Vote Conservative to avoid Liberal “Cap & Trade” carbon tax

The Liberal Party of Canada leader, Michael Ignatieff and former PMs Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were out campaigning this weekend.  Same old, same old. Just seeing them reminds Canadians of Chretien’s dithering in the lead up to the 1995 Quebec referendum.

The “Yes vote” came in at 49.44% while the “No vote” was 50.56%. Winning with just over a half of a percentage point and Ignatieff has the gall to now say Canadians have nothing to fear from the separatists!!  

Plus, let’s not forget the Liberal promises in 1993 to cancel the GST as soon as they were elected. Remember the “we will axe the tax” ads. Plus, Chretien said over and over that a Liberal government would bring new accountability to Ottawa.

Well, they certainly did, didn’t they? First they didn’t cancel the GST. Second, as we know now, they were the most corrupt government in Canadian history with the Sponsorship Scandal.

Now, fast forward to the 2011 federal campaign. On page 46 of Red Book # 2, it clearly states that if elected, by hook or by crook, the Liberals would implement a “Cap and Trade” system — the Greenshift and a carbon tax by another name. Can you say another tax rip off in the making — particularly given the extent the theory of man caused global warming has been debunked!

Yet, do we hear Liberals defend the science or explain how their system would work and what it would cost the economy and people? No, just as with the signing of the Kyoto Accord, they simply try to change the subject. In this instance, the former PMs are out campaigning trying to change the subject to health care.

Once again, dithering and sneaky.  To suggest that, as Finance Minister, Paul Martin didn’t reduce health care transfers to the provinces is an outright fabrication and he has to know it. Once again, its Chretien and Martin’s: “Ah shucks, don’t worry, be happy!”  

Well, let’s not let the subject change and remember their history — that Liberals promise one thing during an election campaign and deliver quite another afterwards.  Think I am exaggerating? Not a chance.

As Lorrie Goldstein says in yesterdays Toronto Sun, the LPOC’s “Cap and Trade” proposal is so reckless, it could bankrupt the oil industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland/Labrador, as well as the car manufacturing business in Ontario. Meaning, it could undermine how well the economy has done under the Conservatives.

How well have the Conservatives done? Check out what a majority Conservative government can do for the country, as well as what the Harper government accomplished while in government.

Put succinctly, under the Harper Conservatives, they sure weren’t perfect. No government is because they are made up of human beings. But, the country saw economic gains over six quarters and 500,000 new jobs created.

Obviously then, much is at stake in this election. To the undecided or those who have voted Liberal their entire lives, on May 2nd vote for truth, stability and continued economic growth by voting for your local Conservative candidate in the hopes there will be enough seats won to form a Conservative majority government.

April 12, 2011– Stephen Harper wins English debate!!!

Since so many in the mainstream media are predicting the sky is falling for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and we can almost predict the headlines for later tonight and tomorrow — that surprise, surprise, Michael Ignatieff won the English language debate, I thought I would get out in front. There is no comparison. There is no contest. Canadians will know exactly who won tonight’s debate and it will be the man who has guided this country through thick and thin over the last five years. The man who has had to withstand sticks and stones to break his bones.

Well done Mr. Harper. You have won tonight’s debate by just surviving the gotchas, the innuendo, the fake corrupt charge and the never-ending faux scandals. You have won, if for no other reasons, than because you are still standing and you are still the best leader this country has had in a very long time, if not in all time. And, no that is not because I am a partisan. It is because I have lived long enough to know what I say is true.

Let’s also not forget what the Harper government has accomplished either.

Update 9pm: So, the debate is now over and it came out just as I and commenters at Blue Like You thought it would: Harper — first, Layton — second, third — Ignatieff and Duceppe — off the back.  What a pile-on. Layton got in the only zinger and that was Ignatieff being absent from his place in the House of Commons, 70% of the time. However, there was clearly only one person in that debate who was capable of being prime minister and that was our current one — Mr. Harper.

Layton & Ignatieff’s corporate tax increases would hurt economy

It’s called biting the hand that feeds you or a double edged sword. Jack Layton, leader of the NDP recently suggested, for example, giving small businesses a tax break while both he and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff also said that a coalition government between the two parties would raise corporate tax rates to pay for their election promises.

Well, they can’t give with one hand and take with the other and not hurt the very people they say they want to help. Because, contrary to what progressives say constantly, corporate tax cuts are NOT just for some large corporation abstraction.  They not only pay dividends to shareholders and high salaries to executives, they hire and pay thousands of regular employees with real families and real financial responsibilities. Moreover, corporations are also medium-sized businesses, as well as small and mom and pop operations.

So, the NDP and Liberal opposition should be careful what they are promising and Canadians should be careful which political party they support. While it is true that the Conservative government, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, was not perfect, as no government is, its stimulus and fiscal policies have resulted in Canada coming out of the recession in the best fiscal shape of all the G7 nations.

