Beneath the Kilt

Problems of the left?

2010-10-31T21:25:00.001-06:00

The left has been floundering in recent years in Canada. Every couple of generations we seem to come out swinging and get some great work done but we can't seem to hold it together for long. Just after the First World War we organized really strong union movements and got lots of the concessions that workers enjoy today, with Tommy Douglas' leadership from the mid forties to early sixties we were able to introduce publicly funded health care in Canada. Since then the left has had no notable successes; I think part of this is just the typical pendulum effect in politics. People go left and then people go right. There is a bigger problem though now. The pendulum seems to be swinging further right each time and a little less left. Or maybe the pivot point is being moved more to the right; the pendulum still swings just as wide but all of society is moved more to the right.

The pivot point being moved is no accident. Part of it is a concerted effort from the right to move the pendulum. This sounds like a conspiracy but one of the giants of the right, the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher said it herself, "Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul." (Last line in this article) There is an effort to change the entire values of society; place a greater emphasis on the personal and a smaller one on the collective, placing more values on emotions and self indulgence than on rationality and compassion. Conservative politicians rarely debate using facts and openly scoff when experts give opinions. This can be seen most clearly, most recently by the Honourable Tony Clement when he disregarded the chief statistician's advice or the Honourable Stockwell Day when he said that the crime rate in Canada was increasing, contrary to statistical evidence. Both men argued on emotional grounds to make their points. Mr. Clement argued that the government had no business asking personal questions about its citizens and no right to threaten people with jail time for failing to fill out the survey and Mr. Day cited an increase in unreported crimes and violent crimes.

Many of the arguments they made were found to be factually untrue but they tweaked certain emotions in people, particularly fear but also concern for individualism. If people have to give information to the government then it's only one small step to an Orwellian, totalitarian state where we are all virtually carbon copies of each other with the government controlling our every move. If violent crimes increase then I might be hurt or my stuff stolen. These sorts of reactions are irrational and aren't overcome by showing that crime decreases or at least stays flat for major incidents or by pointing out all the benefits that come from the government and other organizations having accurate data for planning purposes; these reactions can't be rationalized away and so the pivot of the pendulum is moved more to the right.

The moving is not the fault of the right alone. The left, in a misguided attempt, is also moving the pendulum to the right. Sometimes this is as a knee jerk reaction against the right doing anything. The HST in Ontario and BC is an example of this. The Conservative and Liberal governments involved want this so the left argues that it must be a bad thing. The increased taxes will fall particularly on those who can afford these extra taxes but because opposing has been ingrained for so long this measure is opposed wholeheartedly. This could be a good option, increased tax revenue to increase services to those people who don't have enough money to pay for food or shelter instead it is demonized and decried.

The more insidious movement of the pendulum is when the left does the right's work for them. Arguments are made that we need more money to make ends meet so let's help out the middle class because they are being pumped for all they have. This type of strategy only helps the right. It argues for not taking money from people rather than giving money to those who need it. Sure, people will be helped out by lowering taxes but it helps out some more than others and typically the ones that gain more from lower taxes are those who need it least. The federal NDP has started a campaign to exclude home heating costs from the GST, and coincidentally the HST they fought so hard against. Jack Layton is heard saying that "families deserve a break" and that "times are tight". This is surely true for some people but it is an argument that individuals need and deserve more. Stephen Harper should jump right on this; it's up his alley in lowering taxes and it will definitely help out his friends that have big houses. The NDP shouldn't be arguing that everyone needs a break on heating their house (or houses) but rather that those people who can't afford to heat their house should be given a subsidy. Rather than argue that everyone should be keeping their own wealth, argue for a redistribution of wealth. Give some money to people who need it don't just give money to people who already have it.

