Tag Archives: Red

News

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

6 Comments
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

News

Dennis Prager on dependence, responsibility and character

Leave a comment

I found this video on Evan Sayet’s Facebook page.

You may also be interested in this article by Dennis Prager that explains the conflict between equality of life outcomes (redistribution of wealth) and equality of opportunity (liberty and responsibility).

Commentary

Dennis Prager explains the conflict between liberty and equality

5 Comments

A classic column by well-known Jewish scholar Dennis Prager.

Excerpt:

Right and the left do not want the same America.

The left wants America to look as much like Western European countries as possible. The left wants Europe’s quasi-pacifism, cradle-to-grave socialism, egalitarianism and secularism in America. The right wants none of those values to dominate America.

The left wants America not only to have a secular government, but to have a secular society. The left feels that if people want to be religious, they should do so at home and in their houses of prayer, but never try to inject their religious values into society. The right wants America to continue to be what it has always been — a Judeo-Christian society with a largely secular government (that is not indifferent to religion). These opposing visions explain, for example, their opposit views concerning nondenominational prayer in school.

[…]The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions. This is what propels the left to advocate laws that would force employers to pay women the same wages they pay men not only for the same job but for “comparable” jobs (as if that is objectively ascertainable). The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal, but the right values liberty, a man-woman based family and other values above equality.

And the same thing goes for education, health care, etc. If a man chooses to work hard so that he can afford to send his children to Christian schools to help them to form a Christian worldview, the left steps in and confiscates his earnings and uses them to operate secular public schools to undermine his children’s worldview. If a man chooses to work hard so that he can buy the best health care for his beloved wife if she gets sick, the left steps in and confiscates his earnings and uses them to pay for breast implants (NHS). They call it equality. But where is a man’s liberty to pursue his life the way he wants to?

By the way, I noticed that Dennis had the chance to speak to the Republicans in Congress.

Here’s a part of his remarks that is relevant:

I have a motto that I offer to you because this is the ultimate moral case for us: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

We have to learn to make our complex beliefs simple — though never simplistic. And this is our powerful response to government doing more and more for people: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

And here’s how we explain it: The bigger the government, the less I do for myself, for my family and for my community. That is why we Americans give more charity and devote more time to volunteering than Europeans do. The European knows: The government, the state, will take care of me, my children, my parents, my neighbors and my community. I don’t have to do anything. The bigger question in many Europeans’ lives is, “How much vacation time will I have and where will I spend that vacation?”

That is what happens when the state gets bigger — you become smaller. The dream of America was that the individual was to be a giant. The state stays small so as to enable each of us to be as big as we can be. We are each created in God’s image. The state is not in God’s image, but it is vying to be that. This is the battle you’re fighting. You are fighting a cosmic battle because this is the most important society ever devised, the United States of America.

This conflict between equality and liberty used to be a pretty well understood back when people understood politics and government, but not anymore. Now everyone votes based on their emotions. Compassion, not knowledge.

UPDATE: Andrew comments:

Let me just clarify something regarding EQUALITY: The right believes in both liberty and equality . The difference is that the right believes in “equality of opportunity” while the left believes in “equality of outcomes”. Equality of opportunity is where everyone gets the opportunity to better their lot in life, whether they do so or not. Equality of outcomes refers to the re-distribution of wealth (if you work too hard and do well for yourself your money will be forcibly taken and given to those who don’t work very hard).