Popular Posts
-
" One has to be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place. I know that we have spun the wheel ... -
Edward A. Burkhardt is President of Rail World, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, a railroad management and consulting company he formed in ... -
One needs to look no further than in our universities as the principal culprit in producing the leadership and foot soldiers required to a... -
256 989 227 039,82 $ http://www.iedm.org/ The Québec "Debt Clock" shows the growth of the public debt sector in ... -
An immensely powerful Global Banking Cartel most people have never even heard of controls the vast majority of Central Banks around the... -
The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Y...
-
Created in 2009 Fascist states of North America by: C101 1) Invades sovereign nations based on deliberate lies 2) Uses robot...
Thursday, 26 December 2013
Ukraine outlook 'brightens' after Russia bailout
Ukraine outlook 'brightens' after Russia bailout (via AFP)
Ratings agency Standard and Poor's on Thursday raised its outlook for Ukraine to stable from negative, saying a multi-billion dollar bailout deal from Russia should mean Kiev meets its external financing needs over the next year. The outlook change…
New Russian Law Hits Hundreds of NGOs
Russia: "Foreign Agents" Law Hits Hundreds of NGOs: Updated December 24, 2013 (via YubaNet.com)
By: Human Rights WatchDec. 24, 2013 - In early March 2013 the Russian government launched an unprecedented, nationwide campaign of inspections of thousands of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to identify advocacy groups the government deems "foreign…
post-Soviet union ready for 2015 launch
Putin says new post-Soviet union ready for 2015 launch (via AFP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday the final pieces were in place for the 2015 launch of an economic union with Belarus and Kazakhstan that Moscow hopes can also be joined by Ukraine. Putin promised following talks with Kazakh President…
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
Ukraine the untold story
Democracy-Promotion and U.S. NGOs
Introduction
Democracy-promotion has long been an aspect of U.S. foreign policy, but it became a central component after September 11. The U.S. government has several channels for promoting democracy, most notably the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) andMiddle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI); and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which provides funds to nations that already meet certain democratic standards. But a plethora of U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also exist for this purpose, with varying degrees of financial dependency on the government. In recent years, their budgets have increased dramatically. Their activities include election-monitoring, educating citizens about their rights, and working with legislators, judges, and the media.
What is the value of independent organizations promoting democracy?
NGOs "think differently and have a different perspective and different analysis from the State Department," says Thomas O. Melia, deputy executive director of Freedom House and author of the report, "The Democracy Bureaucracy: The Infrastructure of American Democracy Promotion." While their work often overlaps, the organizations offer different methods and programs around the world, and Melia suggests pluralism in this field is helpful.
However, the majority of these institutes receive funding from the U.S. government, andJustin Logan, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, is skeptical of their role. Logan does not subscribe to democracy-promotion as a foreign policy goal, arguing it is essentially regime change. Private institutes like financier George Soros' Open Society Institute may be able to make progress toward opening some societies, but Logan says the government—even if it's achieving its aims by supporting NGOs—should not be involved. Some argue NGOs can hinder and even work against U.S. interests. Recently, the New York Times accused the International Republican Institute (IRI) of undermining U.S. government policy in Haiti by siding with the opposition to ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The organization quickly refuted these claims, but the episode illustrates how independent organizations can sometimes find themselves at cross purposes with U.S. policy.
Do these organizations have political leanings?
Most of the organizations are very sensitive about being associated with any political party, and all claim to be neutral. "It's a misreading of these groups to think of them in a partisan way, for most intents and purposes," says Melia. He notes, however, "We can't be value-neutral in promoting democracy."
NED, the biggest American NGO focused on democracy-promotion, distributes equal amounts of funds to four affiliated institutes: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for Independent Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity ("Solidarity Center"). CIPE and the Solidarity Center are meant to balance the interests of business with those of labor.
Despite their names, NDI and IRI are not technically affiliated with either political party for legal and financial reasons. Originally, the chairs of the Democratic and Republican National Committees also chaired the institutes, but this practice ended due to concern public funds would be misused. The organizations' neutrality is a necessary condition for funding from Washington. However, the board of directors of each group is stacked with prominent members of their respective parties. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) chairs IRI, while former Clinton administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright leads NDI.
What does NED and its affiliates do?
