Letter To Dalton McGuinty re Harmonized Sales Tax

Beginning in 2010, Dalton McGuinty's government is instituting a new tax system in Ontario which involves expanding the Provincial Sales Tax to encompass thousands of new goods and services. The program is disingenuously entitled the "Harmonized Sales Tax." To express my dissent and outrage, I sent Mr. McGuinty the following letter and I encourage everyone of a like mind on this matter to send a message as well. Please feel free to borrow my letter, either in part or in whole, while making your opinion known.

Dear Mr. Dalton McGuinty,

As a politically engaged citizen of Ontario, I am pleased to offer my support for any government initiative that aims at lessening the tax and paperwork burden on the people of our province. I find it interesting that the achievement of this rational tax reform is the guise under which Ontarians are being offered the "Harmonized Sales Tax" (HST). Regrettably, the HST plan will, in reality, distend the 8% provincial tax to include innumerable products and services that are presently – and mercifully – beyond the provincial government’s reach. As a result, it is clear that the valid objective of reforming the tax system for the benefit of Ontario’s over-taxed individuals, families, and businesses is no more than a convenient pretext that has been employed by your administration to obscure the true nature of your proposed tax plan.

Like many of your government’s policies, the HST has been initiated under a smoke screen of beneficence while truly aiming at arrogating to the state an even larger portion of the wealth of Ontario’s citizens. In essence, the “harmonization” that your government has advanced is nothing more than a massive tax hike, one that will be keenly felt by Ontarians in their purchase of basic goods and services such as hydro, gasoline, and home heating fuel, as well as in important areas like legal fees, real estate charges, and the sale of used cars. Given our province’s already inordinately high tax burden, this drastic and underhanded cash grab by your government will represent a major financial challenge to Ontario’s producers and consumers alike, especially those in the middle class. Your constituents will not tolerate this state of affairs.

Mr. McGuinty, I implore you to strike down the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax. Furthermore, as the leader of Ontario’s government, I ask that you focus your efforts on what common sense, sound economics, and the lessons of history have demonstrated time and again is most conducive to the real welfare of Canadian citizens: freedom in the economic realm. I assure you that your failure to take positive action on this matter will be reflected in the results of the next provincial election.

Please follow the link to send your own message.

Religious/Social Conservatism As Socialism?

Mike Brock published an interesting article today in which he endeavoured to draw a link between left-wing government interventionist ideology and religious conservatism. This link, his article seemed to imply, was socialism.

While his argument is for the most part well-reasoned, it isn't socialism that links religious conservatism with welfarism - it's statism.

Mike Brock:

Raise your hand if you think social society should have a strong morality attenuated through law.

Socialism: Yes, socialist principles of collectivism.
Ann Coulter: Yes, based on the teachings of the Bible.
Liberalism: No, morality is not the business of the state.

Raise your hand if you think citizenship should be connected to moral systems?

Socialism: Yes, those who do not accept socialism in a socialist society should not be full members therein.
Ann Coulter: Yes, those who conform to the Christian traditions of society are fuller citizens.
Liberalism: No, plurality of belief is not only acceptable, but healthy.

Raise your hand if you think adherence to moral codes are more important than outcome?

Socialism: Yes. It is preferable to have fairness than some with more and others with less.
Ann Coulter: Yes. Traditions like marriage should be maintained irrespective of any outcome.
Liberalism: Perhaps. In so far as the adherence is to the principle of respect of others equal rights.

Is one of the purposes of policing to enforce social moral codes?

Socialism: Yes. The use of police to quell political dissension and anti-social behaviour is important.
Ann Coulter: Yes. More police! More jails! Arrest people who do drugs, and engage in perverse sexual activities!
Liberalism: Absolutely not.

This evaluation of the respective positions of religious conservatives and socialists is accurate.

