The Most Powerful Symbol You Will See This Election

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind. John Diefenbaker

On January 6, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt, in his State of the Union Address; put forward four tenets of freedom that every citizen should enjoy:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear

I watched a short Canadian newsreel recently, that would have been shown in movie theatres as propaganda.  It was made in 1943, at a time when Canadians were growing weary of war.

Lorne Greene of Bonanza fame, narrated, and started out by showing victorious battle scenes in an attempt to convince the movie goers that we were winning.  They just had to hold on a bit longer.

He then repeated those four tenets of freedom, one at a time, with all the passion he could muster.

It was very moving, and they were not just empty promises.  On behalf of the Government of Canada, Social Scientist, Leonard Marsh, prepared a report that was presented to a House of Commons committee that year:  Report on Social Services for Canada; as part of the plan for post-war reconstruction.

It wasn't enough to just bring soldiers home, They had to come home to a country committed to making that country, not only worth coming home to, but with visible signs of the things they had fought for. Their sacrifices were not in vain and the welfare state was born.

Initially, the term was used to describe an industrial capitalist society, in which the state manipulated the market, but in 1967, British historian Asa Briggs, in The Welfare State, laid out revised provisions of what the welfare state should look like:

- Provision of minimum income
- Provision for the reduction of economic insecurity, resulting from sickness, old age and unemployment
- Provision to all members of society a range of social services

Not just the freedom from want but the freedom from need.  If we were expected to make sacrifices during wartime, we needed to be taken care of at times of peace.

Then in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, turned the whole thing upside down.  Forget all that.  There was no such thing as society and no need for social services.  Give more money to the wealthy and the resulting economic boost would trickle down to everyone.

The corporate welfare state was reborn.

Conservatives will take every opportunity to use the word "freedom",  but clearly have no idea what it means.  Chest thumping and carnivorous nationalism is not freedom.  

Instead of freedom from want, they leave society wanting, and use fear, attacks on religious groups and stifling of free speech, so they can have us participate in perpetual war.

Photo-ops with soldiers, first responders, or anyone in uniform, might make you look good, but you can't remove them from the picture once the cameras are turned off.

Those who risk their lives for us, deserve better.  Indeed, all Canadians do.

Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong. And our dreams for this beautiful country will never die.  Pierre Trudeau

This election campaign, we're hearing a lot about the middle class.  There's no denying that a strong middle class is tantamount to economic security.  However, even with a strong middle class, there was still poverty. 

There was still want.

Instead of a higher minimum wage, that will only force small businesses out, we need a living wage guarantee for everyone. We need a strong social safety net, that includes a housing strategy, so terms like "homelessness" and "food banks" are removed from everyday conversation.

Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world. Tommy Douglas

George Bush referring to corporations as "job creators" is a myth.  Corporations only create jobs when it's convenient to do so, and will shed jobs anytime they threaten their bottom line (as we're seeing now in Alberta).  And despite the fact that the public has subsidized these corporations for years, shareholders take priority over stakeholders.

Enough is enough.

A recent Nanos poll indicates that 2/3 of Canadians are ready for a change.  It's up to us to make sure that that change, is not simply more of the same.

If a picture speaks to us, the image of the crest above is speaking volumes.  It's not only a reminder of what freedom was supposed to look like, but also a reminder that we are failing our heroes and heroines.

Patriotism is not dying for one's country, it is living for one's country, and for humanity. Perhaps that is not as romantic, but it's better. Agnes MacPhail

So Who's the Elitist Now?

Rhys Kesselman, Canada Research Chair in Public Finance and a professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Public Policy, has an op-ed in the Globe and Mail discussing the Harper government's new tax policies, clearly designed to benefit the highest wage earners.

Neoconservatives love to talk about "lower taxes", but they don't really mean lower taxes for everyone. They have designer tax cuts, allowing claims for gym memberships. We can expect fitness centres to tout this tax break, locking more and more people into expensive contracts.

They design "family" tax benefits, to only target their version of the "family", no single parents allowed.

And while they move toward a zero tax for corporations, they raise taxes on workers with a payroll tax, and implement user fees. Most of these fees are again a transfer of funds from the public, to the private sector, who take over services once provided by the government for free.

Jim Flaherty has tapped into George Bush's favourite line of "tax relief", using a median figure, but when broken down, only the wealthiest citizens reap any real benefit.

The wonderful Linda McQuaig, again reminds us that this systematic transfer of wealth to the top, is hurting everyone. And yet to hear the neocons talk, those who are suffering the most, are the ones hurting the economy.

I watched Bill Maher this week, and one topic of conversation was Republican rhetoric, that not only defies logic, but also defies history.

Sarah Palin suggested that Paul Revere rode to the British camp and told them that they must uphold their second amendment right to bear arms, despite the fact that there was as of yet, no such amendment on the books, and indeed, no constitution.

