather than being produced by trade and industry Jack probably sent out good vibes to you. He talked about all the pet lefty projects. On the other hand, he dissed Liberal corruption but came out and said 'let's make a deal'. That seems rather unprincipled to me. On the other hand I think socialists are thieves so they may not have the same perception as I do.

Reader's Digest Version: Martin shouldn't have given his opponents a platform on prime time to bash him. Nor should he have drawn more attention to the sponsorship program. I'm predicting this desperate gambit blows up in his face.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI

And now the world has a new Pope. Cue the screaming from the leftist masses, as it turns out to be a "ultraconservative pope." Worse still he's an "ultraconservative European", after all they could have dealt with a conservative if he was from some sort of different background. However, a conservative European, which seems to be a semi-endangered species, outrages the poor lefties of the world. Benedict XVI is essentially the antithesis of what liberals wanted coming out of the papal elections. They wanted a pope who was liberal and south american or african, or at least a liberal. Instead they got the man the Italian newspapers have dubbed the "German shepard", a play upon the guardian roll he's played over his church's doctrine. Benedict XVI is far less likely than John Paul II was to budge on changing church doctrine in any substantial way.

This doesn't effect me terribly much one way or another. However, I have been amused by the beating of chest, the tearing of hair, and rending of garments among the supposedly Catholic left. Apparantly the fact their leader isn't going to enact policies that validate their personal beliefs and wants upsets them. Not previously knowing anything about Benedict XVI if his election reduces Andrew Sullivan to hysteria and outrages the folks at Democratic Underground - the Pope's stock is rising in my eyes.

Apparantly the left everywhere was expecting the new Pope to come out and proclaim himself in favour of all their pet religious causes - after having been given a makeover by the guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The chance of that happening when a lot of elderly Catholics appointed by a prior conservative Pope are deciding who suceeds him? Nadda, but evidently hope springs eternal and all that.

But the whole the Pope is a Nazis thing is rediculous. You can't blame the guy for having been born in Germany. He was forced to attend a manditory youth organization. He was later conscripted, and then deserted. He didn't kill anyone, and there is no indication he's even the least bit anti-semetic.

As to his being a NeoCon, and his appointment somehow orastrated by President Bush and Karl Rove... I'm really not going to dignify that with a comment. I think my laughter will suffice.

Regarding all the pet peaves of the left, the lack of female priests, celibacy, abbortions, condoms, and the church's dim view of homosexuality for the most part they're faily silly. If you want to see female priests there are any number of prodestant demoninations that can accomodate you.

If you think its wrong that priests can't marry, unless they are Eastern Rite, how is that any of your concern anyhow? If they could would you suddenly be signing up to be a cleric? No - didn't think so. Although it is strange that the Eastern European priests are allowed to marry while the others cannot.

Abbortions are up to the individual involved. Whether the church approves or not is irrelevant. They may be necessary, but it would be silly to expect the church to deem them morally laudable.

As to the charge that the Pope is causing millions to die in Africa from aids because he tells people that its wrong to use contraceptives, that seems to ignore the fact he also tells them not to have sex outside of marriage. I'm of the impression they problem wouldn't need to be wearing condoms if they stopped having sex outside those paramaters. On the other hand, most people certaintly don't listen to that advice, I'm not sure why the left thinks that everyone in Africa responds robbotically to pronouncements on condoms but not on sexuality in any other way shape or form.

As to whether the church should send out feel good vibes to homosexuals, well they have this thing called the bible which isn't particular keen on homosexuality. Considering that particular book is what they base their faith on, it might be a bit odd to just ignore its stance on the issue.

The great danger in making any of these changes is that the Catholic church would in substance become no different than Anglicans or various other prodestant denominations such as the United Church of Canada. Well, the decorating in the Catholic Church might remain more gothic until the new female priests descided it should be in pastel. But in all seriousness, all of these positions have been adopted by existing prodestant denominations. If you want them so badly - why aren't you in one of those churches? Or better yet - why are those churches hemoraging people?

The argument always presented is that the Catholic church is becoming a relic, making itself irrelevent, and people will stop going unless they do x,y,z and change almost entitely. Every church following that prescription is becoming irrelevent as it is. Thus its difficult to pin down how that's suposed to help.

