The Happy Wanderer

The Gingrich who stole South Carolina

2012-01-22T10:03:00.001-05:00

Now I don't actually want to sound mean, but I just couldn't resist. Well so far we have three candidates who won a state. Rick Santorum after some recounts in Iowa, Romney with his neighboring state New Hampshire and now Gingrich after getting endorsed by Rick Perry wins South Carolina. One Candidate in the whole race has yet to grab a state so far. That candidate is Ron Paul now he hasn't done terrible in the race he got a close third in Iowa a second place showing In New Hampshire and a fourth place showing in South Carolina. Ron Paul's window of opportunity is closing . If Paul doesn't win a state soon he will get out of the spotlight very very fast. So far any one of these four could be the nominee mathematically, but the front runner I think is still Mitt Romney.Although the showing in South Carolina does mean Romney can't play i'm inevitably going to be the nominee any more. Florida is going to be brutal.

By the way on I predicate a while ago that three out of the six candidates that were in the race after Iowa would drop by the latest Feb 4th out so far:

1.Jon Huntsman

2.Rick Perry

Number three won't be Paul, because if 2008 is any prediction he will stay till every state votes even after the nominee is has secured the needed amount of delegates, and considering Romney is the front runner he will stay even with a bad showing in Florida.

I still stand by this prediction my guess is that Rick Santorum will drop out after Nevada results come in.

What I Learned In One Day

2012-01-14T07:00:00.000-05:00

As a politcal junkie conventions are one of the most exiciting events I can go to. This convention so far is no exception. At the convention is one of the only places in the world where you can tap someone's sholder and say "hey Ima Liberal" and actually have a real conversation with them. This is something not all Liberals in Canada have an opprotunity to do. We need and will get all 308 ridings to start engaging their members into the party and to discuss policy at the local level. On A worser side. Going to this convention I started off with an idea that was contrary to what Liberals must to in the Convention. I was decideing not to support a candidate (Zack Paikin) Because of his more Conservative leaning on certain issue's I can't speak for Owner and Doggy of course. But I felt that the point a fellow blogger Volkov made was very sensible. Which was that the national policy chair is only responsible for oversieng the policy development process, and his own political ideology has nothing to do with it. I felt that I was coming into the Convention maybe diving rather then unitying. But I learned quickly that I shouldn't not vote for Paikin just because of his views which have nothing to do for the job he is running for. Today I will vote for the excutive position, and for the national policy chair Zack is defintly a possibility. I haven't made my mind up. On the brighter side I have meet so many passionet Liberals, and meet Stephane Dion, Paul Martin, Bob Rae and Irwin Cotler and that was just today. One thing is sure which is that this party is not only UNITED, but we are nowhere near DEAD!

Harper: Let's Give It To The Provinces

2012-01-13T07:00:00.001-05:00

A new report shows exactly want Harper is intending to do with the Health care plan he has for Canada. This report came from a watch dog group that showed that the Harper's plan for health care will only help Ottawa.

Parliament's budget watchdog says the new health-care funding formula will slowly reduce Ottawa's support for medicare, but it will also put the federal government on a solid fiscal footing for the future.

The trouble is the provinces will have to shoulder a growing health-care burden over the long run and they can't afford to do that without cutting spending elsewhere or raising taxes.

That means Ottawa's share of provincial health-care funding will fall to an average of about 18.6 per cent for the coming two decades from about 20.4 per cent today. It will continue to slide significantly after 2035 if the policy persists.

Harper's plan will only help Ottawa cut spending, and might help create long term fiscal improvements, but at the extend of forcing the provinces to take all the burden. Harper wants Ottawa to be the one that doesn't increase any taxes, and wants the provinces to look like they are the one's increasing the taxes and cutting spending. This plan is dangerous, and if used for to long will allow people on the right to say that universal health care is unaffordable. The truth is this plan makes health care unaffordable, by doing nothing to try and slow the rate of demand for health care. This won't require a huge overhaul, and can be very budget friendly.

