The Globe and Mail is reporting on the new cost estimates of the auto sector bailout bill, which could be as large as $13.5 billion dollars. What kind of cost is that putting on taxpayers - many of whom don't have the high wages or padded benefits packages that autoworkers enjoy?
At General Motors of Canada Ltd. alone, the rescue package could amount to a staggering $1.4-million for every job saved, with no guarantee that the bailout will ensure the long-term survival of the company's remaining auto assembly and engine plants.
You read that right - GM alone will cost taxpayers $1.4 million per job.
What's worse is that it's awfully hard to believe that these bailouts actually create or save any jobs at all.
“You're not going to save jobs. All you are going to do is destroy jobs at Ford and Toyota,” said Mark Milke, director of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Calgary.
Mr. Milke dismisses the bailouts of GM and Chrysler as “a massive transfer of wealth to companies that consumers have already rejected.” The result, he maintains, is that governments “are punishing the companies that have actually run their businesses very well.”
More evidence that when government gets involved in business it's no longer "give the customers what they want," it's "make them pay for what they don't."
I live in Windsor, Ontario, where city workers have been striking since mid-April. There has been no garbage pickup or park maintenance, but I've been happy to see the people of Windsor stepping up to do what they can to take care of the city. People have started going out with their kids to help clean up parks as a way to teach them about littering and keeping the planet clean. One major cleanup by pitch-in.ca folks cleared piles of Tim Horton's cups and other garbage from the riverfront.
Entrepreneurs have also come to the forefront, offering garbage pickup with their trucks and trailers for people who don't want to leave their garbage at the road in the hot weather for rats or raccoons to tear open or to store it in their basements as the city suggests. It's been absolutely heartwarming to see people helping one another in my city.
Apparently, though, this isn't OK with the city workers, who shout at those trying to clean up and have been reported to have even grabbed garbage from workers at local businesses to dump it into city parks. Most startling so far, though, is this cell phone video of a woman shouting at a couple and their granddaughter as they pick up garbage in a park. The woman aggressively approaches them, tears open a bag of garbage and kicks it all over the ground the child and couple have finished cleaning, telling them, "Here's some more garbage, since you think you should be doing our jobs."
The man who shot the video is afraid to be identified because he's worried the union will retaliate against him. Apparently he should be. The columnist who wrote the article on entrepreneurs linked above had his car vandalized after his article was printed for the first time in a long career of controversial writing.
When unions were first started they had a noble purpose - to protect workers from mistreatment and to give them an equal voice when bargaining for their jobs. The high value of the workers protected their jobs when they were on strike and reminded employers of their value.
Over the years this purpose has been completely lost, especially as legislation has taken away the ability of the employer to have equal status when bargaining -striking employees cannot be fired and replaced if others are willing to do their job for less. Although employees' labour does not have the high value it once did, employers are forced to treat them as though it did.
Public sector unions, though, are the worst. When they go on strike they are basically holding third parties - taxpayers and citizens - hostage to get their demands. Because they provide public services, they are infuriated even by something as positive as people working together to make the world a better place.
The rumour here in Windsor is that CUPE president Sid Ryan is using Windsor to set an example and let municipalities know that CUPE will not take lower raises or benefits because of the economic downturn, dispite the hardships their taxpayers might be facing.
If this is true and Ryan is looking to make an example, perhaps he should start with the CUPE picketers who would intimidate, frighten or shout at the people, including children, trying to keep their parks safe.
You know those ads to raise awareness of the government's new and various tax credits? "You've earned it. Claim it!" - as though you hadn't earned every last penny of the taxes you'd paid instead of just the ones the Ottawa plans to toss back your way.
There are roughly 18 million income-tax filers in Canada, which means Mr. Flaherty's new deficit will put the average Canadian taxpayer about $2,700 deeper in hock by the end of this fiscal year. Add in the deficits running up in places like Ontario, and the total average debt load per income-tax filer could run to $5,000.
