New Liberal Red Book ,Back to the Future?

Yesterday the Liberals released their newest Red Book.  On the surface it sounds good. A chicken in every pot but as John Ivison puts it,buyer beware.

  Mr. Ignatieff talks a good game about creating equal opportunity, building democracy and protecting families. But at the end of the day, the numbers just don’t add up. Buyers should beware.

Some are saying it would take us back to Trudeau land.

Whether he succeeds depends on whether you believe that Canada should return to its Trudeauesque past of increased social spending paid for by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, or continue the Conservative emphasis on keeping taxes low while balancing the books.

Yup,it would be that '70's show all over again.

The Liberal platform is a remarkable document. It has the feel of catharsis to it: a party that was unsure of what it believed, or unwilling to say, finally finding a sense of direction and boldly declaring where it wants to take the country. And where it wants to take the country is back to the 1970s.

Heck, the Liberal plan would even hurt the oil patch in Alberta.

CALGARY - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff hatched plans Sunday that could kill Canada's golden goose - the Western oil patch.
Ignatieff proposed a new, national cap-and-trade scheme to reduce carbon emissions that one economist estimates will cost Alberta's economy $30 billion.
It comes at a time when Canada's resource-rich western provinces are driving much of the nation's growth.

How do you spell National Energy Program?
I remember how the NEP really hurt Alberta.  There were foreclosures, bankruptcies,etc. It took a long time to recover.

Jim Flaherty points out that the Liberal plan would cost taxpayers. 

OTTAWA — The Liberals plan is missing billions of dollars in projected spending, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Sunday afternoon in Toronto.
“There are some items that are not mentioned at all that Mr. Ignatieff has committed himself to. One is the HST in Quebec, and the payment for that. There is no mention of the high speed rail promise which he has made which is billions of dollars in addition to the $10 billion plus that I’ve already mentioned. There is no costing for pharmacare at all in the budget, in the proposed spending items that Mr. Ignatieff has listed,” Flaherty told reporters.
“There is no free lunch and somehow they’ve got to find billions and billions of dollars in new spending in the Liberals tax and spend plan,” he said.

So do you want to go back to the future with big government spending programs with Liberals and their coalition partners or move forward with the Conservatives with low taxes and job creation to make the country a more prosperous country?

I think the choice is clear, vote for a Conservative majority on May 2nd.

Can You Picture Count Ignatieff as "Mary Poppins?"

Just think, the Liberal leader as Mary Poppins the ultimate nanny.  Yuck!!! He wants to impose a national daycare program that is so 1993 when it was first introduced in the Liberal Red Book.   He claims it would only cost $500 million but others say it really cost more like $10 billion a year.

While the Liberals have often complained that the Conservative program of giving parents a $100 monthly payment for each child under six is not enough, the truth is that program costs five times what Ignatieff is now offering. The Universal Child Care Benefit cost taxpayers $2.6 billion last year. Ignatieff is promising to do more with just $500 million.
Advocates of a national program claim it will cost about $10 billion per year, 20 times what Ignatieff is offering. Given that Quebec alone spends more than $1 billion a year on their government-run daycare program, a national system of the type Liberals and daycare activists have called for would likely cost much more.

  This program would just end up being a big government bureaucratic nightmare of a boondoggle. Can you say gun registry program anyone?The money would simply go to unionized bureaucrats and daycare workers and not actually going to care for the children at all.   

The count says that's what parents want. Nonsense.

A poll of 2,000 Canadians, taken by Fleishman-Hillard in 2006, showed that by far families would prefer to have one parent stay at home. The poll was taken at the height of the debate over replacing the Liberal plan for a national system with the Conservative plan for the $100-per-month cheques.
When asked what was best for children, 77.9% of Canadians said having a parent stay home with a child vs. 20.5% who said it was best if the child was looked after by a competent caregiver. When asked what was best for children if both parents had to work, 52.7% said having a relative look after the child followed by using a family-run daycare at 20.4%.

Conservatives have the best plan that allows choice for parents.  That's the way it should be. Children need at least one parent at home during the formative years.

If you want parents to have choice then you have no alternative. Vote for a Conservative majority, they are the only ones who will make sure parents have choice.  The other alternative is Count Ignatieff  Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition and a bloated big government nanny state.No thanks!!!!

When it comes to Red Books,check out Gerry Nichols. He has a very good take on it.

Oh,Oh Not Enough Money In The Piggybank For Liberal Goodies

So the Liberal leader promises childcare,senior care,will pay for your child's post secondary education etc. A billion here, a billion there. What's his plan to pay for these big government programs?  He's going to raise corporate taxes. Will that be enough money to pay for what he wants to give Canadians? Well,it seems like there won't be enough change in the piggybank.
I think he should listen to Jack Mintz,Director of School Public Policy,University of Calgary on the Dave Rutherford show yesterday.

Yes, By All Means, Eliminate the Voter Tax

PM Stephen Harper has promised a Conservative majority would move to gradually eliminate the voter subsidy.

OTTAWA — A majority Conservative government would turn off the per-vote subsidy tap, saving taxpayers nearly $30 million a year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.
Harper said it’s time for political parties to be weaned off taxpayer dependence and raise money on their own without drinking from the public trough.
In 2010, political parties sucked $27 million from public coffers. The Conservatives received the most ($10.4 million), followed by the Liberals ($7.3 million), NDP ($5 million) and the separatist Bloc ($2.8 million).
Taxpayers handed $1.9 million to the Green Party and it has no seats in Parliament.
In 2008, the Harper Conservatives planned to end the subsidy, but that sent the opposition parties into a frenzy and sparked the coalition partnership between the Liberals, Bloc and NDP.
Parties are eligible for the subsidy, provided they win at least 2% of the national popular vote.

I agree. Why should we be forced to donate to parties that we don't agree with?  It simply isn't fair. Political parties should learn to fund raise on their own. Sink or swim. Above all why should we be forced to fund a party that that hates the ROC and want's to separate? 

If we want to this tax to end we have to vote for a Conservative majority government on voting day.

Today's Campaign Promises

You got the Count with the deja vu Liberal universal daycare redux  reduced (for now).  In other words more big nanny state taking money from you to pay for others childrens daycare.  No doubt with this expensive unionized bureaucracy your children and grand children will be taught how to be good little liberals.

Next you have Jack Layton declaring war on the Alberta oilsands.  Good job  Jack, you just increased Linda Duncan's re-election chances.(not).  That'll do wonders for our recovery.

On the other hand.a re-elected Conservative government will continue and finish free trade agreements with the EU and India within the next couple of years. and make the Halifax Harbour an international trading hub
That's a common sense approach to expanding our economy which we need.

It's obvious who has the most common sense program that will enhance and improve our country.  You have a choice. Do you want a coalition of the losers who will take your money to spend on  bigger nanny state programs in that will go mostly to Quebec, (Greece anyone) or do you want a stable, prudent government that will seek to make sure our economic recovery goes forward and that we continue to be the envy of the world.

The only choice is in in this election my opinion is a Conservative majority government that will be a stable prudent government who get things done and we wouldn't have to go to the polls for four years. That is a plus.  The other choice,a coalition of the losers which would give us instability, spend us into oblivion. It would be chaotic and never get anything done expect what is good for Quebec and. we'd probably be back to the polls in another eighteen months or so anyway. What do you choose?