From The Archives: 2013
Most of my long time friends know that I use to support the Green Party of Canada, they also know that I no longer do. But the reasons why are so long I haven’t posted all of them, and the main reason for that is that the list just seemed to long. In 2006 and 2008, the Green Party of Canada published a policy book to outline in detail what they stood for, in order to get rid of the so-called image that they were a one issue party. It is this very policy book that made me realize that I couldn’t support them any longer. In this post I am going to attempt to go through each issue, and perhaps name a few others that they did not include. Green-Economy:
“Green Party MPs will work to:
- Pass the Canada Well-Being Measurement Act and implement the Canadian Index of Well-being.
- Begin a partial, gradual, revenue neutral tax shift from income, consumption and business taxes to resource use taxes, pollution taxes and land value levies reflecting corporate profits.
- Review the Green tax shift every 3 years in order to monitor progress and readjust fiscal imbalances.
- Create thousands of new “Green collar jobs” by encouraging the development of low-emission industries in areas most affected by the shift away from natural resource sectors.
- Legislate stronger, more effective antitrust laws in concentrated industry sectors.
- Reduce taxes for small and medium sized businesses in their first 5 years of existence.
- Provide higher risk financial support networks that will encourage people to invest in innovative businesses.” – http://greenparty.ca/en/platform2006/green_economy
Canada Well-Being Measurement Act:
BILL C-268 : “An Act to develop and provide for the publication of measures to inform Canadians about the health and well-being of people, communities and ecosystems in Canada” – parl.gc.ca
I love it when a political party thinks something is a good idea, and steals it as if it was their own. Marlene Jennings, a Liberal, was the one who proposed this bill in 2001, secondly the Well-Being Act is just a GDI. The problem I have with this system is that it is subjective to a worldview, or opinion of what is valuable by an ideology, rather then facts. If what is in my best interest differs from those who judge what the current GDI is, the measurement is useless to me, and my in fact harm my interests. Facts on the other hand, such as the actual amount of GDP this country’s dollar is based on, tells me if I can expect to export my product or service to our major trading partner the USA.
Resource Use Taxes: Taxing resources is like any other tax, an act of theft. But assuming that I believe we need something like a social contract to enact some kind of tax on the general population, I believe that it should effect everyone equally, or not at all. I don’t like rules which single out a group of people over others, some one always ends up with an unfair deal. Taxing just resources put the burden of the budget on the producers. You know them, they are the companies and individuals which actually create good jobs. If I am a prepper, living on a homestead, and produce all my own food, energy, and basic needs, under a resource based tax system, I pay nothing. That doesn’t feel fair to me, and in addition it make me a target. No thank you. I would rather see a flat rate percentage tax on everyone, period. And before the Green Party cries foul on behalf of the poor, disabled, and pensioners…. note this, I am one.
Review the Green tax shift every 3 years: All this tells me is that they already know that this will not work, and have written into their policy book an op-out to change the rules after being elected. At least they are being honest that they are going to break their campaign promises!
Create thousands of new “Green collar jobs”: How exactly does the Green Party plan to help any of us get a single job? Oh, wait, they don’t actually promise that do they? What they promise to do is to ‘create’ these ‘green‘ jobs. That translates to using tax payer’s money to give some one else a job in the ‘green’ sector. I still call that welfare, not a job. Any time tax payer’s foots the bill to create and keep a job for some one, it’s the same as welfare. If that industry could be self-sustaining all on it’s own, it wouldn’t need the government to get involved in the first place.
Legislate stronger, more effective antitrust laws in concentrated industry sectors: All you have to do to figure that one out is read it a few times. Maybe it would help if I translate the double-speak. Translation: “Selectively list certain industries that we choose and screw them over with strong laws under the label of :We Don’t Trust You.” I know I am going to enact a Godwin rule here, but this sounds a lot like National Socialism to me. The whole point of a free market system is that it is self correcting. When the government makes decisions for the population it effectively says we do not trust our people to make informed, adult decisions on their own, so we will legislate the morals from the top. Making stronger antitrust laws isn’t the problem, making stronger antitrust laws towards a labeled group of people, and industries is Nazism.
