Tag Archives: Home

NDP leader Jack Layton lived in subsidized housing with $120,000 income

NDP leaders Bob Rae and Jack Layton
NDP leaders Bob Rae and Jack Layton

Here’s an article from the Toronto (Red) Star on the NDP Party, Jack Layton and ethics.

Excerpt:

Layton, who is married to fellow NDP MP Olivia Chow, elicits strong feelings both for and against. His critics say he is a tax-and-spend socialist while supporters are almost moony-like in their adoration of the man.

“I quite like the guy as a person,” said Harper cabinet minister John Baird, “but his solution to everything is increase taxes and increase spending.”

From time to time he has been criticized for saying one thing and doing another, including being caught red-handed in 1985 living in subsidized housing in Toronto when his and Olivia Chow, then a Toronto trustee, were raking in a combined $120,000 year.

“Jack once told me many years after that incident that it is the one thing he has never able to purge or expunge from the public’s mind, this apparent contradiction,” said former seatmate Brian Ashton.

The Toronto Star is the most radical, left-wing newspaper in Canada. They are far to the left of the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times.

How did former NDP leader Bob Rae govern in Ontario?

If you want to know what New Democrats do to an economy, you can read about how NDP leader Bob Rae wrecked the Ontario economy in the 1990s.

Excerpt:

The Liberal government had forecast a small surplus earlier in the year, but a worsening North American economy led to a $700 million deficit before Rae took office. In October, the NDP projected a $2.5 billion deficit for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1991.[40] Some economists projected soaring deficits for the upcoming years, even if the Rae government implemented austerity measures.[41] Rae himself was critical of the Bank of Canada’s high interest rate policy, arguing that it would lead to increased unemployment throughout the country.[42] He also criticized the 1991 federal budget, arguing the Finance Minister Michael Wilson was shifting the federal debt to the provinces.[43]

The Rae government’s first budget, introduced in 1991, increased social spending to mitigate the economic slowdown and projected a record deficit of $9.1 billion. Finance Minister Floyd Laughren argued that Ontario made a decision to target the effects of the recession rather than the deficit, and said that the budget would create or protect 70,000 jobs. It targeted more money to social assistance, social housing and child benefits, and raised taxes for high-income earners while lowering rates for 700,000 low-income Ontarians.[44]

A few years later, journalist Thomas Walkom described the budget as following a Keynesian orthodoxy, spending money in the public sector to stimulate employment and productivity. Unfortunately, it did not achieve its stated purpose. The recession was still severe. Walkom described the budget as “the worst of both worlds”, angering the business community but not doing enough to provide for public relief.

[…]Rae’s government attempted to introduce a variety of socially progressive measures during its time in office, though its success in this field was mixed. In 1994, the government introduced legislation, Bill 167, which would have provided for same-sex partnership benefits in the province. At the time, this legislation was seen as a revolutionary step forward for same-sex recognition.

[…]The Rae government established an employment equity commission in 1991,[49] and two years later introduced affirmative action to improve the numbers of women, non-whites, aboriginals and disabled persons working in the public sector.

[…]In November 1990, the Rae government announced that it would restrict most rent increases to 4.6% for the present year and 5.4% for 1991. The provisions for 1990 were made retroactive. Tenants’ groups supported these changes, while landlord representatives were generally opposed.

Be careful who you vote for, Canada. We voted for Obama, and now we have a 14.5 trillion dollar debt and a 1.65 trillion deficit – TEN TIMES the last Republican budget deficit of 160 billion under George W. Bush in 2007. TEN TIMES WORSE THAN BUSH.

UPDATE: This post linked by Blazing Cat Fur.

Related posts

New study finds that fathers should play with children and mothers should care for them

Found here in the Courier and Mail.

Excerpt:

A study suggests that couples have a stronger relationship when the father spends more time playing with their child.

But when he participates in care-giving such as giving baths, parents undermine each other.

The study in the Journal of Developmental Psychology involved 112 couples with four-year-olds.

They were asked how often they played with their children and were involved in care-giving.

The US researchers looked for signs of supportive co-parenting, and for evidence of couples criticising or trying to “outdo” each other.

A year later the couples took part in a similar activity and results showed when fathers played more with their child at the beginning of the study, the couple showed more supportive co-parenting in the second session.

But when fathers took part more in care-giving, the couples showed lower levels of supportive co-parenting a year later.

It’s a small study, so I would like to see another one that is bigger.

 

New study finds that eating dinner as a family makes children happier

From the left-wing UK Guardian. (H/T Mercator via RuthBlog)

Excerpt:

Researchers at the National Foundation for Educational Research asked the English pupils, aged between 10 and 15, whether they agreed, disagreed or were unsure about the statement: “I feel happy about life at the moment.”

[…]The research, Reasons to be Cheerful: Being a 12-year-old Boy who Eats Dinner with his Family, which was commissioned by the Department for Education, also found that boys were 1.4 times more likely to say they felt happy than girls.

[…]Children who often eat a meal with family or friends at home and regularly eat fruit and vegetables are also more likely to say they are happy. The study found young people who often sit down for a meal with their family are 1.6 times more likely to state that they are happy as those who sometimes or never sit down to a meal with their family. The most likely reason for children to say they are unhappy is being worried about their parents or family, the researchers found. A high proportion of those who worried about their looks also said they were unhappy.

The happiest group were 12-year-old boys who eat with their families.

[…]Benton said: “Our analysis confirms that If we are interested in the happiness and wellbeing of young people we need to look beyond how much money they have.

“In particular, growing up in a supportive and safe environment, both within the home and elsewhere appear to be far more important. Parents making the effort to spend time with their children are a major positive influence on their chances of being happy.”

This sort of contradicts the left’s way of addressing children’s issues – which is to weaken the parental bond through taxation and government-run social programs. Maybe we should lower taxes and let parents have more of their own earned income to pump into their own families directly on things like family dinners and family activities?