I haven't perused Hansard yet, but according to Brian Topp, in praising Peggy Nash:She went directly to the heart of the government's economic strategy, asking the Conservatives why their sole priority was a corporate tax plan, when there is no evidence that this approach has created a single job. Why not put jobs rather than bank profits first?Huh?
Haven't we done all that? In fact, Jack Layton has already approved the corporate tax cuts.
If this is just going to be another session of "big banks, big oil, big gas", I can guarantee that the press gallery will be falling asleep.
I like Peggy Nash, though I wish she had won her seat without knocking off the hard working Gerard Kennedy. But she can't get a free pass with rhetoric. She is asking why the Harper gov't is favouring corporations? By now, we all know why.
It's neoconservatism 101, which in a nutshell is about transferring public funds to the corporate sector, and by extension, those who could already buy and sell us many times over.
The Conservatives now have a majority so they can do what they want, not that they haven't already. What Nash needs to do is demand specifics. Ask the finance minister for details.
What corporations, being given this enormous gift from taxpayers, plan to hire? How many jobs? Are they in the manufacturing sector or simply minimum wage positions at McDonalds or Tim Horton's?
There are numerous studies that she could draw from, proving that corporate tax cuts do nothing other than help our wealthiest citizens. Get a few of them on record.
The Harperites are kings of Tea Party rhetoric, and you won't beat them by trying to imitate them.
Specifics, specifics, specifics.
That's right, Em, get them in their pocketbooks, where they live. "Prove to us where this money went, how many jobs it created, what is the potential for job creation in the future?"
ReplyDelete"Why did you do that?" is of no more use now than asking the dog why she dug a hole in the hard.