This sort of "helping" is how the left makes a lot of arguments these days. Buy that energy efficient washer because it will save you money rather than saving some water for the fishies. Get an energy efficient car because it will save money on fuel not save our air quality. These arguments for personal gain only make it harder to come back later and say now give up some of that money you saved to feed children in need. People donate to charity most often now when it provides an opportunity to be seen doing it; it's so that others see and say "oh you're such a good person". This is a different type of personal gain, the prestige, but it is still for oneself rather than for another.

Many will say that the ends justify the means but this is very shortsighted. These means encourage only short run results. What happens in the long run when for the common good people must give up something but have been told their entire life only do something if it directly benefits them. The left gets weaker and weaker each time people are told do it only for one's own benefit.

Instead the left needs to start arguing for and promoting compassion, kindness and demonize greed, cruelty, and selfishness. We need to start fighting against the shifting of the pendulum and reassert our values as proper societal values. We can't be embarrassed by our values but champion them and show that they are the way to make the world a better place. We can change the world but if we aren't careful it may not be change we want to see.

$9 Billion for what?

2010-07-16T14:49:00.001-06:00

It was announced today that the Canadian Government is purchasing 65 new fighter jets, the F-35. So far the only criticism of the purchase is that they did not tender the contract wasn't tendered in a competitive fashion and so should not go forward. There has been no explanation of the intended use of the jets other than to say that they are needed to replace the aging F-18s that Canada currently has. The last time that the jets were deployed was to protect the Olympics.

I can understand that we need to have some capability to defend ourselves and not rely on other nations military establishments to do it for us. I understand that sovereignty is decided by ability to defend ourselves but what are these planes meant to defend us from? Ice breakers for the north make sense, they allow us the ability to access the Arctic year-round. What do planes defend us from? Other planes? In that case they don't provide much security. A fleet of 65 planes is worth than useless compared to the nearly 2500 that the USA is planning on purchasing.

By the time maintenance costs are taken into account some experts expect the total cost to top $16 Billion. Is there no better way that money could be spent? Even keeping it in defense spending there must be better uses. Why not actually spend it on defence rather than the obviously offensive applications of jet planes. I don't buy 'the best defence is a good offence' mantra. We could have a highly trained and effective defense force that could be deployed in Canada and around the world quickly but these F-35s are not going to be taking anyone anywhere. The defense force could be used to defend against natural disasters at home, simply because there are not military conflicts for them to face here, and be deployed around the world to aid our allies in a defensive capacity. I am not advocating that they be poorly equipped; I am advocating that they be well equipped for a specific purpose.

We have a Department of National Defence not International Offensives. Equip our Armed Forces to effectively defend Canada and our allies around the world.

2010-07-01T12:10:00.000-06:00

The British Queen arrived in Canada on Monday to begin her twenty-second visit to Canada. I was - among the many - unaware of her visit previous to news of her arrival. Frankly, I just don't care if she comes to Canada and according to a recent poll neither does half of Canada.

I feel that the monarchy is an archaic institution, biased, racist, and just completely discriminatory. It goes against values that most Canadians regard as being highly important. The monarchy is the furthest thing from democratic; one must be born into the position and retains the position until death regardless of qualifications or skill. The monarchy requires that an individual be Christian to hold the position and not just Christian but specifically they cannot be Catholic. It also insists that male is superior to female; if there are no male siblings then the crown can pass to a female but males are given primacy. Does this sounds like anything that Canada would support anywhere else? Call it what you will but it stinks to me.

There is hope, though. Half of Canadians feel the same way I do and I can see signs that slowly the monarchy is being pushed out of the way. For example, Liz was granted an audience with the Canadian Prime Minister yesterday. Some would argue that instead he should be granted an audience with her. She came to visit an independent state and got to chat with the head of that country; I'd say she is fortunate to be able to have that opportunity let alone have the nerve to say he is allowed to visit her.

Long has she reigned over us and as happens to everyone she is going to die. At that time the crown will pass to her progeny but before they become our official monarch the Privy Council must approve it. I think that would be an opportune time to say goodbye to the monarchy. The Privy Council can just say "No, that's okay. You seem like a nice chap but we don't need this archaic arguably barbaric institution."