Reduce taxes for small and medium sized businesses in their first 5 years of existence: Ever get suckered into a mobile phone contract? For the first three years you only pay $49.95 a month and get this neat cell phone free! Sound familiar? Small and Medium business can either compete with larger ones because they are local service based businesses, or they can not compete with larger ones because of lack import fairness, marketing capital, and a host of other issues. None of these would be effected by reducing the tax to local business, or increasing it for others. In fact the two major barriers to new businesses is government required paperwork, and the exchange rates for a fiat currency system.
Provide higher risk financial support networks that will encourage people to invest: Remember that this quote is from the 2006 policy book! Every single layman on the planet that knows even the smallest of facts of the financial crisis of 2008, in which this very policy book was still being handed out after the crisis was in full swing, knows that encouraging High-Risk Investing is the worse thing you can do for fiscal responsibility. Can you imagine what Canada would be like today if the Green Party had won? … OK, you can stop laughing at the Greens now, it’s not polite.
Smart Economic Stimulus: “Expand access to employment insurance for those who paid into it, while protecting the pensions of retired Canadians. Reduce EI and CPP contributions for businesses.” This is one of those campaign promises that every one makes, “we will give you more money”. The problem with this is that the money has to come from somewhere and that usually means either tax cuts somewhere else, or increases to the tax payer. Well, actually it means both 99% of time. The one thing that every responsible tax payer knows is that they are better managers of their money then the government. And considering that most of us will agree that we are not that very good at managing our money says a lot at how bad the government is at it. EI and CPP are a tax, period. If I had taken every cent that I had paid into it, and just stuck it in a regular bank account since day one, I’d be better off today, and so would anyone else that has paid into it including my parents. If you don’t believe me take at look at your own tax records, add up all your contributions and use an online calculator for investments that takes the dates into account. My only strong recommendation is, if you own any firearms, give them to your neighbor for a few days before you do this, and tell them not to give them back till you calm down, I’m not kidding, you will really want to kill the tax man.
Fair Global Trade:
“Reform, revise and rethink our trade agreements. Trade is a part of a sustainable future only when it is fair for all.”
Double-Speak Alert! I’m one of the first people to note that the North American Free Trade Act was a bad idea, but creating yet another trade agreement is just, well, stupid. Mainly because any idea, even if a good one, can get messed up by a bunch of bureaucrats.
There is something that has always bugged me about any left-leaning organization, and that is the way they come to decisions as a group. The Green Party is a consensus-based organization, it is not a democracy based organization, and I would go so far as to say that they hate “Roberts Rules of Order” (www.robertsrules.org) Both myself, and my old mentor Phil noticed this right away.
The key to understanding that the above statement in the policy book is double speak is just one phrase “only when it is fair for all” , who exactly makes that decision, and how is that decision made? What is fair? Is it fair trade coffee we are speaking about? Fair to the farmers in South Africa? The point of a government is to have organization which looks beyond it’s borders and take into account the best interests of the voters. It is not the roll of government to be the moral police, to restrict trade, or even the playing field with other countries’ citizenship. I myself am also an Italian citizen, it does not sit well with me that if the Green Party of Canada ever wins the power it craves, that it might believe for whatever reason that all pizzas made in/shipped to Italy should get some kind of fair trade agreement when being imported to/or exported from Canada. It just sounds as stupid as any other product or service you can think of. We are not the moral police of the world, and to be that would mean to make the same mistakes our patriot brothers to the south have made. You’d better believe that if the Green party is given any power to create any Bill or Act, they will not debate this from a fair point of view of all voters, it will be written by only those who agree with consensus-based decision making. In other words, agree with our process, or don’t get a say.
“A healthy agriculture sector, with support for those who wish to transition to organic farming. A healthy fishery, with an end to devastating draggers. A sustainable forest industry with more emphasis on value added, and less raw log or unprocessed pulp export. More jobs for more people making real things.”
More jobs for people making real things… Great! I am of the firm belief that real wealth comes from actual ‘stuff’, couldn’t support a more capitalistic view more! … OK, I admit, I only said that to get under the skin of all the Green Party supporters who read this … Truth be told there is one thing in that line that bothers me right away. What if we’re wrong?
