And the results... D-

Okay, let's see if my list of "demands" were met. Then again, I already vote Conservative, so why continue to pander to me, right?

- Raise the personal exemption to $20,000 - really, can anyone earning below this amount afford to pay?

Was the personal exemption even raised at all? I really think there should be an automatic mechanism in place that at least matches inflation.

- Lower the bottom income tax rate from 15.5% to 10%

Nope. It's still 15.5%.

- Lower the middle income tax rate from (34%??) to 25%

If they never lower the bottom rate, they'll never lower the middle rate.

- Move the trigger income for the highest rate bracket to $150,000, not what $67,000 as it is now?

Nope.

- Lowered capital gains taxes (I have stocks)

Nope.

- Any debt payment interest savings go to tax cuts (which I hear is what's going to happen).

Um, hello? (tumbleweed passes by...)

So what DO we have for tax reduction?

• A new $2,000 child tax credit will provide up to $310 of tax relief for each child under 18.

  A new $550-million-per-year Working Income Tax Benefit that will provide up to $500 per year for individuals and $1,000 for families to reward and strengthen incentives to work.

  Increasing the age limit to 71 from 69 for registered retirement savings
  plans and registered pensions.

  Overall taxes for eligible pensioners will be reduced by allowing pension income splitting as promised in October when the government decided to tax income trusts.

  New resources to the Canada Revenue Agency to detect and close down tax
  avoidance through offshore tax havens.

The Conservatives have become social-engineers extraordinaire, but with a family focus, so I'm for that. But the libertarian in me wished there were more broad based tax reductions.

And not only are they family based social-engineers, but are doubling as vehicle engineers too. Check out the crazy tax incentive scheme for new vehicle purchases!

To begin with, new automobiles with a combined fuel consumption rating of 6.5 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres or less; and minivans, SUVs and light pickup trucks with a consumption rate of 8.3 litres per 100 kilometres, or less, will be eligible for the rebate.

The basic rebate amount will be $1,000, and an additional $500 will be added for each half-litre per 100-kilometre improvement in the combined fuel-efficiency rating of the vehicle below the threshold.

The rebate will max-out at $2,000, and vehicles purchased or leased March 20 and later will qualify.

Following are a list of the rebates for various vehicles (fuel efficiency rating in brackets):

Toyota Prius: $2,000 (4.1)
Honda Civic Hybrid: $2,000 (4.5)
Toyota Corolla: $1,000 (6.3)
Mini Cooper M6: $1,000 (6.5)
Ford Escape HEV 4x4: $2,000 (7.4)
Saturn Vue Hybrid: $1,000 (7.9)
Chevrolet Impala: $1,000 (12.3)

..

The budget also imposes a "green levy" on new gas-guzzling passenger vehicles, excluding trucks.

A charge of $1,000 will be levied on Canadians who purchase new vehicles with
fuel-efficiency ratings of between 13 and 14 litres per 100 kilometres. The levy
will increase by $1,000 for each full litre above the 13-litre benchmark, to a
maximum of $4,000.

This is a very progressive positive environmental incentive for auto buyers. It literally blows my mind how the auto industry hasn't produced more efficient big vehicles, when you know they can with the technology we have today. But let's see if this scheme actually works. Will buyers be aware of this incentive and will the auto industry adjust their engineering to follow suit?

Politically, this is a very saavy budget. Apparently, the big item was simply to "solve" the provincial fiscal imbalance (read: buy votes in Quebec). So now that's "solved", will the next budget solve the other fiscal imbalance. You know, the people who help buy the votes in Quebec -- i.e. middle class taxpayers.

You know, now that the Conservatives are addicted to tax incentives, I'm starting to think of another way to encourage people to work and boost the middle class.

Maybe the middle income tax rate should be lower than the bottom rate? But being that I wish the upper rate was more like it is in the U.S. at $200,000, this is a pipe dream.