Canada can take a huge leap forward by standing by its values and not allowing this disgusting tradition to continue in Canada any longer.

NDP Provincial Council June 19, 2010

2010-06-26T18:17:00.001-06:00

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Provincial Council of the Alberta New Democratic Party. It may not be as sexy as conventions but I thought I would record here what happened; keep in mind this record is made from my notes and memories, any inconsistencies with the official record are entirely my fault and could be blamed upon my periodic absences to staunch a bleeding nose.

We began with a review of the previous Council's minutes which led quickly into a discussion on the quality of the minutes. The minutes recorded little more than the agenda of the previous council and a short debate was had as to whether or not minutes should be more in depth or whether it was up to individual members to find the information they were seeking elsewhere. It was also suggested that perhaps it is up to the attendees to make better reports about what occurred at the meeting so as to keep the membership up to date (thus this post was born).

The President gave a brief report focusing mainly on the change over of staff (former Provincial Secretary Sandra Houston left us at the end of April) which has created an extra amount of work but everyone is working extra hard to make up for it. Also touched on briefly was the work the Table Officers to create a new fundraising effort aimed at creating an election fund.

The Treasurer's report came next and overall was quite positive. At the time of the report incoming funds were a little lower than anticipated for the time of year but the funds were expected to roll in especially in light of the upcoming Convention. Some costs were slightly higher than expected, the meeting budget line was half again as much as anticipated and this was explained as the high cost of teleconferencing to keep everyone in the loop. Some anxiety was aired over the size of the budget, namely the fact that we don't have much money to spend and the fact that some staff were let go earlier in the year due to the difficult economic times. Another member pointed out that we don't have a spending problem but we have a revenue problem. This was quickly followed by another pointing out our own hypocrisy in decrying layoffs in the government and the private sector but we too were quick to layoff staff when times were tough. Some defended this as saying it was more important to keep our party in the black than to keep on staff but was countered with the thought that perhaps the ANDP needs to create a new discourse that does not involve laying off our staff,

The Acting Provincial Secretary gave his report which also highlighted the extra amount of work that staff have been doing to cope with the loss of Sandra Houston. As well it was announced that Deron Bilous was the first candidate nominated for any party in Alberta for the next provincial election. Much work has been done to sign up new members and recruit new activists. Kevin Wright was introduced as the newest member of the team and he will be serving a Membership Organizer coordinating PAC (pre-authorized chequing) and membership renewal drives. Also included in the report was a list of several activities that the party has been active with over the last months. After the report was given it was discussed that we as a party need to stop having the same discussions over and over again every time that we get together. We should do better reports and remember that much of what we talk about has been decided previously.

Next up was Brian Mason with the Leader's Report. Brian began with talking about the Healthcare consultations that the ANDP has been holding across the province. It was reported that citizens strongly oppose paying for service or any other form of privatization such as Assisted Living. A point that was raised was that a solution for ER lineups is, in fact, quite simple. It was shown that the shortage in the ER is often caused by a shortage of long term care beds. Patients that require long term care but cannot get a long term care bed are often placed in acute care which then causes a shortage in acute care beds. Patients that should be moved out of the ER into an acute care bed have nowhere to go and so remain in the ER which then causes congestion for everyone who is waiting for that space. If Alberta is serious about ensuring the ER care for its citizens it should begin by making a concerted effort to make space for its sick elders.

Next in Brian's talk was the oil royalties; higher oil royalties are needed in Alberta. If higher royalties are acceptable in Alaska then they should definitely be acceptable in Alberta. Through higher royalties Alberta could avoid a deficit and create a green energy fund to invest in alternative energy in Alberta so that we can ween ourselves off of our fossil fuel dependency. Brian argued that the Wildrose Alliance Party is a creation of the oil lobby in an effort to frighten the PC government into getting rid of increased royalties. If this is the case then it worked perfectly, oil royalties have been reduced to levels as low or lower than before the review (pdf). Brian did not propose to entirely shut down the oil sands but instead to put in tougher environmental standards so that the legacy of the oil sands will not be desolation and disease but instead a history of providing clean reliable energy.