First invest in prevention. in the U.S one third of Medicare spending can be saved if the U.S invest in prevention techniques that will stop people from becoming obese, having lung cancer etc.... Two tax fast food chains and soda pop. Use that money to pay for the prevention spending and also for the third part of the plan which is to modernizing hospital equipment.

These are only some of the policies that could be enacted to save money and improve health care. We don't need to force the provinces into bankruptcy just to save money on the federal end. We can reduce the increase from 6%, but only and only if we do the policy above which will help reduce the need for enormous amount of Health care spending.

The Romney Plan

2012-01-13T07:00:00.000-05:00

One of the strongest political maneuvers is to draw a picture to the electorate that one candidate is going to be the inevitable winner. In the U.S this practice is used much more in the primaries, because after the first few states have their say the media and the candidates all of a sudden claim that their is no way the candidates who haven't won a state could possibly win. Even though this is mathematically impossible. Iowa and New Hampshire alone have only 37 delegates which are divided by the candidate.There is over 2200 delegates in total, but the media and the front runners like to draw different conclusions from each state, and it seems like the candidates may be on track to follow suit. Even though Bachman is the only that left. The big elimination of candidates usually start before major primary days that involve a lot of delegates. Right now there isn't a day like that till March, but I don't expect at all that all the candidates will stay till then. I predict that by February 4th at least 3 out of the six will have left the race.Romney will hope to continue this strategy by trying as hard as possible like Harper did in 2011 not to rock the boat and just walk calmly to the nomination.

P.S in a completely unrelated topic

I like many Liberals all throughout Canada will be in Ottawa at the biannual convention. I will be posting for the blog while I am in Ottawa about the votes the candidates and just how incredible the whole experience is. This will be my first convention Doggy and Owner and I will be attending. I hope to see many Liberals there.

Easy Come Easy GO!

2012-01-10T07:00:00.000-05:00

Apparently Santorum's Iowa momentum is dead and is no longer helping him in New Hampshire. Jon Huntsman keeping his 3rd place position, and Paul Solid at around 20%. While Mitt Romney has declined in his poll numbers according to recent polls,but It seems that Romney is still going to beat Paul and Huntsman by a margin probably around 20% If not more. My prediction for the NH primaries is....

Romney 38%
Paul 20%
Huntsman18%
Santorum 12%
Gingrich 11%
Perry less than 1%

With a Romney win in New Hampshire I assume that Huntsman will concede on primary night. Paul probably going to stay forever. Santorum and Gingrich I think they will stay till South Carolina, but the only crazy card is Perry. He almost left back in Iowa only getting 10% and if he get's not even 1% in New Hampshire will he leave. He hasn't got much to stay for in South Carolina he's polling at 5%. He's practically Bachman. The race is going to narrow as of tonight that is for sure.

Opposition to Harper: Nonexistant

2012-01-09T08:12:00.000-05:00

Who will rise this year to challenge Stephen Harper, to oppose him credibly? There might be many credible attacks on the Conservatives in 2012, but the no one will be listening. There was a reason the Tories received a majority government in May: so that Canadians would not have to hear about politics for another four years.

Besides that, the Liberals are too busy rebuilding to oppose him for a good while and the New Democrats still have a couple of months before they choose their leader. Unless the Tories make a huge mistake, the political landscape should stay as is: calm and placid.

Who will emerge to provide tough, credible opposition to Stephen Harper in 2012?

Harper enters the year with a majority in the House of Commons, a majority on the Supreme Court of Canada and an even greater majority in the Senate, with Friday’s appointment of seven more loyal Conservatives pledging fealty to the leader.

My Interview with Alexandra Mendès Part 2

2012-01-08T13:00:00.000-05:00

Here is the second part of my interview with Alexandra Mendès.

Q: How would you try to engage High School students to join the Liberal Party?