Overall, there is nothing in this budget that does anything for a single income person trying to get ahead--not unless you get married and have kids and dance around or something. Hmmm.

Andrew Coyne sums up my feelings about this budget. Spin aside from fellow Conservatives: Dark Blue Tory and Noise From The Right, what's so "conservative" about this budget? I'd definitely say it looks more Liberal or very, very Red Tory.

This budget gets a "D-". Booooooooo!

Budget polls

So I could care less what a poll says about the budget and what "Canadians want". I bet a good chunk of those surveyed are from the T.O. region where more spending on government benefits them because they're at the trough too.

Every year, the same poll goes out and the same left-wing results come in.

What about a poll just for lower and middle income families and individuals? Or what about a poll for those who don't work for the government, a university, or other publically funded institutions?

Polls schmolls.

Budget 2007

The 2007 federal budget is about to be announced in the House of Commons by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, if not already underway.

Before I see what's in it, as a single earner middle class taxpayer, here's what I want, and I think these are feasible:

- Raise the personal exemption to $20,000 - really, can anyone earning below this amount afford to pay?
- Lower the bottom income tax rate from 15.5% to 10%
- Lower the middle income tax rate from (34%??) to 25%
- Move the trigger income for the highest rate bracket to $150,000, not what $67,000 as it is now?
- Lowered capital gains taxes (I have stocks)
- Any debt payment interest savings go to tax cuts (which I hear is what's going to happen).

The federal government takes in a huge amount of cake from taxpayers already and it needs to control its own spending BEFORE we should have to control ours on things like food, clothing, and shelter. People's income taxes dwarf the amount spent on these basic necessities and that tragedy all started occuring during the 90's under the Chretien/Martin Liberal government where over 70 taxes in some form or another were introduced or raised.

I love it when analysts, journalists, economists and pundits say, "lowering income taxes will COST the government $2.5 billion". "COST"? Um, but bowing down and taking those high rates up the shlocka is COSTING taxpayers and families first and my lengthy walk to trying to pay down my student loans or families paying down a mortgage or trying to save for their kids' education.

You simply have to ask if you are getting the value from the thousands of dollars you send to the federal government, which, by the way, collects the most taxes from you and delivers the fewest tangible services. Health care and education you ask? Well, that's provided and paid for by your province.

What if you had a few extra hundred dollars to spend, save, and invest each month?

The middle class is getting screwed and has been getting screwed for years as the government gets bigger. What do I mean by screwed? It's harder for us to become rich with an hourly rate job.

I'm all for lowered tuition and graduation incentives, but a lowered tuition will never happen as long as bloated bureaucracies and inefficiencies occur in our universities and colleges. Teachers will continue to get the shaft, not from government, but by crappy school boards and their unions. Nurses, doctors, and ultimately, patients themselves are screwed even when we pour more money down the funnel. Aboriginals have been getting screwed for a long time, as billions are given, but the end result never changes as the money is syphoned off.

The way to cut them off at the trough is to lower taxes first and have these organizations find ways to improve and deliver the goods before individuals and families are asked to.

I'm all for trickle down economics, but I think we need to boost the lower and middle income earners and give them a break and an opportunity to not just wait a couple years for the money to run through the economy and get to them.

Does anyone remember when current health minister, Tony Clement, ran for the Conservative leadership? I always liked his idea of the first $200,000 a person earns is income tax free. Wow, that would really give young graduates a head start in life. I'd have paid off my student loan and owned a house by now.

Or is giving money to the government to spend more important to you?

E E E

The "momentum" trickles along for Senate reform... with a boost from the Motherland!

Senator LeBreton said Harper's bill, which proposes renewable eight-year terms for senators, is being held up by the Grits for more study even though a special Senate committee has already filed a report on the proposed legislation. She said a second Senate committee which is examining the bill even appears poised to recall witnesses who have already testified to answer more questions.

