Harper Breaks Rules to Live Large on Our Dime

'Harper Breaks Rules' is becoming as common a headline as 'Harper lies', but in another arrogant reminder that he is boss and will do what he wants, Canadian Press has learned that Harper's office spent $340,000 on hospitality, without prior approval.

The basic rule put in place to safeguard taxpayers against frivolous waste of our money.

But as we know, Harper now makes the rules, so don't expect anything to change.

An internal report on how the Privy Council Office spent $340,000 on hospitality found widespread flouting of a basic rule – that is, public servants must get prior approval from a supervisor before spending the cash. The review of 2,100 hospitality claims over 13 months, ending last June, found employees repeatedly failed to get a green light before racking up expenses.

The survey examined expense claims in the Prime Minister's Office as well those run up by the Privy Council Office, Mr. Harper's own department and the central organ of the Canadian government.

Auditors initially found several instances in which hospitality expenses were incurred without pre-authorization. But they were assured by senior managers that the problem had since been corrected. So auditors randomly selected 20 more-recent hospitality claims – and found only half had been authorized in advance, clear evidence the rules continued to be flouted, despite the protestations of senior management ... The Canadian Press later reported Mr. Harper had personally approved a $47,000 event for 600 employees in Privy Council Office.

Another example of 'do what I say, not what I do.'

King Steve has increased government advertising by 300% (still running Canada Action Plan ads, despite inaction), and increased spending on ministers’ personal offices by 14% last year alone.

How much longer can we afford to keep him in the lifestyle he's created?

Stephen Harper Lied in an Attack Ad. Say it ain't So

In the 'Bull Meter' Ericia Alini takes a shot at the Conservative claim that "Ignatieff voted for an iPod tax of up to $75" - Conservative attack ad April 3, 2011

Apparently totally false.

The claim a $75 levy was ever on the table—and that it was supported by the Liberals—is dubious for two reasons: first, contrary to Conservative claims, the Copyright Board never suggested the levy should be up to $75. That amount was proposed by a non-profit called the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which collects and distributes private copying royalties. But while they may not be the ones who collect it, it’s the Copyright Board that fixes levies on MP3 players, such as the ones that were in place until a December 2004 Federal Court decision struck them down. These ranged from $2 to $25.

Secondly, the Liberals changed their policy on taxing digital audio devices in December and have explicitly rejected the notion of an “iPod levy.” They now support compensating artists with a yearly transfer of $35 million.

The GST quote was made when several of Canada's leading economists were suggesting that the cut to the GST was the worst possible cut to our revenue source.

The worst tax, and the one most people are complaining about is the HST and that was Jim Flaherty's and Stephen Harper's baby.

Jim Flaherty, Oct. 23, 2008. Being from Ontario, as you may have heard, I have a bit of a challenge with my provincial government and I’m gently nudging Premier McGuinty and the Government of Ontario and encouraging them in the direction of reducing the burden of business taxes in that province and, importantly, since that province and a few others are not harmonized, to harmonize the PST and the GST in those provinces, which would be the single most important step that could be done to help relieve the tax burden on business … we need harmonization of sales taxes in some provinces

From Stephen Harper's 2008 budget:

"Replacing remaining provincial retail sales taxes (RSTs) with value-added taxes harmonized with the GST is another area where provinces can contribute to strengthening Canada's Tax Advantage. Provincial RSTs impair competitiveness because they apply to business inputs, increasing production costs and deterring investment. By comparison, a value-added tax system provides most businesses with full tax relief through the input tax credit mechanism. Provincial sales tax harmonization is the single most important step provinces with RSTs could take to improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses."

He was not the "father of the carbon tax", but the Green shift plan was the work of Stephane Dion and applauded by Nobel prize winning environmentalists. It was both transparent and revenue neutral.

They just lie and it doesn't matter. Nobody questions anything they say.

And they are also currently lying about supporting the CBC.

At the direction of the Prime Minister's Office, Conservative MPs have engaged in a national campaign to mislead voters concerning the Harper government's investment in the CBC. In reply to messages from constituents who have written to express concern about the future of the CBC, at least eighty Conservative MPs have stated in correspondence that:

"In fact, this government has increased support to CBC in every one of our budgets. This year the CBC is receiving $1.1 billion dollars in funding - this being the highest amount of funding ever allotted to the CBC - more than any government in Canadian history. " This statement is false.

Socialism or Capitalism? Why Not Both?

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” - John Maynard Keynes

Capitalism in its present form, isn't working.

Instead it is creating a culture of greed. A culture without compassion, and frankly a culture of stupidity.

The "most wickedest" have somehow convinced society that the debate at a time of record debt and deficits, should be who is wealthy enough to receive tax cuts.

