It's been a busy week... to say the least

Sorry readers, I have been up to my neck in alligators over the last few weeks, and so have neglected to post anything. Trust me, it wasn't for a lack of material, just personal time.

Tom Mulcair

Let's start with last weeks statement regarding Alberta's oil industry by the newly chosen leader of the Federal NDP party, Thomas Mulcair. Tommy who owes his parties current standing entirely to the popularity of the late Jack Layton and draws the bulk of his support (number of elected seats) from Ontario and Quebec seems to feel that the prosperity of some regions of the country, namely Alberta is detrimental to other parts, in this case, you guessed it Ontario and Quebec.

Speaking on the CBC Radio show, The House (sadly, probably the best air time he can get) Mulcair stated "It's by definition the 'Dutch disease'. The Canadian dollar's being held artificially high, which is fine if you're going to Walt Disney World, (but) not so good if you want to sell your manufactured product because the American clients, most of the time, can no longer afford to buy it."

Now for those of you who are not familiar with the term "Dutch Disease", Tom is making reference to what occurred in the Netherlands in the 1960s after vast deposits of natural gas were discovered in the nearby North Sea. The resulting rise in its currency was thought to have caused the collapse of the Dutch manufacturing sector. So Tommy feels that Alberta is the cause of the strong Canadian buck and the diminishing Ontario and Quebec manufacturing sectors.

Unfortunately like with most issues of any importance Tom's party still has it's head in the 60's, actually I suspect many of their heads are stuck someplace else (hint, a place where the sun never shines). Although this train of thought makes for good sound clips and certainly garners support and cheers from Tom's traditional base of voters (unions, radicals, the self entitled) it does leave out some key facts.

Government and Debt. How did we ever go down this road?

Just the other day I was watching television in my bed prior to drifting off for the evening. As I recall I was watching the news, and I got to thinking about how nice it would be to get rid of my 21" CRT boob tube and replace it with a brand new 32" Plasma, LED, or LCD HD television. You know the ones, fully loaded with all the bells and whistles.

Now I will admit that there is really nothing wrong with the TV I have, but lets face it the new ones are just a lot nicer. As I lay in my bed musing about this I thought that if I were to buy a new TV I might as well get one of those PVR satellite receivers, that way I could record programs and watch them at night. After all, in for a penny in for a pound. In fact since I am upgrading.... why not a couple of sets of wireless headphones for the wife and I, that way one could watch TV into the wee hours while the other slept. Ooops, almost forgot a DVD player, a Bluray, probably 3D with some wireless features (don't want to miss out on NetFlix).

Just as I was planning my run to BestBuy the next day, reality set in (it's a bitch at times). I needed all of this equipment like a "starving dog needs a second arsehole", more to the point where was the money coming from? After all it's not like I had a couple of grand set aside for tech upgrades, or that my employer would just cut me a cheque out of the goodness of their heart (and their understanding of my hi-tech needs). The bottom line was that the money would have to be reallocated from something else ( food, education, retirement, mortgage, emergency funds, saving, etc.) or borrowed, thus incurring some debt.

So, now that I have laid out my hi-tech bedroom fantasy (almost sounds risque doesn't it?) you are probably asking yourself what this has to do with Government debt.

Well its no big secret that governments at every level (civic, provincial, and federal) are and have been overspending for years, taking on ever increasing debt loads with no end in sight or any formal plan for repayment. So what is the answer?

Now this is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black......

"Sydney, what happened to you? You've become obese!"

Recently, Jim Flaherty Canada's Finance Minister has taken to publicly criticizing the spending habits of the provincial government of Ontario.

Now while I can't argue with the criticism nor would I in my wildest dreams ever consider defending Premier Dalton McGuinty and his merry band of free spending caucus members, I do have a problem with this.
Where do I start, well it seems Jimmy has suggested that the McGuinty Liberals should "look in the mirror" to see who is responsible for Ontario's current economic woes. A fine suggestion, but tell me Jimmy-Boy, do you own a mirror?

Rather than having me take off on a rant (something I tend to do occasionally), let's keep this short and use a couple of old but well proven adages that accurately describe this soap opera.......
"cast the first stone" or  "Those that live in glass houses....."