"I just don't know why the Liberals are doing this. You know, they just don't get it. I've always thought they are insulated from the public in a type of closed society which totally ignores the Canadian public," said LeBreton, who acknowledged the Senate reforms would likely become an election issue if they are held up before a vote is called.

Liberal MP Stephen Owen agreed with LeBreton that the pro-reform vote in England should serve as a further catalyst for change in Canada's Senate. However, he said the numerical disadvantage that western provinces suffer in the Senate must be addressed before elections and shorter terms are brought in for the senators.

He said a proposed bill by Liberal Senator Jack Austin which would increase the number of Senate seats for the West needs to become a priority for the government.

Owen, who is not running for re-election, said despite objections from Liberal senators, he personally does not have a problem with the prime minister appointing senators who have first been elected through a consultative vote in each province, as proposed by Harper. Many Liberals have said bringing in an elected Senate can only be done through a constitutional amendment and Harper's plan would create a two-tier Senate.

"I'm not so worried about that since it will be solved in a fairly quick time-frame. But to bring in elected senators without adjusting the numbers will further disadvantage the West and give more power to the central Canada. And that's not acceptable," said Owen.

Nice try, Stephen Owen. This is a typical Liberal Senator tactic. Agree with the idea of reform, but don't do anything. Actually, it's a typical Liberal tactic in general. They like to use the word "tiers" don't they?

And does anyone give a rats ass how many "tiers" there are in the Senate?

With a population of over 300 million, the U.S. has 100 elected Senators, two for each state, with staggered six year terms . Canada is one-tenth the size in population, but has, what, 106 unelected Senators who serve life-terms to the age of 75? Seems a bit off, doesn't it?

So now Senator Austin wants MORE senators for the Western provinces. Currently, Alberta has 6 and Ontario has what 24? So is he saying we should add 18 senators to Alberta? Isn't that a little much? We already have 28 MPs. Then there's BC. Is there enough room in the red chamber for all these bodies?

And there's my point. The Liberal senators don't have the courage to want to change how THEY sit, so they simply ADD more, reducing the transparency and scrutiny of their own lazy jobs.

Well, last week, the British House of Commons voted 337 to 224 in favour of an elected upper chamber.

Mike Jenkinson has a good article here.

Prime Minister Harper has put forth an 8 year term for senators in Bill S-4, which is currently before the Liberal dominated senate, and has been sitting there for 10 months now, waiting, waiting.

"I encourage the senators to hurry up their detailed analysis," Harper said. Yeah, no kidding.

Now I'm going to throw an idea out there. I'd like to suggest that each province should have 4 senators with 12 year re-electable terms. An election would occur for one of the senate seats every 3 years in conjunction with a province's civic election (which are fixed). With fewer senators, they would be under greater scruitiny, but have the longevity to overlap governments in the house of commons.

There's my analysis.

I think the Conservatives can use this has an election issue to solidify the western base, especially in B.C. where the party lost a few key seats. Every little bit will help in getting a majority.

But the next time a Liberal talks about senate reform, you can't help but laugh.

Just like being at the movies!

This story is awesome:

"A fast-thinking pilot with passengers in cahoots fooled a hijacker by
braking hard upon landing, then accelerating to knock the man down. When he
fell, flight attendants threw boiling water in his face, and about 10 people
pounced on him, Spanish officials said Friday."

Friggin CTV

Look at this online new article from CTV.

Notice the images? Liberal leader Stephane Dion looks determined. Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez has a nice glowing profile shot.

Conservative minister John Baird? It was like the photographer intentionally sought to find Baird's face squished in a scrum. I mean, the CTV got good photos of the other two men, why was Baird's so myopic?

Bias perhaps? Damn straight.

Friggin' Liberals

Here's what the opposition Liberals are up to on several fronts. You wonder where they're coming from sometimes.