As Sharon Singleton wrote at money.canoe.ca earlier this week on March 30th:

Layton, speaking on a campaign stop in Oshawa, Ont., said if he’s elected his party will cut the tax rate for small businesses to 9% from 11%. He will also give a job creation tax credit to all companies of $4,500 per new hire. On the flip side, he’ll up the tax rate for bigger corporations to 19.5% from the current 16.5% rate.

‘This is presented a little disingenuously,’ said Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. ‘It’s not just the big banks, but an awful lot of medium-sized companies that will also be affected by the tax hike. It’s not as if we’re low balling here,’ she said, adding Canada’s overall corporate tax rate is in line with that of its industrialized peers.

Swift said she welcomed the focus on the small business sector, but said the CFIB also supports the current government’s attempts to trim Canada’s overall tax rate. Corporate taxes are scheduled to fall to 15% in 2012, a cut slammed as wasteful by opposition parties.

[Yet] small businesses make up the backbone of the Canadian economy, with 98% of companies having fewer than 100 employees, according to Statistics Canada figures. As of 2009, small businesses employed about 5 million people, making up about 48% of the total labour force.Companies with fewer than 50 employees contribute about 29% to the country’s overall gross domestic product.”

The crux of the matter is, then, that any small business tax breaks recommended by Layton, are undermined by both his and Ignatieff’s promise to raise the corporate tax rate from its current 16.5% to 18% or higher — essentially a double edged sword. Moreover, by penalizing the same businesses that employ Canadians, they are biting the very hand that feeds the economy.

Update: Here is an excellent article by John Ivison on a related topic (H/T Joanne and Richco) titled: “Ignatieff plucks another billion from the money tree.” It is about how Ignatieff and Layton seem to forget who creates the wealth in this country. Yes, education is important but once you have your education, you need a job. And, of course, tacked on to that reality is the importance of free trade with other countries.  In other words, both opposition leaders seem to be anti-wealth creation.

Conservative policy of “income splitting” good for families

Contrary to what many in the mainstream media were telling Canadians yesterday, Prime Minister Harper’s income splitting up to $50,000 announcement yesterday, is not a social conservative policy per se. Actually, it is quite progressive (H/T Jack’s Newswatch) because it would allow many young families (1.8 million to be exact) who have dependant children under the age of 18 — to keep more of their income, particularly when one member of the couple earns less or nothing at all.  

Why? Well, in my opinion, it’s obvious. Just as with retirement income splitting, it helps the person who earns less — and lets face it, that is usually women. Because, whether we like it or not, even in 2011, far more women than men who are married with children, work part-time or, even if they do work full-time, often don’t have access to a public or private pension plan.

So, income splitting, whether for those of us who are retired, are stay-at home-parents or work for less money than their partner, is a VERY good thing. How good? Well, this year my husband and I (both retired) are expecting a refund of about $3,000 — which is real money!!!

Why do we qualify for income splitting when, except for a few years when my children were pre-schoolers, I taught school all my adult life? Well, I do have a small teachers’ pension for the years I taught in the school system. But, that was not the case when I taught university. Because, as happened to many academics during the 1980s and 90s, there were few tenure stream positions. So, year after year after year, I was only too happy to accept full or part-time “sessional” contracts — some running from September to May, others July and August. The point being of course, sessional positions were not considered permanent and had no access to benefits or the pension plan. 

Now, for all those single wage earners out there, remember that your living costs are not nearly as high as single or double wage earners with children. However, if someone is a single parent, they do get significant tax benefits, the primary one being the equivalent to the marriage exemption for the first child. And, the partner who pays child support can write off the full amount of that support.

However, those I do have empathy for are couples with children whose incomes are almost equal, leaving nothing to split. Thankfully, in most of those situations, they usually pay less tax anyway. For example, if one parent works and makes $70,000 a year and his or her spouse stays home full-time, they pay far more tax than two parents both working and earning $35,000. each.  

So, yes, a policy of splitting family income can benefit many young families — a policy that is, in my opinion, about choice — feminism by another name. I mean, wasn’t working in the home to bring up ones children supposed to be a choice couples made? Or, have we gone to the other extreme now where woman are expected to work full-time so that day care workers can bring up their children? I certainly hope not or the equality rights I fought so hard for back in the 1960s will be lost.   

Oh, and the fiction that the Conservatives shouldn’t be announcing a policy that wouldn’t come into place until 2015 because that would be beyond their mandate (should they win a much stronger minority or majority government on May 2nd, 2011). Well, four years would take them to May 2, 2015, two to three months AFTER the 2015 budget could put this into effect. Meaning it would be implemented before the next election to become effective with the 2015 taxation year. Or, it’s just as feasible that if the deficit is paid down a year earlier than expected, the policy could be put in place for the 2014 taxation year.

The crux of the matter is, then, whatever way you look at it, income splitting for families is a very positive election platform plank. Please remember that when you vote on May 2nd.

Endnotes: (1) Here also is a Google search page on the topic of income splitting and the various opinions about the Conservative election campaign announcement.(2) While my comment feature is currently turned off, I do welcome messages via my Contact Form. (3) Income splitting for seniors is # 31 on the Harper Government Accomplishment list.