Beware of Those Bearing Pledges. They Might Just Have to Honour Them

Men should pledge themselves to nothing; for reflection makes a liar of their resolution.  Sophocles

Pledges are nothing new for politicians.  Some are broad in scope, like FDR's pledge to a New Deal for Americans, or President Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, while mostly a treatise on "family values" laced with anti-government claptrap, helped the GOP win the primaries.  It was a pledge.

What a lot of Canadians are no doubt unaware of, is that Stephen Harper's Reform Party helped to draft the Contract.  It's author, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, had been working with  Harper and the gang since 1991, and in fact it was Luntz who told Harper to use hockey terms whenever he could to lure us into a state of complacency.

What really sold Americans on The Contract, was the "folksy" way that it was delivered; and the fact that it was revealed just days before the election, there was little time for anyone to give it a thorough analysis.

During this week's Ontario leadership debate, Conservative Tim Hudak, "pledged" that if he couldn't balance the budget in two years, or create one million jobs in eight years, he would resign.

He delivered this pledge with the same "folksy" sincerity as Newt Gingrich did his,  and again near the end of the campaign.  Will it be enough to fool voters?

We know that Hudak visited America's Far Right to help draft his platform, at a time when the Tea Party was calling for a renewal of The Contract.

Most of the opposition to Hudak's pledge appears to be in the reality of his being able to honour it.  I worry that he will.

Not that it might boost his credibility, but of what it could cost Ontario.

In 1995, Conservative MP Jason Kenney, then head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; criss-crossed the country promoting his anti-tax philosophy.   As part of his tour, he met up with Mike

Harris who signed a pledge not to raise taxes if elected.  Harris also pledged to balance the budget.

To keep the first promise, while lowering taxes for our
wealthiest citizens, Harris implemented and increased user fees, and downloaded many services to municipalities, resulting in property tax increases for most residents.

To keep the second, in a desperate eleventh hour move, he sold a toll highway, giving away a century of needed revenue

In the final week of the campaign, all parties will flood the
airways with ads, further confusing the electorate.  Maybe all they will remember is the goofy grin and the "pledge".

Despite the fact that such contracts would not be legally binding in Canada,  we might still be on the hoof for the settlement.

Tim Hudak Wants to be Like Mitch Daniels. No Wonder. He's Another Mike Harris

Indiana- Louise Cohoon was at home when her 80-year-old mother called in a panic from Terre Haute: The $97 monthly Medicaid payment she relied on to supplement her $600-a-month income had been cut without warning by a private company that had taken over the state's welfare system. (1)

Hold that thought.

The Globe and Mail has recently revealed that after losing the last election, Tim Hudak visited members of the American far-right to help prepare his current platform.

We already knew that his mathematically challenged Million Jobs plan, was created with the help of Republican Benjamin Zycher, king of offensive Tea Party rants, like:

“Now, let me be blunt: Michelle Obama, the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling, is an intellectual lightweight who fancies herself a serious thinker. Just read her Princeton senior thesis, an intermittently coherent stream-of-consciousness pile of leftist jargon, campus pseudo-seriousness, and racial-identity babble. Can there be any doubt that the Princeton administrators accepted it only because of her skin color?”(The National Review, August 17, 2009)

or

“And so I have a question for my legal-beagle colleagues: Are whites not entitled to equivalent treatment under the 14th Amendment? If so, does that mean that education about the history of slavery would become illegal, as it would depict whites negatively? Would it be illegal to point out that most modern-day terrorist acts are perpetrated by Muslims? Anything about black crime, illegal immigration by Hispanics, ad infinitum? Can air brushing of photos be far behind?”(National Review, April 24, 2006)

That's why the Tea Party loves him, but why Tim Hudak? Because he is with the American Enterprise Institute, and that's always been enough for Canada's Neoconservatives, but more on that later.

Tim Hudak claims that he wants to model Ontario after Indiana under former governor, Mitch Daniels, the man who supposedly saved his state from rack and ruin.

Before he arrived, Indiana had a deficit and after he left, a surplus. Sounds good, right? That's what was said about Mike Harris, except that he only left us with more debt and a 5.6 billion deficit. The only reason Harris looked good on paper was because of increased U.S. exports as a result of NAFTA and a devalued Canadian dollar.

To help balance the books, Mitch Daniels leased the Indiana toll road through 2081, which meant a short term gain but seventy-five years of lost revenue.

Mike Harris leased Ontario's toll road for 100 years, and it sickens me when I think of the money Ontarians have lost. But like Daniels, Harris needed to balance the books before an upcoming election, and a huge lump sum payment did just that.

According to the Washington Post:

“I think that it’s going to turn out to be a bit of smoke and mirrors for Indiana over the longer haul. I feel like he’s been very skilled at selling Hoosiers -- and quite frankly the country -- a bill of goods, and it’s really disappointing,” said Betty Cockrum, the president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Indiana who clashed with Daniels in 2011 after he signed a law cutting off public funds to the organization because it provides abortions.

Cockrum, who ran the state budget for former Democratic Gov. Frank O’Bannon, said Daniels relied on tricks to make the state’s books look good just like any other governor, but he rarely gets called on it because of his national reputation.

And as it turned out she was right. Daniels lost track of $556 million in tax money, borrowed $2 billion to shore up Indiana's bankrupt unemployment insurance fund and took billions in federal relief money, while denouncing the practice. He also left many of his key projects unfunded.

But the rich got richer and his friends a bit friendlier. Further to the story of the 80-year-old woman who lost her Medicaid:

Cohoon's mother, now suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was one of thousands of Indiana residents who abruptly and erroneously lost their welfare, Medicaid or food stamp benefits after Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels privatized the state's public assistance program — the result of an efficiency plan that went awry from the very beginning, the state now admits.

Though the $1.37-billion project proved disastrous for many of the state's poor, elderly and disabled, it was a financial bonanza for a handful of firms with ties to Daniels and his political allies, which landed state contracts worth millions.(2)

Harris also made a complete mess of things when his government tried to privatize many aspects of our welfare system. It ended up costing taxpayers 4 to 1, what it would have cost had they just left well enough alone.

Hudak wants to privatize Ontario's public service, with the same goal in mind. More money in the pockets of those already having trouble keeping their pants up.

If It's Good Enough For Stephen Harper

In the Globe abd Mail article, they list the people and institutions that Hudak visited during his Tea Party romp, most with affilation to the Harper government.

Grover Norquist - Jason Kenney headed up the Canadian Taxpayers Fedeartion, the Canadian spin-off of Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.

Cato Institute - Part of the network of think tanks that helped to define the Reform movement and boost the fortunes of Stephen Harper.

Heritage Foundation - Worked with Stephen Harper and the National Citizens Coalition. The late Paul Weyrich, when he headed up the HF, helped Stephen Harper in 2006, by instructing the American Right not to talk to Canadian reporters, for fear they would scare off Canadian voters.

David Frum - Not only a former speechwriter of George W. Bush, but was activly involved with the Unite the Right campaign's hostile takeover of Canada's legitimate Progressive Conservatives. He also introduced Stephen Harper to Rupert Murdoch, enabling him to bring his version of Fox News to Canada. His sister, Linda, is one of Harper's senators.

American Enterprise Institute - has also placed members in the Harper Government, including Alykhan Velshi .