Another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, suggested that U.S. soldiers fought in WWII so that Americans wouldn't be forced to have healthcare. Silly Obama. He should have known that before touting his socialist ideas.

But as Maher reminded his audience, they are the kind of people who would probably get elected, because despite the fact that what they spout is pure nonsense, they spout it with conviction, never changing their story.

The Conservatives just keep chanting "low taxes, low taxes, low taxes" and we believe them, even if logic and the increased difficulty of stretching our pay cheques, prove otherwise.

Another argument made by the neoconservatives, is that cutting taxes for the wealthiest, drives down the price of consumer goods (that's the "job creation" part - jobs in Third World countries).

And yes we can now buy cheap TVs and DVD players, but the cost of housing is on the rise and food through the roof. We can buy cheap crap but basic survival is getting very expensive.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party was never a populist party, but perhaps the most top down party in the history of Canada. They tapped into the populism of social credit for support, but their platform was written by Stephen Harper, right from the National Citizens Coalition handbook (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3).

It is a party run by and for the corporate sector.

But darn it all if they don't sound convincing when they pretend that they work for us.

Conservative Candidate Says: "Businesses First, Families and Pensioners Second"

Conservative candidate Chris Alexander is in trouble again. First he made the claim that there was no poverty in Canada, and now he is saying what we already knew, that with his party big business will always come before citizens.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has issued: A Challenge to Canada’s Wealthiest 0.1%

This election presents an opportunity for you wealthy Canadians, especially the very richest 0.1% among you—the 25,000 Canadians with an average annual income of $1.5 million—to do the right thing and put the broader public good ahead of your own interests. I know that this is asking a lot. Recent psychological research suggests that the wealthy as a group tend to be less generous and altruistic than the rest of us.

You’ve made spectacular income and wealth gains over the last three decades at the expense of the large majority of Canadians whose earnings have either remained stagnant or fallen after inflation. You have managed to more than double your share of the national income pie, something not seen since the 1920s. And by 2009, the worst year of the recession, the wealthiest 3.8% of families had captured a stunning two-thirds of all financial wealth in Canada.

This, Mr. Alexander is what happens when you put big business ahead of families and pensioners.

But he has bought into Harper's Voodoo Economics, with the idea that the more money we give to the rich, the better off we'll all be. We've tried that and it failed. Time to move on.

David Clay Johnson tells us the nine things that the rich don't want us to know. He completely debunks the nonsense of Harper's plan to give more money to the wealthy, while cutting benefits for everyone else.

I think Alexander would do better if he just stopped talking.

Harper's Low Tax Plan Was a Drive By

When my kids were small and they'd ask for something I knew we couldn't afford, I'd often respond with "maybe someday when I'm rich and famous".

This bought me some time.

It all fell apart though when my youngest son, after hearing the familiar reply, ran to his older brother in excitement, only to be told, "don't you know by now that mom is never going to rich and famous?"

Mike Moffat of the Richard Ivey School of Business, has a piece in the Globe and Mail this morning: Mr. Harper, if you can’t pay for it now, you can’t later

He is referring of course, to the so-called 'Low Tax Plan' outlined in the Conservative platform, that will only be implemented when the books are balanced, roughly five years from now.

But in the words of my eldest "Don't you know by now .... ?

It's very easy to make promises that you will probably never have to act on.

Yet despite promising Canadians that he may in some distant time, lower their taxes, he is still going through with plans to lower the taxes of the wealthiest citizens immediately. Corporate tax cuts he describes as "job creators".

That made no sense when George Bush used the term, and makes no sense now.

On May 2 vote and vote wisely. We deserve better than this.

Stephen Harper's Tax Plan Steals From the Poor to Give to the Rich

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, calls Harper's income splitting plan, Robin Hood in Reverse:

On March 28th, Mr. Harper announced his party’s latest election plank: the “Family Tax Cut”, or income splitting for couples with children. The program is supposed to “…make the income tax system fairer…” while recognizing that “…family budgets are stretched…” But an examination of the distributional impacts of the “Family Tax Cut” shows that it neither makes the tax system fairer nor helps stretched family incomes.

In fact, as with most income tax cuts and credits, the largest benefits go the richest Canadians. Those who actually have their budgets stretched get the least benefit while those that are doing just fine get the biggest breaks. With income inequality in Canada is already reaching record levels, there is certainly no need to provide additional benefits to the richest Canadians while leaving the poorest behind in the dust.

And as David Quist reminds us in the Ottawa citizen, the plan targets married couples, providing nothing for single parents, most of whom are women. Typical Republican/Tea Party logic, where they get to define what constitutes a "family".

