Budget or Rent-a-Wreck?

The Conservative 2009 Budget came through the other day, with the Liberals voicing their... cough.... reluctant support for the Bill, stipulating regular updates and reports to the House of Commons as integral for their support for it. We also saw Jack Layton and his New Democrats strongly oppose the Budget, speaking specifically out against the lack of Employment Insurance reform, social housing funding, daycare affordability, post-secondary education affordability, disproportionate corporate taxcuts, and especially the issue of co-funding for projects between the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Governments.

-}---{-

The foremost complaint, EI reform, deals with the fact that the only change made to EI was a 5 wk extension in benefits, and some more funding in tune of $1 000 000 000 for EI administered training courses, some of which one would not be required to be taking EI benefits to take advantage of. Not a single change was made in respect to eligibility for EI benefits, meaning that those who may fall just shy of being eligible, but have had a good paying job and are now laid off perminently or temporarily, their needs are still not going to be met. The 2 wk waiting period to get benefits was proposed to be eliminated, and as Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla pointed out in a relayed email from one of her constituents, there is a 3 wk backlog on receiving benefits above and beyond the 2 wk wait.

Social housing funding, as far as I can tell, is being given a decent chunk of the package at $2 000 000 000. The infrastructure spending, in my own opinion, was up to snuff and will do wonders for our country at this point. The only complaint that I have regarding the infrastructure is that I wish it would be more geared towards green construction. Now is the perfect opportunity to shed our current modes and create sustainability in our buildings both residential and commercial. The Tories also did a great job on the home-renovation tax credits up to $1350 for 2009, which will hopefully spark a Green Revolution in renovations across the country. An additional bonus for that particular credit would have been to stipulate that it must be a green renovation; installing geothermal heating systems, heat-trapping windows, etc etc. This would have exponential effects on our personal economies, as well as some great environmental benefits with the use of less and less GHGs and the harmful processes to extract energy.

The other issues such as daycare and post-secondary education are things that have plagued us for decades. It is vital to not only our economy, but our future as a productive and moral authority in the world. Nations such as Cuba give universal post-secondary education to all citizens. Most countries on the European continent, such as the UK and Germany, have fantastic policies regarding education. German public Universities are free to both domestic and international students. The UK gives free education to those whose family makes under £20 000/yr (in and about CAD $45 000). In Canada, and I can speak from personal experience, students are struggling to maintain a decent grade point average while juggling their paid work outside school to cover costs such as; rent, food, text books, pencils, small luxuries, and monthly payments on their outrageous student loans. This is something that must change.

The most important of those issues address though, co-funding on all governmental levels, is lacking in many ways. The 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 policy that the Government has taken in relation to Federal/Provincial/Municipal spending on infrastructure and other service is very, very flawed. This is where we will get into trouble, folks. This Conservative Government has a poor track record on getting the funds-promised turned into funds-practiced. Heaping 33¢ for every dollar spent by the Federal Government onto the already broke Municipal councils for infrastructure spending is going to insure that little of the promised monies gets spent where it should. The only funds that our Municipalities have access to are Property Taxes, revenue from services rendered such as transit fares, and those dollars the transfers from the Provinces and Territories who have our cities under the watchful eye of their jurisdiction.

This is the foundation from the New Democrats and the Bloc Québecois stand in their choice to regard the Budget, and its authors, as ill-equiped and ill-qualified to be heading the effort. They are skeptical of the Tory Government insofar as they do not trust them to dispense the funds at all. La Parti libéral du Canada and their leader Mike Ignatieff have imposed just this evening a stipulation that requires the Government to check-in with Parliament on its progress, less it face defeat. Hopefully this will be enough of a threat to force the Government into giving out the funds that it has promised.

I guess the role of the Liberal Party will follow its historical place; not quite with the Tories, but not quite against them either. They remind me of the old Loony Toons shows where a character would be scared by a massive, snarling shadow, not sticking around long enough to find out that its really a puny lapdog with a panting tongue. The NDP will stay as the REAL Official Opposition to the Harper Conservatives, keeping an air of legitimacy to the Canadian Progressive-Left, something which the Bloc cannot bring itself to represent.