A: We have to prepare them to vote for us. Canadian citizen’s lost the meaning of what the electoral process is all about. I think we should reach out to school boards that sec 4 and 5 students at least every year have someone (like a local MP) in a nonpartisan matter explain what the whole system is about. If we do that then students will have a better understanding about the process.

Q:since you support micro targeting how would you carry it out?

A:Once we actually agree to invest in technology we have to train all the riding association about using things like liberalist. Liberalist is the gathering source of all the information. I would work with the PTA to ensure that the riding association are complying to the targets. Our PTA has to be accountable to members. If you tell the PTA they’re target and they don’t comply then they have to explain to their member’s why they didn’t reach their targets. we have to have measures that make people accountable. The best way is to make them vote on the leader. Every year there should be an executive review by the members of my position as well, we don’t need to wait two years and go to a convention for that.

Q: Do you think it is important for the next president of the Liberal party to bilingual?

A:Yes absolutely I believe that there is less and less of an excuse for party officers not to be bilingual. Canada has been bilingual countries for years and this should be reflecting in our party officer.

Q: What about Ron Hartling (who is also running to be the president of the Liberal party) who isn't bilingual?

A:He said he would be fully bilingual I have no reason to doubt him. I think bilingualism should be a matter of consideration by members of the party.

My Interview with Alexandra Mendès Part 1

2012-01-08T07:00:00.000-05:00

I had a phone interview with one of the candidates running for President of the Liberal party of Canada. As we all know this is one of the most important positions us Liberals have to elect at the Convention.

Q: One of the issues the President of the Liberal party is going to have to face is to attract former Liberals back to the party. How do you intend to do that?

A: By Honoring their past service to the party.We often forget that people who have been Liberals who have been discouraged from the party. Lot of Liberals got discourage by the infighting and the division and this has been going on since the leadership campaign in1984. I come to the conclusion that we are our worse enemy. For me to recover the thrust of the Liberals who left the boat we must show them we have changed. Infighting is not acceptable. As Liberals we have the right to our opinion, but shouldn't resort to fighting each other.

Q: What is your view on the Leader's power to veto the nomination of the candidates from the EDA?

A: I have no problem eliminating the veto power of the leader of the party, but we should maintain the power of nomination In order to have diversity (in respects to gender, handicaps etc…) .We can’t be always assured that the EDA will always take diversity into account. I am fully in favor of affirmative action.

Q: How would you reform the policy process in the Liberal Party? And would you be for voting on policies online?

A:The national policy chair is in charge of that. I don’t think I should be taking on all the executive rolls. We should encourage technology as form of modernization of the process. We can do it and do it well.

Q: What do you think about a zero dollar membership fee?

A: I am not against it or in favor. We should make membership as easy as possible. The fee is very symbolic and the process should be made easy.

Hidden Agenda of Zach Paikin?

2012-01-07T16:31:00.000-05:00

As a delegate to the biennial convention, I have been doing my homework, researching each and every candidate for the executive (a surprisingly long and torturous process). While researching Zach Paikin, candidate for National Policy Chair, I of course found two controversial blog posts using facts to show how extremist he really is. Among the interesting quotes of Mr. Paikin are:

“If the Conservatives fail to begin a national discussion on the introduction of a two-tier health care system by next year, the Liberals should quickly seize this territory”

“…proceed with the current plan to reduce corporate taxes to 15% by January 1, 2012;”

He also called the Arab Spring, “…a massive strategic victory for Iran in the Middle East.”

This makes me wonder if someone with these views should serve as policy chair for the Liberals. These are not Liberal views. Mr. Paikin's views are extremely conservative. Even Dr. Roy endorses him! Dr. Roy writes, "He agrees with me on about 80% of issues." Can we really have a conservative in charge of policy of the Liberals?

This also makes me ask: what's his motive? Why is he seeking out this position? What is his hidden agenda?

Therefore, I will not be voting for Zach Paikin at the Biennial Convention.