As a prepper, I believe that we should all learn how to make things ourselves, and develop skill sets that help us gain self-efficient trades. This usually means making real things, as in actual products like chairs, jars, and houses. I have also been a fisherman, and worked in silviculture, so I totally get healthy fishery… end dragging, and … sustainable forest thing. And although I will grow and eat my own organic veggies, don’t expect me to buy it (don’t ask, that’s another issue for another day).
What if we’re wrong? What if making real products is a bad idea? What if we can not compete with China and India in making real things, but could compete with something else like science, technology, or energy? What if the issue isn’t something that is already illegal like dragging, or not replanting the forest, but the issue is that our debts are to high to deal with when we are not exploring other options to improve our lot like increasing our exports of raw logs?
Some one once told me about how imports and exports work. It will always be that Cuba will export sugar cane and the like to Canada because they are better at growing it. Canada will always export raw logs because it is just a better renewable export then anything else we have, and we are better at it then Japan, etc. It doesn’t matter what real thing you are talking about, if some one some where is better at it then you, you loose. The trick is to get better at something then anyone else. We grow grains here really good, same for wood, potash, and a host of other things like uranium ore. Interfere with the things that work, and you kill real jobs.
Most of the policies of the Green Party show that they have no idea how the real world works. This is just one of countless examples of why having them even given air time on national news is bad idea.
Cut wasteful subsidies:
“End the failed strategy of throwing good money after bad in corporate bail-outs for big business, and subsidies to nuclear and fossil fuels.”
Great idea, end the fed! … I mean, errr …. end the welfare state! While we’re at it, let’s end all the hand outs…. I mean I didn’t vote to have the government sub Air-Canada, General Motors, solar panels in homes, wind mills, … and yet again we see that the Green Party really doesn’t want a fair deal for everyone equally. If you are going to stop handing out tax payer money to one group, end it to all, including that couple of bucks a political parties get per vote…. not that the Green Party would even exist if that was ended. Claiming that you are going to end a bad idea in one area, but not another, doesn’t stop it from being a bad idea. Subsidies are a bad idea, including those for housing, company start ups, training, school, transportation, public transportation, green technology, research, and trade. Claiming it is needed here, but not there, makes you a bigot.
Get the prices right:
“Get the prices right for long term sustainability. Avoid structural deficits. Implement a revenue-neutral carbon pricing architecture to modernize our economy. Build a “Made in Canada” Green economy.”
Maybe statements like this is why I never bothered to write this before. None of this actually means anything outside of the green cult. It’s all idioms related to being a Green Party member, doubt it? Ask anyone who has never given the Green Party a second thought, what the heck that statement means. OK, to be fair, I can translate it…
Get the prices right for long term sustainability. … Create a balance budget, like every single other party claims too.
Avoid structural deficits … The government system is broken, we’re going to fix it, like every single other party claims too.
Implement a revenue-neutral carbon pricing architecture to modernize our economy … even thou Carbon monoxide is poisonous, we want to tax Carbon dioxide which is a natural organic compound that plants can not live without, instead.
Build a “Made in Canada” Green economy … because Made in Canada isn’t something to be proud of all on it’s own, we want it to be a ‘green’ thing!
“A community is defined by more than geography. A community is people living together, taking care of each other, having time for each other.”
Ummm … wait a sec…
“The term community has two distinct meanings: 1) A group of interacting people, living in some proximity (i.e., in space, time, or relationship). Community usually refers to a social unit larger than a household that shares common values and has social cohesion. The term can also refer to the national community or international community, and, 2) in biology, a community is a group of interacting living organisms sharing a populated environment. ” – Wikipedia
I’m willing to bet that the policy makers of the Green Party actually looked up the word community in Wikipedia and managed to get wrong still. Living together means something completely different then interacting with each other. Living together implies a commune, not community. And as for taking care of each other, that goes back to the whole ‘social contract’ issue, which I really don’t have the time to debate right now. But I will say this, every single “FAMILY” in a community will take care of their own first, before they will take care of their neighbor, and that is the way it should be. Having time for each isn’t something that makes sense to include here, unless the Green Party has some warped view that they can tell you what you should do with your free time.