Lastly for Brian was the issue of an election. He contended that we have four to eight winnable seats in Edmonton alone. There are some fantastic candidates and excellent organization so with some more support we will easily be able to double or quadruple the size of our caucus. In Calgary there are also a couple of winnable seats if only we are able to find some strong candidates to sit for an election we can have some representation from Calgary as well. The two biggest concerns for winning an election are time and money. We need more of both. There is speculation of an election soon, we could face one in as early as November but more likely in March. Brian argued that less important than tweaking the small details of our party's policy we need to work together and tell people about the party. If we all work together than a small thing like winning an election is no problem.

Committee reports were next on the agenda starting with the Legacy Committee. There is some research being done currently and they will have a report to present when it is completed shortly after the summer. Next up was the Multicultural Committee. It was recommended that the party attend many multicultural events over the summer as many of them occur in Alberta and we can attend as members and as candidates and show Alberta what we have to offer. Also was a request that a member from each constituency association be appointed as a liaison between the committee, the executive, and the membership. The executive agreed to send out a letter on behalf of the committee requesting more membership and members to act as liaisons. The Finance Committee had nothing to report as they had not met since the Treasurer was elected. The Constitution Committee gave a brief report on the progress of converting the constitution of the party into plain language. It's a hard job to do.

I was out of the room for the caucus meetings so I cannot report on their activity but I am certain they are all doing wonderful things.

Several riding associations gave reports starting with Edmonton East. It was reported that in the last election the NDP nearly doubled their share of the popular vote in the riding and will only do better in the next election. There is a large savings to fight the next election and Ray has already been out pounding the pavement talking to over 12 000 people in the riding and receiving a typically good response. In Edmonton Whitemud there are plans to hold a meeting with Dave Hancock and challenge him on education in the province. Edmonton Rutherford has plans to hold a nomination meeting shortly. Millwoods has not been overly active but a member has bravely begun seeking nomination to run in the next election. Edmonton Strathcona recently held a good fundraiser and have more planned coming up. They also planned to hold their AGM on Monday 21 June. Edmonton Calder there was talk of the riding being split (which, in fact, did not happen. Instead it was only gerrymandered to have more PC voters included in the riding.) It was also noted that Brian Stokes had recently resigned as co-chair to take up the mantle as acting Provincial Secretary. In the federal riding of Lethbridge it was noted that a very successful fundraiser had just been held and they have saved a lot of money for the next election campaign and they are determined to elect a New Democrat. In Edmonton-Leduc it was reported that Artem Medvedev has been very active holding open houses and talking to residents about their concerns which in turn has spurred the sitting Conservative to do the same thing.

Everyone was reminded that the Convention is being held in Red Deer at the Red Deer Lodge from November 5-7. Book rooms early and get your registration in so you to can attend this exciting affair.

The last business was to hold an election for the General Vice President in the South. Out of the two candidates, Leona Jacobs and Heike McRae (not sure on Heike's last name), Heike was selected to serve in this position.

The meeting was adjourned and everyone said their goodbyes and headed for home. Overall the meeting was not overly active but was greatly informative.

If there is anything that I missed let me know and I will add it and give you credit.

EAVB_ETVDPOWRWK

Capitalism Versus Trade

2010-06-23T18:08:00.000-06:00

I was referred to a blog about the futility of rebelling against capitalism and consumerism the other day. Initially when I read it I thought "well that's a pretty fair argument" but as the ideas and arguments percolated for a little while I came to disagree, for the most part, with the blogger. The main thrust of the argument is that one cannot escape from capitalism or consumerism; everything must be purchased so it is all part of the same system and thus one cannot escape from the system. While I agree with the fact that almost everything must be purchased somewhere I disagree that this inherently leads to consumerism. It is better for the ruling class if everything leads to consumerism but that doesn't mean it must.