I am personally amazed that Jimmy feels he can tell anyone how to be fiscally responsible. It certainly is not based on his setting such a fine example to follow,  another old adage says it best  "Don't do as I do, do as I say"

On the other hand, maybe there is a simpler motivation at play here, like the fact that Jimmy's wife Christine Elliot is the deputy leader of Ontario's Conservative party. You know, the same Conservative party that would like to form the next government of Ontario and currently sits in opposition to McGuinty's Liberals.

So Jimmy, how about doing us taxpayers a couple of favors?
First, balance your own governments budget and address it's debt before you worry about the other guys, and secondly when your working on our nickel let your wife do her own campaigning.

Getting closer each day to the edge of the cliff in Ontario...

Ontario Premier McGuinty and his ministers

Is it just me or does it appear that having a complete lack of common sense or any level of financial savvy is one of the prerequisites to holding an elected office in Provincial or Federal politics?

Now a lot of us non elected types who manage businesses and our own households understand the most basic of financial concepts, that you can not continuously spend more than you take in. Sure on occasion, all of us have gotten a little loose with the purse strings in the short term, but generally we rein them in pretty quickly to avoid financial ruin.

So why is it that governments with their army of accountants and advisers can't seem to balance a budget? To be fair I understand that on occasion revenues will be lower that anticipated and might result in a short fall, but the theory is that you adjust spending accordingly. Our governments in general have gotten to the point, particularly in the last number of years where a balanced or surplus budget is the exception, not the rule. Where they celebrate the introduction of a budget that shows a slight reduction (not elimination) in its projected deficit from the previous years deficit. Case in point, the Province of Ontario.

A taxpayers prescription to doctors and government, take on a daily basis.....

Image Courtesy of Acclaim Clipart

Doctors for Fair Taxation, a group of Canadian doctors is "prescribing" increased taxes on Canadians in higher income brackets. Promoting the slogan "Tax us. Canada's worth it!", the group is suggesting that both the Federal and Provincial levels of government raise taxes on the top 10% of wage earners in Canada.

"We are pleased that so far most of the health care system has been spared the cuts made to other sectors. But we see the impact of these cuts in our patients who lack the community services, housing, and income to be full participants in Canadian society," the group states in an online petition addressed to the federal and Ontario governments. "When a family faces a loss of income it doesn't resolve the crisis by denying food to one its members. A functional loving family makes the existing food go further. Our country should similarly find ways to best use our existing resources so no Canadian will be deprived of their health and security," said the group.
(Hold your horses Docs, since when did an individual citizen's earning become a national "existing resource"?)

In a nutshell, they suggest the following tax formula,
Canada's top 10% of wage earners, those who make more than $100,000 a year would see a 1% tax increase. But it doesn't stop there, they also suggest a 2% tax hike for the 1% of Canadians who earn more than $170,000, a 3% tax hike for the 0.1% who make more than $640,000 and a 6% hike for the top 0.01% who earn more than $1,85 million.

Now, some Canadians may look at the above proposal as being fair and just, after all why not take more from the "rich" (they can afford it, right?). Personally, I have some serious issues with the way that our progressive taxation system penalizes (via higher tax rates) individuals for taking risks and achieving success. But that's only part of the reason this proposal stinks......

Wanted: Premier for Ontario, No IQ test required

This week witnessed one of the most classic cases of  "foot in mouth" syndrome to have come along in a while, and lo and behold it came out of Ontario. The last time I can recall such stupidity from an Ontario politician was in January 1999 when Mayor Mel called in the army to perform snow removal in Toronto.  Then there was Bob Rae of course....

Recently Alberta's Premier Alison Redford sent a request to the Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty to show his support on selling the oil sands to the world, support that would be helpful at a time when Alberta energy is being referred to as "dirty oil" in some quarters. This undoubtedly seemed to Premier Redford to be a reasonable request considering the vital role Alberta's energy industry plays in the overall health of the Canadian economy.

Unfortunately Premier McGuinty apparently has a different opinion on Alberta's role in the Canadian economy, and particularly in regards to his own province. In fact rather than show his support for Alberta, he chastised our province and laid the blame for many of Ontario's financial woes right at our feet.