No to Liberal Primaries

2012-01-07T07:58:00.000-05:00

There is a proposition that we Liberals instate a primary system for electing our next leader. This was clearly iterated in the Board's document, "A Roadmap to Renewal." It suggests having a new category of people called "supporters" who would not be members, but would still have the right to vote in leadership contests.

This is a bold, new proposal, especially in Canada. However, I do not think it would be a good idea to have a new category of "supporters." Instead, we have to work to get people engaged in Liberal activities, interested in our cause and when time comes to vote, they should be able to become a member easily and vote right away. No more of that 40 day crap. Membership fees should also go down from ten dollars to basically zero. Even though there is a cost to the Liberal Party for each member that signs up, it will be through engagement of our new and old members that successful fundraising will come.

To sum up, it is not through granting people the same rights as members that we will gain the support of more people. It is through engaging them by having a continuous policy-creating process and continuous forums that we will gain more members and thereby, gain more money.

The federal Liberal convention, which arrives in Ottawa on Jan. 13, will be a seminal event. Does it matter if the party survives? Few would say so with much passion, but I think it does matter. Failing that, we’ll be left with ideologues of the left and right. Liberals, by contrast, have few principles beyond survival and power, which at least makes for a keen attention to the public good.

Romney Better Watch Out In New Hamshire!

2012-01-06T14:00:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum jumped from his near win in Iowa to now campaigning in New Hampshire. With Michele Bachman out some 5% of voters are now up for grabs in the Republican nomination. Considering in New Hampshire the only candidates that went up in the polls are Santorum and Paul I think this proves the fact that the Evangelical tea party supporters of her are moving towards Paul and Santorum .Post Iowa polls are showing that Romeny is still dominate in New Hampshire,but a similar opponents are arising

The most recent poll I can find has Romney at 38%, Ron Paul at 24% and Rick Santorum at 11%. It seems a top three is being created, and the momentum isn't in Romney's favor. Although polls have Romney ahead I think that with all the negative ads against Romney this race could get a lot closer. It will be interesting how hard Paul and Santorum will be attacking Romney in the debates.

New Report on High Speed Rail

2012-01-06T07:00:00.000-05:00

A new report on High Speed Rail tells us yet again that their is an extreme need to invest in High Speed Rail, for not only the environmental aspects, but also economic.

The study talked about how in many countries high speed rail has reduced emissions, because if you run your transportation by energy that is renewable over fossil fuels you are reducing the emissions to transport goods and people as well. In fact the study states that High Speed Rail is 14 times less carbon intensive than car and 15 times less carbon intensive then airplanes. The proof of this is easily found in Spain a High Speed Rail train between Madrid and Seville reduced emissions by more then 48,000 tonnes of CO2.

On the economic aspect High Speed Rail has been proven to be very profitable and helps in tourism as it makes it easier to travel from one metropolitan city to another metropolitan city. In Lille France high Speed Rail helped to dramatically increase tourism in the city.

It's time to get rid of the studies and start building! It's so stupid that we should wait any longer to join the rest of the developed world.

Iowa is Done New Hampshire is Next!

2012-01-04T13:30:00.000-05:00

In American history no one who has ever gotten worse then 3rd place in Iowa has won the presidency. SO who is in the top three.

Mitt Romney: who is the perspective front runner, but the only issue is that he hasn't been able to grow his poll numbers. It seems every person has won a huge bump in the polls except Mitt Romney. He also has a lot of money and influence. If he wins New Hampshire it helps him become the inevitable nominee, but can someone stop him?

2nd choice: Rick Santorum: even though he won Iowa without help from big amount of ads his problem is that he doesn't have a lot of money and he is doing very bad in New Hampshire only 10% when Romney is at 47%. I think that it will be very hard for Rick Santorum to get enough money to push for a national campaign.

