"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporality embarrassed millionaires." John Steinbeck
The healthcare debate has once again brought the National Citizens Coalition into the spotlight. The group that Stephen Harper has not only belonged to for three decades, but also served as its president.
However, it didn't really take off until Ernest Manning came on board, encouraging them to seek status as non-profit to enjoy the tax breaks. A bit of irony here. A group that fought against taxes (and they want the corporate tax rate to eventually be zero), had no qualms about stealing from taxpayers to promote corporate interests.
And while the ultimate goal of the NCC was to end public healthcare, they also advocated the end of unions and the ability of corporations to fund politicians.
The notion of corporations funding politicians was not new. After Watergate, when laws were toughened in the U.S., Finklestein, who had worked for Richard Nixon, created what he called Independent Expenditure Campaigns. In Canada we call it Third Party Advertising.
And Finkelstein helped the NCC become massive third party advertisers. But there was a problem. In Canada we limit this to $150,000. How could wealthy corporations take over the democratic process if all they could spend was $ 150,000?
Enter Stephen Harper.
In his 1993 campaign to win a seat for the Reform Party, the National Citizens Coalition poured $50,000 into his riding, advertising against what they called "the Gag Law". (1) This was especially telling, since Harper was running against Jim Hawkes, the man who had acted as mentor, making Harper his aide in Ottawa when he was a PC MP.
The attack became so visceral, that Harper's former fiancee, Cynthia Williams, went to work for Hawkes. Not a jilted lover because she was the one who broke off the engagement, later saying that had she stayed with Steve, she would not have been able to have a career. (2)
Something else we should have taken from Harper's time with Hawkes, was that his former boss found Harper a little odd. The only thing he talked about was himself and his ambitions. (2)
But back to corporate funded democracy.
Stephen Harper believed in this to such an extent, that he actually sued the Canadian people, in the now infamous Stephen Harper vs Canada ruling.
Mitchell Anderson is concerned that if given a majority, Harper will simply go over the head of the Supreme Court in favour of corporate interests. And he's probably right.
In the court decision against Harper, the Supreme Court stated: "Promoting electoral fairness by ensuring the equality of each citizen in elections, preventing the voices of the wealthy from drowning out those of others, and preserving confidence in the electoral system, are pressing and substantial objectives in a liberal democracy."
Electoral fairness? Equality of each citizen? A liberal democracy? Stephen Harper? NEVER!
Mitchell reminds us of what is happening in the United States when a Bush appointed court paved the way for the corporate sector to engineer American democracy. A nightmare.
Democracy will only apply to those who can afford it.
Is this really your Canada?
On May 2, vote and vote wisely.
Sources:
1. Loyal to the Core: Stephen Harper Me and the NCC, By: Gerry Nicholls, Freedom Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-9732757-8-0
2. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3
A recent assessment by the Parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, shows that the Conservatives are once again in contempt of Parliament for not releasing the true costs of their enormous spending bills. Prisons, F-35s and corporate tax cuts.
The Fiscal Transparency report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page says the federal government has withheld crucial information about crime legislation and the multibillion-dollar planned purchase of F-35 fighter jets, and has put out questionable forecasts on the impact of coming corporate tax cuts.
It's like pulling teeth to get any information from this government or our media.
Bob Rae recently suggested root canal, to try and bore through the Bev Oda affair. So maybe we don't need auditors. Maybe what we need is a good dentist.
The wonderful Reverend Curt Anderson of Wisconsin has an op-ed piece in the Huffington Post, that should put all members of the Religious Right/Conservative/Tea Party group to shame.
Because they have joined the ranks of the corporate world, labelling workers as "greedy" and the unemployed as "lazy", when they should go back to the roots of their faith and remember that the Bible and other religious texts, are critical of the wealthy and business elite who wear their riches and power as a cloak of privilege.
Reverend Anderson explains why he is in support of the workers in Wisconsin, because it's what the Bible tells him to do.
My name is Curt Anderson. I am the Senior Minister at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Madison, Wisconsin; and I am on the Board of the Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice of South Central Wisconsin. There is one theme that is constant throughout the Bible. In Deuteronomy, we read: "You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether your own people or aliens who reside in your land." In Jeremiah: "Woe to him who makes his neighbors work and does not give them their wages."
There is nothing fair about the governor of Wisconsin's proposal to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public workers and unilaterally force public employees to start paying for health insurance and contributing to their pensions. This has been proposed without consultation, without bargaining, without even any concept of shared sacrifice.
There are no provisions to close tax loopholes that benefit corporations. There are no proposals to consider even minor tax increases for the wealthiest members of our state. There are no proposals to restructure Wisconsin's income tax system, where the wealthiest sometimes pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than middle-class working families.
Interfaith groups like KAIROS, Anderson's group, Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice, and others, demand social justice. The Religious Right that Stephen Harper has camped out on Parliament Hill represent the very worst in religion, and the reason why so many end up rejecting the Church. They advocate for greed and you don't have to be religious to know that that is just wrong.
Jim Flaherty recently announced that he will be spending $6.5 million to advertise his government's tax policies as helping Canadians. What won't be included in this taxpayer funded blitz, is the fact that taxes only went down for the wealthy, while Canada's working class have seen an increase.
And in Indiana where the Republican government is also trying to push through a union busting agenda, the Democrats have left the state, to avoid having it passed. This is the people fighting back and it's about damn time.