The problem, say Heath and Potter, is “the system” doesn’t give a shit about conformity. In fact, it loves diversity and needs people like hipsters and music snobs so it can thrive.

The system does not, in fact, love diversity. Capitalism works on the major premise that all consumers are equal and all consumers will consume the same item or an equivalent item, whichever happens to be cheaper. Having consumers that don't want the product that they are producing is a major problem for major producers and for capitalism. If there are people that need to be catered to it requires extra costs in uncovering their desires, extra costs in diversifying to be able to satisfy those desires, and costs in producing for those goods to satisfy the desires. It would be much easier if producers could rely on consumers to all buy the exact same sweater, only one design would be needed, one type of machine to produce it, one type of worker to man the machine.

The counter-culture, the indie fans and the underground stars – they are the driving force behind capitalism. They are the engine.

Indie fans are no more the engine behind capitalism than are the AC/DC loving, armchair athletes of the world. Both of these groups of people will purchase goods and ,yes, someone will profit from these purchases. The difference in their purchases is that one is probably mindless consumerism and the other is thought out and principled. One may be purchasing the least expensive while one may be purchasing the product produced at fair wages.

I agree, capitalists will attempt to reproduce the goods that the Indie crowd desires. Sometimes they are successful and it becomes mainstream. Sometimes it does sellout. Consider this example: a young man produces handmade shirts using only post consumer material. He sells the shirts and they become moderately popular. He then realizes he can produce more shirts for cheaper if he hires some people at low wages. Then he starts buying new fabric because it is easier to get a supplier to handle the large amounts of shirts he is selling. His product is no longer the same but it became mainstream and people buy it solely because his name is attached. He sold out.

Sometimes the capitalists are just unsuccessful because they cannot understand the desire for the product. Someone may purchase a good based on the reasoning that it was produced without using child labour, produced locally, paid the farmer a living wage, donates all profits to a charity, or any other number of altruistic reasons. The product may be more expensive and so when a capitalist thinks " I can produce that for less" and does so the product still may not sell. It is a comparable product but the means to produce it are not at all comparable.

The Indie favourites need not transform into consumerist, capitalist money makers. Take the popular band Radiohead for example. They produce what some consider excellent music and often give the music away without selling and particularly without any influence from a middleman record company.

This blog makes the mistake of equating trade with capitalism. Capitalism involves trade but so does any economic system. No person can produce absolutely everything they need without trading with anybody. That may have been the case long ago in history but today it's not. Trade will happen with socialism as well but the focus of the trade is different. In capitalism the focus is generating wealth to the detriment of others in socialism the focus is on ensuring all people are satisfied. Capitalism claims that it allows the highest number of people to be happy but this happiness is most easily achieve at another's expense. Socialism is far more inclusive and desires that everyone's needs are met. If people are working to ensure that everyone else is satisfied before they themselves are then it is far more likely that everyone will be satisfied.

This article missed the point in the struggle of the Indie crowd. The idea is not to stop consuming anything ever. The point is to consume ethically. Mindless consumption is the friend of capitalism; consumption based on morals is the bedrock of socialism. The article makes it sound as if there is no point because someone is making money off you but that is exactly the point. Who is making money off you, how are they making the money, and what are they doing with it? These are the questions that the Indie crowd is asking and they aren't liking the answer that the consumerist, liberal ruling class is giving them.

Happy Birthday, Bob Dylan!!