- National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright chairs NDI, which is funded by the NED, USAID, the State Department, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), as well as foreign governments' aid agencies and private sector contributions. NDI has partnered with several sister organizations over the years: Along with the Carter Center, NDI helped monitor the January 25, 2006, Palestinian elections. NDI's activities take place before and after elections, and include education campaigns, debate organization, and encouragement of women's participation in the political process.
- International Republican Institute (IRI). IRI is the Republican counterpart to NDI; Senator John McCain is the chairman. Its $74 million budget is supported by the NED, USAID, the State Department, and private donations, though private contributions make up less than 1 percent of the organization's resources. IRI is active in approximately sixty countries.
- Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE). Also funded by the NED, USAID, UNDP, and private donations, CIPE focuses on "market-oriented reform" as the path to democracy. CIPE, founded in 1983, is a nonprofit affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and both the president and vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce serve on CIPE's board. CIPE provides grants and direct assistance to indigenous organizations—primarily business associations and chambers of commerce—to improve private and public sector governance. Activities include anticorruption schemes, funding university business courses, and financing media programs that focus on economic issues. CIPE has several field offices employing a mix of Americans and nationals. The organization helped create the Afghan International Chamber of Commerce and provided seed money for an Iraqi television show on economics, among other projects.
- American Center for International Labor Solidarity ("Solidarity Center"). The Solidarity Center is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), whose president chairs the Center's board. The Solidarity Center is primarily concerned with building and supporting democratic trade unions, educating workers about collective bargaining, accountability, and health safety. In addition to NED, the Center is funded by USAID, the U.S. State department, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (for HIV/AIDS-related programs), the AFL-CIO, private foundations, and various other labor organizations.
What are some other major independent American organizations that promote democracy?
- Freedom House. Operating under the principle that "freedom is possible only in democratic political systems," Freedom House is one of the oldest democracy-promoting organizations in the United States, founded in 1941. It is well known for its annual survey"Freedom in the World," which in its 2006 edition ranked only eighty-nine countries in the world as "free" electoral democracies. Funding comes from USAID, the State department, and, to a greater extent than many other organizations, private contributors. Freedom House has several field offices and also provides small grants in their efforts to promote human rights and advocate press freedom. In Kyrgyzstan, it supports the Voice of Freedom, a network of human rights defenders, and it ran a "Citizen Participation in Elections in Ukraine" program in 2004. Freedom House is currently active in Iraq but not in Afghanistan nor the Palestinian territories.
- Eurasia Foundation (EF). Funded by a combination of private and public sources— primarily USAID—the foundation was started in 1992 to aid nations of the former Soviet Union. EF provides approximately 600 grants each year for programs throughout the region, including student loans in Russia and professional business programs in Belarus. The foundation does not monitor elections, with the exception of conducting exit polls, because it does not want to be seen as intervening in politics. While an estimated 80 percent of the funding currently comes from the U.S. government, over the last five years, EF has tried to reduce its dependency on the government and has incorporated more European contributors.
- Carter Center. The mission of the Carter Center is broader than that of several other organizations. While democracy-promotion is one of its main goals, the organization also focuses on conflict resolution and human rights. Founded by former President Jimmy Carter and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter in 1982, the Carter Center created its official Democracy Program in 1997. Citing reasons of sovereignty, it will only enter a country if it is welcomed by the major political powers. Funding for the organization, which is in partnership with Emory University, comes from a combination of public and private sources, including USAID and European governments. Since the Carter Center's activities in the recent Palestinian elections were in cooperation with the government-funded NDI, official contacts with Hamas, deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, were prohibited.
- Open Society Institute (OSI) and the Soros foundations network. The Open Society Institute does not see itself as a democracy-promoting organization, but does pursue activities that contribute to this goal. The only completely privately funded institution on this list, OSI is financed by George Soros and by trusts established by the Soros family. The lack of government funds provides OSI with a degree of autonomy and the organization says George Soros' personal politics are not a factor in OSI. The organization operates as a network of foundations in various countries, where the boards and employees are nationals, focusing on human rights and public health, as well as election-monitoring and advocating government accountability and transparency.