Taking these areas of similarity to heart, Mr. Brock reaches the following conclusion:

Social conservatives have appropriated love for liberty, but only so far as economics goes. They want lower taxes and less government services, but they want strong laws, stronger police, more jails, and bigger militaries--which ironically, end up costing as much, if not more than the social services they detest. They support the idea of “big government” while pretended to support “small government”, through a redefining of the term “big government”.

The real thread that ties welfarism to social conservatism is the idea that the government is justified in intervening in private matters for reasons other than the prevention of direct physical harm, to wit, the violation of individual rights.

However, I'm confounded by Mr. Brock's derision for strong laws, a strong police force, good jails, and big militaries since these are precisely the institutions that the government is justified for having.

Strong laws are necessary to protect individual rights. This idea should be considered in contrast to the existence of unjust laws, the extent of a law's 'justness' to be determined by employing the standard of protecting individual freedom. Violations of this standard can be witnessed in the words of opponents of homosexual marriage and the legalization of drugs. Having strong laws simply means effectively guarding the rights of our citizens and, in this way, is perfectly consonant with liberalism and freedom. Moreover, a strong police force is crucial to the defence of rights in the same way that a strong military is essential to the defence of these rights from threats from abroad.

Accordingly, Mr. Brock's comments reveal what I believe to be a particularly harmful streak in the libertarian movement: the identification of any government as bad government. Evidently, this perspective has roots in anarchism. In reality, limited government is necessary for protecting individuals from coercion. There are three legitimate government functions: protection from domestic rights-abusers through a robust police force, protection from rights-abusers abroad through a strong military, and the administration of just laws through a judiciary. Any actions taken by the government which exceed these legitimate roles can be properly identified as statist.

Before we are able to coherently defend liberty, we must identify what constitutes a violation of our rights. Leftism - the partial or complete state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - is a prime example of illegitimate government control. Social conservatism - the substantial centralized control over social affairs - is guilty of the same violation of liberty for the same reasons.

Mike Brock claims that welfarism and social conservatism are two sides of the same coin and, to a certain extent, this is accurate. However, that coin has not been minted with the material of socialism, which is merely another name for the left-wing ideology of intervention in the marketplace. The two sides are connected by the idea of statism and this should be the real enemy for lovers of liberty on the left and on the right.

Identifying the enemy is the first step to conquering him.

Vladimir Putin To The US: "No, Seriously, Socialism Doesn't Work"

Via Gateway Pundit:

"We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism... Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent... In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin
Opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
January 28, 2009

Barack Obama: making history's mistakes all over again.

Well, he did promise change, didn't he?


UPDATE: A little relevant wisdom -

"The kind of events that once took place will by reason of human nature take place again."

--Thucydides (~400 BC)

UPDATE II: Reaching just a little farther back into history -

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office"

--Aesop (~550 BC)

"The Capitalists Will Sell Us The Rope With Which We Will Hang Them"

As the rising tide of government intervention comes to consume more and more of the formerly private sectors of the American economy by way of this outrageous porkulus package, one is tempted to wonder what enemy of big business is perpetrating such a great injustice against the ranks of the so-called capitalists.

Hell, there doesn't appear to be a single component of this bill that ought to attract the support of business, especially since the portion of the package that is dedicated to business tax relief has become negligible, in stark contrast to efforts to entice business into giving up their freedom in previous decades.

So what fiendish enemy could possibly be hoodwinking big business into supporting this destruction of the free market?

Unfortunately, in the era of Obama, the greatest threat to big business is big business itself.

Devoid of anything resembling principle, these companies will sell themselves down the river with smiles on their faces for the illusion of security and, more importantly, to shift responsibility from themselves to the government.

As Vladimir Lenin chillingly put it, "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." How very right he seems to have been.

Michael G. Franc:

As the trillion-dollar-plus economic stimulus bill moved through the legislative pipeline, the portion devoted to business tax relief shrank, and shrank, and shrank. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill filed early this a.m. had been shorn of all but a few items of non-simulative tax pork worth a mere $6.15 billion over the next decade.