So as Canadians sleepwalk toward the next federal election, no doubt unaware of just how much the American far-right has taken over our country, Ontarians need to lead way.

Mike Harris allowed them to write his Common Sense Revolution and now Hudak has allowed them to write his Million Jobs Plan. We need to say enough is enough. The Tea Party in the United States is slowly losing momentum. We have to stop ours before it destroys us, in the same way that they have destroyed politics in the United States.

Oh and by the way, Mitch Daniels' job creation plan? Wrought with mathematical errors and mostly just made up stuff.

Sources:

1.Indiana a Changed State After Mitch Daliel's 8 Years, Washington Post, January 2, 2013

2. Indiana's bumpy road to privatization,Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2011

Rick Perry Steals Stockwell Day's "Flat Tax" idea, who Stole it From the CTF, Who Stole it From ....

In 2006, Time magazine raised the alarm over Stephen Harper's control of the media, which included his unprecedented secrecy of what goes on in cabinet meetings.

However, if you want some idea of what they might sound like, watch the Republican debates and listen to their candidates. They all speak the same language.

This week Rick Perry is touting the "flat tax" as an innovative way to restructure the tax system, and it will be even flatter than Herman Cain's 9-9-9. The only thing flatter will be their heads.

This is not a new idea but one that has been flogged for decades. "Reduce government so you can drown it in a bathtub", Grover Norquist, and his Americans For Tax Reform, have been promoting this for twenty-five years.

Canadian Kevin Avram, attended a conference in Austin, Texas where he met a representative of the “Association of Concerned Taxpayers”, then headed up by Norquist. He came home and created the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, once headed up by Jason Kenney.

In 1998, the CTF invited Stockwell Day, then head of the Alberta Treasury, to a briefing on how this tax plan to make the wealthy even wealthier, works.

Mike Harris and Preston Manning wrote a paper Building Prosperity in a Canada Strong and Free, in which they not only tout the "flat tax" but also want to end Capital gains taxes.

When Stephen Harper spoke at the Frontier Institute, another vehicle of the corporate sector, there were protests against the Institutes policies, including, yes, the "flat tax". He snuck out the back door, his Modus Operandi.

Jim Flaherty also stated that once the books are balanced (or he engages in a bit more creative bookkeeping), he is going to "flatten" taxes.

All of these neocons sound like parrots on crack. "Perry wants a flat tax", "Flaherty wants a flat tax", "Harper wants a flat tax", "Norquist wants a flat tax", Tea Party wants a flat tax" ...."

As Joe Holley reminds us:

Perry is hoping to capitalize on universal frustration with the current system, draw attention away from Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 flat tax proposal and create a clear distinction between himself and Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has been critical of a flat-tax system in the past, arguing that a tax structure that was too flat would hurt the middle class.

A flat tax would indeed be more regressive than the current complicated system. It would reduce the percentage that high-income earners pay, while increasing the burden on lower-income groups. That’s fine with some conservatives, who believe that wealthier earners shouldn’t be shouldering so much of the tax burden.

That's it in a nutshell. Creating a tax system that further widens the gap between rich and poor. Just what we need.

The Canadian Manifesto 5: The Exploitation of Religion

"... the seemingly squeaky clean but morally corrupt Ralph Reed." Sarah Posner (1)

In the movie Casino Jack, based on the life of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, we are introduced to some of the players in the massive corruption scandal, that took down two Republican senators, and nine high profile lobbyists.

One character in the movie was Ralph Reed, played by Christian Campbell, who assures Abramoff that he is ready to play his part in the casino fraud.

For an enormous fee, 'Casino Jack' set out to destroy the gambling operation of a competing tribe, for his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

This was not the first time that Abramoff had used questionable tactics for this client, but he couldn't have done it without the help of the "squeaky clean" and "morally corrupt" Ralph Reed, then head of The Christian Coalition.

In 1999, the Choctaw needed to defeat a bill in the Alabama State Legislature that would allow casino-style games on dog racing tracks, resulting in competition for their casino business. It was at about this time that Reed had contacted his old friend Abramoff, asking for his help in establishing his new business, Century Strategies.

"Hey, now that I’m done with electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts." (Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff, via email, November 12, 1998)

When asked what he could do to assist with this situation, Reed said that he could access "3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households" in Alabama, as well as "the Alabama Christian Coalition, the Alabama Family Alliance, the Alabama Eagle Forum, [and] the Christian Family Association." And he would do this for a retainer of $20,000 a month.

Souls don't come cheap.  Just ask the devil.

The firm that Abramoff was then with, Preston Gates, hired Reed as a subcontractor, and Abramoff told Reed to "get me invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks asap."

"By May 10, 1999, the Choctaw had paid $1.3 million to Reed via Preston Gates, for various grassroots activities relating to the dog-track bill, as well as opposing an Alabama state lottery." (2) Eventually they broke their business ties with Preston Gates, and began dealing directly with Abramoff, using Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform as a conduit.  (Norquist had done work for them in the past)

However, what Abramoff was hoping to pull off this time, was much bigger and riskier than dog tracks and state lotteries.

In October 2001, Abramoff began to suggest to the Louisiana Coushatta that the Texas legislature was "one vote away" from legalizing certain forms of gambling in Texas. The Alabama Coushatta - a related but competing tribe to the Louisiana Coushatta - also sought to open a casino in eastern Texas in 2001. Abramoff told the Louisiana Coushatta that if the Tigua succeeded in their court case, then Texas would be forced to allow the Alabama Coushatta to open their casino. Many of the Coushatta's casino customers traveled over the border from eastern Texas to Louisiana, so this could pose a grave threat to their livelihood.  (2)

Abramoff then suggested to the Choctaw that they should support Christian evangelical conservatives, who were prepared to oppose gaming expansion in Texas, and Reed was again on the payroll.  "Reed worked with Houston pastors and church congregations to make demands on the state government to prevent the casinos from opening." (2)

According to the director of the movie, Alex Gibney, in response to Reed suggesting that the work he did for Abramoff was "outstanding" and something he was "proud of":

Let's say it plain: Ralph Reed is a fraud ... there was probably nothing illegal about what Reed did. But, he was engaged in a kind of spiritual fraud: telling his supporters that he was opposed to gambling when, in fact, gambling was making him rich. (3)

Though Reed still denies that he knew that the millions of dollars paid him came from casino profits, there are numerous email exchanges that prove otherwise.  And if  that deception isn't bad enough, he also implied that he was "fully investigated by John McCain's Senate Committee on Indian Affairs", and cleared.  However, according to Gibney:

Reed correctly notes that he has never been charged with a crime and implies that he had been fully investigated by John McCain's Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. But the implication is deceptive. According to one very famous, disgraced former lobbyist, Reed was supposed to have been called before McCain's committee but Karl Rove intervened and pressured McCain not to call Reed.  To Reed, Abramoff committed the unpardonable sin of getting caught, and that's why Reed prays for him. Well, Abramoff did his time and now seems to be willing to speak the truth. Reed should pray for himself. (3)

Touché!

Leo Strauss Would Have Been Proud

In her book: Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shadia Drury of the University of Calgary, reveals that Strauss suggested that the exploiting of religion by the "right thinking elite" was necessary.