That's a lot to pay for the thrill of "stimulating" the economy.
How many Canadians will get $5,000 worth of benefit out of what is quickly becoming a major national extravaganza of spending and borrowing? Canadians who spent $1,350 on home reno materials this year will be in debt for three times that amount.
Oh well. I guess at least we're not $2 trillion (and counting) in the hole like the land of the free is this year, but their deficit will surely come back to bite us, too.
As we all know, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced yesterday that the government's 2009-2010 budget deficit will be upwards of $50 billion dollars, rather than the originally planned $33.7 billion laid out in the budget.
Surely, though, this is simply a result of poorer-than-expected economic performance, right? The finance minister and government couldn't be at fault.
... blaming growing deficits on the recession and unforeseen turns in the economy is a political device rather than a solid explanation. Today's deficits in Ottawa are a direct product of five years of fiscal expansionism and continued spending increases. Spending has been rising at twice the rate of population growth and inflation, an unsustainable trend.
In a commentary today in the Financial Post, the Fraser Institute's Niels Veldhuis plots the numbers. Mostly under a Conservative government, average annual spending rose 6.2%, exactly double the rate of growth suggested by the increase in population and inflation. Spending this year is heading for a gain of more than 10% - before taking into account the final auto bailout numbers.
When governments run up big spending increases during boom times - as Ottawa and all the province did - then there's nothing left to tap into when the economy slows down. There's no buffer. Revenues fall and spending growth increases, creating a deficit trap from which there is no escape other than waiting for the private economy to catch up with public spending and begin the "Now you pay for it" phase.
Veldhuis, in his article, suggests legal restrictions on government spending to help to keep it from getting out of control as it has in Canada and, to be fair, all over the world. Canadians ought to see his point.
This isn't surprising - or shouldn't be to anyone who's a fan of public choice. We should expect to see (and I've predicted) the same thing happen to the McGuinty government's projected deficit in Ontario, and to any other government expecting a deficit this year.
Realistically, and thankfully, Canada's debt-to-GDP is the smallest in the G7, so borrowing is cheaper for us than it is for most. That doesn't mean that expanding or continuing budgets are excusable, though.
For all the rigmarole surrounding Ignatieff's assertion that Ottawa is going to have to raise taxes (or make spending cuts, but thankfully the Tories didn't attack him for that half of the comment), he's right. Getting out of deficit isn't going to be easy or painless for Canadians, and as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the Conservatives to stop piling up the debt so that they don't have to be the ones to make the cuts.
UPDATE: Finance minister Jim Flaherty now says that the deficit will be $50 billion this year, up from the original estimate of $34 billion. This alone will raise the five-year deficit up to $102 billion, barring unexpectedly high economic growth over those years. I have a hard time believing it will happen but realistically no one knows.
Governer Mark Sanford (R - South Carolina) responds in this short video to criticisms that he might be "too libertarian" in a way that more politicians ought to.
Bela Kosoian, a 38-year-old mother of two, says when she didn't hold the handrail Wednesday she was cuffed, dragged into a small holding cell and fined.
“It was horrible, disgusting behaviour [by police],” said Ms. Kosoian, a 38-year-old student of international law. “I did nothing wrong. They should go find the guys who stole my tires off the balcony.”
Ms. Kosoian, who studies at the Université du Québec à Montreal, was riding an escalator down to catch a 5:30 p.m. subway from the suburb of Laval to an evening class downtown when she started rifling through her backpack looking for a fare.
Ms. Kosoian, who grew up in Georgia when it was still part of the Soviet Union, says she didn't catch the officer's instruction to hold the rail when he first approached.
When he told her again to hang on, she says she replied, “I don't have three hands.” Besides, she had been sick and feared catching a new bug.
That's when the officer demanded identification so he could write her ticket, she said.
Ms. Kosoian started arguing. The officers handcuffed her and threw her into a small holding cell. The officers searched her bag and gave her a $100 ticket for failing to hold the banister and another $320 ticket for obstruction.