This is significant because, historically, business tax relief is the lure that attracts the support of large business trade associations to unwieldy legislative monstrosities such as the economic stimulus bill. Indeed, earlier this week top officials at business groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (among many others) were dropping hints that their organizations would take the bait.

But even as the conferees opted for more spending and less tax relief, the business lobbies held firm in their support of today’s bill. Remarkably, the National Association of Manufacturers not only endorsed the final agreement, but informed Members of Congress that it would be “key voting” the vote on final passage. “Key voting” is the trade association’s way of elevating the importance of a particular vote to Category Five status.

Message: We don't just like this legislation; we really like it.

To NAM, the pro-business position is to vote for a bill that reverses the highly successful welfare reforms of 1996 and drastically expands the welfare state, does extreme violence to the concept of federalism, and greatly shifts the responsibility and power over health care delivery and decision making from individuals to government, among many other failings.

A top NAM official explained:

We are in extraordinary times. We feel a balanced spending and tax relief package to revitalize our economy is needed. All of our members are on the frontlines of this crisis and are very eager to see some help from Washington… For companies that are struggling right now, that cash infusion could be the difference between life and death.

Ditto for the U.S. Chamber. A revealing story that appeared today in the McClatchy chain notes:

The president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a speech in Detroit Thursday, tried to put a brave face on the tough year ahead. Thomas Donohue acknowledged that big business didn't get in the stimulus bill some of the tax-relief measures it most wanted, but promised the Chamber's support.

"The bottom line is that at the end of the day, we're going to support the legislation. Why? Because with the markets functioning so poorly, the government is the only game in town capable of jump-starting the economy," Donohue said.

Ayn Rand, call your office.

Or, better yet, why don't we send every member of congress a copy of Atlas Shrugged and ask them if they can spot anything familiar.

Not that they would read it. Apparently, employees of the government aren't obliged to read anything at all, least of all bills that they're voting on.

HRCs Decide They Haven't Done Enough Damage, Seek More Power

This one's for all of those optimists who think that the free speech fight in Canada is coming to a close. We haven't won yet. In fact, we don't even have the enemy in retreat.

Ottawa Citizen:

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is calling for Parliament to force all Canadian magazines, newspapers and "media services" websites to join a national press council with the power to adjudicate breaches of professional standards and complaints of discrimination.

The council "would help bring about more consistency across all jurisdictions in Canada," reads an OHRC report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The media's freedom of expression comes with a duty to "address issues of hate expression, and (media) should do so either voluntarily through provincial press councils, or through statutory creation of a national press council with compulsory membership," the report says.

Under this proposal, media outlets would have the following choice before them: either to "voluntarily" join a provincial press council (with the implicit threat of coercion should they refuse, of course) or to be coerced into joining some perverse national press council through compulsory membership backed by the government.

Make no mistake about what this proposal amounts to. This would be state control of the media, pure and simple. If this proposal succeeds, government bureaucrats would essentially arrogate to themselves the power to control and limit the words and ideas of all Canadian magazines, newspapers, and media services.

Oops. Now we're Russia.

Mr. Harper, I wonder if these thugs read your interview and wondered just how much more they could get away with before somebody actually decides to do something about these blatant violations of free speech.

These fascists are re-defining free speech right under our noses and inventing duties that do not and should not exist. Like I wrote yesterday, we are a very long way from seeing the end of this fight for the achievement of free expression in Canada. Allow this to function as a bracing reminder not to get cocky just because politicians are discussing section 13.1 of the CHRA.

The Foot-In-The-Door Philosophy: How Democrats Are Smuggling Socialized Medicine Into America

The following is a timely reminder for Barack Obama's stimulus crowd from Ronald Reagan circa 1960.



Hauntingly relevant, no?