The key is to use the most artful and most reliable techniques that history has made available. And in Strauss's view, nothing has ever proved to be more effective than the influence of religion. (4)

Karl Marx called religion the "opium of the people", but to Ralph Reed and most other "elite"  in the movement, it is pure gold.

Religion can be a good thing, when it inspires, but can be lethal when it incites.

There is no doubt that religion often exerts a wholesome influence on human conduct. And it may even serve as a small protection against tyranny and the abuse of power because persons committed to the moral life may prefer to risk their lives than to collaborate with wicked schemes. But it is also the case that religious fervor often turns political and even militant. Religious groups are not always satisfied with the religious freedom that liberal society affords them. They are not content to gather together, worship, sing, play, and educate their children as they see fit. They are interested in imposing their vision of private morality on the rest of society. What they want is not freedom of religion, but conformity to their religious views. (4)

Drury continues:

Their current mood is overtly political if not altogether militant. The Christian Coalition, founded by Pat Robertson and then led by his protégé Ralph Reed, is a case in point. Its "leadership school" does not waste much time on prayer, but on the political process and how best to manipulate it. Grassroots leaders in hundreds of counties in every state are instructed in the modern art of quick communication—phone, fax, and modem. These leaders are trained to mobilize their troops into rapid-response networks intended to "blitz" or bombard congressmen with the values of the coalition. (4)

It is said that 26 Republican presidential hopefuls have sought out Reed for advice, with chequebook in hand, of course.  And why not?

When [Pat] Robertson's campaign flamed out, political analysts served up a new round of obituaries for the religious right, but once again, the reports of its death proved premature. Even as Robertson nursed a wounded ego, he was hatching his organizational revenge, hiring a fresh-faced young doctoral student named Ralph Reed to build a grass-roots evangelical network, focusing first on the takeover of school boards and town councils before ultimately commandeering the machinery of the Republican National Committee itself. That institutional coup took place almost entirely beneath the media's radar, and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress and would later play a major role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, not once but twice. (5) 

Their political goals include returning prayer to schools, recriminalizing abortion, stripping known homosexuals of their civil rights, teaching creationism in the schools, and censoring libraries and the press, all included in Reed's  "contract with the American family", that was released right after Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America".

American conservatives such as William Buckley and William Bennett fool themselves in thinking that the Christian right is simply interested in safe streets, good schools, strong families, nonintrusive government, and a chummy Communitarian atmosphere .... They are very much interested in governmental interference to uphold and enforce their own values and preferences, not only in matters pertaining to public morality, but in private morality as well. But their political tactics call their ethics into question. For example, Ralph Reed has defended the "stealth campaigns" of Christian Coalition candidates who have disguised their political agenda by campaigning on issues such as crime or taxes, but have revealed once in office that their real interests are in gay rights, abortion, and creationism.

Reed justifies such deception as a type of "guerrilla warfare." He flatters himself into thinking that his stealth campaigns are a matter of using the tactics of a guerrilla war against Satan. Those who paint their political opponents as the forces of evil and regard themselves as the defenders of good, are inclined to justify any means as necessary to defeat their opponents. The urgency of vanquishing the satanic forces, and the sheer immensity of the task, blinds them to the fact that such mendacious and duplicitous conduct is a blatant disregard of Christian virtue. (4)

Touché again!

Ralph Reed in the Great White North

On May 5, 1996; the Albion Monitor reported on a group of Canadians, who had made the trek to Washington in the fall of 1995, to attend a conference of The Christian Coalition.  Their visit resulted in the creation of the Canadian Christian Coalition, whose board members included Reform Party members, Ted and Link Byfield, and our own Jason Kenney.

... ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition ... The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm. In an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun, Spratt insisted (somewhat oxymoronically) "We have no ties with our U.S. counterpart." However, according to news reports, The Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall to attend a major convention of the U.S. organization.

"Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network). ...While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better. (6)

Touché, touché. touché, dammit!

The B.C. branch was responsible for a ban on Planned Parenthood in Surrey.  Stephen Harper has since expanded that, by cancelling all funding for PP, domestic and international.  The Tea Party gang have also been instrumental in the organization's demise in the U.S.

We beat them.  Yeah for us. (sigh)

However, while Jason Kenney may have been among the first to transport Ralph Reed's "faith for profit and righteous indignation" to Canada, he was by no means the last.  Two members of Stockwell Day's team, Brian Rushfeldt and Roy Beyer ("Families for Day"), visited Reed to solicit his help in getting Day elected as Alliance leader in 2000.

Both men were graduates of Charles McVety's Canadian Christian College.

In 2005, McVety invited Reed to speak at that institution, making sure that his protégé was in attendance: Jim Flaherty.

His very attentive listeners were challenged by Reed to “get on your work boots and tennis shoes and go out there like it all depends on you, pray like it all depends on God and let’s usher in the greatest victory in the history of this country.” (7)

Mcvety had already worked with Flaherty in his bid for leadership of the Ontario conservatives, but ironically, Flaherty was considered to be too right wing.  It was probably just the company he kept.

A Christian Manifesto Revisited

Francis Schaeffer, whose book A Christian Manifesto became the blueprint for the Religious Right, apparently regretted his involvement with the movement that he grew to detest.  According to his son, Francis Jr. (Frank), in his book Crazy for God:

Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and others would later use their power in ways that would have made my father throw up. Dad could hardly have imagined how they would help facilitate the instantly corrupted power-crazy new generation of evangelical public figures like Ralph Reed, who took money from the casino industry while allegedly playing both sides against the middle in events related to the Abramoff Washington lobbyist scandal.

... Long before Ralph Reed and his ilk came on the scene, Dad got sick of "these idiots," as he often called people like [James] Dobson in private. They were "plastic," Dad said, and "power-hungry They were "Way too right-wing, really nuts!" and "They're using our issue to build their empires." (9)

Rick Salutin was fired as a columnist for the Globe and Mail, because he reminded Canadians of Harper's links to Leo Strauss.  His only error in the column was calling him the "last" Straussian.  Those guys breed like rabbits.

In March of 1995, former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, was invited to speak to the editorial board of the Washington Post.  Newt Gingrich had been singing Manning's praises with the American media, as an important factor in his 1994 election victory.

Naturally they wanted to meet the Canadian neocon guru.

The late Dalton Camp, wrote a column about the visit, under the heading: Mr. Manning Goes to Washington.

"The Reform agenda includes a host of issues with American analogs—opposition to abortion rights, gun control and gay rights"—and lower taxes, less government, fewer rights for consumers, and "family values."

This does remind me once again of Senator James M. Inhofe* (R. Oklahoma), who has said he campaigned last fall, and won, on "God, gays, and guns."** No doubt Preston could arrange through Newt to meet with Inhofe, who is a great admirer of Jesse Helms who is a good friend of Al D'Amato who knows Dick Armey who needs no introduction to Ralph Reed of The Christian Coalition warmly supported by Pat Buchanan who knows Pat Robertson.

Knowing our man Manning has direct access to those guys makes you feel warm all over, doesn't it? (9)

A Taxing Proposal Where a "Buck is a Buck"

In 1962, then prime minister, John Diefenbaker, established a Royal Commission on Taxation, and appointed a Bay Street accountant, Kenneth Carter, to head it up. What Carter discovered was that under the existing system the poor paid more than their fair share, while the wealthy avoided taxes through various loopholes.