And while telling us he will be cutting spending (we know not on his people), he refuses to tell us where, so expect the country's disadvantaged to be expected to suffer further.

However, the biggest scam of the Conservative 'low tax' plan, is their suggestion that giving the wealthiest corporations more tax cuts, will create jobs and that the benefits will trickle down. A misguided and fraudulent assumption known as 'Voodoo economics'.

There is no trickling down only an upward gusher, where those who benefit the most from what this country has to offer, pay the least for it. 'The Conservative’s case for corporate tax cuts is increasingly coming under duress after new analyses suggest companies have neither created jobs or invested with their windfall. The Tories are arguing lower corporate tax rates will create jobs and business investment, blasting both the Liberals and NDP for seeking to tax firms more.'

They are big costs with no job creation.

We are a country with one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, but one of the highest child poverty rates. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

There is now a petition demanding that this nonsense is stopped before it destroys us all.

Because while claiming to stand up for Canada, Stephen Harper and his cohorts are selling us out to corporations. Lock, stock and barrel.

On May 2, the choice is clear. Corporations or people?

Alicia Gordon and Randy Camp Denounce Democratic Principles That Stand in the Way Of Multinational Corporations

Ralph Surette, one of my favourite columnists, writes this week: Why Harper must not have his majority

In it he tells the story of how after exposing Harper's treaty with the European Union, that allowed multinationals to take over our fisheries, he received a threat from one of his MPs.

Shortly after, I got a call from Randy Kamp, parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister and an MP from B.C., who aggressively demanded that I tell him where I got my information and rang off with "the government of Canada is unhappy with you." Keep in mind that in many, if not most, countries on the face of this Earth, a phone call like that from a government official to a journalist constitutes a death threat.

I was disturbed, but also baffled. I’d had governments unhappy with me for 40 years and never heard the like, and nothing in the Canadian tradition explained it. So I assumed this was just one out-of-control individual who didn’t know his job. I checked with people I know in Ottawa. They told me emphatically: "That’s them. That’s them exactly!"

Allan Gregg in his review of Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, confirms that that is exactly how Harper and Co. conduct business. With threats and intimidation.

And what Surette found even more disturbing, was that despite the fact that the elected MPs voted against the treaty, Harper signed it anyway. He just does as he pleases.

Majority or minority it won't matter. We need to vote him out. It's that simple.

Conservatives Have Another Corporate Lobbyist Running for Them

When Stephen Harper named Gordon O'Connor as his first defence minister, people were outraged. O'Connor was a corporate lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton, responsible for securing military contracts. And he didn't disappoint. But then that whole lying, Afghan Detainee Abuse thing, got in the way.

Now the Conservatives have secured the nomination of Raymond Sturgeon, another military contract lobbyist, responsible in part for the horrible F-35 contract.

So much for accountability.

I noticed on his website, that he will be speaking at the Rod and Gun club, no doubt heralding the 21 million provided in the budget for gun owners.

I don't think he'll stand a chance against Carol Hughes, but then the Conservatives have a lot of money, and sadly often money talks. We must silence it.

The Liberal candidate for this riding, François Cloutier, is also a strong contender, who may be able to tap into history. This was once the riding of Lester Pearson.

Budget Failed to Provide Free Psychiatric Help for Those Who Believe That Corporate Tax Cuts Create Jobs. Maybe a John Manley Looney Bin.

The budget failed in that it does not provide free psychiatric help for those who still think that corporate tax cuts create jobs.

$300.00 tax credit for those looking after disabled family members and billions to corporate greed.

Enough already.

Please Take Part in This Important Telethon to End the Suffering

There is a devastating situation in Canada that has earned little respect from our media, and yet an entire sector of our population is suffering. We as concerned citizens, must reach deep in our hearts and our pocketbooks to end this.

Unless we can raise $100,000,000,000 by midnight tonight, I'm afraid the entire corporate welfare state will collapse.

Yes folks. I hope you're sitting down. Bank executives are having to ... I'm having trouble even finding the words ... TAKE A CUT IN PAY!

National Bank of Canada chief executive officer Louis Vachon saw his pay in 2010 slip from 2009 as the bank fell short of its earnings target, the bank said Thursday. According to the bank's management proxy circular, Mr. Vachon took home a total of about $5.2-million last year, compared with $5.6-million in 2009.

That's a cut of $400,000. How will he manage? Maybe I could send him Mike Harris's old menu that he provided to those who saw their welfare benefits cut by 42%. Mostly beans and tuna, but at least Louis will be getting his protein. Poor man will have to keep his strength up for the troubling times ahead.

We could send him the senate report on poverty, but Stephen Harper threw it in the trash.

