Liberalism's 'dirty secret' - It doesn't always work

[scribblet]

Some good points raised here

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...6d-0bf46ff41415

Liberalism's 'dirty secret' - It doesn't always work

OTTAWA - On the eve of the Liberal leadership convention, the man charged with leading the party's renewal process has dropped a bombshell by questioning one of liberalism's key convictions -- that government actually works.

In a hard-hitting policy paper obtained by the National Post, Tom Axworthy, a former top advisor to Pierre Trudeau, says there is an "implementation gap" between what Liberal governments promise and what they deliver.

"Liberalism's dirty secret [and it is not so secret these days] is that government doesn't seem to work well much of the time," he says, citing such examples as the 800,000 potential immigrants waiting for their applications to be processed; massive cost overruns at the gun registry; lengthy procurement delays for military equipment; poor water quality on aboriginal reserves; and the Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act, which promised to produce generic drugs to help fight AIDS but has yet to export a single pill.

Mr. Axworthy's paper also urges the Liberal party to:

- reject the Conservative motion on the nationhood of the Quebecois because it has "no basis in logic."

- introduce security considerations to Investment Canada criteria to ensure Canadian assets are not sold to state-owned Chinese companies. CPC allready working on that

- ensure human rights are raised with the Chinese Communist leadership so they know such values are central to a relationship with Canada. good point huh

- Reverse the Conservative decision on income trusts, grandfather existing trusts and put a size cap on trusts with tax-exempt status; (hmmmmmm)

- Channel higher-education funding directly to students, in the form of grants, rather than to provinces;

- Offer a Resources Security Pact with the United States, which exchanges a guaranteed supply of Canadian oil for trade concessions; and

- Reform the party's internal structure by allowing local members to decide how much funding is retained in the ridings and how much goes to the central organization.

In the paper, Mr. Axworthy notes that without renewal, institutions atrophy. "This is what has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada."

He says the party has lost sight of the core mission of philosophical liberalism -- "to expand the life choices and life chances of every individual."...................

[Higgly]

Let's see. Isn't canada.com a National Post channel? Just curious. Charged with leading the party's renewal process? By whom? Leonard Asper? They haven't even got a leader at the moment.

[scribblet]

So - agree or disagree with the points, if you don't think Axeworthy actually said them or they are incorrect, please provide a source.

And Actually, I believe the Liberals assigned him the task of assembling their blueprint for party renewal; he also said " the gun registry was "an administrative disaster" and the response to the sponsorship scandal was "bizarre."

[kimmy]

Let's see. Isn't canada.com a National Post channel? Just curious. Charged with leading the party's renewal process? By whom? Leonard Asper? They haven't even got a leader at the moment.

Canada.com isn't a National Post channel. Vice versa, rather: canada.com is the web portal for all CanWest entities, including the NP. Anyway, that's semantics. It is, indeed, a National Post article.

Anyway, I gather that your basis for questioning the article's veracity is that it comes from the NP?

If I found a left-friendly media outlet to vouch for the claim that Tom Axworthy has been charged with leading the party's renewal process, would that make it all better?

Tom Axworthy, co-chair of the renewal commission looking at possible Liberal campaign themes,

Toronto Star, Nov 11, 2006

-k

{or, from the horse's mouth...}

[jdobbin]

Some good points raised here

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...6d-0bf46ff41415

Liberalism's 'dirty secret' - It doesn't always work

I notice that Tom Axworthy doesn't list his policy of the National Energy Plan as one of the Liberal failures.

Axworthy might have a few good ideas but they have to be taken with a grain of salt considering his disastrous NEP policy and a secretive PMO that he helped create.

I agree that there never should have been a gun registry as we have now.

I don't accept that there is a backlog per se of immigrants. At the moment, the Conservatives have left numerous positions unfilled for the Immigration Board and that doesn't help but I think it takes what it takes to process the numbers wanting to come in.

I think that the income trust situation could have been handled much better by both Liberals and Conservatives.

Canada's China policy so far has not given Canada access to its citizen in China. I don't know what will.

I don't see Axworthy advocating for a more transparent PMO.

His energy policy idea with the U.S. is a non-starter. The U.S. already has complete access to Canada's supplies. Why would they sacrifice that for trade concessions that they don't need?

[jbg]

In a hard-hitting policy paper obtained by the National Post, Tom Axworthy, a former top advisor to Pierre Trudeau, says there is an "implementation gap" between what Liberal governments promise and what they deliver.

"Liberalism's dirty secret [and it is not so secret these days] is that government doesn't seem to work well much of the time," he says, citing such examples as the 800,000 potential immigrants waiting for their applications to be processed; massive cost overruns at the gun registry; lengthy procurement delays for military equipment; poor water quality on aboriginal reserves; and the Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act, which promised to produce generic drugs to help fight AIDS but has yet to export a single pill.

Excuse my ignorance about Canada, but I had always considered the Liberal Party to be a "brokerage party", i.e. all things to all people. More of a natural party of government than a party with an ideological philosophy.

