Another Daycare Program with or without Strings

Or are there?

Michael Ignatieff unveiled his new daycare program, that seems rather simple. It gives Provinces up to a half million in money, to add new daycare spaces.  Nice, isn’t it?  On the surface I suppose it is, and add into that, that after four years, it goes to a Billion Dollars.

How will it be paid for?

Well rolling back the latest Corporate Tax cut by Harper, is supposed to pay for this program. Kind of makes me ask, why did corporations need such a whopping big tax cut. I mean do the math, half a million per province, means that tax cut cost us about $6 Billion.  But that is another question.

I remember the Martin Government who had a deal worked out with the Provinces. It promised to give spaces where needed, more for those in need, than just everybody. Example being the current program in place, the $100 a month payment given to everyone who uses daycare.  Like you know, wealthy couples who would rather send the kid to daycare, than hire a nanny.

Course, it was taxable income.

I suppose my biggest question is, what are the strings attached to this gift to the Provinces? Are the spaces they create, for all who want them, or are they for single parents who actually are in need of those spaces? Do the provinces get to do it either way, without strings? By that I mean, can they say offer spaces to anyone, or limit it to just those are in dire need of it?

Universal is a nice all encompassing thought, but there are times when we have to say NO. I mean if we can put more money where it is needed, isn’t that better than saving wealthy people a few hundred bucks?  So perhaps Mr Ignatieff can enlighten us on that?

Cost of Living Sticker Shock

I am out of step with society. I mean to me, the direction of Government should be about pandering to the needs of the least, not to the most.  Simply put, Government should be more concerned about the needs of the less fortunate, NOT the most fortunate.

One reason why I will Vote for Anyone But Harper.

Yet, are any of the others any better? Does Michael Ignatieff, Elizabeth May, or Jack Layton truly care about the least fortunate, more than the rich cats?  I am not sure anymore, about any of our political parties, and their platforms.

Sure Jack Layton is pushing for capping credit card interest rates, That is a good thing. Even Michael Ignatieff and his education plan, offers increased amounts for those with a low income threshold, and his daycare plan is more directed to single parents & low income earners, than the Harper Plan.  But is it just campaign rhetoric?

Take the impending Hydro rate hikes that are expected in the coming years.  What do any of our political parties have on tap, to deal with this travesty, that will impact the Middle Class and those low income earners, or fixed income citizens?  Do any of them have a clue, or any semblence of a plan?

I have been in business since I was 11, working in the family business. I know that when we needed to make improvements to our store, or upgrade things like the cash register, or counters, we took the money out of the profits we earned. If we didn’t have enough, we took a bank loan out to pay for it, and paid it back out of the profits. 

 So how come Hydro Operations are asking the consumer to pay for their improvements?

The rate hikes are going to devastate low income earners. I know it is hard enough now, for me to pay our Hydro bill each month. I have to use more energy, to do laundry daily for a 93 year old. It has to be HOT water, to insure germs & such are killed. 

I doubt I’ll be able to afford it much longer, especially if the rates go up much more. Yet over the next 3 years, BC Hydro is wanting a 30% rate hike.   Like I can barely afford it now, never mind an additional THIRTY PER CENT!

And the explanation?  Well, it is the cost of building new plants, upgrading the power lines, and all those other infrastructure costs that go into running a hydro business.  Course, the head of Hydro also pulls down a Half Million a year in wages. 

So how come Big Businesses, like Hydro can get away with that? I mean, if you run a smoke shop, or a corner grocery, do you tell your customers that you are building a new counter, so they are going to have pay you 30% more for their milk, newspaper?

I don’t think so. Business doesn’t work that way, least it didn’t. Yet that is exactly what BC Hydro, and the others, are doing. They want you and me to pay more, so they can fix up things, add more plants.

So Jack, Michael, Elizabeth, Gilles, Stephen, let me ask you:

1. Do you think it is right for the Hydro operations ( monopolies btw. ) to ask their customers to pay for new power lines, new dams, new generators?
2. Do you think it is right to raise electric rates without offering any protection for the low income & fixed income consumers?
3. What are you going to do about these rate hikes, if you get to be in charge?