The handcuffs bruised Ms. Kosoian's wrists and an officer's boot scraped skin off the top of her foot.
Stephen Taylor is reporting the following membership sales according to "a source close to the [Ontario PC] party."
Elliott: just over 8,000 Hillier: just over 3,100 Hudak: just under 7,000 Klees : just over 9,000 New memberships not attrubuted to a leadership candidate: 6,500
I've heard elsewhere that these numbers are very close to accurate.
Taylor also mentions that the CP reported that Elliott is way ahead of Hudak in fundraising, having raised ten times what he did.
If these numbers are representative of what's actually going on with the PCPO, the leadership vote might end up being more interesting than most had expected.
Back in October the Shotgun reported here and here on a possible trade agreement between Canada and the European Union as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
These talks are back in the news - this time in the Globe and Mail. Quebec now wants in the deal, demanding a role for the provinces in negotiations, and Newfoundland demands that the deal only go forward if the EU lifts its ban on seal products. Luckily, Harper's got his eye on the ball:
Mr. Harper said yesterday that his government is vigorously defending the sealing industry both domestically and internationally, but also said he would not allow Europe's ban on seal products to "contaminate" a potential trade deal.
"It is important that in any relationship, but particularly in a mature and complex commercial relationship like ours, that we not allow a dispute on one issue to contaminate our relations on a whole bunch of other things," he said during a news conference at the conclusion of a one-day summit between Canada and the EU.
"If we were to make our trade relations with the European Union only the sealing issue, we will never have any trading relations because as we know this is a disagreement of long standing, one of which I suspect we may never see eye to eye," he added.
...
It's hoped a deal, which will seek accord in areas such as labour mobility, customs procedures, food safety, sustainable development and goods, could be signed within a year.
Stockwell Day announced that a free trade agreement with the EU - Canada's second largest trading partner - would translate into an increase of $12 billion in exports and thousands of jobs. I'm not sure about the numbers, but he's right in saying that the impact of this agreement would be unambiguously positive.
I've been critical of the Harper government on a lot of issues but I've been fairly pleased with their performance on trade - or at least proliferating Canada's free trade relationships.They deserve more praise and encouragement here.
This trade agreement is something that all Canadians and EU members should look forward to... even the Newfies!
Stephen Taylor finishes off his series of PCPO leadership interviews with Randy Hillier this afternoon.
Hillier emphasizes the policies he's announced and their benefits to all Ontarians (rather than benefits only to targeted demographics) and delves into some new areas:
Christine Elliott, once the "red tory" of the Ontario PC leadership race, announced this morning that she would implement a flat tax in Ontario if she were elected premier.
This is beyond my expectations for any major party politician. It's almost too good for me to believe that any leadership candidate in the PCs would endorse this. As a friend of mine often says, a flat tax is just plain sexy.
“The tax burden on working families is too high and it’s getting worse. Ontario families pay more in taxes than for food, clothing and shelter combined,” said Elliott. [The Shotgun reported on that tidbit here.] “By making people pay a higher rate of tax as their income grows, Ontario’s tax system punishes hard work and initiative, and suffocates growth. As a result, it will take longer for us to recover from a recession, and it will be harder to take advantage of growth during times of recovery.”
“Others are proposing to merely tinker with the tax code,” said Elliott, “but now is the time to transform the tax system. Extraordinary times call for bold action.”
Elliott will phase in lower taxes for all Ontarians and collapse the three current brackets into one rate of tax. This means:
The Basic Personal Amount will increase from the current $8,881 to approximately $18,000 to provide tax cuts for all Ontarians and take low-income taxpayers completely off the tax roll.
The current three tax brackets will be collapsed into one single bracket of eight per cent.
“The most important feature of a flat tax is the positive impact on productivity, employment, income, living standard, and the economy in general,” said Elliott. “This has been achieved wherever flat taxes have been introduced.”
