Jump to navigation
Continued from [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/liberal-ndp-budget]HERE[/url].
[url=http://www.behindthenumbers.ca/2012/03/27/completing-the-job-started-by-... the job started by Mike Harris[/url] by Hugh Mackenzie, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives March 27th, 2012
[quote]The crowning irony of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s ninth budget is that it completes the job of cutting government down to size started by the Mike Harris Conservatives in the 1990s.
You won’t find the direct attacks on public services and the people who deliver them that featured so prominently in the Harris budgets, but the result is the same.
This budget virtually abandons the provincial commitment to reduce child poverty by 25% in 2013 — the budget speech doesn’t even bother to talk about the poor other than to say social assistance rates will be frozen. Combine that with a slow-down in planned Ontario Child Benefit increases and there is no way this government can meet its promised target. It doesn’t even address it in this budget.
This budget ignores the child care crisis it created last year, without a single mention of child care funding.
It cuts education and post-secondary education by a total of over $660 million and points to another plan to force more school closures.
And it sets the scene for major labour unrest in 2012.
Just like Mike Harris would have done.[/quote]
- - - -
[url=http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/news/ontario-budget-2012-duncan-choose... Budget 2012: Duncan chooses path that hurts the poorest Ontarians[/url] by Sheila Block, The Wellesley Institute March 27, 2012
The combination of the social assistance rate freeze, the delayed increase in the Ontario Child Benefit, and reduced access to essential benefits will take $180 million out of the pockets of the poorest Ontarians. These cutbacks in services will have a direct and negative impact on the health of some of Ontario’s most marginalized populations, and all Ontarians have to share the social and economic costs of poor health.
Sharing the costs of austerity fairly doesn’t mean expecting the same contributions from everyone. It means that contributions are based on capacity. The lowest income Ontarians, whose health is most at risk, should not be expected to share equally in solving a deficit problem that was not of their making.[/quote]
[quote]Just suppose for a moment that Ontario still had a majority Liberal government and it came out with exactly the budget that was just passed by the Legislature.[/quote]
Except that the facts show that the minority government DID NOT come out with the same budget that was passed. The ONDP forced some changes and an amended budget was passed. We may not think they went far enough but the Libs would not have proposed the 2% tax on its own. Horwath deserves some credit for that, no? Isn't this what we mean when we say "tax the rich"? Sure, there's more that the rich ought to contribute but considering the times, it's something that can built upon in the future.
A majority government would have likely started out with (and passed) an even worse budget.
Could someone refresh my memory and list for me all the changes that Andrea managed to get in return for ONDP support of the Budget (I know it's a short list...).
From the ONDP website.[quote]Horwath says the NDP brought positive changes to the Budget like a new tax on high income earners and new funding that will save childcare spaces protect healthcare and stabilize industries like horse racing. She also claims credit for stopping further corporate tax cuts and winning support for policies like a Job Creator Tax Credit.[/quote]
I like this new ONT NDP Leader. She is showing decisive leadership and stands a good chance of eventually becoming premier
Spotlight on NDP difference
HORWATH’S WIN ON TAX FOR SUPER-RICH DRAWS A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN NDP AND SLASH-AND-BURN LIBS
When provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath extracted progressive concessions from Ontario’s Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, as the price of preserving his government this week, she not only avoided an election but also underlined the very real differences between the two parties.
Horwath has boldly secured a tax on the super-rich, soft-pedalled by the Libs as a surtax, a seemingly radical move supported by the vast majority of Canadians, though only reluctantly by McGuinty.
She’s managed to put the notion of reasonable taxation back in discussion at a time when the Liberals provincially are trying to position themselves as Slash-and-Burn Lite while in fact cutting like the Conservatives federally – except where restrained by the NDP. As Harper’s Conservatives come under fire for outrageously over-budget spending on unnecessary fighter planes, the Liberals simply call for open bids.
The NDP says forget the weapons of mass budget destruction altogether and use the money for social programs, hospitals and education. Two vastly different approaches for parties too quickly lumped together by progressives.
ETA: "...and stabilize industries like horse racing." WTF???