If someone can explain the LPOC's philosophy I'd like to hear it. King (one Jew is too many, remember) believed that immigrants could generally not fit into Canada. Trudeau made a volt-face, decreeing that Canada is multicultural.

Go figure.

[jdobbin]

Excuse my ignorance about Canada, but I had always considered the Liberal Party to be a "brokerage party", i.e. all things to all people. More of a natural party of government than a party with an ideological philosophy.

If someone can explain the LPOC's philosophy I'd like to hear it. King (one Jew is too many, remember) believed that immigrants could generally not fit into Canada. Trudeau made a volt-face, decreeing that Canada is multicultural.

Go figure.

Excuse my ignorance about the Democrats. Weren't they historically anti-Semite as well. And yet you are a member? What is that all about?

Here's a President you spoke highly of.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShap...the_anti-semite

Truman:

"The Jews, I find are very, very selfish,"

[mikedavid00]

Some good points raised here

In the paper, Mr. Axworthy notes that without renewal, institutions atrophy. "This is what has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada."

He says the party has lost sight of the core mission of philosophical liberalism -- "to expand the life choices and life chances of every individual."...................

Lol. The Liberals expand life choices and life chances? LOL HAHAHA!!!

You know this is all too familiar, more of the same. You have one single person determining what the parties stratagy should be. Reversing income trusts so elite corperations can evade taxes?

Is this acting on behalf of the people?

Atleaste he recognizes the 800,000 people waiting to get into Canada.

(man.. i didn't know we had that kind of job growth. wow we must be doing really well compared to all those other countries who let in a tiny fraction of those people. We have such phenominal job growth and we're so rich that we have 800,000 people to come to Canada, get jobs, and use services. We must be the greatest country on earth to be letting that many people in)

[geoffrey]

Reversing income trusts so elite corperations can evade taxes?

Again, another sucker of the government's insistance that corporations pay taxes. Get over it already, every tax is paid by you and I, not a corporation. Any tax cut is a good tax cut.

[mikedavid00]

Reversing income trusts so elite corperations can evade taxes?

Again, another sucker of the government's insistance that corporations pay taxes. Get over it already, every tax is paid by you and I, not a corporation. Any tax cut is a good tax cut.

I agree.

But we can't have all our businesses converting to income trusts. It would create big problems. We need tax fairness, and much, MUCH lower taxes for corporations.

We can't have lower taxes unless...

you know what i'm going to say.

[geoffrey]

I agree.

But we can't have all our businesses converting to income trusts. It would create big problems. We need tax fairness, and much, MUCH lower taxes for corporations.

We can't have lower taxes unless...

you know what i'm going to say.

We shouldn't have any taxes for corporations. It's the ultimate hidden tax. But it's extremely unpopular for a government to reduce corporate taxes, let alone eliminate them because your average person is completely unknowledgable on real issues like that. So much for your direct democracy.

Income trusts provided the means for the government to reduce corporate rates without causing a stir... eventually to the point where there wasn't a corporate tax anymore. The good it would do for Canada, especially the manufacturing core in Ontario, would be amazing.

Instead we are back at square one with the most outdated taxation system in the OECD.

[mikedavid00]

We shouldn't have any taxes for corporations. It's the ultimate hidden tax. But it's extremely unpopular for a government to reduce corporate taxes, let alone eliminate them because your average person is completely unknowledgable on real issues like that. So much for your direct democracy.

I fully agree. I also think we should have a flat tax too and other things. But it's not realistic in our current climate.

It's like laying off unionized gov't workers; it will never happen.

[Remiel]

Well, if corporations aren't going to pay tax, then they ought to have their pseudo-citizenship revoked. No representation without taxation.

[geoffrey]

Well, if corporations aren't going to pay tax, then they ought to have their pseudo-citizenship revoked. No representation without taxation.

How can a corporation pay tax?

[Remiel]

How can a corporation launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government for " lost revenue " ?

Really, geoffrey, you brought up corporate taxation before I did. I mean, lambast me for my sentiments or " foolish notions " , but why ask a pointless question like that, when you already know the answer?

[Charles Anthony]

Well, if corporations aren't going to pay tax, then they ought to have their pseudo-citizenship revoked.

I agree.

In fact, I believe they should have their "pseudo-citizenship" revoked anyway.

[jbg]

Excuse my ignorance about the Democrats. Weren't they historically anti-Semite as well. And yet you are a member? What is that all about?

Here's a President you spoke highly of.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShap...the_anti-semite

Truman:

"The Jews, I find are very, very selfish,"

I read the McCullough biography, cover to cover. If you read the parts of the article you referenced under that quote, there is a discussion of Roosvelt being the "practical anti-Semite", whose actions were severely prejudicial to Jews. Truman was the opposite. His words cut harshly, but his actions (from partnering in business with the Jewish Harry Jacobson to overruling the State Department and recognizing Israel) demonstrated the maxim "actions speak louder than words".

With African-Americans as well, he made countless bigoted statements. However, he desegregated both the Army and federally funded housing. Truman was a gutsy man who did much to bring out the best in American inclusiveness.

He also reminds me why I'm still a Democrat. A truly beautiful man.