- Source http://www.cfr.org/democratization/soft-power-democracy-promotion-us-ngos/p10164
Sunday, 4 August 2013
Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China
The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China. It is a momentous conclusion, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress. This important change in the United States’ posture toward China has largely been driven by the Pentagon.
The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
Have the White House and Congress properly reviewed the Pentagon’s approach—and found its threat assessment of China convincing? If not, what are the United States’ overarching short- and long-term political strategies for dealing with an economically and militarily rising China?
Since the Second World War the United States has maintained a power-projection military, built upon forward deployed forces with uninhibited access to the global commons—air, sea, and space. For over six decades the maritime security of the Western Pacific has been underwritten by the unrivaled naval and air power of the United States. Starting in the early 1990s, however, Chinese investments in sophisticated, but low-cost, weapons—including anti-ship missiles, short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, stealth submarines, and cyber and space arms—began to challenge the military superiority of the United States, especially in China’s littoral waters.
These “asymmetric arms” threaten two key elements of the United States’ force projection strategy: its fixed bases, such as those in Japan and Guam, and aircraft carriers.
These Chinese arms are viewed by some in the Pentagon as raising the human and economic cost of the United States’ military role in the region to prohibitive levels. To demonstrate what this new environment means for regional security, military officials point out that, in 1996, when China conducted a series of missile tests and military exercises in the Strait of Taiwan, the United States responded by sending two aircraft carriers to the South China Sea, a credible display of force that reminded all parties of its commitment to maintaining the status quo in the region.
However, these analysts point out, if in the near future China decided to forcefully integrate Taiwan, the same U.S. aircraft carriers that are said to have once deterred Chinese aggression could be denied access to the sea by PLA anti-ship missiles. Thus, the U.S.’s interests in the region, to the extent that they are undergirded by superior military force, are increasingly vulnerable.
Two influential American military strategists, Andrew Marshall and his protégé Andrew Krepinevich, have been raising the alarm about China’s new capabilities and aggressive designs since the early 1990s.
By China’s “aggressive designs”, he means China’s decision to defend itself against American aggression. The mere fact that American ships are patrolling the Chinese coast, and not Chinese ships patrolling the American coast, makes it quite clear who the real aggressor is.
Published on YouTube May 23, 2012 by C101
Building on hundreds of war games played out over the past two decades, they gained a renewed hearing for their concerns following Pacific Vision, a war game conducted by the U.S. Air Force in October 2008.
With Marshall’s guidance, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Chiefs of Staff to begin work on the AirSea Battle (ASB) project and, in September of 2009 . . . a classified Memorandum of Agreement was signed allowing the US “to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action.”
Published on YouTube Jan 27, 2013 by C101
Published on YouTube Jan 27, 2013 by C101
In late 2011 Gates’ successor, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also signed off on the ASB and formed the new Multi-Service Office to Advance AirSea Battle. Thus, ASB was conceived, born, and began to grow.
AirSea Battle calls for a campaign to reestablish power projection capabilities by launching a “blinding attack” against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers, surveillance and communication platforms, satellite and anti-satellite weapons, and command and control nodes.
US forces could then enter contested zones and conclude the conflict by bringing to bear the full force of their material military advantage.
One defense think tank report, AirSea Battle:
A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept”, suggests that China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major direct attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposal—including its stockpile of nuclear arms.
A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept”, suggests that China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major direct attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposal—including its stockpile of nuclear arms.
Although the Chinese nuclear force is much smaller than that of the United States, China nonetheless has the capacity to destroy American cities. According to leading Australian military strategist Hugh White, “We can be sure that China will place a very high priority indeed on maintaining its capacity to strike the United States, and that it will succeed in this.”
Joshua Rovner of the U.S. Naval War College notes that deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as preemptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into “a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma.”
“Mistakenly perceived” is disingenuous. Why should the Chinese be “mistaken” in their belief that America would like to destroy their nuclear facilties? The Americans can hardly be perceived as benevolent aggressors.
Several defense analysts in the United States and abroad, not least in China, see AirSea Battle as being highly provocative. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright stated in 2012 that, “AirSea Battle is demonizing China. That’s not in anybody’s interest.” An internal assessment of ASB by the Marine Corps commandant cautions that “an Air-Sea Battle-focused Navy and Air Force would be preposterously expensive to build in peace time” and if used in a war against China would cause “incalculable human and economic destruction.”