That article sounds awfully partisan to me. If Andrea is such a progressive, why didn't she go all the way and insist that rich tax be put on social programs instead of debt repayment as a condition of ONDP support? I think she's a wimp.
Perhaps everyone here has already seen the response from the USW:
Steelworkers Applaud NDP Improvements to Ontario's Budget
which includes this comment:
"We are proud of Andrea Horwath and the NDP Caucus for insisting on a better budget for everyday Ontarians, and standing up for working families."
Horse racing, and the breeding and keeping of horses is a major employer in Ontario. It is also a major source of revenue for cash strapped farmers who provide hay and other feed stuffs. There is no WTF at all.
You get that the ONDP is not the government right? You can demand all you want, but actually acheiving takes more than a stomp your foot temper tantrum.
Those damn Steelworkers, always the enemy of the working class.
Hi Life, the universe, et al., your personal attacks in this thread and the last one need to stop. You don't like criticism of the budget, we get it. But deal with it without insulting your fellow board members. Thanks.
Excuse me? Where is there a personal attack on anyone in this thread? There isn't one. Not one. I notice you continue to gloss over attacks by those you happen to agree with. They can call people who disagree with their views any damn thing they want without a single comment. I was called all kinds of things by several posters long before I responded simply for suggesting that some unionized workers don't fit into peoples fantasies. And the despite the fact I was involved in my union before I retired from the mine I was still attacked. Yet crickets. The old double standard still applies in force on babble.
[quote=Life, the universe, everything]
I'm not a fan of horse races, but I'll let that slide. As others have written in these threads, there are a lot of urgent and pressing needs, paying down the debt isn't the most urgent considering the amount to be paid won't make much of a dent.
I think Andrea had a pony in this one - ha ha ha - okay that wasn't so funny but Life is correct about the relaitonship between horse racing and farming.
[quote=Life, the universe and everything]You can demand all you want, but actually acheiving takes more than a stomp your foot temper tantrum.[/quote]
[quote]Grow up, you sound like you are 12 years old. Although that isn't fair because I know lots of 12 year olds that would provide much more substance.[/quote]
I haven't seen anyone attack you, LUE. If I am mistaken, please point me to where it happened and I will do my best to make it right. I do see you repeatedly fall back on these sorts of sneers and insults when you encounter someone who disagrees with you. You have a valuable perspective here on many things (I personally value your contributions on rural issues), but you can't keep up this practice of personal attacks, whether or not you believe it's disproportionately applied.
[quote=Life, the universe, everything]
Everyone seems to think the 3rd Party can foot stomp their way with demands. That they could take their ball and go home if the Libs didn't agree...like Hudak.. and the Province would be better for it.
Good comments Life Universe and Everthing.
If the ONDP under Andrea can't make a simple thing like the rich tax be applied to social programs instead of paying down the debt, then they truly don't understand the meaning of "balance of power". And that goes for a few babblers as well, as evidenced by the above comment.
A number of things...
60,000 jobs are at stake.
IIRC the Industry accepted the Slots because they would be affected when Casinos opened and this was to help compensate for government run Casinos.
Casinos provide revenues for programs
The HorseRacing association had recently (2011?) signed a long term deal to continue with slots.
The government is moving in the direction to privatize casinos and wants the casinos to look more lucrative with less competition.
Who knows whats going to happen with the "Charity" in casinos ;)
The NDP got an exit package put in for the Horse Racing Association that didn't exist in the budget.
This is something that Unions do when a plant is closing... they try to get monies for those affected by the closure.
I am sure unions are used to companies not fullfilling their contracts and bailing out.
This appears to be what happened to the Horse Racing Industry.
They had Revenue sharing ... and now the Liberals prefer the Casinos have full control.
Jobs are desperately needed in Ontario. Some people think that Rural Ontario or SW Ontario.. has strong employment.. it doesn't... and this will make things more difficult.
The Liberals are making a bad decision...
Just because it says "Horse Racing"
overlooks the fact its an "industry".
I am concerned about the reciprocal effects of this decision... I think it would have been Catastrophic without transition and that this could buy some time until someone in the Liberal government comes to their senses...