Let's hope we can inspire the same kind of movement in Canada. Where religious organizations, unions, advocacy groups and all Canadians not in support of the Corporate Welfare State, will march together. We are in a unique situation now with an election on the horizon.
Once again the Harper government is in contempt of Parliament, this time for not releasing the costs of their new Wild West law and order agenda. The Opposition has a right to know, but more importantly, we have the right to know. The taxpayers who will be getting the bills.
Building quietly on Parliament Hill since November, the issue started when the opposition-controlled House finance committee began asking Finance Canada to hand over statistics on corporate profits – which had been made public in the past. The department denied the request, claiming the information was protected by cabinet confidentiality. In December, the committee received a similar answer from the Justice Department, saying the projected cost implications of the government’s crime bills was similarly privileged.
How are they privileged? The Harperites forget that the government has no money. They only get to spend our money, and we are the only ones who should have the privilege of knowing where it's going.
Coming to their rescue is Scott Newark, a so-called security analyst, who claims that violent crimes are on the rise. Thank you Scott. But you fail to mention my dear that in February of 2006, you were hired by Stockwell Day, who gave you the title of senior policy advisor. And in another revolving door lobbying scandal, left to join the Northgate Group, just in time to begin work on a $312,400 contract awarded by Day's department. And that in fact, you were working for Day when the bidding closed on the contract.
Just how friggin' stupid do you think Canadians are?
For $300,000 you will try to instill fear in the public. Nice try.
I'm so sick of the corruption of this government. The lies, and the secrecy. Next election we need to go Egyptian. Their movement brought people from all walks of life and they won. The anti-prorogation rallies in Canada were the same, as were the prison farm protests.
Every Canadian sick to death of this nonsense has to join forces next election and walk like an Egyptian. That will be our battle cry. Peaceful but focused, armed with our ballots, with one goal in mind. Getting rid of neoconservatism and the Corporate Welfare State.
They pass a law allowing corporations to lie on their financial statements to lure potential investors (victims), but then create a law and order agenda that targets this country's most vulnerable citizens.
If crime really was on the rise, as this bogus think-tank suggests, then we need to go after the root causes of crime. Poverty and lack of education. Building prisons that will eventually be taken over by corporate interests is not the way to go.
Senators agreed last month they can send newsletters with partisan content, such as the use of a party’s colours, photographs with MPs and endorsement for local candidates. “However negative comments against other senators are unacceptable,” the committee on internal economy, budgets and administration decided. “This is insane," NDP MP Peter Stoffer said. “They are unaccountable and unelected and they can use taxpayers dollars to attack … (NDP Leader) Jack Layton?” The House of Commons stopped MPs last spring from sending highly partisan “garbage” to other MPs’ ridings and the Senate should do the same, Stoffer urged. “We saved millions of dollars in the bullsh-- that was going out,” he added.
The Conservative-dominated Senate committee clarified the rules around mailings after receiving complaints Tory senators Bob Runciman and Don Plett had sent newsletters to Liberal ridings in their home province attacking the party for being soft on crime. Liberal MP Anita Neville, whose Winnipeg riding was targeted, said the mailings included a petition designed to obtain names of possible Conservative supporters.
So the Conservative senators kill a climate change bill drafted by people we elected, but then endorse theft of taxpayer money. I'm with Jack Layton. Enough is enough.
It doesn't matter where you look, when researching the myth that corporate tax cuts stimulate the economy, creates jobs, and pay for themselves, every expert debunks those notions.
Of course I'm not including most Republicans, Tea Party members, or corporate executives, who are only looking out for their own interests. Even former advisor to Ronald Reagan, David Stockman, says that it has to end. He told Keith Olbermann that it was "insanity to give money to the top 2% of wage earners, so they could go buy jewelry at Tiffany's."
Harper's corporate tax cuts and reduction to the GST, which again helps those with disposable income the most, will cost every Canadian over seventeen hundred dollars. And it is the gift that keeps on giving, as it will drain fourteen billion dollars a year from our income, at a time when we have a record deficit and debt.
Stimulating the economy - For every dollar given to unemployment insurance, $ 1.60 is put back into economic activity. For every dollar of corporate tax cuts, only 30 cents goes back. We lose 70 cents on every dollar.
Under Harper and Flaherty our economy has lost 42 billion dollars, that could have gone toward paying down our debt. But instead we have to add additional debt so that we can give more money to the wealthy.
Economist Armine Yalnizyan says that the money should go toward repairing our crumbling infrastructure, but the Canada Action Plan barely touched the surface. Of course when you look at the fact that some of the projects included building a circus school and $ 800,000 went toward financing a single CFL game, what hope is there?
Corporations may be getting a break, but they aren’t responsible for public infrastructure. Governments are. We are. It is a false economy to stick the next generation with an unnecessarily high price tag for what should be happening now – rebuilding the foundation for business, family and community needs everywhere, while the cost of borrowing is at historic lows and unemployment is still high.
Job Creator - Another myth. Corporate tax cuts do not create jobs. According to Alan Blinder, professor and co-director of Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies:
We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."
If a corporation wants to invest in a region, taxes are only a minor consideration. They look to a good infrastructure, and a promising labour pool. This means healthy, educated and experienced workers. Again according to economist Armine Yalnizyan:
There are many things that drive business investment practices, and while taxes are a consideration they are not the primary factor in investment decisions. The historic evidence shows a commitment to this strategy is a costly faith-based proposition.
Costly indeed. And who bears the brunt of those costs? We do.