Terrorism at home
Although they originally introduced the act, the most Liberals not supporting the renewal of the anti-terror legislation. Granted, it did have a sunset clause, but this is perfect timing kids! Right at the time when the Saudi faction of Al Qaeda said they should attack Canada's oil industry. Oh, no, that's okay, it's been getting attacked by Liberals since the early 80's!

Senate Reform
On Senate reform, there's a bill in the Senate right now that sets renewable 8 year term limits. Stephane Dion wants it to 12 to 15 years with no renewal. Prime Minister Harper is open to that, but Dion is against elections, because once again, same old excuse "we'd have to open up the constitution". But what Harper is suggesting in his proposed legislation is that provinces can have non-binding senate elections, that the Prime Minister will seek the will of the provinces and appoint their choice. We've done this before, people! While I believe the most important "e" of a triple-e senate is "equality", progress is better than no progress on an issue that's been dragging its ass for oh, what, 160 years?

Kyoto
Back in May 2006, a Liberal MP introduced a private members bill which recommits the government to the Kyoto protocol and commits them to implementing a plan 60 days after the bill becomes law. It just passed last night as the Liberals teamed up with the Bloc and NDP. The Liberals did nothing when they committed us to this protocol (without parliamentary approval, I might add). They had no plan, so now they're painting the Conservative government into a corner. This has nothing to do with how much the Liberals believe in saving the environment. It's pure political football and the football is Kyoto (I wish it were Dion's dog). Hypocrites! And they know it!

What's interesting is the government appealed to the Speaker that this private member's bill was out of order due to it being a money bill, which a private member cannot introduce. But Speaker Milliken said that the chair cannot determine from the bill how the government chooses to implement it, so the bill stands. Fair enough. But what the Speaker is saying then is that essentially, the government doesn't have to spend any money on this. So it really doesn't have any teeth. Environment Minister John Baird calls it "a joke". I agree. Not only that, but so are the Liberals' hypocracy. Even their own deputy leader admits that we can't achieve the measures in Kyoto.

So already, environment groups are threatening to sue the government if it doesn't implement the unattainable Kyoto accord. Will the Liberals call a vote of non-confidence on the government? But wouldn't that be admitting to themselves that they didn't get anything done so they're now putting the blame on the Conservatives for their own ineptitude?

Election Junction
As a result of this, there's a wiff of election fever in the air. Without the budget even being released yet, the Liberals are poised to defeat it. Nice. Real nice. Way to work within parliament guys. All Stephane Dion has as an argument is "They're right wing. Canadians are moderate." Geez, can't you come up with something better? Or is it "difficult to make priorities" Stephane? "Not fair?" Well, too bad. Canadians should expect more from the opposition rather than just opposing for the sake of opposing. Two years ago, the opposition Conservatives voted in favour of the budget. Granted, no one wanted an election at that time.

So the question is, do the Liberals really want to have an election? I'm going to say, no. They're not ready, nor will they ever be to "go back to power" if that's all they want, rather than doing the right things for Canadians and actually getting things done.

Ad Fad Bad Glad - Polls Schmolls

Do you remember in 1993, when then campaign manager of the PC Party of Canada, and current PC Party of Ontario leader, John Tory, ran those attack ads of Jean Chretien's face? That was mean. It was like young kids making fun of another's disability. It completely backfired and helped Campbell Tories reduced to two seats.

Do you remember in 1997 when the Reform Party ran attack ads against the Liberals and Tories showing how many leaders there have been from Quebec (Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau, Charest)? Was it mean? No. It was simply telling the truth, but it did have a negative tone to it.

I saw the daily poll numbers for that. The Reform Party saw a quick jump of about 5 points and the Charest led PC Party saw a drop of the same. Then Charest went on TV and did an interview. He was asked abou the ad. He said, and I'll never forget it, "Preston Manning is a bigot." The next day, those 5 points flipped back around. Good, quick spin on Charest's part, but the ads probably solidied the Reform base more than anything.