-}---{-

My personal opinion is as such; pass the budget avec the subamendment put forth by Ignatieff and his blue-Liberals, hopefully Rae the orange-Liberal camp, whose ideology is closer to that of the NDP, will find some cojognes and vote with the New Democrats and the Bloc in putting pressure onto the Government to implement some of the changes they are seeking - i.e. elimination of the 2wk wait for EI, giving a larger role to the Federal and Provincial Governments in regards to infrastructure and transit service funds instead of loading up our Cities with fiscal responsibilities they cannot handle.

Thomas RB Miller

And The Ants Go Marching One by One...

Today, January 27th 2009, the Conservative Government of Canada will introduce it's 2009 Budget Bill to the newly reinstated House of Commons.

Our Parliament has been on hiatus since early December 2008, the correct terminology being prorogued. Today is the day that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty addresses the House with a Budget that is predicting a $34 000 000 000 deficit in this fiscal year, and another $30 000 000 000 in the next year. This will take, they project, 5 years before we start writing in black ink again - but I think that we can all assume these are conservative figures, no pun intended.

According to the CBC, this is a breif layout of the Budget to be put forth;

$7 billion for infrastructure, including $4 billion for provincial and municipal projects.

$2 billion for social housing.

$1.5 billion in aid for laid-off workers.

$1 billion for communities hit hard by the economic downturn.

$550 million for farmers.

$150 million for the forestry sector.

$160 million for arts and culture.

Some $80 million in way of broad permenant tax cuts [1]

It all seems pretty great, eh? So lets take the first few point by point.

• $7 000 000 000 for infrastructure spending, meaning that new roads, bridges, highways etc. will be built or repaired. $4 000 000 000of that going towards the Provinces and Cities of Canada, probably going straight into urban transit and trying to offset some of those operational and maintenance costs. Good stuff, our cities here in Canada are severely shorthanded when it comes to their Municipal responsibilities, being able to collect tax revenue only from property and property gains or from user-paid fares for transit service. A little injection of liquid funds will greatly help the situation there, but an even better solution is the protection of Canadian Municipalities, and the emancipation of the cities from the Provincial and Territorial yoke. That will all be laid out in a future document, though. Transport Minister John Baird said however, that each level of government would be expected to pay equal shares for these projects, a quite unreasonable request when dealing with the Municipalities who, as stated above, are in dire straits for cash. There is also talk of $1 000 000 000 of that going into a fund for immediate green or environmental infrastructure projects across Canada, [2] which in my own opinion is a tragically low number given the circumstances. Canada can and should show leadership in their commitment to environmental protection and sustainable, profitable infrastructure in the most opportune time; when jobs are desperately needing to be created in the construction and trade industries. In December 2008 alone, Canada shed more that 34 000 jobs, many coming from the construction sector. [3]


• $2 000 000 000 for social housing! Thats the one that I was looking for the most in this budget. But the very distressing figure tied into this one is that it is less money than what we are spending on the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games! Actually, quite a bit less, with the Vancouver Olympic Committee spending in the ballpark of $3 500 000 000on the Games. The City of Vancouver has also renegged on its promises to create affordable housing in Vancouver prior to the Games being held.

Since the Olympic bid process began, over 1,000 units of affordable SRO housing units have either been converted to other uses or shut down permanently. [4]

The term SRO is an acronym for Single Residency Occupancy rooms, somewhat like hotels that the homeless would in a crude reality 'compete for' in the inner cities of Vancouver. If one has ever watched Will Smith in the Pursuit of Happyness, that would be the best visual representation of what we are talking about here. VANOC even went as far as to turn down a request for a $1 Homelessness levy tax on Olympic tickets sold, to be matched by the provincial and federal Governments, as well as a renegging of the 3 200 unit promise for developing affordable social housing to address the socially-sustainable goal of the 2010 Games.