Think about that for a minute, though you won't need a minute to determine, that as a philosophy, it is insane.

You have to pay off a debt, so you decrease your revenue?

The debate should be, who has enough wealth, and doesn't need more? Who should start paying their share? Even the extremely wealthy Warren Buffet is questioning why he is in a lower tax bracket than his housekeeper.

So is Socialism the answer?

Not entirely, but we do need to redefine the notion of the Welfare State. It was not about simply establishing a "welfare" system but creating governments whose primary goal was taking care of the well being of their citizens.

We entrusted them with our tax dollars, in the belief that they would use them for the common good. We didn't want them back necessarily, but expected a reasonable exchange.

Stephen Harper wants to dismantle Canada's Welfare State. He believes in a free market system, but while "free market" sounds like a positive thing, it is not. Originally it defined the removal of price controls, but now entails the removal of all impediments to acquiring wealth, including safety and environmental standards.

Things required to keep us safe.

We will not live better because of it. In fact we are not living better after the removal of price controls.

I remember when an increase in the price of gas made headlines, because often it had remained the same for years. Then Brian Mulroney deregulated the industry and now filling up at the pumps is like playing the stock market.

Can you imagine being in a grocery store and having to rush to the cash to buy that can of peas before it doubles in price?

And the promised prosperity for all, never came. Prices continue to soar while only the wealthy have seen a significant rise in their incomes. The poor continue to get poorer and the middle class has stagnated.

We are recreating the conditions of the Great Depression.

During the 1920s, the market system had not performed anywhere near adequately ... and during the 1930s, it had failed massively. It could not be counted on not to fail again. What happened over the subsequent four decades [of creating the welfare state] cannot be understood without grasping that unemployment was the central structural problem toward which all policies were to be geared. (1)

And when people were working, it created what has often been referred to as the "golden years".

Then Capitalism took over, appealing "to greed instead of idealism", promoting inequality and failing the people. And to many Capitalism is the root cause of war, creating even more strife. (1)

But the Welfare State also became greedy. Election campaigns focused on "gimme, gimme". Outrageous demands and promises began to drain the system. Capitalists wanted lower taxes, consumers were convinced that they also wanted lower taxes, and citizens simply wanted more of everything.

We need a return to a mixed economy, where everyone is treated equally. If corporations want to be thought of as citizens, they need to start acting like citizens, which involves give and take. As it is now, they only take and will continue to take until someone says "enough already"!

"We have nothing left to give you"!

I posted recently on the bailouts of financial institutions in the U.S., and how the money was not used to stimulate the economy, but instead went to feed the beast. Canadian institutions were included in that.

Jim Flaherty bailed them out here, and they still went border crossing for more.

The "most wickedest of men" doing "the most wickedest of things".

Seems to me that neoconservatives who claim to be motivated in part by the fear of communism, might consider the possibility that if they made life bearable for us, we wouldn't need to look elsewhere for help.

Unbridled Capitalism is not the answer. An economy based solely on the notion of the "Free Markets" is not the answer. Lowering taxes is not the answer.

The Welfare State has served us quite well. We just need to make it more sustainable by prioritizing. Healthcare, education, full employment, child welfare, all at the top of the list.

And we need a healthy business sector. Overfeeding it will only create obesity, which is bad for it's health.

And we need a government that will stop wasting our money in an attempt to get re-elected, and instead start doing what they were elected to do.

Focus on the well being of this country's citizens.

Sources:

1. The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, By Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, Touchstone, 2002, ISBN: 0-684-82975-4. Pg. 3-4

Will Stephen Harper Raise Taxes Again to Pay For His New Toys?

There is some speculation that Stephen Harper may raise taxes again to pay for his new fighter jets.

If he does this will be the third major tax hike since he came to power. We can no longer afford to keep this guy.

But if he is going to settle for only two tax hikes, the HST and the new payroll tax, what programs will he cut, seeing as how we are already in deficit?

Some of the discussions in the military community about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter centers around the question - where will the money come from for these aircraft? The estimated price tag (emphasis on estimated, no one really knows what the final cost would be) is reported to be $16 billion. That would be over a 30 to 40 year period.

Even still, some military and industry personnel have raised concerns privately that acquiring the JSF will require cuts elsewhere and other equipment programs scaled back. What might those be? Which service could lose some capability or future capability in exchange for Canada’s procurement of the JSF?

“If the government, which is already in a deficit, would like to argue its case for some pricey combat jets it has the responsibility to explain to Canadians what they lose in government services,” the Embassy editorial notes. “Or else it can raise taxes.”

I know one place where he'll probably find some cuts.