When religion becomes nothing more than a wishy washy hour or so a week of sitting down and being told some entity loves you and forgives everything you've ever done wrong, it entirely defeats the point. If its morally okay for you to do everything you want to do, what guidance are you suposed to draw out of that? There isn't any, its simply there to soothe your conscience. There's really no point, if you just want to do whatever you want athesim is the logical alternative. If your going to make religion an empty shell, why even bother?

The problem for many on the left is that they suspect that their belief system is actually immoral, and they really want someone else, in this case the Catholic Church to sign off on it for their own feelings of validation. That seems to be something its not prepared to do - good.

Saturday, April 16, 2005

A Conservative Majority Government?

Standing at 36% in the polls according the latest Ipsos Reid poll done for CTV, the Conservative Party seems to be inching towards majority territory. The Ipso Reid Poll places the Liberals at 27% in the polls, while the NDP trails at 15%, while the Green sit back at 7%.

What isn't mentioned is that would leave the Bloc at 15% nationally! Which is well.. something resembling 60% in Quebec...

I tend to think that's a bit high, so for the sake of argument I've elected to list party support as Conservative 36%, Liberal 27%, NDP 16%, BQ 13% and Green 8%.

Why? The remainder of the Ipsos poll seems to conflict with its national numbers. 36 +27 +35 + 7 = 85%

At the same time they give the regional data for Quebec as being 41% BQ, Liberal 25, Conservative 16%, NDP 8%, Green Party 6%.

So for the sake of some sort of logical consistency, I've shuffled the numbers and I put the BQ at 13% national, directed 1% towards the NDP as I thought they seemed to be quite substantially down in this survey and 1% to the Greens as they seem to be catching a lot of Liberal support. That decision is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, but I think it entirely possible.

Next I went to the UBC seat projector, splitting the 9.7% Liberal freefall between the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Greens (and arguably the NDP as I left them higher than Ipsos did), what results is A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY GOVERNMENT.

According the the UBC projections a 160 seat, five seat Tory majority would be the result at the polls. The Bloc Quebecois recieve 67 seats to become the Official Opposition, while the Liberals drop to 3rd place hanging onto only 52 seats, while the NDP increase their seat share significantly recieving 28.

This prediction has the Conservatives sweeping through Western Canada like some sort of angel of vengence and picking up 81 seats, however, I'd expect we'd recieve a few less than that . (the model gives us a few that are within a couple percent.) According to this prediction the Western caucus of the Liberal Party would be Ralph Goodale and Stephen Owens. In Manitoba the projections are predicting the political deaths of Reg Alcock, Anita Neville and Raymond Simard.

Those three ridings are Liberal strongholds, I have difficulty believing as a former Manitoban that we can knock of Reg Alcock..and the idea of Saint Boniface going Conservative is a bit hard to swallow too. Anita Neville on the other hand is a weak MP, I can see a strong campaign knocking her off. None the less, perhaps a massive shift in voter intentions will turn most of the province that sweet, sweet Tory blue.

Saskatchewan leaves only Goodale as the sole non-Tory. While our Saskatchewan troopers seem to manage to ward off the socialist hordes in the province much better than than do provincially.

BC is rather interesting, we take the Liberal's lunch money there as they bleed support to the right and to the left. Its nice to see three way lefty vote splitting in BC - I knew vote splitting would be good for us someday. I can see Jack Layton starting up the Unite the Left conference sometime after this election if the Greens keep polling so high. None the less, the Dippers pick up some Liberal seats, and so do we. Cadman wins in a walk if he remains. Oh yes and in turncoat news - Keith Martin may well be knocked off by the NDP - huzzah!

Back in Ontario, as many as 66 seats go our way, with another 4 or 5 going NDP, while the Liberals fall to 28 seats in Ontario mostly in the Toronto area with Scarborough seeming to be the Liberal stronghold every other regional centre seems to be penetrated at least partially by the CPC or the NDP.

Quebec - if the Bloc have crunched numbers like these its no wonder they seem to have a hard on for an election. The model is predicting the Liberals reduced to 8 seats in Quebec. With the Bloc Quebecois winning the remaining 67. Such Liberal cabinet ministers as Liza Frulla, Pierre Pettigrew and Jean Lapierre could be suffled off this electoral coil.

The CPC seems to have a strong chance of winning the ridings of Louis - Saint Laurent which is our Quebec lieutenant Josee Vanier's riding in Quebec City, and a riding just outside Hull - Pontiac which is essentially split three ways between the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc according to these projections. Were I Stephen Harper I would have a small army of volunteers invading these two ridings and be there personally on a very frequent basis. Both of these ridings went PC under Mulroney, and Pontiac has gone Conservative under every Conservative administration since Diefenbaker in the late 50s except for Joe Clark (he doesn't count anyway). These two ridings are musts for us.