A flattened tax structure has been successfully implemented in both Alberta and New Brunswick and has been promoted by the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
...
Elliott’s plan specifically ensures that lower income earners will pay less by increasing the Basic Personal Amount. The proposal removes many low-income taxpayers from the tax roll without punishing high-income earners and the economy with high tax rates.
“My tax plan is competitive, fair and encourages economic growth,” said Elliott. “It is simply better.”
This is absolutely outstanding. Did I mention that already? Just in case you missed it: outstanding.
Tim Hudak, who briefly redeemed himself to me last week with some good economic policy, has come out, guns blazing, in favour of this policy.
In fact, as part of his "tough on crime" policy package (which is otherwise fairly status-quo for a Conservative politician), he pledges to focus on asset seizure when dealing with grow-ops. From his website, Hudak says he would focus on:
Toughening laws and sentencing for violent crimes
Taking aggressive steps to stamp out grow ops in Ontario including a focus on asset seizure
Toughening prosecutorial and sentencing standards for organized crime
Increasing penalties for offenders caught in the act of defacing property
(emphasis mine.)
This is not some innocuous policy that only property rights "nuts" ought to be concerned with, nor is it something that can go wrong only in hypothetical cases. The fallout of allowing such property seizures in the United States has resulted in complete disregard for the law by some police officers - mostly warrants without probable cause - and extremely tragic cases such as the death of an innocent man in a raid that was motivated by a desire to seize his (impressive) assets and suicide by a woman who saw it as the only way to prevent asset seizure leading to homelessness and impoverishment.
Even if you are in favour of continuing the war on drugs, this complete disregard for property rights and the rule of law in Ontario should be wholeheartedly condemned by anyone who cares about either. It is extremely disappointing to see any serious Conservative politician (or anyone at all) endorsing this nonsense.
Hit & Run reports that Reason magazine has won a "Maggie Award," given by the Western Publishing Association, for the best editorial cartoon - entitled "What part of legal immigration don't you understand?"
I wish (oh, how I wish) that I could post it here in a way that would make it easier to view, but you'll just have to click on it instead. Please do - it's brilliant.
Apparently Quebec's civil registrar has the ability to reject names that parents want to give their children, as one Quebec couple found out while trying to give their child the middle name "Avalanche."
But Marie Godbout, a spokeswoman for the registrar, says the translated letter should have said the government had a problem with Logan's middle name, Avalanche.
She says the registrar only rejects uncommon names it feels will cause children to be ridiculed and that parents can appeal the decision.
William Azeff says he and his wife chose the name because it reflects their commitment to nature.
He said the registrar originally took issue with the name of his other son, Brant Glacier, before giving approval.
Sure, they're a couple of hippie parents naming their kids after cold-weather phenomena, but who cares? If this kind of legislation spread we might not have Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette.
Elliott voiced her concern about the impact Dalton McGuinty’s wage hikes are having on Ontario’s minimum wage workers: “It is vulnerable new entrants to the workforce especially young people and new Canadians—who are most affected by McGuinty’s foolish policy. Minimum wage jobs may soon become scarce in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario. His wage increases have made it harder for businesses to hire that one additional employee – the costs are simply becoming prohibitive.”
...
Elliott, herself a small business owner, noted that “while a high minimum wage rate often sounds like a nice idea, the reality is that minimum wage employees and small business owners end up paying the higher price. It makes us less competitive at a time when we cannot afford it.”
It looks like this is a policy we can count on seeing in the platform of the PC party in the next election.
William Joseph reported last week on some promising economic policy (finally) from Tim Hudak's leadership camp.
Over the weekend Christine Elliott jumped into the fray as well, first calling for an end to the mandated 48 hour work week to return to the 60 hour work week as specified under the Employment Standards Act of 2000, and then calling for employment insurance reform that's better for Ontario and even considering pulling out of the federal EI program.