This week, you saw it--the polls showing that a majority of Canadians found the Tory ads saying "Stephane Dion is not a leader" was not fair or effective. This was plastered all over the front covers and on news websites like CTV. Blogger Calgary Grit gives some insight.

Yeah but. .. but they worked.

Have you seen the latest poll? Probably not, because it's very favourable for the Conservative Party. Take the Toronto Star for instance. This article is buried somewhere in the website, but nowhere on the front page. I found it by searching Google. But notice what is says...

---

Poll gives Tories the edge

Feb 08, 2007 06:21 PM
Canadian Press

MONTREAL – A recent poll suggests the Conservatives have a slight lead over the Liberals.
The Leger Marketing survey gives the Tories 38 per cent support, the Liberals 31 per cent, the NDP 14 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois eight per cent.

In Quebec, the Liberals (32 per cent) and the Bloc (31) are in a battle and are followed by the Conservatives at 24 per cent.

In Ontario, the Conservatives are at 40 per cent, compared with the Liberals' 35 per cent.
The poll of 1,500 Canadians was conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 4, a period shortly after the Conservatives unveiled ads critical of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.

The national results are considered accurate within 2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

---

Slight lead? Slight? That's a 7 point margin and the Conservatives are nipping at the nose of a majority. You know, if the Liberals were a couple points ahead, this would be front page news. I'm sick of the bias in Canadian mainstream media. And so is our Prime Minister. You see why the Conservatives had to run those ads?

Like any leader, Stephane Dion has his faults. When he was younger, he was a separatist, but was converted one night talking to older friends after getting drunk. The guy does not speak English very well. His policies? I don't even want to go there.

The question is, has the mainstream media picked up on any of this stuff today, like they did when Stephen Harper won the Conservative leadership? Hell, no.

The ads were balsy, almost crossed that fine line, but they worked. They showed actual verbal exchanges of Iggy and Dion at the leadership debates. Were they unfair? Only, I think, because Dion says attacks against him are "unfair".

But were they mean?

Predictions

From what I'm reading, the Conservatives are aligning the planets to have an election in June.
How will they do that?

The Quebec election is in March. In the last week of the campaign, the federal budget will be presented, which is filled with tax cuts, including the tax back guarantee from interest savings on debt repayments, but also the deal to "solve" the fiscal imbalance.

All three opposition parties will defeat the coming budget in May. Duceppe will say there's still an imbalance (yeah, maybe in his head!), the Liberals will defeat it because they already said they would, and the NDP don't like tax cuts, so all of them will vote against it and this will kick off the campaign.

The NDP will be marginalized. The Green's will pick up a seat. The Bloc will lose seats to a few Conservative and Liberal gains.

The big issue is the environment of course, which the Conservatives appear to be handling. The Liberals are seen as no better on the environment, so Dion doesn't have a soapbox to stand on. He'll get creamed in the debates by cool, collected Harper.

The Conservatives need about an extra 30 seats to get a majority. With Jack Layton and the NDP sucking the hind tit lately (watch Question Period), the Greens gaining on them, and Jack making a deal with the Tories on the environment, unfortunately, those NDP votes will go to Liberals, and some to the Greens, who have some money in the bank now.

Watch British Columbia, a hodge-podge of folk who are pro-environment but also pro-democratic reform, which is an issue only the Conservatives have a handle on with Harper's push for an elected Senate. The Conservatives lost a few good seats there last election.

That said, the Bay Street business crowd will now turn against the Liberals with Dion as leader, so you may see the Liberals lose any blue liberals they had that liked Paul Martin, but what's potentially stopping that is the Tories reversal on taxing Income Trusts.

Any potential majority for the Conservatives will all come down to whether they can penetrate the Greater Toronto Area.

But will the economy hold? Housing prices are levelling. Thousands of job losses at Nortel and Chrysler can't be good. Industry is about to be regulated on pollution, which may slow things down at bit. There have been predictions for some time that the economy would slow as it's been going full-tilt for many years now.