In the Atlantic provinces, PEI looks like it will cough up a seat or two for us, Lib 2, CPC 2. While it would seem we pick up 1 extra seat in Newfoundland 4 Lib 3 Cons, while in NS a few more seats gained with Scott Brison may well be regretting jumping on the wrong bandwagon at the wrong time. (Conservatives 5, Lib 3, NDP 3) While in NB we gain some ground as well. (Conservative 6, Lib 3, NDP 1).

While the North splits with the Yukon and Nunavut going Liberal and the NWT going NDP.

To get an idea of the margins involved in this projection the Conservatives are predicted to have 115 safe seats! The Bloc to have 55, the Liberals 21 and the NDP 15.

Read that again closely - there are only 21 safe Liberal seats according to projections based on their current share of the vote. Even being generous and saying there are at least another dozen or two safe Liberal seats - that puts three quarters of the Liberal's current seat share in play.

Is it just me or is Paul Martin starting to look an aweful lot like John Turner - all hype no performance? Not to mention facing the potential of an ignoble end.

Update - Just a thought here but it seems to me like the CBC poll that put the NDP at 24% is looking fairly rogue. I haven't seen another poll yet putting them nearly that high. I'm going to predict they slide in somewhere between 16 and 20% in the polls. I think right now Jack Layton's biggest opponent is not necessarily Paul Martin - but the Green Party. a perfect world (if your a Dipper) those are your people.

But if the NDP and Greens slip the far left, I'm happy that we don't have to break out the "socialist hordes will eat your children" chant.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Lower Taxes = Growth, High Taxes = Stagnation

Larry Kudlow at the NRO has an excellent article called Evidence, Evidence and more Evidence. Far too many on the left fall into the knee jerk position that punishing people for earning money is *good*. From a moral point of view, expropriation is good why? The rational the left relies upon is that "its better for everyone", which really is a utilitarian argument to simply justify theft. What else can taking your money, without your consent and offering nothing of benifet to you in return be called other than theft?

Some on the left will claim that these projects are "social insurance" that everyone has the potential to benefit from. Okay, then tell me why everyone has to pay for projects that benifet solely minority groups? That's not helping the majority. Nor is health care spending structured into the form of insurance where one person is paying into his own ability to claim, he's paying into everyone's ability to claim in this specific instance and essentially relying on future generations to continue to do so.

Now for all their pet projects various leftists will assert that high taxes are good, and start wagging fingers at people whom have reduced taxes like Mike Harris as being irresponsible, reckless extra. You might want to notice that the statistics they never point to is that post-tax cut revenue in Harrisite Ontario was higher, than pre-tax cut revenue. might just say that the problem wasn't cutting taxes, it was that Harris continued to spend more money rather than showing restraint.

Nor does the left like to hear about this little thing called the Laffter curve, which illustrates that the higher levels of taxes result in decreasing revenues and lower taxes result in increasing revenues. Why? Compliance and increased private investment. If taxes are raised to an absurdly high level all sort of legal maneuvers can be attempted to skirt around high taxes. For example I might choose to run part of my company out of the Bahamas, or take up residency there to avoid paying taxes, or various rules apply to corporations, trusts and tax exemptions can be finegled to evade the long arm of Revenue Canada and the IRS. Seriously, who do you think is better at that game accounts and attornies billing at 800 dollars an hour or a 9-5 government employee whose waiting to retire.

Its rare for me to post an article in its entirity but I'll post the Kudlow argument below, it gives concrete examples of what is a simple economic truth - low taxes are good, high taxes are bad. IT IS NOT BETTER FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE A PUNITIVE TAXATION SCHEME, its STIFLES GROWTH, it makes EVERYONE POORER and LESS LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED. Jack Layton if your out there, take a read of this - you might learn something.

Evidence, Evidence, and More EvidenceLower tax rates spur economic growth.

An opinion piece by reporter Anna Bernasek in last Sunday’s New York Times actually argues that there’s no real evidence that lower tax rates spur economic growth. Bernasek finds a couple of economists to back up her idea before concluding that tax “reform based on a notion that taxes are bad for the economy is just that: a notion not backed by strong evidence.”