Ron Paul: Ron has the money to forward and probably will stay till the end. His problem will be can he frame himself as a Conservative and not a radical in the Republican party. In the polls he has a strong showing so far at 3rd place in the next following contest, and a few good debates and some momentum can defiantly give Ron a win.

So far I have no predictions for New Hampshire

What Happened in Iowa?

2012-01-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum and Romney are practically even . So in the case of momentum I say that it is Santorum who takes the Iowa momentum to New Hampshire.

Rick Santorum won the central part of Iowa that was filled with evangelicals and rural voters, Romney won slightly in the most populated counties which led to his showing. Ron Paul did well in the rural counties, and did good in the east, but lost his chance to win in the west (where much more convicted conservative live).

In Iowa the voter turnout was just the exact same as last time 4 years ago. Where is the Tea Party? This might be why Rick Santorum didn't get more votes.

But in Iowa the clear game changer Ron Paul even though he didn't won he defiantly made a change in the numbers. Not only did he take his 10% vote in 2008 and make it 21% he was the only candidate I think that kept the turnout up, because in 2008 86% of caucus goers identified themselves as Republicans and only 13% were independent. In 2012 the Republicans only made 75% and the independents 23%. We know that the Independent increase has something to do with Paul because in 2008 Paul got 29% of independents, and now in 2012 he got 44% of independents.

So winners and losers

Rick Santorum: for winning at least 2nd in Iowa even though he spend very little amount of money

Losers

Michele Bachman: for getting so few votes even lower then expected in a state were she won the Iowa Ames poll and were she was born

Newt Gingrich: for getting in the low teens no were near the top three contenders

Mitt Romney: for getting fewer votes this time around in 2012 compared to 2008, and for losing to the candidate who spend millions less then him in the Iowa state.

Rick Perry: because he spend more money on ads then any other candidate and got fewer votes then Newt who was attacked more then any other candidate.

Newt Gingrich: For Losing his lead in the state of Iowa that he once had.

Ugghhh! (didn't lose nor win)

Huntsman: because he went to Iowa once and didn't even care for these results enough to be there in Iowa, because he is in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul: I can't call him a loser, because he got 3rd place in Iowa not very far behind the top two candidates, but he isn't a complete winner, because he reached expectations at 21%.

Things To Look For In Iowa!

2012-01-03T13:00:00.000-05:00

When Iowa votes tonight it is important to look at some small surprises there are in the race.

So here are general areas to look for:
All the counties south of Des Moines including Des Moines (these are rural Evangelical voters who anybody, but Romney needs to make a diffrence)
The left and right side of Iowa (these areas voted Romney in 2008, Will Romney win this state like he did in 2008,? and by how much?)
All the center and north counties (who are also rural voters and evangelical)

Side note

In 2008 only one county voted for Ron Paul that county was Jefferson (it was a rural country south of Des Moines). It's a very small riding, but I am interested how Ron Paul does in this country and the area, because in 2008 all the counties surrounding Jefferson gave Paul average or very much above average.

New Poll, and More!

2012-01-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

A new poll by PPP shows that Ron Paul is still in the fight for Iowa and is currently at the top of the pack. Ron Paul has 20%, Romney 18%, and Rick Santorum 18%. Iowa there is a three way fight. I still maintain that Paul will win this state.

So I decided to make a poll of polls I took the last 12 on the NYT website and calculated the average, all these polls were taken from as early as Dec 26-Jan 1.

Mitt Romney (21.92%)
Ron Paul (20.08%)
Rick Santorum (15.00%) (to be fair in the Dec 26 polls Rick Santorum hadn't yet boomed) If you take the Dec 26 polls out his numbers jump to 16.56%)
Newt Gingrich (13.58%)
Rick Perry (10.83%)
Michele Bachman (8.17%)

I have decided to update my projection by adding some percentages.

I think the results will be something like this
Ron Paul 25%
Romney 21%
Rick Santorum 20%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Rick Perry 12%
Michele Bachman 9%

Again these are rough, but they are where I think Iowa is. Then again the polls that count are the Iowa polls!