2010-05-24T08:24:00.000-06:00

It's the Monday before May 24 and that means it's May Long or more officially Victoria Day, the day we celebrate that we are a member of the British Commonwealth and that we have a foreign Head of State. The day was originally made to celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday, since it actually is her birthday, and is now the official birthday of whichever monarch is currently reigning happy and glorious over us. More importantly, this date reminds us that we are a British Colony with a British history that we can all be proud of (unless you live in Quebec in which case it is National Patriots Day and celebrates the struggle of French patriots to gain political liberty and a democratic system of government). To me this holiday is archaic. Canada isn't, and arguably never was, a purely British country but we still have this holiday to recognize the United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain. Why don't we expand this a little and talk about all of our holidays? These days when the working poor get paid time and a half to make sure everyone can still get a burger and fries on his or her day off.

In a country as diverse as Canada it seems a little ridiculous to me that we can legislate national and provincial days of celebration, especially since about half of these days are purely Christian holidays. I'm not against holidays, I'm against a government saying "this is your holiday, celebrate X event" the same as I (and most others) am against a government saying "this is your religion". Why would an atheist want time off at Easter other than just to have the time off? Why would a Muslim woman want to have Christmas off? Does a Jew celebrate Good Friday?

My proposal is this: give everyone 12 general holidays for a year. It is up to the employee to inform his or her employer in a reasonable time when they are taking their holidays. Not everyone has the same holiday. I might want to celebrate Louis Riel Day but I live in Alberta so tough, maybe my neighbour wants to celebrate the Birth of the Báb; everyone should be allowed their own holidays. We don't legislate what religion everyone celebrates now let's open it up and let everyone celebrate whichever holiday they want on whichever day they want.

On that note, Happy Birthday, Bob Dylan.

Renewal or Stifling: The DRP in Alberta

2010-05-18T08:23:00.000-06:00

I may not agree with Ken Chapman on everything but about the Democratic Renewal Project, he's spot on. The DRP is not trying to renews democracy in Alberta, they are simply trying to reduce it to a them or us situation. In my politics I want wider choice so that more people can be represented not an American style two party system.

I know that the more parties we have the bigger chance there is for a minority government and they are unstable but this is only because the major parties refuse to work together to create a workable system. There are several countries in the world that are able to operate with coalition government and they are not unstable or chaotic. I have a feeling that politics would more amiable if politicians had to rely on other parties to govern together.

At the Alberta Liberal Party convention this past weekend a motion was passed to cooperate with other left-of-centre parties. What this means to me is that the Liberals are quite willing to ask for votes based on the principal that we aren't them. They aren't asking for voters to elect them based on progressive and innovative policies, merely the fact they they aren't the Progressive Conservatives. This policy stinks.

I know for sure that if my party of choice decides not to run in my riding in favour of some other party that is similar only in that it is not the PCs no party will be getting my vote.

We're Helping Average Canadians

2010-02-19T13:46:00.003-07:00

The government recently released some changes to mortgages in Canada. The changes are to help the average Canadian and to prevent a housing bubble. For a government that believes in the free market it is interesting how they are willing to interfere in the market before there is truly any problem. I don't disagree with market interference but their method does seem a little strange.

To qualify for a mortgage now the borrower must be able to afford a five year fixed term mortgage which comes with a higher interest rate than the previously required three year term. The average effects of this assuming, an average mortgage of $337 000.00, is an increase in the monthly payments of about $200 dollars but to qualify for the loan at this higher rate translates into a requirement of an extra $10 000 yearly income. Hmm... that's easy. Just be rich and then you can buy a house. If you're not rich, well then, don't. Rent. If you can find a place to rent from but the government made that a little harder too.

It costs more now for investors and developers to buy property with the intent of renting rather than living in. This way only the rich can buy houses to live in and the super rich can buy the rental properties. It's an ingenious way to keep the rich rich and the poor subsidizing them. Good idea, Mr. Flaherty.

If we are worried about people not being able to pay the mortgage why don't we attack other types of debt that might be making it hard to afford a mortgage. Check out credit card rates. With an average of 19.5% and little to no requirement to receive a credit card the government could have gone a long way to reducing consumer debt by restricting credit card rates, especially as interest rates are at historic lows, and creating some solid requirements for getting a credit card. This would have had the undesirable effect of people not spending money, though.