“Communities that work take work. Transportation systems that get you from here to there, quickly, efficiently, and safely. Water works that ensure clean and healthy water. All the things that make us love where we live. ….”
I agree that communities take work to work, kinda of a lame way to say to it thou. But communities do not have anything to do with (public implied) transportation issues, I can say that, because Canada has THOUSANDS of towns without public transportation, and they are almost always better at giving you an impression of being a real community then any one of the ones with a public transportation system. For that matter the same can be said for any area without a water works.
This is just the Green Party proving that it is out of touch with reality. The Green Party makes the claim that it’s an environmentally friendly political party, but most of the members are collage students who have never left the city, and wouldn’t know how to handle themselves in the bush. The think that they are really involved in the community, the man on the street, because most of them have been involved in some kind protest, boycott, or what not. But the truth is, they have no clue what real Canadians are really all about. This is actually a good thing, it will keep them from getting votes, and I am not about to name off where they are off base to help them. Maybe, they should just go have a life.
Help for married couples and families: “Fix the tax system. Lower income taxes and introduce full income splitting to reduce the tax burden on married couples and families.” I actually agree with this statement, WOW, found one…. oh, wait… The only problem I have with this is that I don’t believe the government should have anything to do with the church. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, and I believe that the act of marriage is a religious practice. This doesn’t mean that I am against Gay marriage, it means that any kind of marriage is none of the governments business because it is an act of faith. If income tax is a so called necessary evil, why not make it based on the individual rather then a unit, or some other label. Better yet, end it completely, it is after all evil to begin with. “Share the load. More people working fewer hours. For those who want to, make it easier to telecommute or work from home. Share jobs. Flex hours. Flexible child care with access for all. Early childhood education. More workplace child care spaces. Support for those who stay home to raise their children and support for those who need to get back to work while their kids are still young. Help for local governments. Sustainable long-term funding support for municipalities to repair decades-old crumbling infrastructure. Build for the future. Create more of the common amenities all communities need for recreation, transportation, water works and arts and culture.” Do you know how to hack into any computer security system on the planet? Make a phone call. It’s called “Social Engineering”. To be blunt, they can go (insert colorful metaphors here) themselves. First off, take a look at Tim Horton’s, Loblaws, Walmart, and a host of other companies. They all have more people working fewer hours, sharing jobs, flex hours, access to government run child care, prenatal leave, make contributions to local governments, repair infrastructure, build for the future… and every worker hates it. Yeah, good ideas, not. “Respect and support our elders. Ensure secure pensions and provide programmes that address health both physical and mental – and ensure dignity by stopping elder abuse and respecting living wills.” Yawn, bored yet? I respect my parents, they deserve it. My Mother-In-Law on the other hand deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. Government can not regulate respect, so stop claiming you can do so. As for living wills, there is case law for that, it’s been done already. (Pensions issue see above) There was just a little bit more on the issue of Democracy, I am not going to waste my time on it, if you want to know what democracy really is, read Phil’s blog linked above.
The issues they don’t mention: Illegal Drugs: The Green Party wants to legalize drugs. ALL OF THEM. They view addiction as a disease that is not the fault of those that are addicted to it. They may want to regulate some of them, make the selling of some of them a criminal offense, or drop all the prohibitions all together. I want to decriminalize them, not make them legal. More on that some other day. First Past the Post: The Greens hate the current voting system, they want to change the current first past the post system to a Single Transferable Vote system. I admit that the first past the post sucks, but after much thought, I really don’t want some nut case political party like the Canadian Nazi Party (wow, another godwin) getting a single seat in government. I’ll keep it the way it is thanks.
The Greens believe that the only persons who need guns are law enforcement. That there is a major problem with guns being smuggled across the border into Canada, and that Canadians do not believe that they have a right to bear arms. “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” —Adolf Hitler
The Greens like every other left wing nut do not want the common people to own guns because they think we are children, that we need to be lead around on a leash. And I know that at least a few Greens personally that believe more in-line with the above quote. This just doesn’t cut it with me. – Wolfe