Titanic Deck Chairs:

If Democrats learned anything from the HillaryCare defeat, it was the danger of admitting to their wish to federalize the health market. Since returning to power, they've pursued a new strategy: to stealthily and incrementally expand government control. "What no one is paying attention to in the [stimulus]," says Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, "is that Democrats are making a big grab at the health-care sector."

The stimulus bill extends Medicare benefits to millions of people who lost work, extends COBRA benefits for years and picks up 65% of those premiums, and attacks the private market in electronic medical records. After passing SCHIP (greatly expanded from the bill Bush vetoed) they are also targeting Medicare for even more expansion.

H/t Maggie's Farm

"We Are All Socialists Now"

Gulp. This is going to be a long four years.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.(*)

In other words, Americans want big government without big government. They want to have their cake and to eat it too.

Please wake up, friends to the south. You're being slipped the roofie of socialism and it's going to give you one hell of a hangover. Take it from a country that knows about expensive social programs and the damage that welfarism can do.

H/t Darcey

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Reflecting upon the 2008 US presidential race, can you think of a single American election in which the philosophical difference between the two candidates was as insubstantial as it was between McCain and Obama?

Perfectly encapsulated:

(*)

Obama: "I want change."

McCain: "Well, I want change too."

Obama: "But I want it for the sake of this great nation."

McCain: "Yeah, you have to put your country first."

Obama: "And that means taking your money."

McCain: "Yes, we're going to take your money. But I mean that in an increasingly conservative way as we get closer to the election."

Obama: "I still mean it in the socialist way but I'm going to get more and more vague on the details until I'm elected, mmmkay?"

A Word To The Pragmatists From A "So-Called Conservative"

The right-wing blogosphere has witnessed a massive polarization over the question of the proper assessment of Stephen Harper's recent budget. In response to the dissent that many tories have shown over the complete capitulation of the right to the demands of the socialists, many bloggers are meeting dissent with condemnation.

The following entry, found at the Conservative Reporter's blog, provides an excellent example of this trend:

I don’t know about everyone else but I am getting very disgusted with all the so called conservatives who are giving the PM and this budget a hard time. It doesn’t have this, it has too much of that.

Wake up and smell the facts.

What do you think the coalition would have done. The media was on their side, they love iggy, he can do no wrong.

Give this budget a chance to get some results. It is a use it or lose it budget. There are strings attached.

As sorry as I am to 'disgust' you, I cannot help but take issue with the alleged factiness of your position.

The welfare state is built on the assumption of a constantly expanding population, a model which is currently in the process of breaking down in a big way. This means that, within the next however many years, the Baby Boomers will begin to retire and expect the next generation to pay off their debts. But the population has stopped expanding. Add to this the measly little $85 billion deficit that Harper has so bravely incurred to keep himself in the seat of power and we have what is referred to in crass circles as a 'serious fucking problem'.

We are condemning ourselves to financial crisis on a large scale with the short-term thinking that is evident in Harper's 'pragmatic' approach. The Prime Minister has the luxury to do this because he doesn't expect to remain in power long enough to catch the brunt of the long-term consequences. It is, in fact, the citizens of Canada at large who will have to deal with the implications of this budget. And those implications will be profoundly unpleasant.

The global economy's current state of crisis was caused by similar short-term thinking and left-wing economics. "Government intervention in the economy," exclaimed defenders of Bill Clinton who supported increases in subprime lending in the late 1990s, "is the safest bet. Capitalism is fine but it needs a little help from the government to stay on track." Today's defenders of the budget and the bailout economics that it represents assume, even if only implicitly, a similar kind of reasoning.

The root of this problem seems to be the way that many conservatives look at the very purpose of politics. We are told to stand by our Prime Minister while he sells us down the river because it's only temporary. Allow me to remind you that nothing about the government is ever 'just temporary'. Most programs that are touted as nonpermanent stick around for years after their intended sunset and those that do expire on time leave trails of consequences that reverberate for decades down the road. This is especially true of deficits.