Let me beg to differ in a very strong way.

Before making her strange assertions, Bernasek should have referenced the work of Harvard economists Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw, along with numerous articles published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Then there’s the work of Columbia economist Glenn Hubbard and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen. These are no small thinkers when it comes to tax theory. Each has found a high correlation between lower tax rates and higher economic growth.

Then there’s the Nobel-prize-winning Edward Prescott of Arizona State and Robert Mundell of Columbia. Add two more sound minds to the lower-tax, higher-growth list. Sure, the above economists have been Republican advisors at one time or another, but Bernasek could have found a trove of data contrary to her thesis had she looked to the “non-partisan” OECD, IMF, or Congressional Budget Office.

Then there’s the real-world evidence. Let’s start overseas.

Margaret Thatcher’s tax cuts had made Britain the strongest European Union economy until Ireland passed it with even lower tax rates. Russia and almost all the former Soviet bloc countries in East Europe have moved to low flat-tax-rate systems. Western Europe, until recently, has not. Consequently, their economic growth rate has fallen 25 percent behind the pace set in the U.S. over the last decade.

A recent BusinessWeek article notes that only last year “Germany was among the ringleaders of an effort to force low-tax countries like Estonia to raise their rates.” Now Germany is joining the race to cut taxes by slashing their corporate income tax. BusinessWeek continues, “Chances for just such economy-boosting tax cuts are looking better.” (My italics.)

Back at home, real-world evidence throughout the 20th century shows a stark contrast between high- and low-tax policies. In the 1920s, the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts produced the Roaring Twenties. But repeated tax increases by Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt produced and prolonged the Great Depression.

John F. Kennedy vowed to get the economy moving again after the sluggish growth of the high-tax Truman-Eisenhower years. JFK made good on his promise when he lowered the top income-tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. The result was the 1960’s boom. Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan turned stagflation into the 1980’s boom by slashing the top personal tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

President Clinton, you might recall, raised taxes in his first term, but lowered them in his second term, contributing to a burst of investment and growth. Note the difference. In his first four years, the economy increased at a 3.2 percent annual rate. But his next four years produced a 4.2 percent economic pace.

Are we to throw out all this overwhelming historical evidence? Hardly. More likely, former-Sen. Connie Mack, the head of President Bush’s tax-reform commission, will recommend a new tax plan for the U.S. that will borrow heavily from the path-breaking flat-tax-reform work of Steve Forbes, Dick Armey, and Art Laffer. No amount of academic-style econometric finagling can take away from the historical evidence that flatter and simpler taxes are the best way to maximize our economy’s potential to grow.

To think otherwise only defies the laws of common sense. Higher after-tax returns to work, investment, and entrepreneurial risk-taking will promote more employment, more capital formation, and more wealth. If it pays more to produce then people will produce more. As Dr. Laffer put it three decades ago, when you tax something more you get less of it. When you tax something less you get more of it. Higher after-tax rewards always generate a greater supply of work effort and investment capital.

In our capitalist free-market system, strengthening the link between effort and reward has proven to work time and again. I respectfully disagree with Anna Bernasek and the New York Times. More tax freedom will always fuel our free economy.

— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

Thanks Larry for telling it like it is.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Manitoba Liberal Party Considers Name Change

In more news related to Liberals trying to..distance themselves from Liberals, the Manitoba Liberals are considering changing their name.

Although the Manitoba Liberals aren't much of a force in provincial politics, I can't help but relish the thought of all three prairie provinces having no party that dare claims the name Liberal. Perhaps, one day here too Liberal will be thought a slur and a curse word. This may be far too early for such speculation, but one can dream.

Ekos Poll - CPC 36.2% LPC 25% (There is a God)

At this point aside from triumphalism, feelings of complete validation and verbal fist pumping I don't know what to say. Well actually I do - this is the best non-sexual thing ever! The Liberals are spiraling downwards towards oblivion and finally the Conservative cause has some wind in its sails. This is simply fantastic, finally we may see what Canada so desperately needs - Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

I think many of us harboured the belief that perhaps Eastern Canada would simply continue to shrug their shoulders and say "Well, that's just politics for you." But no, it would seem that the foul stench of corruption and the listlessness of a tired and completely uninspired Martin government has caused them to see the light!

That's right, it is has been said vote for integrity and a tax cut and lo but yea shall be saved.