A majority government would have likely started out with (and passed) an even worse budget.[/quote]
You may well be right, but it's irrelevant to the point I was making, which was about the hypocrisy of the reaction to this budget as passed. People who are pretending that this budget is a huge victory for social democracy in Ontario would be condemning it as a return to the days of Mike Harris, if it didn't have the grubby fingerprints of the NDP on it.
In order to strongly use that balance of power your party has to pose a credible threat of winning a snap election. Being out of gas organizationally and financially, the ONDP doesn't. If Howath can hold on to the public support she's gained through this process and use that to fundraise, this will be a lot more possible next year.
I'm not certain that I would. It isn't quite a Harris budget. It increases taxes and trims rather than slashes spending such that it continues to increase in nominal terms. It's definitely not the kind of budget a progressive finance minister should want to present, but it is probably the kind of budget that he or she would have to present under the circumstances. Public opinion probably wouldn't be receptive to the government just taxing its way out.
I can't see how the first quote could be seen as a personal attack when you include the context of what LTUE was replying to.
As for the second one, did you look at #95 it quoted and was in reply to. There was a lot wrong from more than LTUE, including other sneers and references to strawmen, without engaging the main point LTUE was trying to make, along with references to "supposed allies" and "apologists".
Could someone refresh my memory and list for me all the changes that Andrea managed to get in return for ONDP support of the Budget (I know it's a short list...).[/quote]
Apparently the cheerleaders for the Liberal-NDP Majority Government™ budget can't give you that list, but I can:
• The extremely modest tax increase for the super-rich (if you're only making half a million a year, you pay not a penny more in tax), all of which goes to the pet project of neoliberals everywhere - paying down the deficit.
• The redirection of $275 million in funding for child care and Ontario Disability Support Plan recipients. The money is to be redirected from the education budget and from the money the government is currently spending on generic drugs. Not a penny of new spending is involved in this move.
• A modest, below-cost-of-living increase in welfare rates (= a decrease in real terms), funded entirely by redirecting existing government expenditures on generic drugs. Not a penny of new money is going into this.
• A tiny $20-million transition fund to help rural and northern hospitals, again funded entirely by cutting existing spending elsewhere.
• Some "transitional funding" to help the horse racing industry as it transitions into bankruptcy due to the government's removal of gambling casinos as a source of subsidy. [[url=http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3544554]Horsemen give budget deal a solid "neigh"[/url]]
Compared with [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/liberal-ndp-budget#comment-1341771]what was untouched in the budget[/url], this is pretty thin gruel.
In order to strongly use that balance of power your party has to pose a credible threat of winning a snap election.[/quote]
I disagree. I don't think one necessarily has to be in a position to win an election in order to have leverage. (Nor do I agree with those who discount the NDP's electoral prospects if they had been willing to fight an election on an anti-austerity platform.) I think it's sufficient to be in a position where you stand to make some gains, and your bargaining partner stands to lose. That's the situation the NDP and Liberals were in before Tuesday's vote.
The NDP may or may not have been able to win an election, but McGuinty almost certainly would have lost, which should have been enough to scare him into making some substantial concessions. Instead, Horwath made it very clear she did not want to fight an election, and was prepared to strike a deal for even the most modest of changes. McGuinty saw he had the upper-hand - not because of the situation, but because of Horwath's reluctance to trigger an election, so he felt emboldened to dictate the terms any agreement to [i]her[/i], when it was Horwath who held the balance of power and should have been telling [i]him[/i] what he needed to do to keep his government alive.
No you don't. Just the threat of [b]having[/b] an election is enough to send some people into paroxysms of terror, as we have seen recently.
If you have a governing minority party that doesn't have a particularly big war chest to fight another election, they might well be reluctant to call the third party's bluff over forcing an election (it's not a "snap" election, by the way), even if they are confident of being re-elected.
But on top of that, you have the "credible threat" of the Conservatives, who certainly would have a chance at unseating the government, even if the NDP failed to do so.
Don't think McGuilty wouldn't shit his pants if he thought the NDP couldn't be brought onside.
[cross-posted with Freedom 55 with whom I agree on this.]
It's definitely not the kind of budget a progressive finance minister should want to present...[/quote]
Thank you. My point exactly.