[jdobbin]

I read the McCullough biography, cover to cover. If you read the parts of the article you referenced under that quote, there is a discussion of Roosvelt being the "practical anti-Semite", whose actions were severely prejudicial to Jews. Truman was the opposite. His words cut harshly, but his actions (from partnering in business with the Jewish Harry Jacobson to overruling the State Department and recognizing Israel) demonstrated the maxim "actions speak louder than words".

With African-Americans as well, he made countless bigoted statements. However, he desegregated both the Army and federally funded housing. Truman was a gutsy man who did much to bring out the best in American inclusiveness.

He also reminds me why I'm still a Democrat. A truly beautiful man.

I don't know. Bigoted words are fairly harsh as well.

Just as Tommy Douglas achieved quite a lot for Canada, I still can't get over what his thinking was on several issues. Nasty stuff.

And Truman was a long, long time ago. You'd probably be more comfortable in the inclusiveness of the Republicans. Afterall, they support Isreal, have blacks, latinos, Jews and women in positions of power throughout Washington.

[jbg]

And Truman was a long, long time ago. You'd probably be more comfortable in the inclusiveness of the Republicans. Afterall, they support Isreal, have blacks, latinos, Jews and women in positions of power throughout Washington.

The Republicans' inclusiveness is still very new; far too new to trust. Reagan was the first "inclusive" Republican president we've had in modern times. Remember, Jdobbin, Reagan was, for much of his political life a quite liberal Democrat. Reagan said: "I didn't leave the Democrats; the Democrats left me", and didn't register as a Republican until 1962.

Two "inclusive" Republican Presidents do not a party make. Thus, I would not feel more comfortable as a Republican, nor would most Jews.

[jdobbin]

The Republicans' inclusiveness is still very new; far too new to trust. Reagan was the first "inclusive" Republican president we've had in modern times. Remember, Jdobbin, Reagan was, for much of his political life a quite liberal Democrat. Reagan said: "I didn't leave the Democrats; the Democrats left me", and didn't register as a Republican until 1962.

Two "inclusive" Republican Presidents do not a party make. Thus, I would not feel more comfortable as a Republican, nor would most Jews.

Perhaps if Barack Obama becomes the leadership candidate for the Democrats, it will be the last straw for you. He might not be as in support of the Iraq war as you would like.

[jbg]

Perhaps if Barack Obama becomes the leadership candidate for the Democrats, it will be the last straw for you. He might not be as in support of the Iraq war as you would like.

If the Democrats liked George McGovern they'll love Barack Obama. Peace candidates tend not to do well in the United States for a lot of reasons beyond the scope of a Canadian board. The US is a very conservative country. That goes to the very soul, the very soil of our country.

Further, one of our mottos, on an early flag was "Don't Tread on Me". Americans take that to heart, and west of the George Washington Bridge tend to send peace candidates to electoral h*ll.

[jdobbin]

If the Democrats liked George McGovern they'll love Barack Obama. Peace candidates tend not to do well in the United States for a lot of reasons beyond the scope of a Canadian board. The US is a very conservative country. That goes to the very soul, the very soil of our country.

Further, one of our mottos, on an early flag was "Don't Tread on Me". Americans take that to heart, and west of the George Washington Bridge tend to send peace candidates to electoral h*ll.

I wonder if it is too early to peg Obama. One thing is certain: Jeb Bush doesn't think he could win using the Bush name. And if other Republicans are running from the Bush record, they may turn to someone like Obama.

[geoffrey]

How can a corporation launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government for " lost revenue " ?

Because the shareholders pay lawyers to do so.

Really, geoffrey, you brought up corporate taxation before I did. I mean, lambast me for my sentiments or " foolish notions " , but why ask a pointless question like that, when you already know the answer?

The answer is that corporations don't pay tax... never have. Never will. The tax on a corporation is carried by two people; the shareholder and the consumer of the corporations products.

People invest for a certain rate of return and tax is calculated into that. More tax, they need to either raise revenue (increase prices generally) or cut costs (fire people).

The profits all go to the shareholders. Corporations have no good of their own, they do not amass wealth. The shareholders do though. And that's who your essientially taxing.

And through that tax, your taxing every person that owns shares, which, directly or indirectly, is a vast majority of Canadians.

So really, it's the ultimate hidden tax. Governments can make a killing while you cheer them on, go get 'em!!! When really your just encouraging further taxation of yourself.

[jbg]

The answer is that corporations don't pay tax... never have. Never will. The tax on a corporation is carried by two people; the shareholder and the consumer of the corporations products.

One minor quibble; you left out the employees, the other major stakeholder. The point stands; the tax is allocated among the corporations' stakeholders.

[geoffrey]

The answer is that corporations don't pay tax... never have. Never will. The tax on a corporation is carried by two people; the shareholder and the consumer of the corporations products.

One minor quibble; you left out the employees, the other major stakeholder. The point stands; the tax is allocated among the corporations' stakeholders.

I did in fact include employees:

People invest for a certain rate of return and tax is calculated into that. More tax, they need to either raise revenue (increase prices generally) or cut costs (fire people).