Corporate Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves - This is now being called 'Voodoo economics" a term first used by George Bush Sr. when critiquing Ronald Reagan's notion that corporate tax cuts pay for themselves. They absolutely do not. They contribute to economic decline and unmanageable debt.
The only ones touting that line with any conviction are the Tea Party crew and Sarah Palin.
We need to break down these myths about corporate tax cuts. The decline in economic growth matches the decline in the amount of taxes corporations pay and the burden placed on the rest of us to finance them.
Imperial Oil, one of the country’s largest refiners and producers of oil and gas, handily beat street expectations for its fourth quarter results, sending its shares to the highest in more than a year on Monday.
The Calgary-based company said its fourth-quarter profits jumped 50 per cent, thanks to better refining margins and higher oil prices, to $799 million or 94 cents per share in the final three months of 2010, up from $534 million or 62 cents a share in the fourth quarter of 2009. Full-year profits of $2.2 billion or $2.59 a share jumped 40 per cent from $1.6 billion or $1.84 a share a year earlier.
And it's encouraging to know that the U.S. Corporate welfare state is also thriving. Exxon and General Electric PAID NO TAXES LAST YEAR.
The same year that saw more than two million American families driven from their homes. There is something wrong with this picture. It's time for a middle class revolt, before they all join the ranks of the working poor.
The corporate welfare state is not a new phenomenon, despite the notoriety it has achieved only recently. Unlike its counterpart, the social welfare state, its gestation period has been largely unobserved by interpreters of social events. And while social welfare legislation has been subjected to the most critical scrutiny as to its costs, benefits and consequences, the attention of Canadians has been deflected from any examination of the other face of the mixed economy, Canadian-style: the corporate welfare state. (1)
In the above cartoon from former NDP leader David Lewis's book, The Corporate Welfare Bums, we see a mouse hole for 'small tax breaks' and a trap set to take what little they have, while the vulture of the 'corporate welfare bums' stands behind the government official to steal any morsel they can. "For Pete's sake don't waste your time on the crum [sic] eaters"
The large pie that the corporate welfare bums are feasting on, DREE, stood for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, a government agency that was supposed to promote business, but instead for the most part, just propped up businesses. And often those already doing very well.
What's interesting, is that those words were written in 1972, and for 40 years the corporate welfare state has been allowed to expand, with very little notice.
The nature of the corporate welfare state has been obscured by the traditional moralizing of big business about the virtues of free enterprise. While they publicly denounce increased government expenditure, particularly in the form of social welfare, these champions of free enterprise actively lobby the government for incentive grants, research grants and tax concessions, and all manner of assistance at the individual taxpayer's expense. And because they have drawn a sympathetic response from Liberal and Conservative governments, which subscribe to the myth of "business confidence," their appetite for welfare continues to increase.
The traditional use of the term "mixed economy" acknowledges the co-existence of private and public enterprise within one society. In Canada, the mixed economy has advanced beyond the co-existence of the public and private spheres: it has reached the stage where private business is increasingly being supported by the public purse.
As a result, Canadian businesses, whatever their public pronouncements on the matter, not only acquiesce to government involvement in the economy but have come to depend upon it. Their "welfare cheques," in the form of grants and tax concessions, have become an integral aspect of their operation. The corporate welfare state did not emerge overnight. We may be inclined to regard the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE) in 1969 as the birth-date of business government, simply because the handouts to business during the past four years have dwarfed all previous programs. (1)
Now almost 40 years later, people are starting to take notice. When Stephen Harper called Canada 'a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term', he left out the word 'corporate'. Intentionally, no doubt, since he was then heading up the corporate funded National Citizens Coalition.
David Lewis's campaign against the corporate welfare state, reduced the Trudeau government to a minority in 1972, but more importantly, because the NDP then held the balance of power in the House, they were able to move the Liberals to the left.
In a bit of irony, the National Citizens Coalition, was incorporated in 1975 on the advice of Ernest Manning, father of Reform Party leader Preston Manning, in response to what he saw as a left-wing conspiracy. Prior to that, the NCC mostly just took out ads in newspapers against social programs, especially medicare.
The connections between the National Citizens Coalition and the Reform party go back a long way. Their political agendas are virtually identical: deficit reduction, restriction of immigration, ending universal social programs, lowering taxes for corporations and high-income earners, and ending national medicare.
..."At the same time, Ernest Manning and his son were launching Ernest's book, Political Realignment, calling for a social conservative party. According to Norm Ovenden of the Edmonton Journal, Ernest was one of the 'moving forces behind the creation of the NCC ..." (2)
The corporate welfare bums were fighting back, and they had the money to do it.
Another bit of irony, is that Lewis's campaign had the support of a grassroots movement, called the Committee for an Independent Canada, led by Canadian treasure, Pierre Berton.
But this wasn't the first time that Berton caught the attention of the Western based Reform movement. In 1963, the Anglican Congress sought out this prolific writer, to create a book on Christianity in Canada. 'It was inspired by Vatican II, a modernizing of the Catholic faith, they wanted to also change focus, and become a "listening" church, "hearing" things the world around them was saying.' (3)
The book was met with outrage by Ted Byfield, one of the founders of the Reform Party, planting the seed for the Canadian Religious Right. Byfield was also involved with the Civitas Society, a right-wing group that directs much of the Harper government's policies, especially in foreign affairs.
And if you're not too dizzy, there is one more irony. Jason Kenney is also a founding member of the Civitas Society, but more importantly an active opponent to Vatican II and the modernizing of the Catholic Church. Though not born when it was implemented, he attended St. Ignatius, a Catholic high school in San Francisco, which was started to oppose Vatican II.