Somehow I bet Stephen Harper will offer a tax cut to those on fixed incomes, and who earn minimum wage. After all, if they don’t have the income in the first place, they won’t be able to use the tax cut, which means it’ll cost him nothing to offer it.

And for thsoe who earn a bit more than minimum wage, well they will get an extra few bucks, maybe even fifty, though their cost will be hundreds more.

As for those who earn six figures, well they’ll have a bonanza in savings, and wind up paying less, than they do now.  And that will mean more votes, more campaign contributions to Mr Harper.   

Isn’t that why he is so Tax Cut happy?  It gets him big bucks to spread his lies. 

What Kind of Example Does Harper Set

Actually, I suppose that question could be asked of any of our Political Leaders. I mean just what kind of example do they set, for our youth? For ourselves even?

Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister for a few years now, and perhaps has the greatest influence of the current leaders. I mean he is top dog, so what does it tell them, when he runs ad after ad, that is filled with nothing but lies & contempt for other people?

Does it send a message that bullying others who disagree with you, is okay?

Does it send a message that lying is okay, as long as you scream it out, tell it often enough, that no one dares question it?

I wonder, if some of the spill over is that political leaders today, have lost the ability to be real role models for the people.  I mean I look at Bill Clinton, at how he lied under oath, then spent months to prove he wasn’t a liar. Or how about George Bush with his Iraq War and all the lies & deception he used, to justify that war.

Right now we have one going on in Libya, and again, I wonder if this isn’t the result of blatant lies, deceit. I mean just who are these freedom fighters that we are supporting? Stephen Harper has our Military leading the fray there, and again, I wonder, just how much of what he told us is true. 

If he can lie about the Coalition, distort the facts in his campaign ads, what else is he distorting?  Is he telling us the truth that these so called Freedom Fighters actually are that? I mean, suddenly we have almost every Islam nation in the Middle East dealing with so called freedom movements.  Makes me wonder, how they got to be so well organized, under those tyranical regimes?

And it comes down to people like Stephen Harper, who tell us in short sound bites, just how bad our opposition leaders are. I mean he talks about the Coalition, about Ignatieff not being here for us, and yet his own Ministers seem to routinely lie in Parliament,  Hell they even contradict themselves so much, that you can’t tell if they even know which lie they are defending, they tell so many.

Take the ODA affair. I mean her secertary Jim Abbot even says that they rejected the application based on CIDA recommendations. Harper maintains that it was Oda’s decision alone, who also said she based her decision on CIDA’s recommendation.   Only trouble is, CIDA recommended the application, which ODA rejected.

If they are so blantantly lying about something as simple as an application for funding, what other lies are they telling us?  Is the whole Libya affair an example?  How about the F-35 fighter jet deal? How much truth is in that?  How about the idea of a balanced budget in 2015/16?  Real or another Lie?

This is the problem with liars. You never know when they actually are telling you the truth, if they ever are. It also is about what kind of message they are sending to our youth. It seems, that if Harper gets in again, the message is……. LIE TILL THE COWS COME HOME ‘CUZ IT GETS YOU ELECTED.

One more reason why…   VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT HARPER & HIS CONSERVATIVES

Two Party System Not An Option Mr Harper

Stephen Harper’s latest ploy, to score some political brownie points, is what is really diverting the campaign.  Elizabeth May being denied a seat at the Leaders Debate table ahs given Stephen Harper an opportunity to try and change our political system. His offer to debate Michael Ignatieff One On One, is a gimmick, to try and deny all other political parties, their seat at the debate table.

IF this country was like the United States, we would still be debating whether or not to have Universal Health Care.

IF this country was a two party system, we’d have had a lot more Stephen Harper’s in office, because we would be limited to just one choice. In this election, and past elections, we have had at least THREE ALTERNATIVES.   

In the last Federal Election, & this one, we actually have FOUR CHOICES ( Liberals, Green Party, NDP, Harper Alliance/Conservatives ), while Quebec actually gets FIVE CHOICES.  ( Duceppe, Harper, Ignatieff, May, Layton ).

The limiting of choices, means a stifling of free thinking. By going to a two party system, it becomes either him/her or him/her.  And that too becomes even more difficult. To actually have a female Prime Minister. 

