Fraser Institute: Corporate Welfare Costs Us

Even as I read this, I note that the Republicans have killed the much maligned auto industry bailout [I should just link to Andrew Coyne in every article and forgo the whole charade of providing my own opinions. Clearly Coyne has become my favourite writer.]

The Fraser Institute has released a report condemning corporate welfare at a time when the corporations have their hands out like children in a candy shop. The most recent figures from 2006 show that Canadians have handed out more than $182 billion [$13,639 per taxpayer] in business subsidies, bailouts and loans over the past dozen years. In 2006 alone, the Fraser Institute writes, the corporate welfare bill per taxpayer was $1,291. So much for getting mad at just the public sector unions!

The salient parts:

“While corporate begging has become even more blatant this year, the fundamental truth has not changed,” said Mark Mike, author of the report entitled Corporate Welfare: Now a $182-Billion Addiction. “Business subsidies, bailouts or loans are all forms of corporate welfare that transfer tax dollars and employment from healthy businesses to risky businesses.

“Government intervention only delays the day of reckoning and often at the expense of other businesses and a healthy industry and economy.“

Research has found that corporate welfare may not have a demonstrable beneficial impact on the economy, employment and tax revenues because no new net investment or employment is created, the report said.

Now I have no problem with low corporate taxes or investment incentives or subsidies that provide a want where there is a need. But at this time of financial insecurity we should consider whether our investments in the private sector are really worth the sacrifice to our own income. It would be interesting to compare the corporate welfare rates to the proportional income that workers received by benefiting from the propping up of unsustainably independent businesses for a more accurate tabulation of the cost. After all, if we provided $300 million in corporate welfare to a company that provided $10 million in salaries and taxable revenue, we could argue we’re not getting enough “bang for our buck”. That doesn’t mean I’m picking on all the companies who have received federal aid, and of course a scenario in which a higher net benefit to cost ratio means that the industry provides a profitable good to both company and society, is actually a good investment made.

addthis_url=”; addthis_title=”; addthis_pub=’raphaelalexander’;

Harper’s Logic: Democracy Through Patronage

The Liberals have changed their leadership. Is it time for us to think about it as well?

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been at all deterred from his political agenda in light of the recent showdown with the opposition, it’s not showing. His announcement of intent to appoint 18 vacancies in the Senate with Conservative loyalists flies in the face of his own principles from his Reform/Alliance days. Oh certainly, we know how the argument goes. The master plan involves controlling the Senate in order to bring about democratic reforms, as unlikely as that seems. Senate reform would comprise amendment to the constitution, and must receive consent from seven provinces containing at least 50 per cent of the population. But what is most unseemly about it all isn’t just the paradoxical patronage to bring about democratic reform, it’s that Mr.Harper had to prorogue Parliament last week in order to stave off the usurpation of power from the opposition. Andrew Coyne extrapolates:

There is an extra unseemliness in light of the prorogation of Parliament. He is still in law the Prime Minister of Canada, but his legitimacy is under something of a cloud, having prorogued rather than face a confidence vote (although it’s worth speculating whether he would in fact have been defeated in that vote — I suspect the Liberals might well have gotten cold feet on the day, in light of the pasting they were taking in the polls). His spokesman seems to admit as much: they’re making the appointments now rather than wait for the government to be defeated and let the coalition do it. The problem with that explanation: the coalition is not going to defeat them, because the coalition is dead. I think they’re using the coalition threat to justify what they were planning to do anyway.

Which, by the way, is no different from the coalition so-called “stimulus” package, filled with half-baked socialist ideas conceived long before any kind of economic slowdown was a sniff in the air. But to hold Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party to a higher regard than other political party’s is certainly now a futile exercise. If previous broken promises were marginal only in comparison to the Liberal party, we should not hold an esteem for the Conservatives deserving of our respect. After all, what was the motto for the recent election again? “We’re better off with Harper”? Which is kind of like saying that in the choice between a dirty rag and a filthy cloth, the cloth is indubitably the better option.

This means that even partisans can’t really defend Mr.Harper any more, but instead point to how much worse the opposition is:

This from a man who is part of a Coalition designed to overturn the results of the last election, and which would have likely allowed the Senate appointment of Green Party Elizabeth May in exchange for her support of Stephane Dion, had Parliament not been prorogued. This from a man who props up a party that just had a coronation for leadership rather than consult the grassroots membership, and has thereby been complicit in the undemocratic installation of Michael Ignatieff as coalition leader.

You can’t blow and suck at the same time my friend. Well you could try, but you might have a brain fart.