These are positive proposals, especially if she's serious about opting out of federal EI. Moving employment insurance to the provincial level, where it would be applied to a more similar workforce than it is when spread across the country, would be a good move that could see a reduction in the use of EI as a huge government slush fund and has the potential to make the program a lot more accountable.
These are good steps forward in the policy discussion that should be (and finally is) a part of this leadership race. Hopefully we can look forward to more fiscal policy from all candidates over the course of the week.
Stephen Harper is denying any rumours that his government would form any sort of pact with the Bloc or the NDP. Harper was quoted in this story:
"That is absolutely untrue. We listen to all members of Parliament. The Bloc Quebecois stands for the breakup of this country. We will not govern this country in a pact or arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois. We've been clear on that for years. I don't know where that's coming from, but there is no contemplation of that, let alone possibility of that."
Well, as fun as it would have been if it panned out (I, for one, would have had a field day), I am happy to hear that the Conservatives aren't that inconsistent.
I reported on the rumors here and here, although as I said from the get-go, even if the Bloc and/or NDP did prop up the government, it would only be a "coalition" by the definition of some partisan Tories.
Stephen Harper, Dec. 1.“I would certainly not want to find myself governing this economy today in a situation that required me to follow socialist economics and to be at the behest of a veto of the separatists.”
James Moore, heckling Gilles Duceppe, Dec. 1. “Traitor!”
Stephen Harper, Dec. 2. “The Canadian people made a choice to elect the Conservative Party to govern, without the support of the separatists.”
Dean Del Mastro, heckling Jack Layton, Dec. 3. “Jack, you’re a traitor.”
Stephen Harper, Dec. 3. “The Liberal Party leader proposes to help the economy by signing a pact with the Quebec sovereignists to govern the country. This is not a plan to improve the economy; it is a plan to destroy this country, which is why he should withdraw his proposal.”
Canadian Press, tonight. “The Harper government has sketched out a road map that would see it avoid an election in this recession year and survive to bask in the glory of the 2010 Olympic Games … The Tories need to stave off defeat in confidence votes until then and are considering ways to secure support from the NDP and Bloc Quebecois on a case-by-case basis … The Bloc will table its own list of economic demands Thursday, and they have been pushing for EI changes as well as a tax-harmonization deal for Quebec One senior Conservative said there will be plenty of ways for the parties to work together. ‘We’re hopeful they’d want to work with us. … Maybe cooler heads will prevail,’ he said.”
I've written before about my feelings about using a dead coalition pioneered by Stephane Dion as a scapegoat for everything the Conservatives have been doing wrong since the last election.
... didn't Stephen Harper once say something about the inadvisability of getting into bed with the socialists and separatists?
Like:"My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy, especially at a time of global instability."
Why yes! I think he did.
To be clear: I don't think that this is a coalition, but if I actually believed the Conservatives' rhetoric on this stuff, I would. That's why it's so funny, and that's why I'm enjoying this way too much.
What followed was Mr. Harper’s conscious rebuke of libertarianism. In fact, more words were spent undermining libertarians than Liberals. Libertarians, he said, “believe that the solution to all problems lays in less government. More specifically, they believe in individual freedom, freedom from government, the freedom that does in fact underlie the market economy.”
The essence of Mr. Harper’s conservatism is that it is a happy middle ground between two undesirable extremes, the small-government push of libertarianism and the big-government push of Liberalism. This middle ground is based on “conservative values,” which he defined by the three “Fs” — freedom, faith and family. Freedom, he said, can only exist if it is “used well,” as if to achieve public good.
Mr. Harper’s attempt to purge libertarians from Canadian conservatism reached its lowest point when he pretty much blamed libertarianism for the economic crisis. Wall Street, he implied mockingly, was the heart of libertarianism, and Wall Street and the libertarian free market tanked the economy.
... As if Wall Street bankers were libertarians. Worse, as if Wall Street bankers were libertarians who deserved to have their banks nationalized and their compensation controlled by government.