So we have come full circle. But we are now armed with the truth.
The social welfare state was good for Canadians, and while the corporate welfare bums are suggesting that it was that, that caused so much deficit and debt, the fact is, it was them.
And now that the corporate welfare bums have a leader in Stephen Harper, we see that they have created a record deficit and debt, which is being blamed on 'the economy'. But the mess that the economy is in, was because of gambles taken by the corporate welfare bums.
And yet they suffered no setbacks, because they stood outside the mouse hole with a vacuum cleaner and sucked out anything they could reach. We are the only ones feeling the effects of their poor judgement.
Michael Ignatieff dominated the first Question Period of the year, hammering the Prime Minister over his government’s response to the crisis in Egypt and accusing him of giving tax breaks to rich corporations while ignoring Canadian families.
“They don’t see their priorities reflected in the priorities of the government,” the Liberal Leader charged Monday afternoon. “When will the government start listening to those families where the elastic is [pulled] tight and start doing something for them instead of corporations that don’t need the help.”
And remember, a recent poll showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to more corporate tax cuts. 90%. And yet the Harper government is still going through with them, further proof that they are simply not listening to us.
It's time to return the favour.
Sources:
1. Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums, By David Lewis, James Lewis & Samuel, 1972, ISBN: 0-88862-031-4, Pg. 1-2
2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, Pg. 95
Jim Flaherty stole George Bush's 'Tax Relief' catch phrase and now the Harper government has also stolen 'Job Creators' when describing tax cuts for the rich. They also stole "support the troops", yellow ribbons, "flip-flop" ....
The Conservative Party borrowed heavily from the U.S. Republican Party with attack ads distorting a speech by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and a recent campaign employing an anti-tax slogan the Republicans seized in their assault against President Barack Obama and the Democrats, opposition MPs say. Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey denies the party lifted the term "job creators" from the Republicans as a catchy description of businesses Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his government say will suffer if the Liberals force the government to scrap $6-billion in corporate tax cuts scheduled for next January.
The fact that Michelle Bachmann and the Harperites were both touring with tax cuts for the rich as "job creators", shouldn't be surprising. The Americans for Prosperityhelp to finance them both.
The "job creator" phrase was used in a string of statements by Mr. Harper and Cabinet ministers over the past two weeks as they fanned out to react when the Liberals released campaign-style video ads—a reaction to attack ads the Conservatives unleashed two weeks ago—that zeroed in on the tax cuts and the $16-billion acquisition of F-35 fighter jets as potential centrepieces for their election campaign platform.
Coincidentally, Republican Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman drew attention to the Republican preference for the same term when she appeared on a Tea Party video responding to President Obama's State of the Union address to Congress last Tuesday. "We need to start making things again in the country and we can do that by reducing the tax and regulatory burden on job creators," she said.
After reading about former NDP leader David Lewis and The Committee for an Independent Canada, who had a huge impact on the 1972 election, by campaigning against Corporate Welfare Bums, I was on a mission.
I tracked down Mr. Lewis's book, that started it all. Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums, finding a copy on Ebay. It's four decades old but the problems then are the same as now. The loudest voices are the corporations, who refuse to even slide over an inch as they feed off the public trough. Once in a while if we're lucky, we can catch a few crumbs that fall out of their mouths, but don't let them see you, or you'll be tackled to the ground.
In Canada, as in the United States, this has reached catastrophic levels, and if we don't turn this around, taxpayers will never have any voice at all.
From the preface:
For many years, democratic socialists have recognized that despite Canada's enormous wealth and the native compassion of its people, gross inequities have continued to exist in our social and economic structure. We have laboured to make Canadians aware of these inequities. We have voiced them in Parliament; we have fought for legislation to correct them; we have knocked on doors to tell the people, and we have worked with other concerned organizations in the struggle to make our message understood, so that Canadians would take action to bring an end to these inequities.
Our message is not new. It is one of commitment to social and economic justice that others have shared for centuries. Perhaps the new element about our message is that we have found a way to help people understand. We have given them the information, the precise and irrefutable evidence they need to comprehend fully the extent of injustice in this great country.
It has been a difficult undertaking, but the rewards have been many. We know now that people are listening, becoming aware, judging. And this is the first step in the struggle to eliminate those injustices that no humane society will knowingly tolerate.
Months of research have gone into compiling the evidence on which we base our case against free-enterprise governments and their corporate allies. I cannot adequately express my gratitude to the many dedicated people who have contributed so much time and effort ...
DAVID LEWIS Toronto September 24, 1972
I think Mr. Lewis would be quite surprised to learn that things in Canada are now worse than they were when he wrote those words. Our current government ascribes to the political-economic theory of Socialism for the Rich and Capitalism for the Poor, whereby corporations get to keep all the profit, while taxpayers assume all the losses.
His book arrived today and I think it was a sign because it's the same day that I read John Ibbitson's column in the Globe: Corporate tax cuts could bring down government. Michael Ignatieff has already said that we cannot afford them, taking his message to the business community, and the NDP is on the fence.
But what makes me boiling mad about all of this, is the fact that the taxpayers, the us's were left out of the equation.
Harper and Flaherty claim that they have it on good advice (from the corporate sector) that more tax cuts for the rich will be good for us. But when in the hell did this government ever take advice from anyone? They were advised not to cut the GST and did it anyway. They were advised not to scrap the mandatory long-form census, and did it anyway. The list goes on.