It isn’t as though Joanne isn’t right. Indeed the brutal truth is that she’s deadly on. The coalition government is a poor exchange for the current one, and serves neither democracy nor a voice for the “progressives”, or whatever the hell they’re calling their amalgamated socialist union. But the point that should not be ignored is the absence in Joanne’s intent to defend the action. She knows that “patronage in the service of reform” is as unseemly as making appointments while Parliament is prorogued. Just because it’s “our guy” doing it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold him to account.

The man deserves credit for having brought the party out of the wilderness and into the seat of power, and that will always be remembered as his legacy. But this party needs a new direction of leadership as it heads forward, a leader which puts country ahead of personal prerogative and partisan pursuit of power. The fact is that the slogan shouldn’t be “better off with Harper”. It should be “we can do better”.

Related

Here’s some ideas to get you started.

addthis_url=”; addthis_title=”; addthis_pub=’raphaelalexander’;

So Much For The Liberal Surplus Myth

National

We’ve been hearing for years about the Liberal reign of Chretien and Martin being a financial powerhouse that provided massive surpluses and paying down of the federal debt whilst managing to increase spending. But a myth is all it is, based on nothing more than the appropriation of what was supposed to be a social security fund for unemployment. We’ve known for some time now that the federal Employment Insurance surplus stands at $54 billion, which essentially tells me that the government is getting a source of revenue that they haven’t earned, since E.I. should be a collective fund to be dispensed only to the individuals who paid into the fund in the first place. Now we know that the Liberal government inappropriately collected EI premiums between 2002, 2003, and 2005 without authorization from Parliament and the employment insurance commission. The Supreme Court agrees:

The Supreme Court of Canada says that Ottawa illegally collected employment insurance contributions for three years under the former Liberal government.

[...]

“This means that employment insurance premiums were collected unlawfully, without the necessary legislative authorization,” Justice Louis LeBel wrote in the decision.

Canada’s highest court ruled, however, that the federal government was within its rights to divert EI contributions to pay down the deficit from 1996-2001.

Stephen Harper has said the money would not be returned to the program from whence it came, but he has brought about E.I. reforms in promising that it will now run on a revenue-neutral or “break even” basis. What’s most interesting about all of this is that the Liberals manufactured their own fiscal surpluses when Paul Martin as Finance Minister ensured that the socialist program would have exemptions for workers to make it more difficult to get assistance when fired, thus leading to the obscene overflow of revenues. But now the so-called “Accord on a Cooperative Government” between the Liberals and NDP calls on radical reforms to their own legislative restrictions from the Liberal era:

Amend the current law establishing a new crown corporation for employment insurance in order to guarantee that all revenue from EI premiums provides benefits and training for workers. Eliminate the current two week waiting period;

How disingenuous can a political party get when it pretends to be ready to solve a problem it created itself by attacking a party who had no hand in it at all?

addthis_url=”; addthis_title=”; addthis_pub=’raphaelalexander’;

Confirmed Again: We’re Out Of Afghanistan In 2011

International

Peter MacKay has apparently turned down a Robert Gates hint for our nation to stay and serve in Afghanistan beyond 2011, the joint agreement made for withdrawal between the members of federal Parliament in March. This was a means of pacifying the opposition parties who wanted an immediate exit, although the rumours that the more hawkish members of the Liberal party, Michael Ignatieff and John Manley, managed to keep us there until 2011. This upset some people, like myself, who felt the mission should be more flexible to events on the ground, rather than arbitrary timetables. I also realize that our soldiers have served many tours in Kandahar, and I can imagine we definitely need to give them a break. In any case, the current Conservative government seems firm on maintaining that withdrawal date:

“Nothing has changed since the parliamentary motion was passed,” said Dan Dugas, a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay. “We’re done with the Kandahar combat mission in 2011.”

Ottawa’s response follows comments made Thursday by Gates , who was asked by a reporter whether Canada should continue its mission.

[...]

Dugas said that Gates has “always been gracious about Canada’s role in the UN-mandated mission.”

But he added that “the minister and government have been very clear that Parliament has decided that our mission there ends in 2011.”

During the election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reaffirmed that he will abide by a motion passed in the House of Commons that Canada would withdraw the bulk of its military forces in Afghanistan as scheduled in 2011.

Some have suggested that a majority Conservative government would vote to extend the mission, but given the kind of language being used by the most senior members of the government I suspect it’s inevitable that we’re done in ‘11. The only thing I find confusing is why Mr.Harper seems to want to wait and see what Barack Obama will do on the auto sector, but doesn’t consider the plans the new President has for a surge in Afghanistan as a reason to also reassess our own.

Related

Terry Glavin explains that Michael Ignatieff’s rise to the leadership of the Liberal Party could have some meaningful help for Afghanistan. h/t Torch.

Also:

Amnesty, BC CLA are at it again, trying to apply the Canadian Charter to Taliban prisoners.

addthis_url=”; addthis_title=”; addthis_pub=’raphaelalexander’;