Carter and the rest of the commissioners proposed a complete overhaul with a view to fairness. And if the recommendations had been implemented, 50% of taxpayers would have their taxes reduced by more than 15%; 10% would face increased tax liabilities of more than 15%, and the remaining taxpayers would notice little change. The wealthy, paying more taxes, would nevertheless share in the benefits of an efficient taxation system*.

After all, Carter said, "a buck is a buck".

In 1969, a White Paper was released proposing the necessary changes, and the opposition was almost immediate, especially from oil and mining companies, as well as assorted business groups. As a result, while Pierre Trudeau implemented a few exemptions and incentives, the corporate sector won.

And because Trudeau would even consider going after them, this pulled many corporations away from the Liberals, as "lower taxes", not "fairer taxes" became the new battle cry.

This paralleled a similar pattern in the United States, giving birth to the neoconservative movement.

For several years, Canadian governments were hammered with lists of demands, until the corporate world decided to start their own party, and approached one of their own, Preston Manning, whose father had been the best friend that the American oil and gas industry ever had. And what Manning created with the help of his lieutenant and policy chief Stephen Harper, was a top down party, posing as populism.

They shored up a noisy base and kept them loyal with the right rhetoric: guns, crime, 'commies", gays back in the closet, women in their place .... They didn't even have to believe it, they just had to sell it.

And it worked.

The wealthy didn't have to sell their case to us, and risk boycotts of products. They had this noisy base to attack the poor as lazy and greedy, always wanting to feed from the "public trough".

They started the Fraser Institute, the National Citizens Coalition and several other "think tanks" to push through reports and feed the media with nonsense.

Meanwhile, the rich kept getting richer and the poor kept getting poorer.

Janet Bagnell wrote recently for the Montreal Gazette: Income inequality is reaching dangerous proportions

In 2008, the top-earning one per cent of Americans collected 24 per cent of the national income. The last time income was distributed that unequally in America was 1929. Tax rates play a critical role in allowing the wealthy to keep their money ... In the 1920s in the U.S., when a small, superrich coterie held sway over government, the top marginal tax rate was just 24 per cent. After the convulsions of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 raised the top rate to 79 per cent, part of a largely successful effort to create a more equal society. With the advent in 1980 of Ronald Reagan, the top rate dropped back down to 28 per cent, an unmistakable sign that the New Deal was over.

And as Stephen Harper is suggesting that public healthcare is too expensive to maintain, Jim McQuail suggests that our costs aren't too high, but our problem is under-taxation.

Maintaining social programs through deficit financing, so long as the rules invite the rich elite to evade taxation, means that the programs we receive today will be paid for by tomorrow’s working people. Sustainability and social equity require that government tax the rich, not defer collecting the necessary revenue indefinitely (and tax working people to pay the interest on the public debt).

Governments should raise enough money to maintain and expand social spending, at least across the business cycle, by taxing it where it lies – in the pockets of rich people and corporations. We do not have a problem of over-spending – our health care and education systems are not over-priced. Our problem is under-taxation.

And the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, gives us a glimpse of what a no-tax system really means. We have to be careful what we wish for.

When you think about taxes, do you think about the $10,000 having a baby could cost if you lived in the U.S. and didn't have health insurance? Do you think about an education system that allows even the children of poor families to become doctors, teachers, or engineers? Government inspectors who make sure highway overpasses are repaired before they fall down, that meat packing plants don't poison their customers, that a city's water is safe to drink?

They say you have to hit bottom before you can bounce back, and when I look at the Tea Party in the U.S. I see that as hitting bottom. That country has had a psychotic break, but will they continue the craziness or try a little therapy?

And in a case of history repeating itself, just as the oil and gas sector helped to kill the Carter Report. they are now serving Texas Tea. Yep. They are helping to fund the Tea Party anti-tax, anti-sanity movement.

The Tea Party movement, poised to help shift the U.S. legislature to the right and stymie President Obama's green agenda, has financial and organizational ties to Koch Industries, one of America's biggest processors of Alberta oil sands crude.

And now we have Stephen Harper boasting that once he's completed his fifty billion dollar corporate tax cuts, Canada will have the lowest (corporate) tax rate in the world.

Think about what that really means.

*Recommended reading: Behind Closed Doors: How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System, By Linda McQuaig, Viking Press, 1987, ISBN: 0-670-81578-7

Stephen Harper Looks Down on the Poor While Looking up to Those Who Helped to Make Them Poor

“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 (1)

We have already established that the entire platform of Stephen Harper has come from the American Republicans and their Religious Right. He left nothing to chance. He took their ideas and replicated them here, right down to Fox News. Safe given their unwarranted success, but stupid given their insanity.

In a piece entitled Luntz of Luck With Newt, Dalton Camp discussed Preston Manning's appearance on an American program with Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz in 1995.

Also present as interlocutor, and lending a little verisimilitude, was Frank Luntz, president of Luntz Research, who, according to Higgins [the host], was very much involved" in helping the Reform Party in its recent Canadian electoral success in 1993. Luntz is something of an overachiever in the polling and consulting business; his clients have included not only Gingrich and Manning, but also Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

As made clear in a recent magazine piece, Luntz is a neo-conservative of Gingrichian proportions. He favours the immediate elimination of public funding for the arts, the humanities, and the Public Broadcasting Service. Before eliminating farm subsidies, Luntz would prefer them to be included in a wider range of cuts. "If everyone is giving up something at the same time, it's okay," he is quoted saying. "But if we make the farmers go first, we're going to get killed in the farm community. We've all got to go together." (2)

And while Harper prefers an incremental approach, so as not to "spook the electorate", there's no argument that Frank Luntz and his Republican pals are running the show. "elimination of public funding for the arts, the humanities, and the Public Broadcasting Service...". And Luntz was just getting started.

Grover Norquist, another Republican hack who speaks for corporate America, was behind Jason Kenney's Canadian Taxpayers Federation. He wants government [regulation] to be reduced to the extent that it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They simply want to eliminate taxes for the rich and transfer them to the poor, believing that if the rich can get as rich as humanly possible, they will be sure to throw a few crumbs to the less fortunate. Just don't touch their stuff, because Stockwell Day is building American style prisons, and praying he can keep them filled.

Which brings us to the Harper government's refusal to address poverty in this country, ignoring every single recommendation of a senate committee.

There is ample evidence that far too many Canadians are falling through the cracks of existing income support and housing programs; yet Harper’s government evidently prefers not to think about new ways to help the 3.4 million Canadians the report identified as still living in poverty. Worse still, the Senate report concluded that, far from lifting people out of poverty, many of our existing programs are so badly designed that they hold people down.

Fighting poverty ought not to be a partisan issue. Indeed, the Senate subcommittee was notable for its bipartisanship, with Art Eggleton, a Liberal, as chair, and Hugh Segal, a Conservative, as vice-chair. That makes it doubly disheartening that Harper’s government has ignored the committee’s call for a comprehensive anti-poverty plan. (3)

And Hugh Segal, the PC Party sellout, was only concerned that Harper and his caucus might say something stupid, so advised that they "temper their message of austerity with compassion." Words that work.

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. (4)

But if you believe that Stephen Harper is concerned about the state of economy, and that the only reason for his cutbacks and callous disregard for human suffering, is for the greater economic good, guess again.

This man has given more gifts to the corporate sector than Brian Mulroney or George Bush ever thought of, and has also given more gifts to himself in an ever increasing commitment to his narcissism.