The ones that they should be listening to is us dammit.
... polls have shown huge public opposition to the tax cuts. A Leger Marketing poll commissioned by QMI News reported Sunday that only one Canadian in 10 favoured lower corporate taxes, while four in 10 wanted to see those taxes go up.
And yet Ibbitson goes right to the political. He says that Harper is gambling that his supporters, who don't want the wealthy to be given more of our money, will still vote for him,
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
90% of Canadians DO NOT WANT MORE CORPORATE TAX CUTS!!!! Those are the only voices anyone should be listening to, because that money belongs to us.
I don't give a flying fig who is going to get political leverage with this, although If Layton goes along with these tax cuts, it will be the end of the NDP, and both David Lewis and Tommy Douglas will be turning in their graves.
Because it means that their "commitment to social and economic justice" will all have been for nothing.
I watched a lecture that the brilliant Chris Hedges gave at the University of Toronto, where he was discussing his latest book The Death of the Liberal Class. It was broadcast on the show Big Ideas on public television (TVOntario), though I believe it may also be available on YouTube.
His appearance took place days after the U.S. mid-term elections, the results of which Hedges referred to as "the beginning of the empowerment of the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party."
And he's absolutely right. Moderate Republicans are losing their home, while many Democrats are becoming more like Republicans.
The Tea Party was the brain child of former Republican Majority House Leader, Dick Armey, and several corporate sponsors, including the infamous Koch Brothers, who felt that the Republicans were not right-wing enough. Armey created the AstroTurf group Americans for Prosperity, which has ties to the Harper government.
But where will it end? Hedges believes it may be too late to save the United States, and he could be right, because few progressives know how to break through the wall of ignorance.
In the video below Chris Matthews is trying to get an answer from Tea Party co-founder Sal Russo, on why a prominent Tea Party leader, Michelle Bachmann, is rewriting history on slavery. Matthews begins to lose his composure, as he is constantly presented with talking points.
This is an old neoconservative strategy. We saw it in the House of Commons, when they were debating the Afghan Detainee issue. The only thing we got from the government side of the House, was "there's no evidence" "we support the troops", "the opposition is attacking our troops" ... It was like happy hour at the funny farm.
And Bachmann is not the first in this movement, to attempt to rewrite history. In Texas, they are removing Thomas Jefferson from their school textbooks, because he advocated the separation of Church and State. He is being replaced with Billy Graham, which is ironic, because Graham denounced Richard Nixon when he attempted to exploit Christianity for political gain.
And Sarah Palin is constantly referring to Harvard grad, Obama as an "elitist", invoking the founding fathers. But what she fails to realize, is that all of the founding fathers were well educated, forward thinking men. They were lawyers, judges, scientists. And they would have hated this Tea Party movement, that attempts to dummy down a nation.
In fact one of their spokesmen, Matt Kibbe, when asked if the TP had infiltrated the Republican party, said that he preferred to think of it as "a hostile takeover".
If there's an upside to this, it's that the right may split the vote, but if the Democrats don't move away from right-wing politics, they will not be able to cash in. The only choice for Americans will be which right-wing party they choose, which will probably mean even fewer people voting at all.
A similar thing is happening in Canada, as the Christan Right and Tea Party thinking now fuels our government. But the problem is, that no one is talking about it. And when they do, as Rick Salutin found out when he called Stephen Harper a Straussian (neoconservative), they are fired.
And yet when Stephen Harper's Reform movement first hit the political scene, everyone called them neoconservatives. We already had a Tory Party, a Liberal Party and a New Democrat Party. The Reform was neocon, and their connections with the American Republicans was spoke of everyday.
Read books from the '90s. Neoconservative was becoming a common term. Now it's taboo. And if we can't use 'neoconservative', then we sure can't use Religious Right, but we have to start using those terms as part of normal political discourse. Because if we don't we will soon be where the U.S is. At the point of no return.
"The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us." - Theodore Roosevelt
In an attempt to restore Canada's progressive nature, Canadians have to continually tap into the movements and leaders who helped to steer us in the right direction. And while up until five years ago, we felt that we were an independent and sovereign nation, our future now lies in the hands of Republican strategists and Tea Party sponsors, who are all part of the neoconservative movement.
Stephen Harper and his Corporate Party of Canada, has given us their Religious Right, who now set our moral code. He's adopted their foreign policy, meaning that we will continually be at war and must love Israel more than our own country. And he has given us their toxic politics, making a mockery of democracy, and turning Canadians away from the polls in droves.
But it's important to remember why and how the Progressive Movement began more than a century ago, so I am looking to both sides of the border for inspiration. And a good example of a progressive thinker is President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican no less, back in the day when the Party had values.
Roosevelt was from an extremely wealthy family and had graduated from Harvard. Yet he was hardly what anyone would call an "elitist", though in today's political climate, I'm sure attack ads might suggest otherwise. But he was president at a time when the American people believed that the intelligent and well educated were the best choice to lead the county.
Teddy Roosevelt was the creator of the "Square Deal", feeling that all Americans were entitled to share in the best that the country had to offer (Oh, no. A Socialist!)
And his agenda was based on three fundamental ideas: the conservation of natural resources, taking control of corporations, and enacting consumer protection. And to do this he sought the help of middle class citizens, to break down the plutocracy.
The neoconservative movement instead has sought the assistance of the most vulnerable citizens, convincing them that they have their best interests at heart.