Published on YouTube Sep 27, 2013 by C101
As I see it, the implied strategy is clear: ASB planners aim to make the United States so clearly powerful that not only would China lose if it engaged militarily, but it would not consider engaging because the United States would be sure to win.
In the past, first strike nuclear strategies were foresworn and steps were taken to avoid a war precipitated by miscommunications, accidents, or miscalculations. In contrast, AirSea Battle requires that the United States be able to take the war to the mainland with the goal of defeating China, which quite likely would require striking first. Such a strategy is nothing short of a hegemonic intervention.
When Andrew Krepinevich suggested that ASB is simply seeking to maintain stability in the Asia-Pacific, he was asked if this “stability” really meant continued US hegemony in the area. He chuckled and responded, “Well, the nations in the area have a choice: either we are number one or China is.
by Amitai Etzioni
Don't shoot the messengers
C101
Saturday, 3 August 2013
Elections Canada turns a blind eye to Liberal lawbreakers
Non-partisan? Really? Elections Canada turns a blind eye to Liberal lawbreakers, but not Tories
Elections Canada describes itself as
“the independent, non-partisan agency responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums.”
Given their actions this week, the last thing this body should call itself is non-partisan. After spending the last few years dragging Conservative MPs, senators and even the party through investigations, prosecutions and court cases, Elections Canada chose not to prosecute four Liberals who seem to have broken Canada’s election laws.
Ken Dryden, Joe Volpe, Hedy Fry and Stephane Dion not only failed to pay off their debts from the 2006 leadership contest on time, they missed a court-granted extension that ended in 2011. At the end of December 2011, Ken Dryden still owed $225,000, Volpe owed $97,800, Fry $69,000 and Dion $7,500. For a total of $399,300 in outstanding debt.
Under Canada’s election financing laws, any loans still unpaid at the end of the 18-month grace period are to be considered donations. Since our law also limits donations to $1,200, anyone owing on a loan greater than that will have broken the law.
“It is clear that the leadership contestants who continue to have unpaid debts from the Liberal Party of Canada’s 2006 leadership contest are not in compliance with the Canada Elections Act,” said Marc Mayrand, Canada’s chief electoral officer.
So why isn’t Mayrand prosecuting then?
According to the man charged with ensuring fair elections and enforcing the law, “the Act, as currently drafted, does not provide a means by which these contestants can be sanctioned or compelled to repay their outstanding debts.”
If Mayrand actually thinks that, then he hasn’t read the act he is sworn to uphold.
Section 497 (1) of the Canada Elections Act says anyone who contravenes the contribution limit is guilty of an offence. Section 500 of the Act lays out the punishment for violating the Act: A fine of up to $1,000, three months in jail, or both.
But Mayrand says he can’t prosecute these four Liberals, two of them still sitting MPs. Is the problem that he can’t read or he doesn’t want to prosecute?
Having watched Mayrand closely before parliamentary committees, I can assure you the man knows how to read.
In a letter to Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, Mayrand said prosecution of these offences requires proof of “wilfulness.”
OK, if we take Mayrand at his word, then I assume they conducted an investigation to see if there was wilfulness. Did they check to see if the candidates took out huge loans, sometimes from themselves, without intending to pay the money back? Did Mayrand’s investigators look to see if the candidates actually tried to raise money to pay off the debts?
It doesn’t look like Elections Canada did any of this.
I asked the “non-partisan” watchdog three specific questions about their investigation:
• Did they conduct interviews with every lender and candidate?
• Did they demand the production of e-mail and phone records related to the loans?
• Were staff members of the lenders or candidates interviewed?
“While we will not comment on the specifics of the Commissioner’s review of this matter …” the e-mail reply began. Translation: Elections Canada didn’t do any of these things.
This is important because Elections Canada investigators have done all of those things when investigating Conservatives for possible election finance violations.
Dean Del Mastro, the Conservative MP from Peterborough, had his bank records seized before he even knew Elections Canada had any questions for him.
Why? They think he donated too much money to his own campaign.
Funny, that would be the same charge against someone like Ken Dryden, who loaned his own leadership campaign $300,000. But Dryden gets a pass because he is a Liberal.