Harper is playing clever politics with money that doesn't belong to him. I don't recognize Harper's right - nor anybody else's right - to a minute of my life or a cent of my money. I have supported the Prime Minister in the past because I believed that he had the good sense to fight for economic freedom. This was not an unreasonable belief to hold given the statements that he had made before becoming Prime Minister, particularly regarding the importance of property rights in a free society, the limited role of the government, and the deleterious effects of welfarism on the economy and the state's citizens. But, instead of living by his words, Harper has confirmed the old bromide that politics attracts the power-luster and repels the man of principle.

The budget's conservative defenders have gone out of their way to cite the pragmatic political sense of Harper's decision but they have conspicuously failed to mention or defend the pragmatic financial sense that all budgets should be expected to make. This is because, were they to take their support to its logical extension, they would find themselves defending Keynesianism. As little as many conservatives may know about the economy, they are aware of enough to recognize that this is a bad thing. (Don't believe me? Ask Henry Hazlitt: 'The Failure of the "New Economics": An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies' - PDF)

In a recent article, Andrew Coyne pronounced the Canadian conservative movement dead and I disagreed - to a certain extent, anyway. However, the conservative movement truly is dead if we fail to reclaim the principles that we once defended, foremost among them capitalism. Defending man's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and, accordingly, defending the only economic system that is consonant with those rights (i.e. capitalism), should be what makes a person 'conservative'; these are, in fact, the very principles that we ought to be focused on 'conserving'.

By cowing to the threats of the coalition, Harper has taken capitalism completely off the table as an option for Canada - there is nobody left in power to defend it. So, before sneeringly labeling all of those who reject Harper's pragmatism as "so-called conservatives", please ask yourself precisely what ideas you are effectively preserving in the process of defending the budget.

The answer to that question may surprise you.

Teh Fred Speaks: Common Sense Conservatism's Last American Defender Explains The Economic Crisis

Fred Thompson turns his acerbic wit against the spend-spend-spend liberals currently petitioning for stimulus packages in Washington.



Tip of the hat to WLMR (aka Willie the Lyon) at the Broom.

Reducing The Burden Of Government

The following is an excellent Center For Freedom & Prosperity video hosted by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. Mitchell lucidly explains the theoretical and practical failures of the Keynesian economic model and helpfully delineates some of its greatest negative consequences in the American context, with special reference to the Great Depression and the results of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations' commitment to statism.



As Mitchell says at the end of the video, your guess is as good as mine as to why Keynesian economics has remained so popular. What's worse, it's no longer merely the crusading socialists who embrace its assumptions and methods. Witness the massive growth in government size in recent years in the United States under an allegedly conservative administration.

Perhaps by continuing to expose the fallacies of Keynesian economics we will succeed in weaning North Americans off their diet of statism and help them develop an appetite for freedom.

H/t TSC

Chilling Question Of The Day: Is China More Capitalist Than The US?

AP:

While China improves its business climate by lowering the burden of state confiscation, the US plans to increase it, and in some cases by a significant amount. Meanwhile, the House last night voted 237-170 to sink $15 billion into the American auto industry, with government officially owning part of three private auto makers in order to dictate to management how to run their businesses. Management welcomed the move, and in fact wanted Congress to buy an even bigger stake in these companies.

[...]

When one looks to Beijing for rational tax policies … well, that’s just a sad day for Americans, even if it does portend a brighter future for China.

I recall a day when 'grace under fire' was considered a supreme virtue in business and inviting government into the management of your company an unthinkable ignominy. The American response to the current financial crisis, and particularly the clambering of the corporate community for government handouts, suggests just how far America has strayed from this vision of honourable conduct in business. Is China actually more capitalist than America? Of course not. But when the question can be asked without the intention of provoking laughter, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

It Isn't Just About Lightbulbs

Liberty In Canada:



"It isn't just about light bulbs," Tzeporah Berman exclaimed with all the zeal of a pastor in sermon. "It's about laws."

