In Response To Ezra Levant's Defence Of The Tory Budget

Although Ezra Levant warns that Harper's budget will do nothing to stimulate the Canadian economy, he suggests in an article in today's National Post that we ought to accept our Prime Minister's decision.

For one thing, Levant argues, our budgetary over-reaction to the recession was marginally less expensive than were the budgetary over-reactions of most other Western countries. Rather than complaining, then, we should count ourselves lucky that we don't live in the United States!

What's more, those GST cuts are still "pouring" $12-billion a year back into our pockets.

Gee. How generous of the Prime Minister to "pour" money that individual citizens earned back into their own pockets. Yes, the GST cut was a decent start but it was certainly not enough to earn our eternal gratitude. And it was absolutely not sufficient to keep me quiet about the budget's massive flaws.

But what of us crotchety hard-liners demanding a return to principle rather than the pragmatic dreck we were presented with?

"That grumbling is a good thing. With all three opposition parties and much of the media to the left of the government, conservative dissenters provide at least some counterweight to those demanding even more spending."

Leftist politicians and commentators couldn't care less what capitalists are bitching about. We're the enemy, remember? The evil and unfeeling children of Margaret Thatcher. What this budget represents is not an opportunity to throw some meat to the hungry Liberal lions to keep them at bay for a few more years. What it represents is a chink in Harper's commitment to the laissez-faire ideology. It represents a willingness to be whatever the opposition wants him to be in order to preserve his power.

Yes, a lot of conservatives are upset about this budget. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest problem is attitudinal: the Tory budget does not represent any real change of approach in terms of financial policy when compared to Liberal budgets of the recent past. The assumption still seems to be that the government has every right to seize our money, that we should thank our lucky stars for every little tax cut that our magnanimous rulers choose to bestow upon us. Mr. Levant's piece fits perfectly within this paradigm.

Until conservatives and Canadian citizens at large stand up and demand an adjustment to the state's basic disposition towards taxation and government spending, there will be no real change to the fundamentally welfarist structure of our social and political institutions.

Not until the massive debts that we have irresponsibly incurred catch up to us, anyway.

Practical Budgetary Advice For Stephen Harper's Pragmatists & The Stimulus Crowd

In response to my rejection of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's disaster of a budget, certain bloggers on the right - the ones who have been persuaded that the private property of a country's citizenry is fair ammunition for the political games of its rulers - have requested that I include a few practical suggestions regarding the changes that the PM should have signed off on to accompany my criticism.

To aid me in this task, I will recruit the wonderful Diana Hsieh who is currently facing similarly short-sighted Keynes-inspired stimulus measures in the United States. Reacting to the proposed stimulus package, Diana has drafted a quick letter to Senator Udall outlining the road map to a healthier and freer economy.

Dear Senator Udall,

Please vote NO on the stimulus package. The economy doesn't need to be stimulated by government handouts and pork. Instead, congress and the president should:

* Cut the corporate tax rate. The US has one of the highest in the world; it damages our economy by enticing businesses to move overseas.

* Cut the personal income tax rate for everyone who actually pays taxes. Stop vilifying and punishing financial success. Stop discouraging people from using their own creativity, skills, and effort to succeed in business.

* Cut capital gains tax rate. It's unjust double taxation that distorts the market.

* Eliminate all tariffs and protectionism. Any barriers to trade hurt America.

* Massively cut government spending on welfare and health programs, eliminate corporate welfare, and eliminate the regulations that make doing business a mess of inane red tape.

Freedom -- not more government spending -- is the recipe for a speedy economic recovery.

Adapting these suggestions to the Canadian context did not take much imagination. The stumbling blocks that we are currently facing north of the border are quite similar to - and in many ways are directly tied to - the problems facing the US.

And, so, The Canadian Republic presents:

Five *Actually* Practical Steps That The Tories Should Have Taken In The Budget

(1) Corporate Tax: The American corporate tax rate is appallingly high at 40%. However, Canada is not too far behind with a rate of 36.1%, although this is a marked improvement over just one decade ago when it was as high as 44.6%. If Harper was truly interested in 'stimulating' the economy quickly, he would continue the last decade's trend of freeing up industry by focusing his efforts on reducing the burden of government. Majors cuts to the corporate tax rate is a great way to accomplish this.