From the late Sen. Doug Finley and current Sen. Irving Gerstein to MPs like Del Mastro, Jeff Watson, Shelly Glover and James Bezan, Elections Canada has no problem going after Conservatives, but they won’t lift a finger to investigate Liberals that have broken the law.
Mayrand and his team are not applying the law evenly or fairly. He prosecutes Conservatives with vigour but looks the other way when Liberals are involved.
Does this give you confidence that the man running our elections will be fair and balanced with all parties?
I don’t have that confidence. It’s time for Mayrand to go.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/08/20130802-065143.html
I personally would like to thank Brian Lilley for his outstanding contribution to reporting fact and not fiction.
God knows Brian his the best reporter the Flying circus SunNewsMerdia/Québecor as got going for them.
Don't shoot the messengers
C101
Thursday, 1 August 2013
U.S. wants exemption from Canadian law for cross-border officers, RCMP memo says
A briefing note prepared for RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson says the debate over whose laws would apply to U.S. officers working in Canada raises important questions of sovereignty and police accountability.
The United States wants its police officers to be exempt from Canadian law if they agree to take part in a highly touted cross-border policing initiative, an internal RCMP memo says. The debate over whose laws would apply to U.S. officers working in Canada raises important questions of sovereignty and police accountability, says the briefing note prepared for RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson.
“Canadians would likely have serious concerns with cross-designated officers from the U.S. not being accountable for their actions in Canada,” it says.
The planned pilot project — part of a sweeping Canada-U.S. perimeter security pact — would see the two countries build on joint border-policing efforts by creating integrated teams in areas such as intelligence and criminal investigations.
The perimeter deal, being phased in over several years, aims to ensure the safe, speedy passage of goods and people across the 49th parallel while bolstering North American defences. The October 2012 RCMP memo was intended to brief Paulson for a meeting with David Moloney, a senior adviser to the Privy Council Office for implementing the vaunted perimeter security deal. A censored version of the classified document was recently obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
It notes that plans were underway for trial projects in the areas of policing and the pre-clearance of truck cargo, each involving U.S. officers working alongside Canadian counterparts. The cargo pilot project — which has since been announced — entails U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers working in Fort Erie, Ont., and Surrey, B.C., to pre-inspect southbound shipments according to American customs procedures. The so-called Next Generation policing project — whose pilots have yet to be finalized — would involve U.S. and Canadian officers working on each other’s turf to enforce the host country’s laws.
However, according to the RCMP, the two countries haven’t seen eye to eye on the tricky question of which country’s legal system would deal with a police officer accused of breaking the law. Traditionally, co-operative initiatives in cross-border law enforcement and border management have been based on the notion that the laws of the host country apply to illegal acts on its territory and that host-country courts would have jurisdiction, the RCMP memo says.
“However, the U.S. has recently expressed concerns with the continued application of the ‘host country law model’ and has requested that its officers be exempted from the laws or the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts in Canada in the context of the Next Gen and Preclearance initiatives.”
For the cargo pre-clearance pilot projects, announced in March, Canadian law will apply to U.S. customs officers, said Public Safety Canada spokeswoman Josee Picard.
Published on youtube Jun 26, 2012 by C101
But the issue remains unsettled for the policing initiative, which was supposed to be up and running last year. The RCMP memo says there are several reasons why it “remains appropriate” for host country laws and courts to continue holding sway, including:
“Canadians place a high value on sovereignty and police accountability,” the briefing note adds.
A preliminary assessment indicates it “would not be feasible nor desirable to have two law enforcement officers working together being subjected to different regimes for accountability and criminal liability,” the memo says.
But senior Mounties recommended to Paulson that the RCMP participate in the development of options, “ensuring that law enforcement concerns are properly addressed, rather than taking a firm stance on retaining the status quo.”
Any new model must be fully reciprocal, providing Canadian police with the same protections in the United States as granted to U.S. law enforcement officials working in Canada, adds the RCMP briefing note.
“This may alleviate any concerns that there may be with respect to RCMP members being subjected to the U.S. court system.”