You Still Hate Them All, You Love them all.

2012-01-02T13:30:00.000-05:00

The Iowa Caucus is the next day and if your like me and quite frankly am no Republican a question can pop up which candidate do I like the most out of that crowd?
and if you are a conservative you might ask yourself who is the best candidate I ike?

USA Today has a candidate match game you can play to find out just that!

I did it and got Obama as my first pick, Ron Paul a far second and in third it's a tie between Huntsman and Romney. All the other candidates are dead last.

Now it's your turn

Iowa Predictions

2012-01-02T06:00:00.000-05:00

The New York Times are at it again they are trying to predicate the result of the elections in Iowa, and right now they say that there is a 38% chance that Romney will win Iowa. Ron Paul is in second place with only a 34% chance of winning the caucus. I predicting this a bit differently.

I think Paul will win the state of Iowa

I believe he will win Iowa even though The des moines register shows that every day (over the past four days) Paul's support is going down and is now in 3rd place. The problem is that they only polled 150 people a day, and the margin of error of the poll of only 150 people is 8%. So Ron Paul's drop's could just be the margin of error, but when you add all the nights together the poll becomes more reliable. In total poll has Romney 24% and Paul 22% and Rick Santorum (who came out of nowhere "what a surprise") at 15%.

But the Reason I think Paul will win Iowa are these polls

When asked who cares more about the debt Paul wins
When asked who is the most consistent Paul wins

When asked who will reduce foreign aid Paul wins

When asked who is the least ego driven Paul wins

When asked most relates to Iowans Paul ties for 1st

When asked who will limit the government Paul wins

(The Media I don't think mentioned these polls for some reasons)

I think that if the Paul supporters who have always been motivated to vote no matter what the weather play the caucuses well and convince those soft supporters to vote for the person I think most Tea party people adore, Paul will win.

Last poll that helps prove my point 41% of people could be persuaded to change their minds.

update: NYT just changed it's predictions to Romney 40% likely to win and Paul 36% likely to win, Rick Santorum behind with 21% likely to win. the New York Times likes to change it's number's I see so I will be continuously posting their projections. This is as of noon.

Update: NYT changed there number's again Romney 42% Paul 34% Rick Santorum 20%.

Media What do You have AGAINST Paul!

2012-01-01T14:21:00.000-05:00

Is the media trying to elect Romney the nominee? Because it seems like the dirt on candidates only becomes an issue as soon as the candidate is doing good in the polls. Now besides the newsletters which we have no proof Ron Paul really agree to what was in them. So in these situations I follow the whole Innocent till proven guilty thing. The only problem now is his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Some of the statements I in no way agree with, but his statements aren't that terrible, but I think it is important to try and explain what he is trying to say rather then what the media is doing like saying Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims

"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care," Paul wrote.

First of all this statement has nothing wrong with it except the fact that he doesn't support universal health care. Ron Paul has the ideology that people are in charge of their lives and any issue they create for themselves like if you smoke and you get cancer it's your fault so you have to pay for the hospital bills, and if you can't pay for them it's your problem not the government. I disagree with that, but no major issue besides not supporting universal health care.

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Ron Paul is trying to say that if you have a harassment issue at work then it's your problem not the government. I don't believe he is saying that people who are being harassed are responsible for being harassed, but rather the solution to the problem should be from the person not the government. Now I don't agree with him at all that the government has no responsibility in this issue, but I think it is important to explain the other side of the argument.

So in conclusion these statements only prove that Paul trust his belief all the time, and proves Paul thinks that the government never has a good place in many aspects of day day life. I don't agree with him, but personally the Tea Party should love this guy even more, and there is really no controversy, so the title should be "Ron Paul Criticized governments role in day to day life"

Good Bye 2011

2011-12-29T07:00:00.000-05:00

Jib Jab did it again. Every year Jib jab does a complete review of the year in the form of a song. You will notice they don't always get everything. In fact the song came out right after the world found out about the death of the North Korean president, so it's not in it. Enjoy anyway

Happy New Year!