(2) Personal Income Tax: Harper's offering to Canadian citizens regarding personal income tax cuts was a joke, especially coming from an allegedly free-market economist. The income tax in Canada was initially supposed to be 'temporary' (ha!) but, like all state programs that arrogate to the government more power than it ought to possess, the income tax regime was soon normalized and then expanded. Cutting personal income tax rates would have been the greatest and most profound change that Harper could have enacted with his recent budget. Instead, he insulted Canadians as well as his own integrity with half-way solutions and useless gestures.

(3) Capital Gains Tax: Diana's comment applies perfectly to Canada as well. Cut the tax rates on realized capital gains and we're beginning to make some progress.

(4) Tariffs & Protectionism: The only fair trade is free trade. Canada must maintain its support for liberalizing trade measures and pressure the United States to abandon its recent bout of protectionist fever. In times of economic contraction, the US tends to clam up and Canada tends to look outwards. The government must maintain its strong opposition to the current 'Buy American' pressure that is troubling Canadians and focus on eliminating any and all barriers to trade for our country.

(5) Welfare & Health Care: Yet another crucial area in which the budget could have made a difference. Substantial cuts to major programs like EI and the reintegration of the private sphere into the Canadian health industry would place more money in the pockets of productive Canadians while reducing government spending and the tax burden.

In Response To Stephen Taylor On The Budget

In light of the conservative base's sense of betrayal over the new more or less Liberal budget, Stephen Taylor has replied thusly:

A political party’s first and last job is to get elected. If you thought that the Conservative Party should have held its ground, flipped off the opposition, delivered $30 billion in tax cuts and went out in a blaze of glory then you have the benefit of layering fantasy on a wholly incongruent political landscape where the pragmatists thrive. A political party, in practice, is not much more than a marketing machine to sell ideas to an electorate looking to buy them. However, elections span a meager 36 days and unless a voter is conditioned to think conservatively, they won’t vote Conservative. If a Conservative party does form government — especially a minority government — the long term goal is the same: keep the upper hand, survive when strategically beneficial, and win elections.

Mr. Taylor, a political party's first and last job is to do what is right. What benefit is there in the Conservative Party forming government if their primary concern will always be retaining power at the expense of representing the values that they were elected to defend? The good politician takes chances and defends his principles to the bitter end. The good politician never surrenders his values to the mewing of his critics nor does he sacrifice the liberty of his constituents to keep himself politically viable.

A politician's ability to be 'pragmatic' may win a few converts come election time but it will likely cost him the votes of many former faithfuls who decide to stay home rather than vote for a man who will refuse to represent his views when his back is against the wall. Pragmatism does not win elections, Mr. Taylor, principles do.

We must remember that the goal of politics is not, in fact, to permit competing political parties to jockey for power while trampling over the rights of Canadian citizens who, in turn, prefer to dismiss it all as inevitable given the nature of the system. The goal of politics must be to preserve and protect the rights of Canadian citizens. This budget fails to do that. Hell, it isn't even a step in the right direction.

And that is no fantasy, sir, that is principle.

Mr. Taylor continues:

We can lament the budget delivered by our Conservative Party and complain that it goes against our instincts as conservatives. But yesterday, the Conservative government did it’s [sic] job, it presented a survivable budget in the current political climate. However, the conservative movement failed because it was unsuccessful in creating the conditions of ideological survivability for what should have been a sincerely conservative budget.

I see that we're exempting Stephen Harper and his government from the 'conservative movement' now. As appropriate as that may be after this budget, I will admit that it seems like an odd thing to do. We as citizens are responsible for creating a political climate that is conducive to conservatism but the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is not? We must follow our principles and act according to our standard of the good but the Prime Minister of our country ought to be lauded for represented Liberal principles rather than Conservative ones?

In every walk of life, Mr. Taylor, it is my sincere conviction that one can compromise on price but never on principle. Harper has repeatedly demonstrated that he lives by the very opposite maxim. I will never support a man's actions simply because they are strategically effective.


ALSO:

Searching For Liberty - "... And I always thought the idea of politics was to have an honest plan, and let the voters decide if they approve."

Small Dead Animals - These poll results show where Canadian conservatives stand on the matter.

Catprint In The Mash - Faithful Iggy

Gerry Nicholls - "Coalition Dead But Victorious"