Do libertarians pose some kind of threat to the Harper Conservatives? Apparently they do, judging by Mr. Harper’s attempt to eliminate them from the party. And he might be right.
(Emphasis mine.)
Obviously libertarians (and fiscal conservatives, who had as much of a right to be upset as libertarians, imho) got the message. There was outrage all 'round.
Stephen Harper knew better and still knows better than the nonsense he was spewing at the Manning Centre conference. I have an awfully hard time believing he will ever find redemption from those he denounced in that speech, and I don't think he would deserve it if he did.
We seem to have angered some Hudak supporters by alleging that his rebate programs would not constitute tax cuts.
This is puzzling to me, since all rebate programs proposed by Liberals are opposed as "big government socialism!" or something like that by Conservatives, but when it's a Tory policy, it's a tax cut.
In the comments of Hugh's post on whether Hudak is the new Tory, someone asked how a rebate is any different than a tax cut. The argument is that at the end of the day you end up with more of your money (true, though you also end up with more of mine) and therefore you are paying fewer taxes (false).
Tax cuts are when everyone sends less money to the government, not when the government benevolently decides to send some of it back.
Consider this comparison: What if Dalton McGuinty had called his handouts right before the next election (convenient, isn't it?) a "sales tax rebate" to help increase economic activity while Ontario's economy adjusts to a harmonized sales tax? Would supporters of Conservative rebates suddenly support McGuinty's handout? I doubt it. And they shouldn't! It's awful, blatant vote buying that everyone should oppose. They shouldn't oppose it less when the vote buying panders to some (Conservative-supporting) demographics over others. Unfortunately, at the end of the day support for these ideas comes from nothing other than who's announcing them in politics, and I have no patience for that sort of inconsistency.
That said, I do have more tolerance for some of these social programs than others. I blogged this morning about having mixed feelings about Elliott announcing she would increase the tax rebates for charitable donations. I said I have mixed feelings there - I don't like the government encouraging any kind of behaviour, even good behaviour - and my feelings were mixed only because of her kind words towards the effectiveness of charities over government.
But encouraging people to make charitable donations is a lot more excusable (in my opinion, anyway) than encouraging people who, for whatever reason, have decided not to have children or to have them yet to have them in spite of the fact that they might not be able to afford it or don't want to make the sacrifices you should make if you're having children. If you're not ready for kids, the government shouldn't be trying to push them down your throat, and so I have no qualms about going after Hudak for that nonsense here.
At any rate, if Tim Hudak is in favour of lower taxes and that's why you're supporting him, that's fantastic. Perhaps you should encourage him to announce it.
I'm impressed to see that any provincial leadership candidate is willing to touch education with a ten-foot pole after the whole, you know, faith-based funding thing. Honestly, I wasn't expecting it.
Hudak has announced some minor changes that he would make, mostly in the goals of the education system rather than in any kind of substantial reform. The press release is "Supporting families through quality education," which really left me with high hopes that maybe, just maybe, there would be some acknowledgment that parents might know where the best place to send their kids is (vouchers!) but since any education announcement is a surprise, I suppose I can't be too disappointed to not see major changes. It's not like I should expect that after, say, taking french for five years in public school you should expect we'd want a system that would tach students to be able to actually *speak* it.
Enhanced Use of Phonics: Greater emphasis on phonics as a basis for literacy and enhanced training and support for teachers in its use.
High School Exit Exams: Work with the Education Quality and Accountability Office to introduce province-wide high school exit exams to provide more information to parents, students and post-secondary institutions.
Financial Literacy: Make economic and financial literacy a mandatory part of the high school curriculum.
Fair and Accurate Grading: Eliminate unfair pressure on teachers to make sure students pass even if the student is unwilling or unable to complete the work.
So there you go. All of those are probably good ideas. No strong feelings from my end on any of it, I just thought I'd let y'all know what's up.