Perhaps I should have been slightly more upbeat about this rather than harbouring my doubts. When the normal appologists for the Liberal Party waffled uncomfortably and were speechless. To see Kinsella at a loss, and the Calgary Grit thoroughly discouraged is a rare sight (although CG must be used to being rejected in Calgary).

All my fellow conservatives out there, irregardless of your stripe - I direct you to the latest Ekos poll and suggest you thank whatever form of diety, entity or universal truth you deem appropriate - either that or simply feel really smug that the Liberals finally seem to have found enough rope to hang themselves.

Find the details at the Star - here, here and here. Heck find it in french here.

Nationally its the CPC at 36.2%, the LPC at 25%, the NDP at 20.5% the Bloc at 12.5% and the Greens at 5%

A regional breakdown has us at 40% in Ontario, with the Liberals at 33% NDP 21%.

In a spectacular development Conservatives are in second place in Quebec! No..your not misreading that SECOND PLACE IN QUEBEC. Although its a distant second.

Dans la belle province

BQ - 54%
CPC - 18%
LPC - 15%
NDP - 10%

This means we have a real shot at electing some MPs from Quebec, and even stealing some of the federalist vote back from the Bloc if we can prove ourselves to them.

In Alberta Liberal support has fallen to 10%, I think all Alberta can join me now is telling Anne McClellan to start cleaning out her desk!

In less good news the NDP seems to have surged ahead in BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba they're at 37%. Which likely means we picked up only some of the Liberal vote and alot of the Liberal vote flipped to the NDP most likely the Liberal urban vote. On the other hand - Liberals are still experience political death so I'm okay with that.

This poll has Conservatives up 10% since Feburary and the NDP up 5%. While the Liberals have taken a beating down from 40% or so to 25%.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

The Gomery Inquiry and Sponsorship Scandal

I outlined my reaction and a few thoughts moving forward in my past post on the subject. At the moment I simply wish to take the time to offer a sincere thank you to Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters, who set the ball rolling in bringing the relevations of the inquiry to the public's conscience. He did so in defiance of a law gagging the media, but then again the law of Canada is not the law of the United States. However, his firm belief that people have the right to know and the importance of freedom of expression is heartening and reassurases me that the internet is not simply a means of dispensing pornography and cheap junk via ebay.

For those of you whom have not had the opporunity to puruse the media's coverage of the Inquiry's recent relevations. I'd direct you to CTV 's summary here and the CBC here. While the fellows at PolSpy have a rather extensive series of links found here.

To add to the humiliation of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Alberta Liberal Party which essentially involves the same cast of characters as the Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta), has a leader whose opennly musing about changing the party's name to distance the provincial party from the federal party. There is a great deal of irony in wanting to distance yourself..from yourself, but it seems in keeping with Martin's strategy of being a "new" Liberal government even if there seemed to be a lot of continuity. Changing the party's name is just taking that cynical ploy one step farther.

While it would seem the one of Edmonton's Liberal MPs David Kilgour is contemplating retirement or defection. I find this wholly understandable as Kilgour is actually a fairly decent guy - for a Liberal. Admittedly that's likely because Kilgour is a Liberal by convience or coincidence as much as anything else, having run afoul of Mulroney over his opposition to the GST and was kicked out of the PC caucus. I had the opporunity to listen to Mr. Kilgour speak perhaps a month ago, and he spoke about involving Westerners and those from the east more in government and broadening the decision making process beyond the interests of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis. He also spoke of democratic reform and senate reform. I being slightly incredulous upon hearing a Liberal say any such thing inquired why he sat as a Liberal MP supporting those who perpetuate the establishment he'd just spoken out against. His response "I really don't have any good answer to that, it's something I struggle with." If Kigour either retires because of this or becomes the first PC-Liberal-Conservative MP by crossing the floor, power to him. It will be the response of a decent man to indecency in his own party - and a travesty far worse than the GST.

A New Hope - Scandle, Gomery and Beyond

With the sponsorship scandal rocking the nation - there is now hope. Hope that Canadians will take a hard look at the Liberal Party and the mealy mouthed homilies they muttered for years. Even the most cynical or naive among us, cannot say that the Liberal party which claims to "care" and "represent Canadian values" has not severely compromised itself by illustrating systemic corruption, deciet and woeful arrogance. Those who once claimed that even if a program was horribly ineffective "it sent the right message", must now ask themselves whether an ineffective program here which pilfered their money and which ultimately has sent one message - that the Liberal Party believes the people of Canada are guilable sheep whom can be bought off and brainwashed with their own money.