We need to follow Roosevelt's lead and tap into the middle for direction. In Canada, for the 50 years or so when policy was drafted to benefit the average citizen, those citizens forced things to the table that were to the betterment of everyone. And as a result, the middle class swelled, thanks to things like universal healthcare, labour unions and public education.
Now our middle class are becoming the working poor, and the Corporate Party is poised to destroy both healthcare and education, in favour of profits for what they call the "private sector", which is code for multi-national corporations.
And the only ones benefiting from Harper policy, are our wealthiest citizens, who instead of paying their share, demand that they contribute less and less to the health of our nation.
Murray Dobbin has an excellent piece in the Tyee this week: The CEO and the New Feudalism, where he reveals that income disparity is now so out of control, that the average CEO earns the same amount as the average worker, by 2:30 pm on January 3.
It is the modern equivalent of the power and arrogance of the robber barons of the 1920s. The CEOs' virtual control of the public policy process, which allows for this obscene level of inequality, delivers another message: democracy, whose essence is equality, will not be allowed to mess with the natural order of things.
And yet Harper is planning a tax payer funded tour, to convince Canadians that we should create more inequality, by giving the wealthy even more of our money. Where does it end?
But you know, we can complain about Stephen Harper. We can complain about prison expansion at a time when our crime rate is at it's lowest. And we can complain about the loss of our media. But the real question is, what are we going to do about it?
"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought ..." - Theodore Roosevelt
It might seem odd that I would look to a Rabbi for enlightenment. I'm not Jewish.
In fact, I'm part agnostic and part atheist, depending on how angry I am with the Religious Right at that particular moment. But Rabbi Lerner is a brilliant and compassionate man. He teaches a gospel of social justice, not hatred and arrogance. More Tommy Douglas than Charles McVety.
And I often turn to his book: The Left Hand of God, when looking for political direction. In it he tells of his days as a social change activist:
I had participated in sit-ins for civil rights, had organized teach-ins and demonstrations and nonviolent civil disobedience against the war in Vietnam, and had been involved in the early development of the environmental movement. Yet I felt uncomfortable with the way movements at times seemed more interested in proving their own righteousness than in finding ways to attract and build an American majority that supports peace and social justice. (1)
That's what I believe is necessary in this country if we want to turn things around. An alliance of all groups marginalized by the neoconservative movement. And our aim will be to remove the Harper government from office, by encouraging political dialogue, and above all getting people out to vote next election. It's our only chance.
Working From the Middle
Lerner relates how in the 1970s, he tried to convince his compatriots to link their movements "with a critique of the prevailing tax structure, which placed a huge burden on middle-income working people." And what he proposed was an initiative to shift more of the tax burden onto the rich.
And four decades later, many are now attempting to do just that. Neoconservatism has often been called 'the revolt of the rich', and they are winning to the detriment of the rest of us.
But understanding their motives and tactics, while important, are not enough. We also have to understand their ideology, and present compelling arguments against their misguided "logic".
William Gairdner is the Canadian William Kristol, and his book The Trouble With Canada, helped to shape the policies of our current government. In his revised edition: The Trouble With Canada ... Still, Gairdner attempts to justify allowing the corporate sector to dominate:
Fundamentally, all socialists are united in believing that present social arrangements are inegalitarian .... They will generally argue that the conditions of our lives are for the most part not of our own doing, that wealth tends to end up in the hands of too few, and therefore the State should play a strong and permanent role in redistributing it. (2)
Most neocons will go right to socialism as being the only opponent to their right-wing philosophy. I am not anti-capitalism, nor do I resent the riches of the wealthy. However, I feel that they should be paying their share and playing by the rules.
They forget that much of their success comes because they have been able to exploit our natural resources. And that public education has helped to give them a pool of employees, who all contribute to their success. And public healthcare, helping to reduce costly sick days.
It is in their best interest to contribute their fair share for the betterment of society. That is the problem with so many foreign takeovers. They have no vested interest in the Canadian community.
I would also challenge another point of Gairdner's:
They [socialists] are careful to ignore the fact that, with the exception of the very top level of earners, whom we reward handsomely for their expertise and for taking the risks they do, democratic-capitalist societies have a record for wealth distribution as good as or better than that of any socialist nation in history. Nor do they consider it important that the wealth created in democratic capitalism is freely exchanged between sellers and buyers, whether individual or corporate, and that it is individual consumers who gladly make certain people wealthy simply by eagerly purchasing what they have to offer. None of the people who made Oprah Winfrey, or Microsoft's Bill Gates, Celine Dion, or Lance Armstrong, or the shareholders of so many companies very wealthy did more than buy a book, some software, a concert ticket, a bicycle or any of a million other moderately priced things ... in very large numbers. (2)
I agree that we voluntarily provide them with our business, but we do it with the confidence that there are measures in place to make sure that they are not selling us products that are harmful to our health and safety. Using Gairdner's simplistic logic we should then allow free rein to con-artists who cheat seniors out of their life savings. I mean, after all, didn't that senior freely hand over their money? There are reasons for laws controlling good business practices.
But there is another factor that Gairdner ignores. In their book, The Trouble With Billionaires, Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, tell the story of Michael Caine and Andrew Lloyd Webber, who opposed the plans of Britain's Labour government to raise the marginal tax rate on high-income earners from 40 to 50 percent.
Webber appealed to the public to reject what he characterized as a tax increase on those who create wealth: "The last thing we need is a Somali pirate-style raid on the few wealth creators who still dare to navigate Britain's gale-force waters." And Michael Caine "... echoed the outrage, threatening to leave Britain if taxes at the upper end went even one percentage point higher."
