Conservative? Really, or just more of the same?

The new Harper cabinet has been announced, all 39 members of it. So I decided to play with MS Excel a bit and compare how the size of the Federal Cabinet is correlated to spending, debt, and deficit.
The graph on the left is mine (from this data) and shows how Cabinets have grown throughout the history of Canada, up to and including Harper's new cabinet today. If you click on the graph it enlarges, but even at this size it is clear that the size of the Federal Cabinet has grown more in the last 50 years (where the black arrow is located) than in the previous 90 years. The most significant dip in the size of the cabinet occurred during the term of Liberal Jean Chretien, but while Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister, the Cabinet has returned to its former bloated size of 39 members, last seen during the term of Brian Mulroney (also a Conservative).
Now compare that graph to the one on the right (supplied by John Shaw President of the LPC). It shows the last 50 years of government; notice the relatively flat green line (program spending) during Chretien's term in office, and the dip in the red total debt line. Now I'm not saying that the countries' debt is directly correlated to the size of the Cabinet, but it is oddly similar to the other graph isn't it?
So what does this mean? It may mean nothing, or as I suspect, it may mean that Mr. Harper will not deliver the small more limited government he has promised, but rather, he will continue on the road to more of the same. Unless he pares down the budget's of each of the now more numerous ministers (almost impossible), then his promise to balance the budget in 3 or 4 years is just idle chit-chat. Either that, or he expects rapid, solid growth, in the economy real soon, which I think is equally unlikely. Place your bets now.

The church where God is not required

Reverend Gretta Vosper is an avowed atheist and minister of the United Church in Toronto. Now if that doesn't sound like a contradiction I don't what does.
An article in the National Post today highlights that story, and discusses the issues around the title of this posting.
It has been common knowledge for a long time that the United Church in Canada is one of the most liberal of all religious organizations in the country. It was instrumental in legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada six years ago. Today it supports causes ranging from "climate justice" to the perceived plight of the Palestinian refugee, and other issues that make it among the most "progressive" of all churches. One of the ministers, frustrated with the Churches progressive stand on issues of the day is quoted as saying:

“In the 1960s and ’70s we became embarrassed about Jesus. And so we distanced ourselves from Jesus, and the point is without Jesus there’s no point in having a church. iTunes has better music and the NDP has better policies; everything else we do now somebody else does way better. The only thing we can do is this Jesus thing.”

Well, maybe iTune does have better music, but I know the NDP is not known in my circles for good policies, but they are progressive too. I'm not so progressive. For me the reality of this story has nothing to do with this church, though I do admire its liberal stand on many issues, I'm not really concerned with its survival as the Post article illustrates. The article highlights (without saying it) the question: What is the purpose of a church? Obviously it fulfills some human needs, whether rational or not, churches would not exist otherwise. Personally I don't think it is rational, however, I don't think gambling is rational, or binge drinking, or smoking, or doing drugs or any of the behaviours people can do in a voluntary way. Many people are irrational for a part of their lives, at least.
Which brings me to: churches are not going away. Once, as a youngster with Objectivist ideals, I thought (hoped) religion would go the way of the Dodo bird. Today I see religion for what it is, a social club, a fraternal society, a sorority of the like-minded; and as long as it stays voluntary with no coercive impact on government, then we can all get along. But they need to be watched.  

Gas Pain and Tax Pain

Local Toronto media have made a big issue of the price of gasoline in the last few weeks. I'm sure prices have risen everywhere in the US and Canada of late. In fact the price of gas seems unrelated to the price of a barrel of oil now. Why? Gas is refined from oil, and about a dozen refineries along the Mississippi River that control more than13% of American refining capacity are in danger of being flooded by the river (see graphic). Just the threat of less supply, with constant demand equals rising price, simple economics. But the whining media instead of explaining the story seems content with stirring the pot. Why not have government regulate gasoline? How can we help you squeeze more mileage out of your tank, and on and on? There are even stories about how consumers will have to choose between basic household necessities and filling their gas tank? At least they have a choice and once the flood threat dissipates, I expect the price of gas to moderate soon.
During my election campaign, in my closing or opening remarks, I used some research done by the Fraser Institute that illustrated just how big the Canadian government has become over the last 50 years. The research described how the price of basic necessities like food, shelter and clothing have increased over that time, but also showed that the tax burden surpassed all of them by a wide margin. In fact taxes are now the largest budget item of the typical Canadian family. So referring back to the media gas story, the tax story, the story where our choices are limited or non-existent, is ignored, not just by media but by most citizens.
The good people at the Fraser Institute updated that research in the latter days of the election and it was scooped up by the National Post too. The graph below is from this pdf, and the graph tells the whole story.

An army of one in a losing battle - I hope

Elizabeth May is described as having the "energy of a hyperactive chipmunk and a matchless ability to hog the spotlight." That quote comes from a column by Margaret Wente in today's Globe and Mail.

I noted in yesterday's blog post that Ms. May won election in B.C. as the only Green ever elected in Canada, while her party is shrinking in popularity everywhere else in the country. Ms. Wente goes on to use Uber-Environmentalist George Monbiot, to help explain why the green-movement is in retreat across the planet.

Of course there is nothing wrong with the idea of saving the planet, if indeed it needs saving. The problem is that the supposed cure or planet saving treatment, is far worse than the disease that is alleged. People everywhere are starting to see that (I hope), and the bloom is off the (green) rose.

Monbiot laments this fact in recent essays published in The Guardian. On May 2, 2011, Monbiot sounds despondent in a column "Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project," you know, the one where we are hooked on fossil fuels so we don't freeze in the dark but are wrecking the planet. Do you feel guilty having survived the winter? 

In this column Monbiot spells out the problems the green-movement is facing including this wonderful passage:

"Our reliance on the mineral crunch, which was supposed to have brought the economic engine of destruction to a grinding halt, appears to have been misplaced. The collapse of accessible mineral reserves has not occurred, and shows little sign of occurring within our lifetimes. Capitalism has proved adept at finding new reserves or (in the case of fossil fuels) substitutes for those that are depleting. This takes place at a massive cost to the environment, as exploitation intrudes into an ever wider range of habitats and involves ever more destructive processes. New mineral reserves allow us to continue waging war against biodiversity, habitats, soil, fresh water supplies and the climate."

 Poor fellow, relying on mining to get those rare minerals out of the ground so he could use his computer and internet connection to continue spewing this anti-human drivel out. He laments that the damn capitalists keep finding new oil reserves, when, oh when, will peak oil happen? When will people realize that the end is near and habitats are collapsing everywhere (even though they are not)? Thats what he sounds like, its pathetic. Monbiot even has a wiki-link to the Steady-State Economy, which is what he and all environmentalists of his ilk (including Ms. May above) yearn for. This steady-state goal unmasks him (and his confreres) as wanting to be chief puppeteers, controlling all things in your life from your water usage to your usage of fuel, clothing, food, (read it if you don't believe me), the size of your family everything! Producing....
"..an economy with constant stocks of people and artifacts, maintained at some desired, sufficient levels by low rates of maintenance "throughput", that is, by the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production to the last stage of consumption." 
The result is a GDP that neither grows nor shrinks by some magic wave of government fiat. Of course someone or some group will be controlling all that - the puppet masters - the elite technocrats, that are experts in creating this utopia. Can you imagine?

Did you vote Green? Shame on you.