The Gomery Inquiry has begun to probe the seedy underbelly of Canadian politics and revealed palm greasing, wardheeling, graft, corruption and criminality that one normally associates with the politics of more than a hundred years past, or in a more modern context it alludes the imagery of organized crime. Fake invoices, and brown envelopes full of money being paid in order to recieve favours, and phone calls demanding money to "protect the contract" as it were. These despicable practices should shock and dismay every honest, hardworking Canadian taxpayer.

This is not a partisan issue, this is an ethical issue. Its an issue which calls into question the lawfulness, the integrity and virtue of the Liberal Party of Canada as an entity. Systematic corruption and participating in the defrauding of Canadian taxpayers, is not solely an issue for Conservatives to gnash their teeth about. This is a non-partisan issue. If you've voted Liberal in the past - your party has betrayed you. If your political inclinations lean to the left, examine your options in other parties that can accomodate you in that regard. Whatever you ideology the public purse is a fundamental trust - a trust that has been violated.

This violation of our trust as voters, taxpayers and Canadians cannot be tolerated. For too long we've warily trod down the path and mumurred something vaguely distaneful of the integrity of politicians as a class. There must be a higher standard, faith in government, democracy and elected office demands it - not only demands it, but requires it. There has to be a renewal of the relationship between the body politic and the citizenry for disgust and voter apathy have frayed that relationship.

In the wave of angry that rolls forwards from the details of Brault's testimony and the grissly portrayal of the complete malfeasance of people who claimed "they were going to clean up Ottawa", we must not only punish the offenders - but engage Canadians in dialogue to see good goverance emblazoned as a fundamental of our political process and strive for the reforms and an openness and transparancy which will prevent this from ever happening again.

As Canadians we need to demand better of our government, as Conservatives we need to prepare our selves to do better as a government. We need to not only to win the trust to govern, but if and when we do so to act in such a fashion as to difuse the dissallusion of so many Canadians and restore faith in the democratic process.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Had a theological discussion the other day

That was a rather odd event in and of itself, given that I fall into the agnostic way of thinking. But I supose I can be drawn into any somewhat intellectual discussion readily enough. I honestly have some difficulties with the notion of any supreme being that predetermines events or influences them as I've never felt it completely reconcilable with free will. That aside from the consideration that the prevalence of evil seems to suggest a less than perfect design to the world.

That would simply be my personal existentialist musings on the matter. Likely others will disagree. However, free will is to me the most keystone of declaring any action right or wrong without it - everyone can claim they are a victem of predetermination. Yes, that means you Paul and Scott - I don't buy it.

As for free will, I wonder if there are any blogs about it? That might be something to search for, well that and Gomery testimony.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Kyoto Provisions to be Severed from the Budget Bill

This is starting to read like a children's novel "See Paul Run." "Run, Paul, Run."

The Liberal withdrawl of the environmental regulations is an indication that right now they're playing for time. Right now the relevations being leaked out of Gomery, by people watching on television at the public theatre and being published on the internet by "the blog that may not be named" have Liberals across the country running scared.

The provincial Alberta Liberal Party is going so far as to float the idea of a name change to distance themselves from their federal counter parts. But we can still only dream of the day when "liberal" becomes a slur in Canada like it is the in the US.

However, the new Liberal Party line is they're "victems in this too." My response is - what a load of guano. You've been victemized by you're members alledgedly participating in defrauding the taxpayers of their money? Considering the money seems to have found its way into Liberal Party coffers I'd say "benificiary" rather than "victem" seems a more apt characterization of their place in this particular scheme.

Scott Brison, aka the Turncoat Kid, is trotting out to threaten the Conservatives with the sacred 'national unity' card. Now aside from the irony of Scott Brison lecturing anyone on the moral implications of working with people who mean to turn their back on their compatriots, alledgedly by criticizing the Liberal Party we're undermining federalism and promoting seperatism.

Just for Scott I'm recommending our Quebec slogan be "Le meme federaliste gout, mais sans les volereus".

Apparantly, we can't point out that being corrupt and stealing from Canadians is bad, because that would fuel seperatism. Well *obviously* we should just let the Liberals carry the federalist torch in Quebec. After all their great ideas about funding cultural events and ad agencies have really got that seperatist problem under control.