Doug Draper asks "where is the public outcry" over this self-promotion orgy, which included 50 million dollars for bloody signs?

Those signs posted across the Canadian landscape – a few of them highlighted here – make up a good chunk of a record $130 million Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives spent on advertising themselves in the 2009/2010 fiscal year ending this past March, according to a wave of recent stories in The Globe and Mail and other mainstream media. And God, or maybe only Harper, knows how much more of our money will be spent on federal government ads in this 2010/2011 fiscal year with an election looming sometime in the not-to-distant future. (5)

He's right to ask: Where is the public outcry?

And while the Harper government ignores the poor, Tony Clement spends 50 million dollars of our money to help a buddy flip a property.

Where is the public outcry?

The scandalous spending during the G-20 weekend from hell included $ 85,000.00 at a mini bar, while Canadian children go to bed hungry.

Where is the public outcry?

More than $ 100,000 to drain a quarry so the RCMP have a place to sleep (??????)

Where is the public outcry?

Image consultants and first class travel, while the rest of us are told to fend for ourselves.

In September of 2007, Michael Ignatieff visited Peterborough to present a speech. His topic was the desperate need in Canada to fight child poverty.

He didn't criticize the city's MP, Dean Del Mastro. In fact he never mentioned him at all. And yet Del Mastro saw fit to write a letter to the Peterborough Examiner.

"Doesn’t it warm your heart when a wealthy person of extreme privilege drops by to speak about how he wants to tackle child poverty! Such was the case when we were graced by the presence of long-time U.S. resident, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff." (6)

Despite the fact that Mr. Ignatieff only taught at Harvard for five years, and most of his professional career was in Great Britain, where he not only taught at Oxford and Cambridge but worked as a journalist for the BBC. And the notion of him being a "wealthy person of extreme privilege", is rich coming from a man who is known not only for driving the country's biggest cars, but who lives very well on the taxpayer dime.

But seeing as how Mr. Ignatieff was there speaking of child poverty, you might expect Del Mastro to defend his party's position or offer alternative wisdom on the subject.

But nope! Nothing but a partisan rant.

Michael Ignatieff has seen suffering. He's covered wars in places like Kosovo and Sarajevo. He visited Kurdistan after the genocide and travelled to Rwanda with Boutros Boutros-Ghali to examine the skeletal remains of a population. He didn't have to. He could have just enjoyed his "extreme privilege".

But as a man who has dedicated his life to human rights issues, he saw suffering in his own country and wanted to gain support for an initiative to help eradicate it. He deliberately made it non-partisan.

But if Dean Del Mastro, Stephen Harper and the rest of this party, can choose to spend our money on themselves and their corporate buddies, and deny help to those who really need it, I'd like to know one thing:

Where is the public outcry?

Sources:

1. The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997

2. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 186

3. PM prefers to look away, The Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

4. Not even a crumb from Harper, By Carol Goar, Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

5. Canada’s Federal Government Spends Record Amount of Our Money Marketing Itself. Where Is The Cry From The Public? Niagra at Large, October 1, 2010

6. Letter to the Editor, Dean Del Mastro, Peterborough Examiner, September 26, 2007

Stockwell Day: Flat Head, Flat Tax, Flat Out Wrong

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

The image to the left is of Stockwell Day, two years before he and Jason Kenney decided they would like to make him prime minister, to push a new constitution based on the Old Testament.

It is taken at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the group Jason Kenney left when he decided to run for the Reform Party, to help carry out the mandate of the Canadian Christian Coalition, and infiltrate all levels of government.

Mark Milke took his job but is now with the Frontier Centre, another prop for the Harper government.

These guys move in and out of these so called "non-partisan", "non-profit" backdrops so often, that they are never quite sure who will be giving them a pay cheque in any given week. Could be the Fraser Institute. Could be the Frontier Centre. Could be the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. Or it could even be Stephen Harper, which means us.

But back to the flat tax.

You can't read a bloody bio of Stockwell Day without someone singing his praises over coming up with this wonderful system of taxation. But if you read the caption under the photo upper right, it states. "Marke Milke meets with then Alberta Treasurer Stockwell Day to present a single rate tax proposal ... The proposal was adopted almost verbatim."

Not his. But is it Milke's? Nope. Not his either.

We have to go back to the history of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

It was the brainchild of Kevin Avram, after attending a conference in Austin, Texas where he met a representative of the “Association of Concerned Taxpayers” which was then headed up by Grover Norquist. The association was "established to promote a flat income tax..." And if you want to know who benefits by it, they get a lot of their funding from Exxon.

In 2005, Milkes wrote an article on the flat tax, something he's still flogging. In it he mentions:

Think back 20 years. Any suggestion that eastern and central Europe were desirable economic models came only from Western socialists, university professors and others with an eternal grudge against free markets. What a difference perestroika, McDonald's in Moscow, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact makes. "New Europe" moved on, saw the future, and decided not to include in it tax regimes that punish wealth creation. The region is now something of a darling for tax reformers.

In January, Romania scrapped its multiple-bracket system with marginal rates as high as 40% for a single 16% tax rate on personal and business income. Romania, once home to one of the most repressive communist regimes, was country number nine to jump on the flat-tax express. Existing riders include Estonia (first, in 1994), and Georgia (also in January), Latvia, Lithuania (wages and salaries only), Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. But it's not just Europe. Alberta added itself to this list when it switched to a single rate of provincial income tax in 2001. (1)

Fast forward to 2009:

Over the last decade, Eastern European countries became darlings of the far right by instituting free-market economic policies designed to break convincingly from their Communist past. The so-called Baltic Tigers—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—garnered worldwide plaudits for a number of free-market reforms, led by the imposition of a flat-rate income tax, especially from the American right. "The flat tax is making a comeback," trumpeted the conservative National Review. The three nations are "leading a global tax reform revolution," said the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

... Too bad for them that it hasn't worked out. Latvia, which has a flat tax of 25 percent, and Lithuania and Estonia, which have 21 percent tax rates, are all in deep economic trouble. They all have huge government budget deficits, a sign that they took in too little in tax revenue to cover their costs, primarily state expenditures to provide a generous welfare state. Conservatives might argue that they didn't slash welfare benefits enough, but there is no dispute that the flat tax didn't provide the expected revenue. (2)

That's why the neocons love this system, because it gives them an excuse to "slash welfare benefits" .... again. And I don't mean corporate welfare ... bite your tongue (or a neocon will do it for you). Just the country's most vulnerable.

And if you still think there's a very slim chance that it might work, the tea baggers have added it to their battle cry.

So the biggest dream of any of these nut job Tea Party folks is a flat tax, of about 15%. That's the number I see most often as being a "fair" tax. So this idea is that everyone, no matter what they make (except those below the poverty line I assume) pays x% for my purposes I will use 15%.

... But where this "brilliant" idea falls flat on it's face is when you realize what is left over and what can be afforded with it. It turns out that this "fair and flat" tax actually turns out to be regressive, not in that it puts the burden of funding the government on the poor but those hurt most by it, are the lower income. So poor people have less money then wealthy people, this is obvious. Though they are not rich, they still have to live: buy food, pay for electricity and phone, pay for medical bills, and yes taxes.