Christine Elliott announced today that she would double the amount that Ontarians can claim for charitable donations over $200. From her website:
Elliott says she would increase the rate of provincial charitable tax credit for donations over $200 from 11 percent to 22 percent, bringing the combined federal and provincial tax credit from 40 percent to 51 percent.
I do have some mixed feelings about subsidizing charitable donations, but really I'm not going to get all up in the business of politicians trying to encourage charitable donations, especially when there are much more important, discriminatory and economically ridiculous policies to worry about. And even more when the sentiment is something like this:
Elliott believes that local charities benefiting from this policy can often be more effective than government at delivering much-needed assistance to Ontarians.
“This measure would strengthen the volunteer organizations and community groups who do the things that are very challenging for governments to accomplish,” said Elliott.
It is nice to hear a politician admit every once in a while that maybe they can't solve all of our problems.
Tim Hudak has made a few policy announcements on government subsidies to families. From his announcement:
The introduction of a Newborn Savings Account to provide the parents of every newborn child with an immediate $1,000 deposit to a locked-in, flexible investment plan; and
Allowing income splitting for all families with pre-school age children, providing parents with the opportunity and the flexibility to significantly lower their household tax burden.
I know this will appeal to some of social conservatives who are less concerned with simplifying the tax code or economic efficiency, but I think it's flat-out nonsense, and anyone concerned with economic liberty should, too.
Labeling income splitting as "tax fairness" is absurd. What it is is a complicated subsidy program where people who are not having children or staying at home when they could be working are forced to pay a higher tax rate in order to pay for the lifestyles of others. If this is fair then so are all sorts of tax credits and subsidy schemes for the arts, culture, and green technology that lots of Conservatives oppose.
It is not unfair that a couple is taxed at a different rate than a person making the same amount as their combined incomes. There are costs and benefits to staying at home, and to those who decide to stay at home (or take a less well-paying job), the benefits simply outweigh the costs. They are already staying home for a reason and we don't need to compensate them for their decision.
If you are concerned about tax fairness, flattening the tax system is the way to go. Government shouldn't waste time and money picking winners and losers, whether it's in the economy or in families.
Likewise with handouts for having babies - if you're not the type of people already planning to save for your children when they're born, I'd really rather you do your best to wait until you are before you have them, rather than forcing others to contribute to your government handout.
You know, I wonder how Tim feels about McGuinty's handouts to compensate Ontarians for the increased costs of the HST. Opposing one but not the other seems awfully strange to me.
This is tremendously disappointing to hear coming from Hudak, who I never expected to be this at odds with going into the race.
Yesterday I wondered about the positions of the Ontario PC leadership hopefuls (other than Hillier, who has announced his policy) on the ending of the economically outrageous policy of granting a distribution monopoly to The Beer Store.
I've heard from a few people this weekend that at an event in Windsor Christine Elliott, in conversations with members, revealed that were she premier she would not stop harmonization of the provincial sales tax, but would instead simply cut the rate.This is, of course, the right thing to do. It's what should be done when the harmonization is brought in.
It is also not what her announced position on the policy is, and her campaign should formally announce this positive development if it's true. If Elliott believes that harmonization itself is good, but the Liberals are bringing it in at the wrong time (believable from her quote in this story), it wouldn't be inconsistent of her to want to only cut a few points off, rather than moving away from the reform.
Should Elliott make this announcement there's going to be a lot more head scratching than there already has been over people wondering whether Elliott is the "red" Tory candidate. This would be good, common sense fiscal conservative policy.
He said he would be willing to propose eliminating it, but he did not say that this would be in his platform and that it will depend on how it is working. I followed up with saying I wished he would be attacking the spending in the budget more than the HST since pretty much every economist thinks it's a good idea. He claimed he does also talk about this, but his website seems to only focus on the "DST," or "Dalton Sales Tax".
