It's a good question. They seem to want to limit the size and scope of government but, and its a huge BUT, they resemble too much the kind of Republicans that were just booted out of Washington last year. The Tea Party is a hodge-podge of disenchanted voters without a clear direction or director. Check out this libertarian point of view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbjyqKUZBFk
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Welcome to Loonieland
In this video the Canadian Taxpayers Federation explains the new Federal Conservative Budget for 2010. Its an austerity budget so government will spend less, right? MMMMmm maybe not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4emBsiquyI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4emBsiquyI
Friday, March 12, 2010
Meaningless terms: Right-Left, Conservative-Liberal, Republican-Democrat
Rarely do I read Rick Salutin's column in the Globe & Mail, and when I do I never agree with his comments. Today was no different but at least it caught my attention, so here I am.
Salutin's article talks about politics and religion, right up my alley. He points out that politics and religion are so linked now that secularists are leftists and religious types are right of centre. He says this split is clearest in the United States and he gives a quote from Bill O'Reilly the FOX News guy who said that the Globe and Mail is secular and therefore left-wing. Salutin then continues to ramble on finally talking about Avatar and Gaia.
For me this column just highlighted the fact that political terms like "Left and Right" have really no meaning at all and the language of politics must adjust to accommodate reality. If you've read any of my blogs you know that O'Reilly's simple categorization doesn't work, and it doesn't work in many people that I know.
So I propose using the terms "Statist" and "Libertarian", this way we lump guys like O'Reilly, Salutin, Leftists, Rightists, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and whatever into the category STATIST. That's because all these so-called political beliefs really advocate varying degrees of State control of individuals. Libertarians don't.
Ironically Glenn Beck, also of FOX News claims he is becoming Libertarian and used the Nolan Chart on his TV show recently to underscore my case for a new political map. First he's no Libertarian, but I loved the idea of getting away from the typical two-dimensional Left-Right spectrum of political thought. Who knows he may have actually done us a service!
But back to my point, let's start using terms that have meaning. Once people understand the new terms and their meanings things will be a lot clearer at election time, choices will be more stark and obvious. It couldn't hurt.
Salutin's article talks about politics and religion, right up my alley. He points out that politics and religion are so linked now that secularists are leftists and religious types are right of centre. He says this split is clearest in the United States and he gives a quote from Bill O'Reilly the FOX News guy who said that the Globe and Mail is secular and therefore left-wing. Salutin then continues to ramble on finally talking about Avatar and Gaia.
For me this column just highlighted the fact that political terms like "Left and Right" have really no meaning at all and the language of politics must adjust to accommodate reality. If you've read any of my blogs you know that O'Reilly's simple categorization doesn't work, and it doesn't work in many people that I know.
So I propose using the terms "Statist" and "Libertarian", this way we lump guys like O'Reilly, Salutin, Leftists, Rightists, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and whatever into the category STATIST. That's because all these so-called political beliefs really advocate varying degrees of State control of individuals. Libertarians don't.
But back to my point, let's start using terms that have meaning. Once people understand the new terms and their meanings things will be a lot clearer at election time, choices will be more stark and obvious. It couldn't hurt.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Growing like topsy = Canadian Bureaucracy
Today in the Globe and Mail, Neil Reynolds has a great column that demonstrates how governments grow. The article Civil service: Too many jobs, too little service should be mandatory reading for all elected officials, and come to think of it for all electors as well.
Reynolds describes an incident in the town of Orleans, a suburb of Ottawa, where a plastic cow on a roof seemed to contravene a bylaw and required hiring a consultant (at $20 000) as part of the "public consultation". The story is almost laughable if it were not for the fact that its true and it illustrates the bigger issue that the public sector this year is larger than the public sector last year. Not only does that cost us all more, but those individuals who "work" for government are not working in the private sector, therefore not creating wealth, not creating jobs and not adding to the productivity of Canada. Last October I wrote about how big government stifles enterprise and reduces productivity. Of course if government grows faster than the economy, government must be financed by borrowing against the future. These loans (usually bonds) become a larger fraction of our GDP, sometimes so large that they actually endanger investor confidence in Canada. Have a look at this page that compares GDP vs. National Debt by country. While Canada's debt to GDP ratio is over 62%, take a look at Zimbabwe: 241%! Which country would you rather invest in? While Canada might look good in comparison, government continues to grow and if you read Reynolds' article to the end, you will appreciate the irony in Jim Flaherty's recent budget. It's really no joke.
Reynolds describes an incident in the town of Orleans, a suburb of Ottawa, where a plastic cow on a roof seemed to contravene a bylaw and required hiring a consultant (at $20 000) as part of the "public consultation". The story is almost laughable if it were not for the fact that its true and it illustrates the bigger issue that the public sector this year is larger than the public sector last year. Not only does that cost us all more, but those individuals who "work" for government are not working in the private sector, therefore not creating wealth, not creating jobs and not adding to the productivity of Canada. Last October I wrote about how big government stifles enterprise and reduces productivity. Of course if government grows faster than the economy, government must be financed by borrowing against the future. These loans (usually bonds) become a larger fraction of our GDP, sometimes so large that they actually endanger investor confidence in Canada. Have a look at this page that compares GDP vs. National Debt by country. While Canada's debt to GDP ratio is over 62%, take a look at Zimbabwe: 241%! Which country would you rather invest in? While Canada might look good in comparison, government continues to grow and if you read Reynolds' article to the end, you will appreciate the irony in Jim Flaherty's recent budget. It's really no joke.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)