Because these less fortunate people make less money, a greater percentage of there income goes towards those necessities. So what this means is that if the poor are paying the same as the rich, the hit being taken by them is still much greater then it is for the wealthy .. Now I know, these people are entitled to their wealth they worked hard... BLAH BLAH BLAH. But lets remember here so did the poor man, and yet they are the ones who suffer from taxes. The rich are the ones who most complain about taxes and yet many of them do not even pay. They shelter it in Swiss and Cayman bank accounts. (3)

The flat tax is a bad idea. But even if it were a good idea, the next time someone credits Stockwell Day with this initiative, set them straight. Or do what I do and scream.

Sources:

1. New Europe's New Flat Taxes, By Mark Milke's , Financial Post, March 11, 2005

2. The Flat Tax Is Flat-Lining: The meltdown of Baltic countries shows what a bad idea this gimmick always was, By Charles P. Wallace, The Big Money, March 31, 2009

3. Why the Flat Tax is not so Flat, By Jake Nieman, Open Salon, April 21, 2010

Jason Kenney, Reformers and Republicans Continued

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In 1993, the Reform Party had it's first big electoral success, winning 52 seats, all but one from the West, including the seat of Stephen Harper, with the help of a $50,000.00 campaign against his opponent and former boss, Jim Hawkes, paid for by the National Citizens Coalition.

The Reformers ran on a platform of anti-government, anti-Ottawa.

Having a clear critical dynamic, focused on the corrupt Ottawa establishment, was of the first importance to Reform's recent success. In this, as in so many other ways, this party has a similar focus to the United States Republican Party in its present mood ... Part of its appeal is to anti-Quebecois sentiment "let Quebec either secede", Reform says in effect, "or, preferably, stay in Canada but without any of the special privileges it seeks." Outside Quebec this message is extremely popular. It might be noted that Reform did not bother to run candidates in Quebec. (1)

Other policies that appealed to many in the West included:

- Giving over to the private sector as many functions as possible (including Petro Canada and Canada Post, for example). Government would manage any remaining publicly-funded enterprises, but not operate them. It would cut at least 25 per cent off subsidies to Crown corporations like the CBC.

- The government should have no role in job-creation apart from clearing obstacles for the private sector.

- "The treatment of every motion in most of our legislatures and Parliaments as confidence motions

- Giving voters the right to recall their MP if the MP fails to represent their views adequately. "So you don't trust politicians?", Manning asked during the campaign. "Here is our money-back guarantee: we'll put the power in your hands to fire your elected MP." Recall is the Party's single most popular policy plank, according to its direct-mail surveys, and certainly its most constitutionally radical, and one may expect it to be implemented should Reform win the next Canadian elections. As the Party says in its advertising literature, "Recall will obligate MPs to listen to their constituents between elections." (This one was soon abandoned when his own party wanted to recall him)

- Cancelling government subsidies for special-interest groups.

- Pulling the government out of unemployment insurance, and letting employers and employees fund it themselves. This policy reflects that same concern shown by the Republicans for making people more responsible for themselves.

- In general, allowing each person to be the major provider of his or her own basic needs, including most social services and medicare. This means, in effect, that more social services should be user-pay, and that relatives and private charities should bear more of the welfare burden.

- Slashing immigration.

- Not giving any government seal of approval to homosexuals, abortion-on-demand, and political correctness generally. "Reform", Manning told one rally, "refuses, and continues to refuse, to be intimidated by the extremists of political correctness".

- Abolish the policy of official bilingualism. (1)

Throughout the campaign, which became increasingly an attack on Ottawa and the federal government, often making them just one Montana Freeman away from a stand-off, there were several people south of the border who were paying attention, including Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

"Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.'I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' (2)

And using the techniques and talking points honed by Manning and the Reformers, Gingrich's team created their "Contract with America".

It is thus not difficult to understand why the Republicans, in the run-up to the mid-term elections of last November, made such a point of dissociating themselves from Washington and identifying instead with popular sentiment on such issues. The dividends of defining Washington as the source of false values are seen in the results of the elections, which gave the Republicans control of both the House and the Senate.

In the months preceding these elections, the House Republican leadership under the direction of Newt Gingrich developed their "Contract with America", a promise to introduce, in the first ninety days of a Republican-dominated House and Senate, a set of ten bills based on their careful reading of what a majority of Americans were signalling they wanted. (1)

And several of these bills were adopted right from Manning's play book, including: a "Personal Responsibility Act", drastic cuts to social programs and privatization of several services. And two men who helped to draft this "contract" were Grover Norquist and Frank Luntz.

Norquist, of course is the anti-tax guru who inspired the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Luntz is the Republican pollster who told Stephen Harper that the best way to get a majority was to stay on message about tax cuts and accountability, and talk hockey every chance he got.

"By February 1994, many Republicans ... were upbeat about their chances of doing well in the mid-term elections scheduled for November ... An optimistic group of members of the House of Representatives met in Salsbury, Maryland, to discuss their platform ..."Overwhelmingly male, middle-aged and white*, with a large contingent from rural and southern states, they could hardly have claimed to be representative of the American people, but they were certainly indicative of the constituency that elected them." (3)

They did win what Newt Gingrich called 'the most shattering one-sided Republican victory since 1946.'

No one disagreed with him. Certainly not Canada's Preston Manning, the leader of the like-minded Reform Party, which a year earlier had taken the fifty odd seats in the federal election. Not only had Manning visited Gingrich for a photo opportunity, but Gingrich now attributed his electoral success to techniques he had learned from Manning and his Reformers. (3)

But the Reform Party also paid attention to something that Gingrich had done:

In this election, the Republicans were closely in tune with prominent conservative media personalities like Rush Limbaugh, a no-holds-barred, technically brilliant and aggressively comic articulator of anti- Washington, anti-elite, pro-mainstream sentiment who appears nightly on national television, and Pat Buchanan, a Congressman and television and radio personality who takes the conservative side on the nightly verbal sparring match, "Crossfire".

More significantly, the Republicans tapped into the nation's religious heartland, gaining the overt support of the powerful Christian groupings which make up the Christian Coalition. The Coalition, while mainly evangelical, embraces a wide spectrum of the devout from Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, to prominent traditionalist Catholics. According to Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition's executive director, "One of every three voters was someone who attends church regularly, who is socially conservative"**. The Democrats, according to Reed, "badly miscalculated how to handle" this important segment of the electorate, and tried to "marginalize and stereotype these voters and their leaders". (1)

And:

"Amoung these organized religion was clearly uppermost in Gingrich's mind. The role of the evangelicals in assuring Gingrich's victory was far greater than it had been for Reagan. As Rosalind Petchesky points out in an article on anti-feminism and the New Right, this heightened emphasis of moral conservatism in the American neo-conservative movement was unprecedented. It was also producing a situation in which the party's platform was being increasingly designed to meet the requirements of these supporters." (3)

Enter Jason Kenney, who the following year would attend a major convention of the U.S. Christian Coalition, then headed up by Ralph Reed who was hired by Pat Robertson. (4)

... Even more ominous for democratic rights ... is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. With 1.7 million active members and a $25 million (US) annual budget, the U.S. organization has become a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress. The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm ... "Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association) ... (5)

So by the time the next Canadian election rolled around, Jason Kenney and his gang were ready to "become a formidable lobbying force in [Canadian] politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates.