Wouldn't it be Awesome if Ron Paul WINS!

2011-12-28T07:00:00.001-05:00

Current polls in Iowa is showing a three way tie. Ron Paul 21%, Mitt Romney 20%, Newt Gingrich 19%. Ron Paul might just win the Iowa Caucus. Quite frankly it is slightly scary, but also pretty awesome. I don't agree with Ron Paul on much, but there is one thing that even Liberals will admit is that he is a consistent Conservative who has believed in this Tea Party Ideal for decades. I think the Tea Party should be all over Ron Paul. Now I don't want Paul to be president, but one has got to say that Paul deserves the nomination more then anyone else in the Republican party.

Unfortunately for Paul even though he is doing well in Iowa his numbers in other primaries aren't as good. The first states are always important, so Iowa Paul has a strong chance, but what about the other early states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

In New Hampshire Romney of course leads the race as he has done since the beginning with now 39% , Gingrich and Paul tied in 17%. Second place isn't bad, but if like Romney in 2008 too many silvers and no gold in the early states doesn't help you get to the nomination.

In South Carolina Newt is leading with 39%, Romney a far second at 21% and Paul way further behind at 10%. This state still has a lot of time to change it's leads, but right now these numbers aren't very encouraging to the Ron Paul campaign. In Florida it's a similar story newt 44%, Romney 27%, Paul 8%.

Unless these states change their minds it is almost imperative that Ron Paul if he wants to be considered a serious candidate for the nomination win Iowa which the New York Times says he will most likely. Anyways we shouldn't count Ron Paul out at all. I think that soon Newts numbers will go so low like Perry and Bachman that voters may just in time vote for Paul. I am predicting a Ron Paul explosion very very soon.

Another Deficit Year in Washington DC!

2011-12-27T07:00:00.000-05:00

The U.S again goes for the easy way out of a problem by extending tax cuts for two months. Just like the super committee it seems that this congress is going to delay and then delay again. Nothing this year has even seriously touched the deficit. The U.S is running out of time. The interest on the debt that is accumulating every minute will soon become more expensive then medicare. The U.S has just wasted another year arguing about how bad the current congress is at getting the deficit under control. Maybe next year they will talk about how terrible the first four years were under Obama. Hello the term isn't over you have one more year to do something. Then again I am an optimist (I think maybe the rich will get some sort of tax increase next year).

Every minute we wait the more severe the austerity is going to be in the future. Happy New Year Congress.

Compromise!?

2011-12-23T07:00:00.000-05:00

Obama wants to push the so called compromise of extending the payroll tax cuts by another 2 years. If this is considered a compromise it a joke. Because first both sides for the most part agree with the idea, but yet there was still a lot of fighting over the bill? This bill extends tax cuts and there fighting over it! I wonder how long it would take to talk about balancing the budget? Now if they don't want to increase the payroll tax rates and do other things to balance the budget it will effect the middle class even more. See income tax cuts do help people, but if their wages go down even though the tax rate went down they make less money. WHY? Because if you don't help increase the median wage and allow the outsourcing of jobs, elimination of unions people will make less money even though the tax rates went down. With the Bush tax cuts the poor and middle class made less money then were the tax rates were higher. That why the Bush tax cuts must expire even for the middle class, because it doesn't work and the money can be better put to help people's wages go up or help reduce people's expenses like Health care. Same goes with the payroll tax it's a short term fix, and if middle class keeps dying the tax cut does nothing. That why the Payroll tax should increase to 6.2% and eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone. This will not only help balance the budget, but the country can help the middle class by reducing many families biggest cost like tuition, health care, and bring new good paying jobs.