If someone doesn't have their credit card they might not purchase that new toaster they couldn't afford and if someone doesn't purchase that toaster than the company won't make money and if the company doesn't make money then someone loses a job and has no money to buy stuff and uses a credit card instead. It's a vicious cycle. This doesn't happen if someone doesn't buy a house. They still spend money, either on rent or on stuff. Hopefully both without saving, that way they don't ever do something silly and invest in a house, everyone knows only the rich should do that.

Vancouver 2010

2010-02-12T08:05:00.004-07:00

The Olympics are finally here! Let's all run out and buy something to celebrate! Drink a Coke^© and max out your Visa^©! I would like to say that I love the Olympics but I just can't. Some of the values that are espoused are great; International cooperation, teamwork, excellence, these sorts of things are fabulous. However the Olympics are about so much more; winning, buying stuff, and selling stuff.

Maybe you're okay with the hypocrisy, some people are, but I just can't choke it down. I hear about the Olympics but usually on a case of beer or a box of cereal, maybe in the window of a store enticing me to buy stuff.

I would love to love the Olympics but something inside me just says "Eww, gross! Don't touch it!" every time I think about them.

Taxes and Death

2010-01-28T10:55:00.003-07:00

There's two things that are certain in a person's life: Death and Taxes. Having not experienced the former for myself I will talk about the latter. Taxes are paid by everyone on nearly everything, it's just the way it is and the way it's got to be. In Alberta we happen to pay the lowest overall tax rate; it's part of our province's shortsighted addiction to resource revenue. Why have a stable source of revenue when we can rely on the business cycle?

Alberta forgoes between $10 and 20 Billion by having such a ridiculously low tax rate. This rate is defended as helping out the little guy. The 2009 budget claims that this benefits those with lower incomes. Unfortunately this isn't true. A recent study by the Parkland Institute shows that only two provinces have a higher tax rate for the lowest income bracket and all of them have a higher rate for the highest tax bracket. Who is it that we're helping here?

Alberta's tax system is not competitive, it's not even playing the same game. If it was the best system in Canada, wouldn't all the businesses and skilled workers that they are trying to attract to the province be here by now? Alberta could remain attractive and institute a progressive tax rate; it doesn't have to be ridiculous start off at about five percent for the lowest income bracket and end at fifteen percent for the highest tax bracket. Nobody is really hurt by this and it would earn Alberta at least another $10 Billion.

Moving away from income tax for a moment let's look at sales tax. Alberta does not have a provincial sales tax, the only province not to. This is all to be more competitive but it still doesn't attract all the new skilled workers that we want in this province. Let's charge a sales tax and let's make it progressive as well. For example, one needs to buy a car. They have a choice between a small cheaper car like a Honda Civic or for three times the cost a Cadillac Escalade. let's charge five percent for the cheaper purchase and fifteen percent for the more expensive purchase. Obviously, only those that are able to afford the bigger purchase will even think about buying expensive objects like yachts (maybe not in Alberta), sports cars, huge houses and we know they can afford the extra tax.

With a graduated sales tax and a progressive income tax Alberta would be able to have a hefty tax base to work with and they could afford to do all the basics that need to be done: health care, education (grade school and post secondary), infrastructure and maintenance. Even hitting a recession the government could afford to weather it with almost no problems at all because they aren't relying on the booms and the busts of the business cycle.

Part of being able to afford doing the basics is knowing what can be afforded and when. The extras that people want and things that are good to have: museums, art galleries, funds for all sorts of extras. These things would need to be funded on a basis of when the money is available. Mostly the money would be available through the royalty rates that the government collects primarily on the oil industry. With an effective and fair royalty structure Alberta would be able to collect a bunch of extra cash and use this for the extras that people want. They could even save a bunch and then when times are lean they could pull out the savings and spend their way through the recession and maybe no one would even notice that it happened.