Also, there are predictions that this summer will be very warm in Canada, fuelling the global warming hysteria.

So the timing of an election for the Conservatives isn't such a bad idea.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Conservatives will win another minority, but with more seats than they have now.

The IPCC "report" and other bits

I'm sure you've heard by now, last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its report. I wanted to wait a few days to see what the media and other folks had to say about it.

What's changed since the last report in 2001? Well, the hype about doom and gloom hasn't. I'd say it's increased, although the predictions have decreased.

This article explains how their predictions have halved by each report.

The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by .09 to .88 metres (3.5 to 34.6 inches or 9 to 88 cm).

In other words, in just six years, predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!

At that rate, by my calculations, we'll just have to wait for two more reports and the IPCC will be predicting no measurable increases at all!

Incidentally, many climate scientists have been saying just that -- wait until 2025, when it's expected the sun's output may wane, leading to global cooling.

It also points out that the actual science to supposedly explain these predictions won't come out in a report to be released in a few months.

What was that?

What's most troubling about all of this is the 21-page, much-hyped summary is not referenced at all.

The science that supposedly backs all of these predictions is nowhere to be found and won't be released until April and May.

This is problematic on many fronts, but as past IPCC reports have shown, the summary is not written by the scientists whose names appear on the cover, it's written by politicians and bureaucrats.

Indeed, some of those scientists after the fact have complained their work has been grossly misrepresented.

Oh, okay, now I understand. Let's get a unanimous consensus among officials (i.e. political group-think), then later we'll release the scientific report. Oh but wait, it gets better.

This article explains how the IPCC comes to its conclusions:

And don't expect the full truth to come out even when the 1,600 pages of science are finally released. The IPCC has a habit of censuring the work of scientists who disagree with the global alarmist orthodoxy. It has also instructed scientists still working on their academic contributions to the final report that those contributions must be modified after publication of the summary so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary's conclusions.

It is the political tail wagging the scientific dog.

Yeah, no kidding. Woof!

Here's exactly what the IPCC procedures say:

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after
acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure
consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15)"

It's like sending in a tax return saying you get money back and then fudging your receipts to prove it. It's like saying something is fact, then make the science fit that fact.

Well, you get the idea.

----

Now for a good chuckle on complying with the Kyoto Accord, read this.

Speaking of which, the Liberals recently put forth a motion asking the government to recommit to the Kyoto Protocol, which motion was then passed with the help of the other socialist parties. Granted, it's a non-binding motion, and the government can commit all it wants, like the Liberals did, but not deliver on anything.

So now the Liberals are lambasting the Conservatives for not keeping their promises on health care wait times. There's a stretch if I've ever heard one.

The Liberals have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister recently announced a tax cut guarantee! Any interest savings from debt payments will automatically go toward tax cuts for individuals. This is so obvious and simple and very conservative, no wonder the Liberals never did it. So the more the government pays down the debt, the more money you get, and the less burden it puts on your children and grandchildren in future years.

In other news, Maverick MP Garth Turner switches to the Liberals. Finally. Not that your own credibility wasn't shot to begin with (h/t Stephen Taylor).

As well, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach tells it like it is.

"You want to reduce back to 1990 levels -- how do you do it without destroying
the economy?" Stelmach said. "Nobody can deliver on it without hurting the
economy to the point where we will lose services."

So all in all, things on the political side in Canada seem to be going smoothly for us conservatives.

Meanwhile, in the U.S.&A., my main man, former New York mayor, "America's Mayor", Rudy Giuliani is now grabbing attention, making headlines, and out in front in his own party and against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on his run for the White House. Some of you know, but two years ago, if not more, I made the prediction that he would become the next President. Rudy is the exact type of leader this country needs. Mark my words. And you'll be hearing more of this throughout the campaign.

And with Harper poised to win the next Canadian election, possibly this Spring, and with Rudy as President, this libertarian conservative (that's me by the way), couldn't be happier.