Next: The Christian Coalition and Jason Kenney Help to Create So-Cons on Steroids

Footnotes:

"... the notion that some Reform members may have strong Anglo-Saxon nativist inclinations is supported by more than merely the background profiles of its leaders, members and supporters. It is supported also by the words of many of its ideological mentors who depict Canada as not only historically an Anglo-Saxon country but also part of a wider Anglo-Saxon culture that is in need of recognizing and re-establishing its heritage." (5)

** Reform is a mass-base party (110,000 active members, 1993, and rapidly rising) of social conservatives led by an evangelical Christian, Preston Manning. (1)

Sources:

1. Policy from the People:Recent Developments in the USA and Canada, By Philip Ayres, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society, April 2, 1995

2. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 36-37

4. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3, Pg. 5

5. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

6. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 170

Jason Kenney Helps to Unite Reformers and Republicans

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

When I read Marci McDonald's Armageddon Factor, I was surprised that she didn't have more on Jason Kenney. Her book was excellent and connected a lot of dots for me, but Kenny is just as involved with the Religious Right as Stockwell Day. In fact, maybe more so, especially to the American movement. And his beliefs are also just as troubling.

However, while researching another story I came across an old article from Australia, that directly ties the Reform Party and the Republican Party, and in a way that we all missed. I had already written about the close relationship between Preston Manning and Newt Gingrich, but this goes further and deeper, and involves Jason Kenney in a very big way.

I should have seen this before, but I had my light bulb moment yesterday. So I went over all of my notes and skimmed some old postings, and it was all there. So I'm going to try and put everything in chronological order as best I can. I will be doing it several parts. But it involves the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Christian Coalition and Grover Norquist. A strange combination indeed.

Association of Concerned Taxpayers

About 1987 Jason Kenney leaves St. Ignatius at the University of San Francisco, where he was schooled in far right, neoconservatism. He gains temporary employment with a Saskatchewan MPP, from his hometown of Wilcox, where his father ran a Catholic college.

In 1989, Brian Mulroney began discussing the implementation of the GST, which became a very hot button issue with Canadians. This prompted Saskatchewan resident, Kevin Avram, to start a kind of grass roots organization, to mobilize people against this new tax. (1)

So he attended a conference in Austin, Texas where he met a representative of the “Association of Concerned Taxpayers” which was then headed up by Grover Norquist. So he decided to set up a chapter in Canada, which he simply named the Association of Saskatchewan Taxpayers, which was incorporated on May 1, 1989. Jason Kenney was hired as Executive Director.

Meanwhile, a similar group had started in Alberta called Resolution One. I'm still hunting down information on them, but they may have been connected to Link Byfield. Though not a member of the Reform Party himself (his father Ted was a founding member), he drafted "Resolution One" for Preston Manning, which became the Reform Party's fiscal philosophy. (2)

Link was a founding member, along with Stephen Harper, of the Northern Foundation and is currently involved with the Wildrose Alliance Party. Resolution One became the Alberta Taxpayers Association and they joined with the Association of Saskatchewan Taxpayers to become the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Jason Kenney was named CEO. Rob Anders also claims to have been involved with them at some time as well, according to his resume, when he first ran for public office.

I have a bit more information on the American Association of Concerned Taxpayers, as it relates to Stockwell Day (when he had big hair. Oye!), but I just wanted to follow along with Jason Kenney and Grover Norquist for now.

Norquist had worked for Ronald Reagan, setting up Americans for Tax Reform, as a "think-tank" to sell his tax cutting measures. It was such a success that he kept it going, with branches and affiliates right across the country, including AOCT, on which CTF was fashioned.

In 1988, Norquist was asked to work on the campaign of George H. Bush, and he advised him to stick to one simple message. It was the message that he had adopted for his own anti-tax outfits. Remember the famous "Read My Lips"? That was Grover Norquist.



Well Jason Kenney did all but tell people to read his lips, though Stephen Harper tried it out in 2008. But in 1995 when Kenney was touring Canada, he must have felt the invisible hand of Norquist brushing against his cheek.

"Before the 1995 Budget was brought down .... the CTF sponsored no fewer than eighteen protest rallies across the country whose theme was 'No New Taxes.' These rallies were also deliberately coordinated with others sponsored by the Reform Party and the National Citizens Coalition for maximum affect. "... any casual observer of the CTF's literature cannot fail to note the groups neo-conservative approach to the role of government in general. As well-known tax expert Neil Brooks has stated, the CTF's 'anti-tax rhetoric disguises a view that government should play a minimal role' ... David Perry of the Canadian Tax
Foundation ... notes that much of the group's anti-tax sentiment is based on ignorance of the actual situation in Canada .... a perception of reality, rather than reality' .... "Many other tax experts ... have also pointed out that the benefits received from government in exchange for taxes have to be taken into account ... Kenney's response to this, however is instructive. 'We only look at taxes, not benefits'.. (3)

And in the same way that Americans for Tax Reform originally propped up Ronald Reagan, it was pretty clear that the CTF were doing the same thing for the Reform Party.

Public-Service union president Darryl Bean has called the CTF 'a front for the Reform Party,' and it is not difficult to understand the source of his accusations. Preston Manning has often been asked to address its anti-tax rallies. At one such event in Pickering Ontario in 1995, media accounts routinely reported some 3,500 Reform Party supporters in attendance, and Manning received a standing ovation. "... (3)

Now this was 1995, and in the fall of that year, Jason Kenney, along with dozens of Canadian conservative Christians thronged to Washington, DC, to attend a major convention of the U.S. Christian Coalition, (4) then headed up by Ralph Reed.

When Robertson's campaign flamed out, political analysts served up a new round of obituaries for the religious right, but once again, the reports of its death proved premature. Even as Robertson nursed a wounded ego, he was hatching his organizational revenge, hiring a fresh-faced young doctoral student named Ralph Reed to build a grass-roots evangelical network, focusing first on the takeover of school boards and town councils before ultimately commandeering the machinery of the Republican National Committee itself. That institutional coup took place almost entirely beneath the media's radar, and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress and would later play a major role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, not once but twice. (5)

Jason Kenney and his gang came back to Canada with a new agenda. They were going to replicate the success of the Christian Coalition on home turf. In McDonald's book, Armageddon Factor, she states that this initiative was the brainchild of Roy Beyer and Brian Rushfeldt, but Jason kenney was involved in this as well.

... Even more ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. With 1.7 million active members and a $25 million (US) annual budget, the U.S. organization has become a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress. The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm ... "Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network). (4)

I'm going to leave it there for now. Most of what I have written here has been covered in other posts, but it's what happens next that is rather surprising, so I want to cover it separately. This just sets the stage.

The media missed this in the U.S. "and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress" (5) ... this was missed in Canada as well, though one diligent reporter did try to sound the alarm.

While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from the Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better. (4)

And yet they didn't.

Jason Kenney, Reformers and Republicans Continued

Sources:

1. Kevin Avram, By Troy Lannigan, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, by Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 99

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 416-417

4. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

5. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3, Pg. 5

The Validating of Hatred by the Conservative Movement

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I have been writing a lot about the resurgence of hate groups, that have now attached themselves to anti-tax, anti-immigration and some of the more extreme Religious Right organizations. They are now moving from the fringes and using these organizations as a bridge to the mainstream.