This would take foresight and intestinal fortitude. Most people hate hearing the word taxes but they gonna happen whether you like it or not. Let's at least make it fair and tax the people who can afford to be taxed and who actually create some revenue from their taxes. Let's stop relying on oil and gas revenue and then cutting back on all the crazy spending we institute when the economy goes bust every ten years. Let's institute a plan that will benefit the most people most of the time. Let's raise taxes.

Socialism: An Overview

2010-01-19T21:34:00.004-07:00

In the style that's all the rage these days I'm going to try to outline for you what it means to me to be a Socialist. The word has been used in almost every situation to describe almost all the different points on the political spectrum but that just isn't possible. Every time it is used it is in a negative fashion; to decry a view that is seen as despicable and just plain wrong. I think it's high time that we Socialists take back the term and use it to describe ourselves; we can't let other people keep defining us and we have to stop trying to find a new word that describes us. If we define ourselves and stick to the brand then people might understand us and then stop fearing us. The problem is that, like Progressive, every Socialist has a different idea of what the word means. I'm going to tell you what I think it means and as I continue writing I will elaborate on this meaning and hopefully people will get a better understanding of how I think, politically at least.

Socialism is inherently progressive. It adapts to new social realities quickly and seeks to create an egalitarian society. It allows for changing values and responds with changing laws. Most people alive today do not agree with the social views espoused one hundred years ago or even fifty years ago but many laws today originate from that time. The democracy of that time was shaped around the social system of the day and that system no longer exists but it's democracy does. Laws must be adapted to allow for change and encourage equality.

Democracy is at the heart of Socialism. Far from being the dictatorial regime that it is often portrayed as Socialism must have input from it's citizens and the best way to achieve that is to have votes. Currently we are only allowed to vote on our elected representatives and while this is a good thing to vote on it doesn't go nearly far enough. To strengthen our democracy we must allow direct votes on issues through referenda and also to institute a recall at all levels of government to increase accountability. The Senate should be elected but to separate terms from members of parliament.

The monarchy should be abandoned. Our head of state is unelected and comes from one particular family, they must be Christian, more specifically Anglican, and preference is automatically given to males over females. All three of these requirements are flagrantly anti-democratic and in any other situation Canadians would be incensed over any one of these. Why are the rules different for our head of state? If anything these rules should be enforced all the more for the position being the embodiment of our country. We can elect a head of state to carry out all the duties of the current Governor General; it wouldn't require sweeping changes just a slight constitutional adjustment.

A change in the way we view the economy is necessary for Socialism. We must stop seeing economic growth as an end in and of itself. While economic growth is laudable it is not an effective measure of a society. Economic growth does not indicate an increase in the quality of life for everyone and this should be our aim. I am not saying that we should stifle economic growth but we should end our reverence for it. We should aim to spread wealth more evenly throughout the system. A system of progressive taxation would allow for those with the ability to pay to provide for those without the ability to pay. The economy is a measure of what is being sold in our country and we should stop measuring our worth by what we own.

This is the basic skeleton structure for what I think of as Socialist. In the coming weeks, months, and years I will elaborate on this and comment on what I find interesting in Alberta, Canada, and the world.

Chimo,

Well Here Goes!

2009-09-03T20:43:00.000-06:00

Hello Canada,

I decided weeks ago after reading blogs that I should probably start my own. I then thought and thought about what to write. I know the content material will be politics and I will, just so everyone is aware, be placing a socialist slant on everything I write.

Don't stop reading now; socialism isn't an evil plot by communists to take over the country and steal all your stuff. It's a rational approach that dismisses the claim that the only way to live is the way we are right now. There are many other options: protect the environment rather than destroy it, focus the economy away from consumption as the only option for growth, and many, many others that I hope to shed some light on in the near future.

I have had some recent inspirations and I will certainly come up with some topics to write about, especially now that there will likely be an election sometime soon.

Talk to you soon,

Chimo,