Choosing a Government should be about selecting the party whose policies will best serve the Nation. A 2 party system becomes a popularity contest, and pushes issues aside.  Just look at how it has worked in the United States.  We’d have a lot more George Bush wannabees, than we have had now.  That alone makes it important to not let Stephen Harper manipulate the system.

Michael Ignatieff should accept the one on one debate, but only if Harper will also debate Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, & Elizabeth May one on one. AND then follow those debates up with a full on debate, featuring all of our political leaders.   That would show me that at least Ignatieff gave a damn about our principles, our heritage, and our rights.

Doing otherwise, has me looking more closely at Layton & May.

I simply do not want a type of Government where we vote for the best of the worst. I want to debate issues, not personalities. 

Canada would NEVER have a strong federal Government if we were just a two party system. Provinces would be able to have more say, to the detriment of other provinces.

We would NEVER have a national Education System, if we were just a two party system. Even now, the USA doesn’t have a clear national education system, which is one reason that literacy is dropping, why crime is rising, why productivity is dwindling.

We would NEVER have a National Health System, if we were a two party system. Do you really prefer to pay premiums of hundreds of dollars, for less than what we get now? That is how it works in the USA.  Not only that, but they have a two tiered system. County Hospitals for the Middle Class & Poor, luxury Hospitals for those who can afford deluxe medical plans.

This whole debate issue comes down to whether or not we, the people want choices. The more choices we have, the more options we have. More than that, it stimulates the creative process.  A two party system does the opposite. The less you have, the less interested you are, the less you get done. 

But worse, without options, without choices, the easier it is for corruption & graft to take hold. Just look at the United States.  Do we really want more of our political leaders to take brown paper bags of money?

I want more choices, not less…   Vote For Anyone But Harper.

Diverting Attention or Boosting the Ratings?

Don’t you feel sorry for the poor Broadcast Consortium & Political Leaders?  I mean they are being diverted from their job, because of this whole Elizabeth May nonsense.  After all, she is just the leader of the Green Party, running cadidates in all ridings, but has no seats in the last Parliament. So what nerve she has, to expect to be a part of the Leaders Debate.

And pity our poor Political Leaders who have seats in Parliament. Now they have to take an extra minute or two, to answer a question of whether they oppose her inclusion, or not. I mean, gee, I bet they are sitting down right now, in some back room, plotting their strategy on how to deal with this mega issue.     NOT !

In many ways, this is actually an important issue. 

Such as: Who should decide who can attend a Leaders Debate? Should that decision not be made by those who are running?

Then how about asking why is Gilles Duceppe in the debate? After all, his party will NEVER  form the next government, so just because he has seats, he’s entitled to appear? What about say the Wester Canada Concept Party or Social Credit Party? What if they get seats in this election, while only running in one or two provinces.  Will their leader automatically be included in the next Leaders Debate?

My own opinion is simple. YES I think the Bloc should be included, as they do represent a large segment of our Nation. They do have seats in Parliament as well.  I also believe that the Green Party should be represented, simply by the fact that they have candidates running in ALL RIDINGS.  They Nationally took about 6% of the popular vote in the last election.

So YES, Elizabeth May should be in that debate, not needing a lawyer to contest the decision by a bunch of stodgy Corporate Big Wigs.

The Political Parties don’t need to spend a lot of time discussing this, or ducking the question. IF they are about DEMOCRACY and FAIR PLAY, then they should simply tell the Broadcast Consortium that either she is in, or they are out.

Course, being cynical, one could argue that this ploy by the Broadcast Consortium, is to generate interest in the Leaders Debate, to help boost possible ratings for it, when they relent and let her into the debate.  I think its called Marketing?  Where you create an interest in something, that people perhaps aren’t interested in it.

Yes, I do believe that is a real reason of why the Consortium has made its announcement. That and to perhaps protect their darling, Stephen Harper, from having another critic at the table.

The response so far, from all the Political Parties leaves me cold. I mean I expected the response by Stephen Harper, that he ‘accepts‘ the decision to not have May. I am disappointed in the lack lustre response from both Layton & Ignatieff.  They don’t ‘object’ to having her in the debate.

Like get some damn balls, and tell this Broadcast Consortium to let her in, or they can simply have a debate with only Stephen Harper attending.   Bet that would end the issue fast,  and let us get on with discussing the other issues in this election.