RCMP Sgt. Julie Gagnon said the force had no comment on the memo. Public Safety has said it would be inappropriate to discuss Canada-U.S. negotiations on the legal framework for the policing initiative. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
By: Jim Bronskill The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Jul 30 2013
Don't kill the messengers
C101
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Québec's Billion Dollard Sovereign Debt
256 989 227 039,82 $
The Québec "Debt Clock" shows the growth of the public debt sector in real time. Public sector debt includes the government's gross debt as well as the debt of the health and social services and education networks, municipalities and other publicly funded corporations (HydroQuébec) for which the government is ultimately responsible.
Based on data provided by the Quebec Department of Finance in its 2012-2013 Budget Plan (which does not take into account Quebec’s share of the federal debt), Québec's debt increases by:
$16.7 billion from now to March 31, 2014, the equivalent of $23 million per day, $15 902 per minute, or $265 per second.
Quebec has the highest per capita debt level, coming in at $22,369 per man, woman and child. Ontario is in second place with a per capita debt of $19,524 and Newfoundland and Labrador are in third place with a per capita debt of $16,647.
With all the talk of Greece’s impending exit from the euro zone, debt is once again in the headlines. Greece’s massive public sector debt, coupled with its inability to devalue its currency, has put the country at risk of default. But the global economy is straining under the weight of more than just public sector debt. In the developed world, consumers, financial institutions, and other corporations have each accumulated unprecedented levels of debt — and how that total debt is managed will ultimately determine the economic fate of the nation economy going forward.
a few years ago, the Quebec Ministry of Finance did a ranking of the most indebted countries in the developed world. If Quebec were independent, it would have been the fifth worst, just behind Greece in third place at 102.6%!
Now that the Greeks have hit the wall, it's payback time for them. Last year, the country's GDP dropped by 6.9% and its unemployment rate skyrocketed to 17.7%. This year, the GDP is expected to drop by another 5% and unemployment to reach over 19%.
Another similarity is the perception of the population vis-a-vis the corruption of their political and economic systems. 98% of Greeks believe corruption has eroded their country. According to a Leger Marketing poll held last April, 85% of Quebecers now believe that their government and the whole construction industry are corrupted.
Quebec’s debt reaches over $50,000 per worker, it increases over $23 million per day, a debt that places Quebec 5th among the most indebted nations in the world. Ultimately, it is taxpayers who are responsible for this debt, created by the inability of government to control expenses.
The social infrastructure in Quebec is simply unsustainable. Seven dollar day care, a parental leave program that is ripe for abuse. These are wonderful in principle but who is paying for them? Our future generations. Moreover, Quebec is burdened with a civil servant infrastructure that produces no true economic value yet is one of the largest of any jurisdiction on the continent and don’t get me started on the power of the unions (Marxist).
What are the solutions being conceived to pay for our bloated infrastructure, our gold-plated social programs and the reduction of our debt?
Increase the sales tax, are you kidding me? You can be sure that such a move will drive the underground economy further underground. This shortsighted, ill-conceived idea that a percentage change in the tax will derive a linear result is ridiculous. Increasing taxes in general will simply encourage capital flight that will exacerbate the problem. What the Quebec government doesn’t take into account is that those with wealth in the province, have several things going for them — a Canadian passport, a good tax attorney and next of kin in a lower tax jurisdiction. If the rates of tax continue to creep up, tax practitioner will be hard at work moving assets into out-of-province trusts and make a bad situation much worse for Quebec. Appealing to our sense of nationalism, can only go so far.
Quebec’s generations-long obsession with independence has been a slow, ongoing cratering of its financial health. To maintain generous social services it can’t afford, and keep up the steady flow of state subsidies, it has borrowed heavily, so it now has by far the highest debt load in the country.
Even now, as the rot becomes more evident and the price of it ever higher, the province is saddled with a government dedicated to the same old sovereigntist obsessions: isolating and afflicting identifiable ethnic groups viewed to be culturally inadequate, whether its Sikhs playing soccer or Jews parking their cars on holy days; seeking out new battles to pick with the anglo community and the federalists; loading on punitive new language rules and restrictions to an already overburdened business community; classifying every issue, from restaurant menus to farm produce through the prism of “sovereignty.
Perhaps it’s too much to be blaming all this on Quebec’s fixation with itself and its independence, but it’s certainly not unreasonable to suspect that the vast effort put into fighting with Canada over such a long period drained away time, effort, skills and money that might have been put into more sustainable and productive means.
Don't shoot the messengers
C101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)