But you'd never know it from the applause it's getting from the cheap seats.
I can't see how the first quote could be seen as a personal attack when you include the context of what LTUE was replying to. As for the second one, did you look at #95 it quoted and was in reply to. There was a lot wrong from more than LTUE, including other sneers and references to strawmen, without engaging the main point LTUE was trying to make, along with references to "supposed allies" and "apologists". Just saying.[/quote]
If you've been following these threads there's been a consistent effort by some of the this budget's apologists to potray its critics as expecting that the NDP should have been able to completely re-write the budget, and that anything short of that was a sell-out. That's not my position, nor have I noticed anyone else making that argument. Yet it keeps coming up. That's what makes it a strawperson argument. And when I pointed-out the fact that no one was making those claims, it was called "BS". So yeah, I stand by my claim that LTUE was lying about my position.
I'm not sure what you find objectionable about "supposed allies" and "apologists".
With regard to the "temper tantrum" comment, there's been a history of LTUE using infantilizing personal attacks against people with whom s/he disagrees. That's not cool when it's directed against anyone, but I find it especially offensive that the last few have been directed at people with disabilities.
This has turned into a conspiracy theory thread. And it goes that the NDP with all their power of third party status in the legislature has conspired to deny the creation of socialism in one bankrupt province run by two Bay Street parties since forever and day. And if they prop-up the Liberals now, well, then, it's the exact same thing occurring now as when the federal Liberals in official opposition propped-up the Harpers not once but dozens and dozens of times from 2006 to their utlimate demise by 2011. Point noted, but repeating this over and over still doesn't make it true. Sorry.
We think the warnings are useful, but let's also refrain from hyperbole and exaggeration in order to make a point. It's one budget. And we should at least make an effort to describe the real consequences for an official opposition Tory party slithering up the middle in the event of a snap election call for short-term Bay Street gain. Let's analyze that to death, shall we?
Ontario Downgraded to Aa2 on Growing Debt Burden, Moody's Says
Socialism in one bankrupt province is surely a noble and worthy goal.
On the other hand, observe what the neoliberal setup is attempting to do to Greece and some other countries. We could experience an even larger outmigration of young people from Ontario as a result of neoliberalism similar to what they've pulled in Iceland and Greece, Latvia, Slovakia etc. They do have their sights set on bigger prizes than those countries, too. They don't conquer countries with standing armies so much anymore. Today they are attempting to achieve the exact same result by marauding international capital.
and that is PRECISELY the reason we need truly progressive representatives to not fold up like a cheap suit when the banksters snarl..
and that is PRECISELY the reason we need truly progressive representatives to not fold up like a cheap suit when the banksters snarl..[/quote]
The NDP is not folding. They are at least in the game and creating "political instability" in Ontario according to bond ratings agencies/charlatans for international marauding capital.
And this is still WorstPastThePost. We can't slide past the post by offering socialism inside one four-year term. That was made impossible financially some time ago. Now it's a battle to stave off marauding capital from conquering Ontario in the same way they've laid siege to Greece and other countries. And we can't go to the central Bank of Ontario because there isn't one. The anti-NDP party never mentions that cold fact.
The NDP is not folding. They are at least in the game and creating "political instability" in Ontario according to bond ratings agencies/charlatans for international marauding capital.[/quote]
You're labouring under the misapprehension that Moody's downgrading of Ontario was caused by something the NDP did. [IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/rvlqpv.gif[/IMG]
Quite the contrary. Moody's [like their pals in the Ontario Conservative Party] is unhappy that the deficit isn't being reduced even faster than the Liberal-NDP Majority Government™ proposes to reduce it. The NDP did their level best to fall in line with the demands of "international marauding capital" by accepting a piddling tax increase on a handful of plutocrats in order to pay down the deficit even further, but that wasn't good enough for Moody's.
As for "political instability", well, there's a hell of a lot more political stability than there was two weeks ago, now that we have a Liberal-NDP Majority Government™ with a firm hand on the tiller.
Vindictiveness against those who are a little better off than you might cost you your job.