So tune in to our 'Save the Bankers Telethon' and give us your pledges. And please be generous. For a contribution of $1 million or more, you will receive the collectors edition of Goldamn Sachs financial records and a copy of Jim Flaherty's latest book, 'How to Screw the Canadian Taxpayer Without Them Even Knowing It'

Just call 1-8-GREEDYBUMS

(This message brought to you by The Conservative Party of Canada)

What Has Canada's Economic Action Plan Done For You?

And some very good reasons to forget about more corporate tax cuts. We can't afford them.

Shouldn't Tough on Crime Measures Include Being Tough on Corporate Crime?

The Conservative government is determined to forge ahead with their tough on crime agenda at a time when citizen crime is at it's lowest in our history.

As Edward Greenspan and Anthony Doob write in the Globe:

Everyone wants to reduce crime and use resources effectively. But the Conservative government’s “tough on crime” agenda would have you believe that crime is increasing and can only be reduced by using tougher penalties. This assertion is wrong, as is a study by an Ottawa-based think tank that reviewed the 2009 Statistics Canada report on crime.

Harper insider Scott Newark and the bogus MacDonald-Laurier think tank tried to suggest otherwise, but we're not buying it.

However, crime rates in another sector of the population is definitely on the rise. Corporate crime is the highest it's been in my memory, and yet instead of cracking down on it, the Harper government has put measures in place to make it easier for corporations to defraud the average taxpayer.

The new accounting laws that allow corporations to fudge their income statements, is not just about defrauding the wealthy, but also investments on our behalf through company pension funds and even CPP.

In his book Corporateering, Jamie Court asks why there are not "three strikes" laws and even the death penalty for big business when they commit criminal acts. Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street players spent no time in jail for creating the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Three strikes should apply to corporations, too. If a person can get jail for life for three criminal convictions, why shouldn't corporations face a similar standard? A corporate death penalty for any corporation convicted of three separate criminal offenses would set a new bar corporate responsibility and deter the corporate crime waves of tomorrow ... The first strike requires a full-page advertisement be taken out in major newspapers; the second necessitates a fine to the state treasury; the third results in the loss of the right to do business. Laws could be enacted at the state and federal level revoking the charter of any corporation that proved through its conduct that it was beyond rehabilitation. Trusteeships to take over of laid-off workers could be created. Mostly, however, such laws provide a deterrent to wrongdoing. (1)

Is that why all the hoopla about being tough on crime? They want to hide the fact that the corporate sector is being given a free pass? Something to think about.

Source:

1. Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom and What You Can do About it, by: Jamie Court, Penguin Books, 2003, ISBN: 1-58542-228-2, Pg. 256

An Amazing Preacher Gives the Religious Right a Lesson on the Bible

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.

The protests in Wisconsin are growing, with tens of thousands taking to the streets in solidarity. In a desperate measure they tried to shut down the worker's website, but they are not deterred, and polls show overwhelming support for the workers.

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.

A time when our voices can become the loudest.

It's Time to Have a Serious Conversation About Jim Flaherty and Goldman Sachs

Maude Barlow, with the Council of Canadians, once said that Chantel Hebert was the only progressive voice on Canadian television. The last thing I ever heard Hebert say was that she felt that Jim Flaherty was the most underrated politician on Parliament Hill.

I have never listened to another word from her and avoid her columns. If she told me the earth was round, I would have to rethink my position. But was her remark the result of lazy journalism, or was she, like most Canadians, simply brainwashed by the millions and millions of dollars in taxpayer funded advertising?

Who knows, but she was dead wrong. Next to Stephen Harper, Flaherty is the most overrated politician in the country. But with our money he has created a corporate branding. In the same way that we think of Nike as the company promoting fitness and athletic prowess, or Allstate as the all knowing father who keeps us safe in their hands, the Conservatives have successfully branded themselves as good fiscal managers, even when the facts show the opposite to be true.

But so long as we don't have to see the sweatshops where Nike shoes are made, or the people left high and dry by Allstate, we will continue to buy into the illusions.

Journalist and author Matt Taibbi has two excellent pieces in Rolling Stone magazine, one a year old and the other written just this week: Wall Street's Bailout Hustle and Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?

I read them both last night and was astounded at how similar the stories are to what is taking place in Canada. In fact, many of the names are directly linked to our current government, the most prominent being Goldman Sachs.

So why is no one in the mainstream media doing an in depth piece on Jim Flaherty? Some have started writing about the sub-prime mortgage mess he's created, and the fact that he "secretly" bailed out our banks to the tune of $125 billion, but what he has actually done with Canadian finances could be a six-part miniseries, in the horror genre.

It's absolutely frightening.

Goldman Sachs

"Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy — they're re-creating the conditions for another crash" - Matt Taibbi (1)

In his piece Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail, Taibbi is incredulous that despite the so-called economic crisis being the result of unlawful and unethical behaviour, no one went to jail. Except of course Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme wasn't even really part of the the Wall Street highway robbery.