But really, the sponsorship program seems to have characterized every Liberal program within the last half a dozen years. An ill thought out program, that was founded more on a good feeling than any sort of plan. "Hey lets sign Kyoto", or "lets put in a Gun Registry" or "let's create a national day care system" or "let's tighten up border security".

Now you see the Liberals have yet to realize that a "plan" isn't like fries. It isn't an optional thing to go along with the idea you have - its ABSOLUTELY INTEGRAL. Whether your empty gesture makes you feel good and "sends the right message" is completely irrelevent - results matter.

And as Canadians the only results we seem to be seeing, are intellectual bankruptcy, self-service, and political lethargy all gift wrapped in leftist political blather.

Question Period Exchange Between Harper and Martin

You tell me which party and which leader looks like its winning. Follow this link and click on the link on the side bar to Harper Grills Martin.

I simply have a few observations before I head off to bed. Firstly, the Conservative caucus seems to be fired up and ready to go to war. The Liberal caucus on the other hand seemed fairly sedate about the whole exercise.

Martin's suggestion that not all Liberals should be tarred with the same brush, is going to be rather hard to manage. The brand is being damaged. For more and the latest details on that, you'll want to consult the US blog that heralded "Canada's Corruption Scandal Blown Wide Open". (they can't outlaw google) I consider this a positive development. The national unity scare mongering is just that. Scare mongering. If you also check out the click with the interview with Brison who seems to be touting the party's new line. Which is essentially, we're the victem too...umm really and you can't talk about how corrupt we are too forcefully as it might drive the country appart.

After all it was those clever Liberals who were keeping the country together with that sponsorship program of theirs. I'm sure that is why we don't have any Bloc Mps in the house today...hmmm wait that doesn't seem to be quite right does it?

Anyhow, returning to the Question period exchange Harper lobbed the Kazemi ball into Martin's court after making a snide remark that it would be up to the police, judge and Canadian people to determine the guilt of the Liberal party. Martin went on defending the Liberal party and hystically claims they called the inquiry.

Thereafter Harper said "Again the prime minister is defending the Liberal Party when he should have been defending a Canadian."


I'm not sure who taught Stephen to be mean since the debates in the last election but I like it. If he simply says something which completely cuts Martin to pieces like that in a debate we could be having a "You had a choice!" moment.

Saturday, April 02, 2005

The Passing of the Pope

The Pope John Paul II was a very noble and holy man. In a world that can increasingly be described as nihilistic he has been recognized as a moral giant, and a voice for an objective morality so many people refuse to even believe exists. He lived through the Nazi occupation, and later the communist tyranny that took root in Poland and he opposed dictatorship and oppression where he found. He's a famed world traveler, a philosopher, a prolific writer and a unique individual. I'm not a catholic but the pope was someone that so many outside his own faith respected immensely.

The Globe has the best story on it I've read yet. Find it here.

Gommery Inquiry and a Looming Election

The media is now abuzz with the rumours of a possible election. Reading the story on CTV earlier this afternoon I was left wondering what could possibly have emerged that was new and so terribly damaging that the Bloc Quebecois was predicting it would win every seat in Quebec and the Conservatives huge gains in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Due to a publications ban which is suposed to be in force for another two monthes, the details of Jean Brault president of Groupactione cannot be published.

However, the joys of the internet are such that a US blogger, Captain Ed Morriessy, has broken the story and published an accounting of the testimony. ( search for "blog" "Gomery" "scandal")(ed. note the account has been mentioned on CTV, however, as is the case here details of the testimony aren't discussed as they are subject to publican ban. This mention is nothing more than a reference to a publication not a publication of any details in an of itself. )

If this is true, this testimony is the closed thing to divine intervention Conservatives can hope for. I'd buy advertizing time and run clips of this testimony. Hell, I'd put the entire testimony online in video form and let the media pick it up and go back to flaying the Liberals for there sins. Some people thought the Sponsorship Scandal a thing of the past, while its about to prove the gift that keeps on giving. But I encourage you to visit Captain's Quarter's and decide for yourself.

You might very well see Jim Travers prediction that Paul Martin will go down in the history books as "The Man Who Never Really Became Prime Minister" come true. (My mind often can I direct readers to the Star with approval?)

Blogroll Me!
Seo Blog - free blog hosting! Publish your blog for free! Blogarama - The Blog Directory Blogwise - blog directory Blog Search Engine Listed on BlogsCanada
Search Popdex:
Listed in LS Blogs