[quote=M. Spector]Quite the contrary. Moody's [like their pals in the Ontario Conservative Party] is unhappy that the deficit isn't being reduced even faster than the Liberal-NDP Majority Government™ proposes to reduce it.[/quote]
On the contrary, the creditors and international marauding capital fully realize that debts that can not be paid will not be. You are mistaken if you believe that the name of the neoliberal finance game is to cooperate with governments and aid them in running things efficiently. This may be what the neoliberal schills told various governments of Yugoslavia, Russia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Thailand etc in the 1990s. But it was a lie.
The real aim of marauding international capital is not to expect debt reductions through debt service payments paid on time, absolutely not, Name one country where this has worked to stave off the real consequences of maruading capital?
Marauding international capital 's real purpose is to foreclose on entire nations and deliver the economic medicine as a result of ballooning debt overheads experienced by governments. Observe McGuinty paying more in debt service charges than Ontario spends on any of post-secondary education, economic development, or transportation.
The neoliberal financial regime's real goals are to cripple economies through economic shrinkage thereby exacerbating the situation of debt overhead.. Marauding capital want our public services, our infrastructure, water and sewers, roads, power generation and distribution, health care services and daycare! Haha they don't want our money, you foolish person, Spector! No, they want tangible assets and land and public property - things that really are worth something. And when all sources of government/public revenue are dregulated and privatized and pawned-off to the four winds, it will be checkmate on any of your future plans for socialism.
[/quote] A number of things... 60,000 jobs are at stake. IIRC the Industry accepted the Slots because they would be affected when Casinos opened and this was to help compensate for government run Casinos. Casinos provide revenues for programs The HorseRacing association had recently (2011?) signed a long term deal to continue with slots. The government is moving in the direction to privatize casinos and wants the casinos to look more lucrative with less competition. Who knows whats going to happen with the "Charity" in casinos ;) The NDP got an exit package put in for the Horse Racing Association that didn't exist in the budget. This is something that Unions do when a plant is closing... they try to get monies for those affected by the closure. I am sure unions are used to companies not fullfilling their contracts and bailing out. This appears to be what happened to the Horse Racing Industry. They had Revenue sharing ... and now the Liberals prefer the Casinos have full control. Jobs are desperately needed in Ontario. Some people think that Rural Ontario or SW Ontario.. has strong employment.. it doesn't... and this will make things more difficult. The Liberals are making a bad decision... Just because it says "Horse Racing" overlooks the fact its an "industry". I am concerned about the reciprocal effects of this decision... I think it would have been Catastrophic without transition and that this could buy some time until someone in the Liberal government comes to their senses... [/quote] ______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
[quote=Fidel]This has turned into a conspiracy theory thread. And it goes that the NDP with all their power of third party status in the legislature has conspired to deny the creation of socialism in one bankrupt province run by two Bay Street parties since forever and day. [/quote]
babble is quite the comedy fest tonite.
Yes it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
They are using tear gas to breakup demonstrations in Greece. Tear gas was declared illegal even for military use by a UN order under the terms of the Paris Convention agreement in 1993.
We are in the final stages of bankruptcy leading to a situation of being laid siege to by international marauding capital.
They don't want our worthless money - that's just a game of distraction.
They want our souls.
it'll be pretty slim pickens for any of those around these parts...
[quote=Fidel]So what's your plan, Lenin? I don't see anyone out on the streets yet. [/quote]
Day of Action Against the Cuts April 21, 2012. More than 15,000 strong.
[quote=NDPP]it'll be pretty slim pickens for any of those around these parts...[/quote]
So what's your plan? Let's hear it? Quit holding out on us like this. I don't see anyone out on the streets yet.
Give us your best plan and strategy to win the next FPTP election in old bankrupt Tory-Liberal Ontario. Shall we promise socialism in one bankrupted province? What will your platform for socialism in one term look like? Cat got your tongue?
We thought so.
It seems that when real advice for a real situation is what's needed, the room suddenly goes quiet.
That's really nice. I like it. And if they amount to a phony majority of voter support more than showed up at the polls last time, then even better.