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

But what the folks on Wall Street did was rob from ordinary citizens, and yet no one went to jail. Apparently theft is legal if you really didn't need the money you stole. Madoff is now going public, claiming that the banks and hedge fund managers were in on his scheme, because they could have blown the whistle, but were making far too much money to risk losing a good thing.

And while all of the major U.S. banks were guilty of fraud, Goldman Sachs' activity was unique, because: "Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling."

I've written of this before so won't go into again, but I do want to draw attention to Jim Flaherty's unique relationship with GS and why this matters to Canadians.

Goldman Sachs and the Theft of Seniors Hard Earned Assets

By now, many of us are aware of the treachery of Stephen Harper and his promise not to tax income trusts. But what went on behind the scenes of this fiasco would probably make Bernie Madoff blush.

It started with the hiring of Mark Carney as a financial advisor. Carney, while a brilliant financier, was a long-time Goldman Sachs employee, who knew how to play the game.

Carney managed to convince Canada's finance department to close a tax loophole that allowed huge companies to boost their profits by converting themselves into tax-free income trusts — a practice that he claimed was "draining billions from government coffers". (2) He had first pitched the idea to Paul Martin, but a brilliant financier himself, Martin rejected the notion.

But Carney managed to persuade Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty of its merits, and when the Tories made their surprise reversal in 2006, senior citizens, a core Tory constituency, were furious about the hit on their portfolios. (2)

The story was sold to Canadians as saving us money, and that the only victims were rich corporations. But the opposite was true. Rich corporations cashed in on the scheme to the tune of 35 billion dollars and the only victims were ordinary citizens, mostly seniors, many of whom lost everything.

What Carney did was rather clever. He found a way to exempt Goldman Sachs from the tax, and make a fortune off the unsuspecting Canadian taxpayer. Because when income trusts took a hit on the market, GS bought them up at the deflated prices. Carney then wrote the tax in such a way that 'private' investors would be exempt from the new rules, so GS simply made their new acquisitions 'private'. All others are subject to a 31.5% tax. (2)

And what about those savings we were supposed to enjoy? More smoke and mirrors. It has cost the Canadian taxpayer $1.2 billion in potential revenue, to solve an alleged tax leakage problem of $500 million. (3) Carney was rewarded with an appointment to the Bank of Canada, and Flaherty is constantly being rewarded with quotes from Carney that help to keep up the facade of him being a good financial manager.

He was a personal injuries lawyer for gawd sake, who almost bankrupted Ontario.

Meanwhile, those Canadian seniors are still without their hard earned assets. Only the already extremely wealthy, mostly Americans, saw any benefit.

And as we listen to the Conservatives blather about being tough on crime, as Matt Taibbi says:

Criminal justice, as it pertains to the Goldmans of the world, is not adversarial combat, with cops and crooks duking it out in interrogation rooms and courthouses. Instead, it's a cocktail party between friends and colleagues who from month to month and year to year are constantly switching sides and trading hats.

What other decisions of Flaherty's came from Goldman Sachs, via their Canadian representative? How many others have struck it rich off the backs of the Canadian taxpayer?

Stick around, because this is only the first in a series about Jim Flaherty. The story that the Canadian media is afraid to speak of, preferring to become aiders and abettors in our victimization.

And to Chantel Hebert and others who believe that Jim Flaherty is underrated, do your homework. You're going to look awful stupid when the you know what hits the fan. And it will.

Sources:

1. Wall Street's Bailout Hustle, By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, February 17, 2010

2. Canada’s Merchant Banker: Is the recession really over? A profile of Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, By John Lorinc, Walrus Magazine, Jul/Aug 2009

3. Mark Carney exempted Goldman Sachs from Flaherty’s income trust tax, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF INCOME TRUST INVESTORS, May 11, 2010

4. Still More Goldman Sachs Tentacles, Wall Street Selector, February 13, 2011

5. Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? By: Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, February 16, 2011

The State of Democracy and the State of Wisconsin

As we watched with jubilation the protests in Egypt that deposed their dictator, and subsequent uprisings across the Middle east and Africa, there are others brewing in the United States, that while also inspiring, are a little frightening.

In Wisconsin a large group of citizens are holding protests against their government's decision to try to bust the unions. I don't know if their governor Scott Walker has a brother who like like Rob Ford's in Toronto, after his attack on the working class, told them all to get jobs, but I think this could get ugly.

The gun loving, corporate sponsored Tea Party crowd, has piled into buses, planning an attack on the workers. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Wisconsin protests: why 'week of rage' matters to rest of America

The Wisconsin protests are providing one of the first signs that the Midwest could become the primary testing ground for November’s tea party revolution. Plans by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and the legislature to gut collective bargaining – the tool by which public unions secure pay and benefits – for most public employees could spill into other Midwest states ...