The above is part one* of the documentary White Power USA: The Rise of Right-Wing Militia in America, and validates what I have been saying. And if you think we're immune you're dead wrong. I'm not suggesting a militia but we will be attacked. And Harper's Fox News North, launched by his ex communications director, Kory Teneycke, is where the battle will begin. They just have to overturn our hate crime laws, but they're getting closer all the time.

However, it actually started sooner than that. The Reformers have been quietly moving Canada to the right. Not in our thinking. Canadians are still Canadians. But the perception of Canada by other nations, is diminishing. They now see us as just another Bush administration.

The Mexican Invasion

Earlier this month, Habtom Kibraeb, an Eritrean refugee, committed suicide in Halifax from fear of a pending deportation. In December 2008, a 24-year-old woman was deported to Mexico, where she was murdered months later. She had applied for asylum in Canada twice. This tragedy occurred while Kenny was imposing visa requirements on Mexicans, claiming they were bogus. (1)

The above video mentions J.T. Ready, a Republican candidate who is heading up a movement to stop illegal immigration from Mexico. He has support from some pretty high places, including the Republican Party. One of them is Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce. He was responsible for drafting the controversial Proposition 200, which makes it a crime for public officials to fail to report people unable to produce documentation of citizenship when applying for benefits, and allows citizens who believe that public officials have given undocumented persons benefits to sue for remedies.

Since Proposition 200 passed last fall, its backers have presented an alarming 20 bills targeting immigrants in the Arizona legislature, have cheered the vigilante Minuteman Project on the Arizona-Mexico border, and have worked to sponsor similar bills in other states. But there is a growing grassroots mobilization against the resurgence of racist policies in Arizona, and the threat of an international and national boycott of the state looms. (2)

And yet it is gaining momentum and has sparked a new group: Protect America NOW!

J. T. lost the election but his Minutemen are still on the March and have the full endorsement of the Republican Senator Pearce. You can see them together in the photo to the right.

Just three weeks ago at a tea party rally in Tempe, he handed out fliers calling for landmines to be placed along the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into Arizona.

Now, neo-Nazi J.T. Ready says he plans to lead an armed group into the desert south of Phoenix this weekend to put a stop to what he called “narco-terrorists.” Ready appeared decked out in camouflage during an interview Wednesday with KPNX (Channel 12). He showed off a stockpile of guns and ammunition he plans to take with him and claimed his group will stake out an area of Pinal County that drug smugglers use as a route to bring “chemical warfare into Phoenix.”Ready has grabbed more traction with local media in recent months as the debate over illegal immigration heats up. He has also appeared frequently at rallies and protests in support of Arizona’s new immigration law, hoping to attract supporters to his cause.

That was no different on May 29 at the “Stand With Arizona” rally in Tempe, an event organized by several tea party groups. Ready was there handing out fliers for the Mesa chapter of the National Socialist Movement, the largest neo-Nazi group in the United States. (3)

And left unchecked the worst may have already happened.

I called Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada Thursday about a report I’d read on the Website of NBC affiliate KVOA Tucson concerning four border crossers fired upon by two men wearing camouflage and bearing assault rifles.

One man was injured with a gunshot wound to the left forearm, the rest were unharmed. The shooting occurred around 5 a.m. on Friday, June 11 at Peck Canyon, nearby Rio Rico. Sheriff Estrada suggested in the KVOA report that the shooters could have been U.S. citizens “hunting illegal border crossers.” What the piece didn’t explain is whether the victims of the attack had been able to identify the perps as Anglo or Hispanic. But Sheriff Estrada told me that the migrants couldn’t say. (4)

And:

In addition to shootings of Latinos by Border Patrol agents, there have been mysterious shootings and even murders in Arizona deserts. Troubling details are emerging that suggest these attacks on Latinos are not drug-related, as often reported, but the work of violent border vigilantes. (5)

These actions have been inspired by the new racist policies of the Republicans. Grover Norquist gave Russell Pearce an award for his no-tax rhetoric. The Tea Party group is an extension of the Republican party and Fox News, who have now validated hate.

Will Fox News North promote the same things? I'm sure the Republicans never expected this outcome. Remember, this is not your father's Conservative Party.

"This is a problem in Canadian refugee law which encourages bogus claims." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper

While apologizing to the president of Mexico, Prime Minister Harper has echoed what his immigration minister, Jason Kenney, has been saying for some time. Canada's refugee system is overwhelmed with bogus refugees who come to take advantage of a generous asylum system. These bogus refugees are queue jumpers who are sneaking into Canada through the asylum system. And nobody likes a queue- jumper, least of all Canadians.

... Kenney is quite clear about who a bogus claimant is: anyone who is a failed refugee claimant. He cites Mexican claims as the example. Eighty-nine per cent were rejected in 2008. He has said they are all queue jumpers, economic migrants who are abusing the refugee system. But are they?

With the minister's indulgence, I would define a bogus claimant as one who makes a false refugee claim knowing that he or she is not a refugee. That definition would undoubtedly cover some Mexican claimants who come to Canada with a phoney story about horrible events that never happened. It would even cover the Mexican migrant who has naively been misled by an unscrupulous travel agency to simply arrive in Canada. It would not, however, describe many of the failed Mexican claims ... When Kenney says that he does not believe that Czech Roma or Mexicans are refugees, and therefore they are presumably bogus refugees, he is contradicting both the IRB and the Federal Court which have both said that some Czechs and some Mexicans are refugees who are at risk of serious harm. (6)

We're just a few tea parties away from a J.T. Ready. Or are we?

Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney is known as the Minister of Censorship and Deportation because of his record as one of the most repressive immigration ministers in Canadian history. Deportations have increased, while the number of people accepted as refugees and sponsored family members have drastically dropped. Instead, Kenney has increased the number of temporary workers who are constantly exploited for their labour. His new refugee bill creates a racist two tier system based on nationality, and he has called a wide range of migrants– from Mexicans to the War Resisters – “bogus”. Under his regime, an Eritrean refugee committed suicide from fear of a pending deportation, and a young woman was murdered upon her deportation to Mexico. (7)

Footnotes:

*You'll see Amy Goodman from Democracy Now on this video. She was the journalist who was detained in Canada and had her car searched because they were afraid of what she may be here speaking about. Ironically, it was freedom of the press.

Sources:

1. Community Group Outraged at Kenney’s Proposed Refugee Reform, By No One Is Illegal-Vancouver, March 30th, 2010

2. Racist Fervor becomes Law in Arizona: Calls for State Boycott Gain Momentum, by Margot Veranes and Adriana Navarro, June 5, 2005

3. Teabagger Neo-Nazi J.T. Ready says he plans to lead an armed group into the Arizona desert, By Nick R. Martin, June 18th, 2010

4. Cross-Post: The Rio Rico Shootings, J.T. Ready, and Neo-Nazis in the Desert: June 19, 2010

5. Murder in the Desert, Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Turns Violent, By Jill Garvey, Artists Against Bigotry,
June 16, 2010

6. Bogus claims made about bogus refugees, By Peter Showler, The Vancouver Sun, August 18, 2009

7. Peoples March Against Jason Kenney, P.E.O.P.L.E.S M.A.R.C.H A.G.A.I.N.S. J.A.S.O.N K.E.N.N.E.Y
Saturday July 24th at 2 pm, TBA, Vancouver