But for now it's worstpastthepost by a dysfUNcTioNal and hopelessly broken electoral system if we can even call it an electoral system. FPTP is basically electoral fraud, and the anti-NDPers among us have misplaced faith in the bad electoral system. They want the NDP to risk going where the poor in Ontario went during the Harris regime. I don't like the odds in old bankrupt, long-time conservative and now wishy-washy Liberal Ontario with Tories next in line for the job given an opportune vote split on the left.
That is the sad-sad reality of it.
We're in the game as opposed to sitting on the sidelines in the event of another phony majority dictatorial government, which is what hudak and Tories, and Bay Street and "volatile markets", were hoping for. They don't like it that the NDP even has a hand in the game. The privateers are scared silly that the NDP would do a CCF of things and demonstrate fiscal responsibility is a real possibility. That's bad for neoliberal "wealth creation" in Ontario and their plans for asset stripping.
As long as thos representatives, progressive or not, are dependent on the banksters for funding the budget, they're folding. It's literally too expensive to do otherwise. Having interest rates jacked up on the say-so of ratings agencies is a pretty big hammer to use against governments.
Day of Action Against the Cuts April 21, 2012. More than 15,000 strong[/quote]
Yeah, not to mention the Occupy Movement getting into gear again. Or the quarter-million people in the streets of Montreal on Earth day.
But of course the parliamentary fetishists pay no attention to mass unrest. They're too preoccupied with making excuses for the status quo and telling everyone there is no alternative.
As long as thos representatives, progressive or not, are dependent on the banksters for funding the budget, they're folding. It's literally too expensive to do otherwise. Having interest rates jacked up on the say-so of ratings agencies is a pretty big hammer to use against governments.[/quote]
That's why it's foolish to depend on the support of the banksters if you want the kind of social change that is so obviously necessary. Who says governments have to borrow money to pay for social programs? Why, it's the plutocrats - the ones who hold all the money - who want to lend it to the government in order to accumulate even more money for themselves.
Governments don't have to borrow money from the rich. They can tax it from them.
The Ontario Budget of the ONDP Caucus Salaries By the Numbers
"...In 2011, Andrea Horwath made $158,156.96.00, Cheri DiNovo $129,722.63.00, Peter Taubuns $123,334.34.00 etc.
Much, much worse is an income of a single person on welfare. That was approximately $597.92 a month prior to the budget. It will increase by 1 per cent to, stunningly and appallingly, around $603.90.
That means a yearly welfare income of, for a single recipient, approximately $7,246.80
It also means an increase of only around sixty dollars a year while none of the ONDP caucus members will see their taxes increase by even that amount. In fact, their personal taxes will not increase by one penny.
So when we talk about the alleged 'courage' of a tax increase that will not even apply to them, let us at least recall that the ONDP caucus members that made this choice, (and it was a choice), made around 16.5 times a year what a single welfare recipeint did, and around six times what a minimum wage worker did.
Next time you wonder about income inequality in our society and why MPPS of any stripe don't seem to want to do anything about it, it is worth considering these numbers."
This is always the way it is, those underneath are sacrificed by those above to keep it that way. For those under to vote for those above is pathetic and ridiculous. They are the representatives of those like them, not those like us. They are class enemies not friends. 'Cats make friends with cats and nowhere in the world do cats make friends with mice' - Mao
ndp = no difference party
Next time you wonder about income inequality in our society and why MPPS of any stripe don't seem to want to do anything about it, it is worth considering these numbers."[/quote]
Yes, and it's also important to put this 1% "increase" into context. This 1% is insufficient to cover the highest rent increase guideline in a decade (3.1%), and a hydro increase next month of 8%.
Did the NDP budget amendments restore the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit or the Home Repair Benefit? Did they eliminate the cuts to discretionary benefits for things like funerals, glasses, and emergency dental care? As far as I know they didn't, but somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.
And finally, this budget comes less than a year after the Special Diet Benefit was gutted, reducing many of its former recipients' cheques by $250/month.
We're not ignoring, we're helping. But a boat doesn't do a 180 with a flick of the wrist. You're all my allies, we must be better at speaking with each other.
[quote=M. Spector]Governments don't have to borrow money from the rich. They can tax it from them.