The suggestion is that the British government had no hand in their wealth creation, so why should they have to give up any of it? But this is a myth.
... the mythology that allows Caine, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and other big earners in the entertainment world to believe that their large incomes are simply the result of the exercise of their talents in the free market. Make no mistake about it: their good fortune has come about because of government intervention in the marketplace. And no, we are not talking about government subsidies for the arts, but rather something much more basic and enriching—the elaborate set of copyright laws that allow artists and performers to receive royalties for their creative efforts. Without these laws the movies Michael Caine appears in could be copied and sold to people all over the world, without Caine receiving a penny.
Under such a wide-open system, no movie production company would be willing to pay Michael Caine a huge wage for his performance, or much of a fee at all. (3)
So it was government intervention that enabled Caine to become rich, and yet he balks at paying for those services. The same would apply to others that Gairdner mentions, like Celine Dion and Bill Gates. If Gates couldn't register his product, and have that registration protected by law, anyone could legally pirate it, and we might now be asking "Bill who"?
Gairdner also mentions that many of the wealthy are rewarded "handsomely for their expertise and for taking the risks they do." But what happens when those risks blow up in their face? They are the first ones with their hands out looking for government "interference" in the name of bailouts.
Governments are not just there to protect and look after the poor, but also the rich. Eliminate safeguards and another collapse would mean the end of businesses like Goldman Sachs.
In the 1970's Lerner tried to convince his colleagues to advocate for fairer taxes on the working class, but they saw no need. They later regretted the decision, because the right-wing anti-tax movement steamrolled over everyone. But the only ones who really benefited were the wealthy, while the middle class stagnated. Yet they were the ones who were the backbone of the economy.
... I thought, this would be a moment when liberal and progressive forces could consolidate power, end the cold war, and devote America's massive resources to promoting social and economic justice. Unfortunately, though, something different was happening beneath the surface, at least among middle-income Americans. I detected the first inkling of a major shift I away from the Democratic Party and the Left on the part of white working males—ironically, people whose economic interests were far better served by the Left than the Right. I was puzzled by this phenomenon. (3)
We need to get everyone committed to change, to work through the centre. The corporate sector and their political backers, will argue that they donate to charity, so are responsible citizens. But the wealthiest providing handouts to the poor, creates a slave state. Whereas labour movements and social activists, promote good jobs and benefits, and social services for those who are unable to work or have already paid their dues. Like seniors and veterans. And they fight against child poverty and homelessness, not suggest that they are poor because they are lazy.
Gairdner says:
This sad truth leads us to the conclusion that all forms of socialism are little more than vast parasitical schemes for the forced redistribution of the freely created wealth of some, to others deemed worthy, by the class of elites ministering the redistribution after taking their considerable commission.
Kinda' sounds like places like the Fraser Institute and the National Citizens Coalition who take enormous commissions to sell citizens on the notion that they need to feed the wealthy first.
Whew!
I've debated Irving Kristol and William Gairdner in the same week. I'm pooped.
Steve Harper is claiming that all of the taxpayer money he has given to his wealthy friends, is good for us.
In the "used to be a newspaper" Sun, they have given him a platform to spew this nonsense.
Well sit down Steve. Because Canadians are not that stupid. And wipe that smirk off your face, because you're going to listen for a change.
As much as I'm no big fan of Alan Greenspan, he made an important statement today. If the United States does not bring down their debt they are going to face a bond-market crisis.
They are running wars on their credit card and giving all liquid assets to the wealthy, who are hoarding the money. Income disparity helped to create the Great Depression.
We are now facing the worst income disparity crisis ever in history. Even in the days of the monarchy, there was never this kind of gap. According to Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks in the Trouble With Billionaires:
Most Canadians probably regard extreme inequality as a thing of the past. But while kings and nobles of pre-industrial times enjoyed a standard of living that was wildly lavish and grand compared to the poor in their day, that gap was not as extreme as the one that separates Canadian billionaires from the homeless living in Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver today. The lives of the destitute may not have changed that much over the past few hundred years, with today's homeless often living on streets or in makeshift shelters in ravines. But the rich have become vastly richer than their pre-industrial counterparts.
And you want to give them more of our money? Really Steve? Is that really what you want to do?
Because while you're patting yourself on the back, we are being warned to look behind the headlines:
Beneath the surface, it’s a bit of a different story. Toronto-Dominion Bank economists, for example, cite the rise in part-time jobs, the still weaker showing of the private sector, and a shift to lower-paying work. They also note that the Statistics Canada measure doesn’t account for people who’ve given up on looking for a job, nor does it provide a completely accurate picture of the underemployed.
Scotia Capital economists Derek Holt and Gorica Djeric point to one "strong caveat" in today's report, the huge increase of 65,700 jobs in the manufacturing sector. "We have difficulty believing that Ontario’s and Quebec’s manufacturers are so buoyant as to be heavily adding to their payrolls in the context of [Canadian dollar] pressures," they said. "Further, the manufacturing numbers are volatile as evidenced by the 29,000 decline in November swinging abruptly toward a gain of 66,000 in December. Are we really being asked to believe that manufacturers swing that abruptly in their workforce planning in the current environment?"
So before you say something that stupid again Steve, I suggest you get out and take a look around. People who had good permanent jobs are now working for minimum wage, never knowing when the axe will fall.