This is what we are facing. The environmental religion accepts only one solution to the problems they identify with the environment and environmental policy in Canada. She shrugs off lifestyle changes as insufficient and reiterates that the only solution is governmental intervention, Daddy Government stepping in to save the kids from the mess they have got themselves into this time.

"Green" is quickly developing into one of the most popular socialist movements in the world. And, although they have selected the environment as their issue, their goal remains consistent with the goal of socialists from all parties: the erosion of liberty in favour of all-encompassing government control.

Tzeporah Berman. What we need is fewer laws, not more. Fewer restrictions, not less liberty. If the environmental concerns that you highlight are as dire as you claim, persuade people towards your view through reason. Once there is a strong call for corporations to become more environmentally friendly, companies will adapt to new and more efficient technology or they will lose out on business.

The free market has always been and remains today the best mechanism for change known to humankind. And, what's more, this method would save you from the unpleasantness of bludgeoning your fellow citizens into the Green yoke you have us fitted for. Let us decide for ourselves in full possession of our natural liberty what to do about the environment, if anything at all. Any other method is thuggish.

The Failure of Socialized Medicine In Canada

That's right, folks. As it turns out, our universal single-payer crypto-socialist health care scheme may, in fact, have its weaknesses.



As innocuous as our "nationalized health insurance" has been made out to be, the state of Canadian health care today should be enough to worry even its most stalwart defenders. Our moribund medicine program does not and cannot address our serious wait-time problem and it has revealed itself to be troublingly slow to adopt new technologies and medicines. The monopsonistic approach to health care has been a blast but it's passed time that we stop pillaging the middle class to prop up an ineffective and immoral system. And the sooner the better, I say.

Mayor of Toronto Capitalizes On Tragedy To Push Leftist Agenda

Never one to balk at exploiting tragedy, Toronto Mayor David Miller has used the death of an uninvolved bystander in a recent shooting to call for an absolute ban on handguns in Canada.

"We can choose to act," Miller said at a press conference on Friday. "We can choose to say handguns are so dangerous and kill uninvolved people that we're going to close the loopholes in our law and end the ownership of handguns in this country."

The charge comes after Hou Chang Mao, a 47-year-old father of two, was shot while stacking oranges at the grocery store where he was working Thursday night.

...

On Friday, Miller called the two killings "absolute tragedies" and renewed his long-established call for the federal government to ban handguns.

"There are loopholes today that allow so-called collectors and hobbyists to possess handguns, and to carry them around our city," he told CTV Newsnet.

Miller said a significant portion of guns used in crimes are stolen from gun owners, and another significant portion came from the U.S.

He called for the federal government to close the loophole and install a national handgun ban, and invest more attention into securing our borders.

...

"This is a real, everyday safety threat to our major cities, and it's time we paid the same attention to it," he told reporters. "I think it's time Canadians came together. These challenges aren't just in Toronto, they exist across this country."

Argumentum ad misericordiam at its best. Mr. Mao's murder should indeed spark outrage. Outrage at the criminals who are waging war in our cities. A revamped police force in Toronto is a crucial step towards the prevention of tragedies like this in the future. We really couldn't get those 2,500 new police officers Harper promised us fast enough. But until we do, how about we take a step back. Miller claims there is an influx of US guns flowing across the border feeding the fire of gang warfare in Toronto. So a handgun ban would make sure no Canadian citizens could get their hands on a gun while criminals with a mind to would have no problem securing an illegal US firearm. And, more importantly, a question must be asked that Canadians have forgotten they have a duty to ask of their government: "By what right do you forbid me from carrying a handgun?"

In related news, Miller's also promoting a fresh new slogan for Toronto in the hopes of attracting tourism. It's catchy enough. Let's hope it sticks:

Toronto: you're safe now because only the criminals have guns