No region of the country was more comprehensively recast by the 2010 elections than the seven states of the upper Midwest that arc from Minnesota to Ohio. Where before Democrats had held the upper hand, Republicans now have a virtual stranglehold on politics, controlling both houses of the legislature and the governors’ chairs in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

The full import of that switch has become apparent on the streets of Madison, Wis., this week. At least 25,000 union Wisconsin protesters amassed Friday morning in and around the Capitol to protest the governor’s plans. Earlier in the week, there had been as many as 40,000. Schools have been canceled, and one rally lasted a marathon 17 hours. With the state's tea party activists set to counterprotest Saturday, the drama has set the scene for the streets of Madison to become a surrogate for the clash of broader forces that currently define American politics.

The "clash of broader forces" represents the clash not between rich and poor, or even Republicans and Democrats, but between The Corporate Welfare State and The Social Welfare State. I only hope that when those Tea Party revellers leave their buses, that they are searched for weapons.

Robert Reich has an excellent column in the Huffington Post, suggesting, and rightfully so, that this is all part of a larger Republican strategy to ensure corporate rule. Not unlike Stephen Harper's who has filled government departments with lobbyists, and corporate coffers with our tax dollars.

The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class -- pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don't believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.

By splitting working America along these lines, Republicans want Americans to believe that we can no longer afford to do what we need to do as a nation. They hope to deflect attention from the increasing share of total income and wealth going to the richest 1 percent while the jobs and wages of everyone else languish.

Divide and conquer. The classic neoconservative strategy. They blame the poor and the elderly, hoping we won't start adding up how much money has gone to their corporate buddies, who have fed so heavily from the public trough, that they can barely roll their way to the bank. Thank heavens for online banking or they might have to actually break a sweat while robbing from the working class.

Republicans would rather no one notice their campaign to shrink the pie even further with additional tax cuts for the rich -- making the Bush tax cuts permanent, further reducing the estate tax, and allowing the wealthy to shift ever more of their income into capital gains taxed at 15 percent.

Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, have made it easier on the poor dears, by making them all pay a mere 15%, and with deductions and loop holes, wealthy corporations probably won't pay any tax at all. Heck maybe they'll be eligible for refunds.

Just like the Republicans, who Reich says "pit average working Americans against one another, distract attention from the almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the top, and conceal Republican plans to further enlarge and entrench that wealth and power."

The protests in the Midwest will not only be a test of the power of the Kazillionaire Koch brothers' Tea Party movement, but a test of the power of America's working class, many of whom are now barely working.

And the world will be watching.

When Did Caring Become Defined as a Left-Wing Issue? Help Me David Croll.

I rarely miss Bill Maher, though envious that the U.S. actually has progressive commentary, and this week one of his guests (via satellite) was Arianna Huffington.

There has been a lot of chatter about the recent acquisition of the Huffington Post by AOL, and a suggestion that the media could take a leftward swing.

In the discussion of this, Huffington asked when caring about the middle class became a left-wing issue. When caring about the unemployed and underemployed became a left-wing issue. And when concern for a crumbling infrastructure became a left-wing issue.

And she's right. Like myself, she has been a lifelong conservative, though as a Republican she supported Newt Gingrich. He has always been far too right-wing for me. I felt lucky that in Canada we had a Progressive Conservative Party with centrist views. At least until Brian Mulroney came along, but even Mulroney at least pretended to care.

In Huffington's bio it says that she has in recent years moved to the left. But has she? Or was she like me, pushed to the left because she no longer had a viable conservative alternative.

Because to be conservative these days, means having to leave your soul behind.

Senator David Croll

"The poor do not choose poverty. It is at once their affliction and our national shame. The children of the poor (and there are many) are the most helpless victims of all, and find even less hope in a society where welfare systems from the very beginning destroys their chances of a better life."

Those words came from a senate report presented by the late David Croll (1900-1991) entitled "Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty". Tabled in 1971, it prompted Pierre Trudeau to triple the family allowance benefit and later introduce the Child Tax Credit, designed to reach those who needed it the most.

The Canadian Senate has just finished their own study on poverty in Canada, that took 2 1/2 years to complete, but the Harper government barely even gave it a passing glance before spending our tax dollars to tour the country promoting more corporate tax cuts instead.

They braced for a disappointment, but the brush-off was more callous than they anticipated. This week, the government delivered its response to the Senate’s 2009 report, In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. It rejected every one of the report’s 74 recommendations. It ignored the senators’ evidence that Ottawa is spending $150 billion a year on social programs that merely perpetuate poverty. It concluded with these all-too-familiar words: “The best long-term strategy to fight poverty is the sustained employment of Canadians.”