The rest of the points are fairly minor, in comparison, or I simply dont know anything worth saying about them to justify including an in depth analysis of them. We all know the importance of our farmers in Canada, and Im sure that we have all noticed the slow creeping increase in the price of bread loaves in our Safeways and Loblaws. Some interesting notes that I find in my pocketbook shows the statistics regarding our global grain stocks in rapid decline; 128 days in 1987, down to 116 days in 2000, and currently at 53 days if the world was to stop producing grain at this moment. These figures come with no source that I can remember or take away from the notes, so research independantly before taking as final truths.

(Edit + Addition)

The issue of tax cuts is up in the air for myself. For one, if I was to recieve a tax credit from the Feds, it would go immediately to paying down my debt and NOT to creating new stimulus and NOT going back into the economic market places. I think that it would largely be, not a waste, but a misuse of the monies in the hands of the Government to spread it out amongst Canadians who will most likely not inject those funds into the economy, therefore defeating the purpose of the credit.

And so as we speak, CPAC returns from adjournment for the presentation of the Budget. I will do my absolute best to take a bite into the document myself and report back to my loyal, currently non-existant readers!
Thomas RB Miller, Winnipeg Manitoba

---

[1] CBC.ca Newsreel, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/26/budgetadvancer.html
[2] Vancouver Sun, http://www.vancouversun.com/Entertainment/Budget+targets+infrastructure/1219136/story.html
[3] Journal of Commerce, http://www.joconl.com/article/id32020
[4] Dissident Voice radical newsletter, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/vancouver-2010-olympics-social-sustainability-legacy-under-fire/

The Political Reality of Beards

You know, every so often I find myself  snapping into a sort of uber self-consciousness. It happens in a variety of different situations throughout my everyday life. I find myself very aware of my surroundings when in a city and the role that I play in that city. I think about the different professions that keep that city functioning, the professions that I frequent and contribute to.

I also think about the underbelly of the city, the street-level professions such as prostitution, drug dealing, 'illegal' labour. I wonder if those prostitutes realize that they are party to a timeless and ancient profession, historically one that was not as frowned upon as it is today. Do the 'illegal' labourers (a more appropriate term would be undocumented, I guess) realize that they are somewhat a splinter of historic slave-labour that made the polis of old as great and prosperous as they were.

And then I looked at my shaggy appearance in the mirror this evening. I have kept a full beard on my face for the last two years now, and a goatee another 2 or 3 years prior in one capacity or another, and I love it. If one does not wear a beard, one does not know how much a beard completes a face. I saw my face and the unkempt condition of my barbs and thought to myself, 'What do I represent with this beard?'

--

I have long been an admirer of Fidel and Ernesto Guevara; what they symbolized in both their actions and their appearance. The represented change and an alternate way of doing things, of conducting oneself both in society as well as in a larger national and global way. The romance of the Cuban Revolution, the foundations of which were very non-partisan, contrary to popular belief, which a interestingly contrasts with the daddies of Communism and their strikingly eyeblinding facial-statements of the 19th c.

Thus the political issue reveals itself. Do my political preferences and inclinations manifest themselves in a physical way via my facial hair? Can I be picked out of a crowd as a socialist, just by my beard? I think yes. My keeping a beard signifies my aversion to conform to normal, mainstream trends. Since the end of the 19th century beards have been on the steady decline. American Presidents stopped wearing facial hair altogether after Taft [c.1930] (also, coincidentally the 1st Governer of Cuba) and it took decades before it was again donned en mass with the emergence of the hippy sub-culture.

And so I present that wear my beard as a personal statement just as much as a political or fashionable statement. I want my physical appearance to reflect my inner self, and non-conformity and ruggedness manifest through my neck, chin and cheeks in the form of sharp, whiskery barbs. I reject the classical clean-shavenism that finds its roots in the barbarians and non-Romans. I reject the notion that they only way to live in a civilized manour is to enter into the kind of society that we have created over centuries of misguided, liberal theology. How interesting that in order to be considered a civil person, one must remove one the most natural, biological products that a human, puebecent male can produce.