Flarethy's Bomb Before the Holiday

2011-12-22T07:00:00.000-05:00

Right before holidays is usually the greatest time to dumb documents that you don't want to know about. Our Finance minister follows suit with this bad tradition, and dumb the bomb that Canada isn't going to increase health care spending by 6% every year after 2017. Now for many people (including me) we all speculated even during the election that the Conservatives weren't going to increase health care sending by the same 6% like Paul Martin did. The Conservative platform barely had a page on this issue. And the paragraph that is was written on was barely worth the paper it was printed on. It had the most ambiguous promises. Like

we will work collaboratively with the provinces and territories to renew the Health Accord and to continue reducing wait times

By the way when Flaherthy announced this "Six of them (premiers) lined up to speak out against the decision, citing a lack of negotiation with two years left to reach a new agreement. The Conservatives love doing terrible things before a holiday break in the hope that no one will notice, but this issue won't go away Harper. This Health Care debate is going to go on till 2017.
The current Health accord increases health care spending by 6%. Jim Flaherthy says he will increase health care spending by Nominal GDP meaning take inflation and add it to GDP growth, and Flaherthy says 3% increase is the minimum increase.

Flaherthy answer is taking us for fools by saying Health care spending will increase every year. Yes it will but the rate of increase counts! If you spend one dollar more every year on health care then yes health care spending will reach records every year, but the provinces will need more than low increase in spending to reduce waiting times like the Liberals did in 2004 and it worked! Thankfully the 6% will stay till 2018.

Now I agree we do need to think of spending over the long run. I think that our government should look at preventing people from even needing a lot of health care. By taxing junk food and fast food chains the, looking at a national policy to stop obesity etc.. if we do this the amount of people who will need our health care system will decline and will lower waiting times. If our goverment did this then a MINOR decrease in rate of spending would make sense. Increases like 5%-4%, because wait times will be reduced by the policies mentioned above. So what Flaherty is doing isn't bad ONLY as long as he puts policies to reduce waiting times like the ones mentioned above and our Finance minister isn't.

P.S Flaherthy plan to link health care spending to growth and inflation is good idea, but it seemed like it isn't being forced on the provinces without much compromise. 3% increase in Health care spending is fine as long as prevention is taking care of reducing waiting times. If we battle obesity and tax bad food and have a healthier Canada our Health care system won't need 6% increase every year.

Harper's Secret Taxes!

2011-12-16T07:00:00.000-05:00

After Harper said he would like the provinces to pay half for his new (billion dollar) Prison system in which he intends to increase crime and reduce justice, Ontario and Quebec are screaming all the way to the parliament building saying NO! Harper doesn't care for his budget it's in deficit and there isn't much so far that has been announced that will make it go to surplus, but in Quebec and Ontario the primers are trying to balance the budget. something that is standing in the way is a billion dollar price tag for prisons they don't even want. If Harper get's his way our provinces will have to make deeper cuts or increase taxes to pay for the cost of the prisons that will only add more cost in the long run. So this is Harper's secret tax. Make the primers look like the bad guys increasing taxes and reducing services and Harper who doesn't care for fiscal responsibility do nothing. (probably blame the Liberals for not giving him 30 billion dollar surpluses)

I think the only fair way Harper can expect the provinces to agree to fork up the bill is if they get a say on the bill, but Harper doesn't want to. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to make a crime bill and force the provinces to pay for half of it, and the provinces don't get much influence on the matter what so ever.

Noting that it is “virtually impossible” to project actual increases, the document pegs the total cost of changes to legislation on young offenders at $717-million over a five-year period. It adds that the federal government would likely end up paying half of the price tag.

Quebec’s Ministry of Public Security has estimated that Bill C-10 will cost the province an extra $294-million to $545-million to expand the province’s prisons and $40-million to $74-million every year to service the additional inmates.

“Our position remains the same,” David Couturier, a spokesman for Mr. Fournier said when contacted by The Globe and Mail on Wednesday. “It’s their legislation … it’s up to them to pay the bills.”

Ontario has also called on the federal government to cover the entire cost of the bill.