The glimmer of hope that anti-poverty activists, people with disabilities and overburdened charities had nursed since last December when the Senate’s social affairs committee released its comprehensive plan to eradicate poverty, went out.

Senator Croll also compiled a report on aging in Canada, and his recommendations were adopted by the government of the day. But statistics show that there are now more children living in poverty in Canada than seniors. But in Harperland corporations come before both.

I guess when you have a prime minister who once said, “These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

I thought he was just blowing smoke. I mean who is callous enough to brag about being a rare public figure who opposes money going to child poverty? It boggles the mind.

The late senator Croll also claimed that he was not left wing, but growing up in Windsor he empathized with the working class. Later, serving as their mayor, he'd say that he would rather walk with auto workers than drive around with GM executives. And he meant it, spending his entire life in public service, when being in public service meant something.

In their new book Persistent Poverty, Voices from the Margins, Jamie Swift, Brice Balmer and Mira Dineen discuss Senator Croll and the problem of child poverty.

Much has changed since Senator Croll's 1971 report on poverty, but much remains the same. Other nations, notably those in Northern Europe and Scandinavia, have in the intervening years tackled and almost eliminated rates of poverty among seniors, working-age adults, and young families. Canada has had success with seniors, but largely ignored the plight of the disabled, unemployed, working poor, Aboriginal peoples, and children ...

Poverty among children leaves the longest legacy and saps the future potential of societies and economies alike. And it is among children that it becomes devastatingly clear that fighting poverty requires more than strong labour markets alone. (1)

Of course Stephen Harper who once called Canada a 'Northern European Welfare State in the worst sense of the term", wants us to be more like the United States where their child poverty rate is a whopping 22%. And while Canada's situation was improving, the latest corporate greed induced recession "promises to undo that slow and wholly inadequate decline in child poverty."

I don't know about you, but I'd rather emulate a Northern European welfare state, where they have "almost eliminated rates of poverty among seniors, working-age adults, and young families", than the U.S. with a 22% child poverty rate, and a Tea Party holding their president hostage, to make sure he does nothing to change that.

Since the recession we have seen not only unemployment rise, but underemployment, which used to be a term that applied to professional immigrants, and recent university grads, having trouble finding positions in their field.

Now it applies to those who lost good paying jobs with benefits, and now work two or three part-time, minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet. The ranks of the working poor are growing, while our wealthy continue to get wealthier.

And our government would sooner ride around with executives, than walk with the rest of us.

I've never considered myself to be left-wing, but I care about things like that, and feel that in a country with such vast natural resources, no child should have to go hungry if it can be prevented. I don't know where that puts me on the political scale, but it sure no longer defines conservatism.

Next election we have to put eradicating poverty on the table. There is a new grassroots group called Dignity for All, that is striving to bring this back into the Canadian consciousness. They have a list of all federal politicians who have pledged their support. If your MP's name isn't there, call them and ask why. (If they're Conservative, you already know why)

This is something we all need to get behind.

Sources:

1. Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, by Jamie Swift, Brice Balmer and Mira Dineen, Between the Lines Toronto, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897071-73-1, Pg. 15

Can we Afford These "Tax and Spend" Conservatives?

After following George Bush's smoke and mirrors "tax relief", the Conservatives have hiked taxes for working Canadians.

Tax cuts for the rich and voodoo economics.

I've had enough!

Two Little Words and How They Can Pack a Wallop

Part of the success of the Corporate Welfare State has been in their ability to craft messages.

It's more than just Orwellian, where words have the exact opposite meaning, but the use of language that is wrapped in ambiguity. This includes phrases that have become part of corporate-speak or neocon-speak.

"Tax relief" is code for "corporate tax cuts", "choice" is code for "privatization", and "job creators" or "job creation" means a shift from union wages to barely being able to call it a wage.

But the two most dangerous words in corporate-speak are "risk management". Risk management is the process of eliminating safeguards in exchange for a promise to clean up your mess.

A good example of this can be found in Jamie Court's book, How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom. In it, Court reminds us that this is not about anti-capitalism, and that not all corporate executives can be defined by those who often make headlines. Though he wrote his book before the greed induced economic meltdown, making it in some ways rather prophetic.

Court tells the story of General Motors and their "risk management" policy that resulted in a class action lawsuit, costing the company 4.9 billion dollars. They took too much risk and almost got away with it. Except that a leaked memo clearly laid out the terms of their unimaginable policy.

Tests conducted on some GM models had revealed that gas tanks could explode and ignite in the event of an accident. This prompted a study by engineer E.C. Ivey and the resulting memo entitled " Value Analysis of Auto Fuel Fed Fire Related Fatalities". (1)

What the report concluded was that if GM could install a safer fuel tank for $2.40 per car or less, it stood to save money. However, anything more meant it was cheaper to compensate for the deaths. GM calculated it would cost $8.59 per car to protect fuel tanks in crashes, resulting in a net safety "cost" of $6.19 per car to save lives.