That's right. And that is especially true of federal governments in, say, Norway where social democrat governments levy taxes on natural resource exports. But it takes a strong central government to do it. Imagine tiny Norway divided up into ten provinces and territories and most of the crude oil claimed by one or two provinces. They would be divided and conquered by right-rightist governments and their friends in the energy sector as easily as Alberta and Saskatchewan have. Soc-dem Norway is a net creditor nation with well-funded social programs only because they have strong central governments which are anathema to multinational corporate raiders.
[quote=Michael Laxer]We now know, thanks to a twenty year public policy detour, that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, result in direct investment, or prevent capital flight.[/quote]
That's true about tax cuts not stimulating economic growth. And taxes on the rich and corporations in Ontario haven't been this low since the 1920's. But hold that thought because we can agree to disagree on the last item in Laxer's list of concerns WRT the neoliberal regime in Ottawa.
I'm not sure which part of the world ML is talking about, but it can't be neoliberalised Canada. We've seen flights of capital and jobs from Ontario and Quebec and especially since the very neoliberal trade deals CUSFTA and NAFTA. If it isn't nailed-down, like oil and natural gas and electrical power, then it is wide open to be moved to other provinces suffering federally orchestrated neoliberal policy and even to offshoring. In the 1970s Montreal had more head offices of finance and manufacturing corporations than any other in Canada. Today it's Calgary and U.S. cities that have gained from flights of head offices from Ontario and Quebec.
Michael Laxer makes no mention of the increase in absentee corporate landlords in Ontario or Canada since CUSFTA and NAFTA, and that make the alleged Liberal Party in Ottawa seem to have done something right during their neoliberal years from 1993 to 2006. What the Liberals did was float us all down the Mississippi in selling the environment to Exxon-Imperial and handing corporate America carte blanche access to raid Canada's resources at will.
How about those Liberals, Michael? You don't say?
We can challenge international capital. Yes we can. If any [u]country[/u] can and note the emphasis on country and not any one province divided from the rest of Canada, it is Canada. I don't think we can do it from the fiscal confines of Queen's Park in Toronto. They are bankrupt as you know and without a central bank of their own and even less power to raise taxes across the country including those of energy and resource-rich provinces all in unison. That's how we would launch a respectable challenge to international capital. Meanwhile they are just smirking at our demands for the ONDP to go nose to nose with capital.
we can agree to disagree on the last item in Laxer's list of concerns WRT the neoliberal regime in Ottawa.[/quote]
Except that you don't disagree. Laxer is saying neoliberal tax cuts don't prevent capital flight.
The only place you disagree on this point is that you have a list of excuses a mile long for doing nothing about it, whereas Laxer doesn't even try to make excuses for the Liberal-NDP Majority Government™.
[quote=M. Spector]Except that you don't disagree. Laxer is saying neoliberal tax cuts don't prevent capital flight.
The only place you disagree on this point is that you have a list of excuses a mile long for doing nothing about it, whereas Laxer doesn't even try to make excuses for the Liberal-NDP Majority Government™.[/quote]
Ah! So if tax cuts don't prevent capital flight, what does raising provincial corporate taxes do in Ontario where most of our richest corporations are based in Toronto?
Toronto is home to Bay Street and the financial sector. A lot of it finances mining in Canada and around the world as well as the oil industry out west.
What's stopping them from moving head offices to Calgary or Vancouver on even a tax whim like so many other head offices have shifted from Montreal and Toronto and even to the U.S. over the last 20 years?
No I don't agree with what Laxer is implying without him actually saying it. He's soft on the Liberals and their Mulroney-friendly NAFTA and...
Just like you have let them off the hook in countless threads where you defend absentee corporate landlords and majority-foreign ownership and control of three dozen key sectors of Canadian economy. Remember that? Because I do. I have wondered about your intentions more than once before.
Bay Street is now saying that Horwath is a socialist in the style of French socialists. They are saying Horwath is another Hollande wanting to raise taxes on the rich to 75% and not far behind Melenchon at 100%.
Bay Street is even saying that Andrea Horwath's NDP is promoting ethnic cleansing of a group of people in Ontario with calls for raising taxes on rich people who have benefited the most by Ontario's economy in the good times.
Bay Street and its corporate sponsored newz media/propaganda machine is a force to be reckoned with, don't you think?