Since Hudak has been unbelievably vocal about "stopping the DST" (see his website for an idea of how strongly it's emphasized) it's going to be so terribly typically political of him if he later decides that he's for it, now that he's been against it.
It would be nice to see the candidates clear up their positions on this important issue. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
It's too bad that there isn't talk of also ending the province's liqour monopoly, but frankly this is a politically smart way to breach the subject.
As Hillier points out, the Beer Store is actually a government-sanctioned monopoly owned by foreign companies. The foreign ownership doesn't much concern me, but it does bring into question why the Beer Store's monopoly isn't questioned more often by those who it does concern.
What is outrageous is that the Beer Store's monopoly status forces any microbreweries or new beers trying to make it into Ontario to allow their competitors to do their distribution and marketing. Think of the incentives this creates!
William Joseph reported this weekend that Christine Elliott has also expressed some enthusiasm for privatizing liquor sales (though we can assume this would be bound by her commitment to the party's policy process) and that, unfortunately, Tim Hudak did not share her enthusiasm. Still waiting to hear if Frank Klees has a position on this issue - I have it on good authority that his team is working hard and policy announcements can probably be expected soon.
Ensuring affordable access to broadband. (Elliott does not elaborate on what would constitute "affordable" or how the government would assure that it would be.)
Establishing "centres of excellence in transforming resource based industries into high value-added, green technology job generators."
Supporting the Law Foundation of Ontario’s proposal (I think that's what she's talking about) to use existing videoconferencing systems that are in place for health services to provide legal service in remote areas and perhaps creating incentives for law students to move to and practice in under-serviced areas.
Yeah, it's all a little vague, but at least it gives you an idea of where she's coming from. It's a step in the right direction.
So there you have it. It seems that three of the four candidates have jumped into the policy race. It's good to see that Ontario PCs will have something to sink their teeth into when they're deciding who to support. I'm a little disappointed to see so many plans for government to do more, but not all PCs will be and hopefully there's some real debate on ideas coming our way.
(To be fair, Klees has a policy section on the front page of his website, but so far it basically lists the party's principles rather than any substantive policy. I look forward to seeing a contribution from the guy brave enough to breach the topic of privatizing aspects of health care last time around.)
An immediate one-year payroll tax holiday on new hires
Suspending the Land Transfer Tax for one-year on all new and resale home purchases, saving homebuyers almost $3,000 on the purchase of a $300,000 home
Stopping sales tax harmonization in Ontario
A $2,000 government subsidy to anyone purchasing or leasing a new car, provided they are turning in a car that is more than 10 years old
A wage freeze across the Ontario Public Service for senior government administrators, non-unionized employees and MPPs for the duration of the recession
A less-specific promise to lay out a plan for business taxes that would stimulate private sector job creation
I've been really disappointed that the candidates have not announced any policy involving broad-based tax cuts, which in an over-taxed jurisdiction like Ontario should be front-and-center in the minds of conservatives and Conservatives.
An obvious one would still be to repeal (immediately) McGuinty's health slush fund tax. Even John Tory almost promised that. Flattening the tax rates would also be good policy. Instead, some temporary suspensions of taxes seems to be what's being promised. It's disappointing to see this from a guy who has, for the most part, talked common sense on taxes in the past.
The effect of the law is that it unjustly targets responsible dog owners and brands Pit Bulls and other larger dogs as dangerous when all responsible dog owners know this is false and does nothing to advance public safety.
As the Premier of this Province and owner of “Robbie” (a Pitt Bull mix) I will overturn this specific breed ban. I will work in cooperation with groups like the CKC and other dog clubs have, to get this legislation overturned.
I will do my part to assist them to overturn this unjust law and protect people’s freedom to own dogs while protecting the public from people who own or train dogs in a manner that is dangerous to the public.
This would be a small but meaningful restoration of freedom to the people of Ontario, who under the McGuinty government have seen legislators and the bureaucracy gain far too much say over how they live their lives.
The Globe and Mail is reporting that 