You can see the memo here, that was presented in court. The value of a human life was determined by GM to be $ 6.19. That's "risk management". Instead of protecting the public, who no doubt would have gladly paid an extra six bucks, or even nine bucks, not to have their car catch fire, the Corporation decided their fate for them, in terms of dollars and cents.

Risk management came to the forefront in Canada when Stephen Harper inked a deal with George W. Bush and Mexican president Felipe Calderón, at what was dubbed the Jelly Bean Summit. So named for the pm's remarks when asked about the lowering of our safety standards to meet with Mexico's:

“Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean?” asked our Prime Minister with a smirk. “You know, I don’t think so.”

Canada used to have some of the toughest consumer safety laws, while Mexico the lowest, but in order for the trade deal to be finalized, we had to drop to their level, while they were allowed to stay the same. A great deal. "... The Montebello Agreement sets out a plan to coordinate risk assessment and risk management activities across North America."

In other words, standards were lowered, but in the event of an "accident" the corporation had to do their own cleanup. The Listeriosis crisis is a good example of this. Twenty Canadians died because Harper allowed meat processing plants to inspect themselves, and Maple Leaf launched a "we care" ad blitz. That's "risk management".

Corporate-speak also refers to the lowering of regulations as "red tape reduction". It sounds much better than purchase at your own risk, and definitely better than putting a price on human life.

And this brings me to another alarming "risk management" scheme, this time when it comes to war. I posted in December of how the Harper government had gotten themselves mixed up with the Afghan underworld, who had them painted into a corner.

Murray Brewster with the Globe has also recently revealed that the situation was well known by allied forces in Afghanistan, resulting in the U.S. being forced to distance themselves from Canadians.

Canada spent more than $41-million on hired guns in Afghanistan over four years, much of it going to security companies slammed by the U.S. Senate for having warlords on the payroll. Both the Defence and Foreign Affairs departments have employed 11 security contractors in Kabul and Kandahar since 2006, but have kept quiet about the details.

... The records show Foreign Affairs paid nearly $8-million to ArmorGroup Securities Ltd., recently cited in a U.S. Senate investigation as relying on Afghan warlords who in 2007 were engaged in “murder, kidnapping, bribery and anti-Coalition activities.” The company, which has since been taken over by G4S Risk Management, provided security around the Canadian embassy in Kabul and guarded diplomats.

And there you go, the same corporate-speak of "risk management". So I investigated the story a bit and found out that what these agencies do, besides engaging in "murder, kidnapping and bribery", is clean up. This means that rather than having to bother with protecting civilian lives, they go to the families of those caught in the crossfire, and offer money. And we wonder why they want us out of there. Who looks for assistance from a country that is able to put a monetary value on human life?

Which begs the question. What is an Afghan civilian's life worth on the open market? Maybe we'll have to call the Blue Hackle, one of the private firms hired by Stephen Harper, who also not surprisingly, work for Corporate America.

Maybe they have a scale.

Sources:

1. Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom and What You Can do About it, by: Jamie Court, Penguin Books, 2003, ISBN: 1-58542-228-2

Sounds Like U.S. Citizens Also Have to Learn How to Walk Like an Egyptian

An interesting Oped in the New York Times reveals that Americans are also buckling under the weight of the Corporate Welfare State. So maybe they too need to learn how to walk like an Egyptian, and just say they're not going to take it anymore.

As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, I couldn’t help wondering about what is happening to democracy here in the United States. I think it’s on the ropes. We’re in serious danger of becoming a democracy in name only.

While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.

So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them.

And that horrible brother of Rob Ford telling people who care about the welfare of the most vulnerable, to "get a job" shows how callous those with their hands in the pockets of corporations have become.

Isn't it interesting that former western democracies are now looking to Egypt for inspiration?

Bloomberg's is reporting that: Corporate tax cuts could lead to Canadian election. They suggest that Harper is using the same Tea Party slogans of "job creating" tax cuts, but that is one of the biggest myths in modern times.

We are going to walk like Egyptians next election, because we're damn sick of taking second place to corporations, most of which are not even Canadian. We are suffering and told to expect to suffer more. Enough is enough.

What I would like is for everyone to send me a photo of themselves or their groups, families, whatever, walking like Egyptians. You can put hats over your eyes if you want to conceal your identity, though it would be better if you showed your face.

I want to get posters and flyers made and possibly a Facebook fan site if I can figure out how to do it. If Egypt can win their democracy we need to reclaim ours, by walking like an Egyptian.

I'm pumped.

Everyone is Missing the Point on Harper's Prison Plans

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.

Canada's Corporate Welfare State and Harper's Revolving Door of Lobbyists