It's time to put your hat in hand and go after those wealthy friends of yours, and ask them to give back some of those billions you've given them, so we can pay off this country's debts so our children and grandchildren don't have to.
And get out and talk to people, see how they're managing. Many of those who used to have good jobs, got themselves into debt, and now barely make enough to pay rent and food, let alone pay down their charge cards or bank loans.
Maybe if once in a while you showed a bit of concern, instead of making those struggling feel like failures because they don't fit in with your fairly tale, you might stop this nonsense.
More money to corporate welfare bums? Give me a break.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper revived an NDP slogan from the past, pledging to go after corporate welfare which is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Speaking to the Toronto Board of Trade Wednesday, Harper challenged the business community to stop receiving government subsidies, making it a condition to lower their business taxes.
"I won't lower one without lowering the other," Harper said. "That is what I mean by low-tax solutions rather than high-spending solutions." Harper lashed out at a system that has allowed corporations to benefit from government subsidies, saying Canadians have not received value for their money.
Wait a minute .... This was in 2004 when he had taken a leave of absence from running the corporate sponsored National Citizens Coalition, to become prime minister, so he could work for corporations from the inside.
Phew!
For a minute there I thought he was actually remembering that he works us. And don't worry you corporate welfare bums out there. You're safe.
Subsidy Watch: The G-20 Toronto Summit, hosted on 26-27 June by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, concluded without any new commitments to take forward the pledge made last year to reform fossil-fuel subsidies, despite pre-summit hopes that Canada might show leadership by unilaterally eliminating some of its own.
Subsidies for Sports Arenas: Beyond funding the Quebec City arena, Harper is facing questions about whether he will provide money to build a new stadium for the Saskatchewan Roughriders.“Whatever we do in these two cities, we have to be prepared to do everywhere,” Harper said. “Ultimately, professional sports teams themselves have to be sound business propositions.”
You know, few things drive me up the wall as quickly or as cartoonishly as taxpayer subsidized sports arenas and stadiums. Not only is that a direct subsidy to private business, it's a subsidy to protected monopolies, which most leagues are.
As Harper and Flaherty are trying to defend Canada going deeper into debt, so that they can give our wealthiest citizens another tax break, Canadians are waking up to the realization that these folks don't need anymore money. We do.
The recession may have hammered the average Canadian but a new survey suggests CEOs weathered the storm in fine form. An examination of the 100 fattest pay packages handed to executives at publicly traded companies in Canada shows they pulled in an average $6.6 million each in 2009. That's a far cry from the $42,988 the average Canadian makes and it dwarfs the $19,877 a minimum-wage worker would earn in a year.
The study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says Canada's best-paid CEOs made 155 times more than the average Canadian. "Canadians may still be feeling the pain from a worldwide economic meltdown caused by reckless financial speculation but Canada's business elite has preserved its privileged position..."
That should be illegal. We give them enormous tax breaks and instead of using them to hire more people, they fill their own pockets. Enough already.
If you forgot to wish the boss a Happy New Year, don’t worry. He’s already had one. By about mid-afternoon Monday, the 100 best-paid chief executive officers in Canada will have already earned the equivalent of an average full-time salary in this country. The gap between the executive suite and minimum-wage workers is even larger. The average CEO had earned a full year’s worth of minimum-wage work by about 3:15 p.m. on New Year’s Day.
... “You could ask how motivating is it for the average employee, who is actually the person who generates the income for the corporation, to see that their CEO is making 300 times what they are. I would think that would be kind of demotivating.” The CEO pay figures may even be underestimated owing to a change in the way stock option compensation is reported, according to the report.
Corporations used to report the amount of income that executives actually realized when they cashed in their options. Beginning in 2008, rather than reporting the amount their executives realized during the year by cashing in options, they reported a statistical estimate of what the options might have been worth in the market when they were granted.
No more corporate welfare. It's time for the good guys to win.
Would it surprise you to know that several Canadian lending institutes were also there with their hands out?
Obvious beneficiaries such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are on the list released Wednesday, but so are a surprising number of international banks, including all of Canada’s biggest lenders, which borrowed $111-billion (U.S.) through their U.S. divisions.
A list of companies released yesterday, gives face to the culprits.
McDonald’s, General Electric and Harley-Davidson also turned to the Fed when no one else would buy their commercial paper. Hedge fund managers John Paulson and Julian Robertson put up toxic assets as collateral for Fed loans that they and similar investors used to buy sounder asset-backed securities.
The data released Wednesday details loans the U.S. central bank gave through 11 separate programs created to stave off an economic depression. The transactions date from December 2007 through July 2010. The Fed’s disclosure of 21,000 different transactions will change the way the financial crisis is interpreted, providing layers of context that will help economists and academics better understand the crisis.
...the reminder that big corporations, international banks, billionaire investors and foreign central banks were among the recipients of the Fed’s lending will stir up political animosity that already is running high because of the policy maker’s recent decision to create $600-billion to buy financial assets in a bid to stimulate the flagging economy. “This will not be good for the Fed politically,” said Douglas Elliot, a finance expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former investment banker. “Everybody hates bankers right now and this shows the Fed helping bankers.”
Public funds were used to stick it to the public.
And Stephen Harper plans to go ahead with further tax cuts for the wealthy, while promising the rest of us an austerity budget. This is criminal.
We need to tell the corporate welfare bums to leave our money alone. If they can't run their businesses better than that, they need to find a real job. I hear McDonald's might be hiring.
A recent assessment 