--

That is my rant on beards and their connection to politics. There is much more that can be said, and perhaps I will say it at a later time. Until then, grow a beard and realize the miracle of masculinity!

Responsive vs Responsible Government

The concept of Responsible Government was, is, and always will be a fundamental aspect of any democratic movement world over. After all, les gens gave their namesake for the term.

But as with all terms and concepts, it is left entirely open to interpretation. Responsible to what? To whom? In a federal and centralised system, in a nation as geographically vast as Canada's, when do MPs go back to their constituents and take their most important seat, their riding office, to test the waters of opinion? On what subject matter do the people truely need to be involved?

As anyone with a political mind should realize, the system we function in is a liberal-democratic one. Do not mistake this for modern liberal thinking, or an even more dangerous mistake, for Canadian capital-L Liberalism. Liberal-democracy protects the individual, and the rights that inherently come from being an individual. Free-Market Democracy is how I choose to define it. Free-Market Capitalism holds that every man, woman and Samoan-child has the right to earn funds, save their funds, invest their funds, or donate their funds in whatever way they see fit. This was the dirt from which liberal-democratic thought bloomed, and envitably those same rights were adopted upon the wider public in the form of suffrage and participation in their own governance.

This is an important point to make when discussing the many variant forms of democracy and its respective schools of thought. Another facet of thought is that which was explored in the Soviet Union's theoretical and early stages as it struggled out of the grips of Czarist, uber-liberal tyranny. Because of the unique circumstances that Soviet-Communist Democracy grew out of, having to be fostered in the underground and alienated from the people, the concept of the Vanguard was created and taken as the only feasible vehicle of democratic change in an autocratic and dictatorial age. It gained momentum and support from the roots of Communism in the writings of Marx. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat became the buzz phrase for the movement.

And so the difference is drawn in the phrase, 'For the People, By the People, or Both?' We must leave to our governments some degree of freedom to disassociate from the people in order to maintain a functioning system. We in the Western + capitalistic world have the right of suffrage, that is the right to decide by election and universal participation exactly who makes up our Governments. That in turn requires that the government be responsible and accountable to the people who they represent, and ergo who elected them, and who could elect them again in the future. That accountability carries over to everything that the Government has involvement in, ensuring that the people interests and needs are first in line when making decisions regarding Governmental Affairs.

Non liberal-democracy does not inherently ensure that the Government will take the people interests into account, seeing as there is no accountability. They are stated to be for the people, but they are not elected by the people. This is a recipe for disaster, resulting in the latter stages of the Soviet Empire and more recently in the Canadian Constitutional Crisis precipitated by the Harperites at the end of 2008.

The interesting twist in this thinking is that even though historically it has been adopted to many Leftist movements, it also takes many pointers from the Pro-business, free market end of the spectrum. The corporate world is unelected, unaccountable except to it stockholders and money lenders, and void of any inherent allegiance to morality, be them determined good or bad by popular standards. This is why there is a movement against the vast privatisation of many resources, such as public water and heat during the winter months. Less Government, more business is the general rule of thumb for Conservative parties world over - interestingly though, it frequently is followed by total and unwaivering praise for our democratic institutions and the need to have people involved in their Governance!

The point that I wanted to make when starting this piece was that the principles of Social-democracy jive more with the fundamentals of Canadian democracy and with the Accountable Government theory than the Conservative values and the free-market mentality that would have unaccountable, unelected corporate entities control vital services like clean water or house-heating - leaving them up to the fluctuating and profit driven markets as opposed to stable and strategically controlled markets of the Public sector.

Not to say that capitalism and a dose the the Free Market is a hideous and terrible thing, quite the opposite actually. I would see as much economic growth as possible from the Free Market and from the private sectors of society, but when it comes to essential services like heat during the winter, those who cannot afford their heat bill in Winnipeg during the month of February should not freeze to death because of their financial inabilities. Only a public corporation can sustainably run a loss during the winter to accomodate the people, such a move is out of the question for a private company who much balance budgets or risk bankruptcy.

Long live HUGE, NON-Invasive, Government!