I know that Tom Flanagan would like us to think that there is now enough distance between himself and Harper to be able to remark as a casual observer. Sadly for him though, many of us actually think, so we know better.Just as election rumblings heat up again, oops!, there's Flanagan laying the groundwork and making the Libertarian case for his former boss, to eliminate public financing related to our elections. It also comes at a time when Steven Fletcher, the Minister charged with this file, is making noise about the same thing. Coincidence? Uh...no.
Let's take a quick look at Flanagan's claims, because, you know, he likes to leave out the facts.
The Conservative government nearly blew itself out of the water last November when it tried to cut off $27-million a year in federal allowances to political parties. Although polls showed the idea was popular with the public, the commentariat generally panned it as a low blow against competing parties, because they are more dependent on the subsidies than the Conservatives are.
Indeed the Conservatives shot themselves in the foot on this, but he makes the move sound almost altruistic, doesn't he? If not that, a kind of 'golly gee whiz' moment, where all Canadians supported the move but the evil media channeled the opposition parties moaning that they are so desperate for public funds, they couldn't possibly compete with the superior Conservatives.
Pulleze. A few things here. Indeed the Conservatives have been more successful at gaining donations from their base, but that is not what the opposition parties were reacting to.
You do remember don't you that there was this little thing called, the greatest recession since the Great Depression going on? Right? You're forgiven if you forgot, because gawd knows the government didn't believe it at the time. The opposition parties were looking for action, but instead, Harper used this time to push his agenda.
As for the public agreeing? Give me a break! A poll that asked a black and white question? No explanation was given to how this came into being and what it means. You know, shallow questions invite uneducated answers and often pollsters go out and prove just that.
The allowances were introduced in 2004, as part of Jean Chrétien's bill that eliminated corporate and labour contributions to parties while capping individual donations at $5,000. The allowances were supposed to compensate parties for revenue lost from corporate and labour union contributions. The screw was tightened further in 2007, when the cap for individual donations was reduced to $1,000, adjusted annually for inflation.
The insinuation here is, when you bring it back to the previous comment, is that the Conservatives were above all that. That they only received contributions in denominations of $5.00 and $10.00 standing in a line outside of Tim's. BS of course. That aside, Chretien should be lauded for bringing in reform, though I think the $1,100. cap was too low.
Flanagan goes on to suggest that we should model our system against the US. Colour me suprised! His argument is gentle and sounds almost reasonable, but you'll note that it's focused solely on the tax system. The Libertarian system that is all about, me, me, me...not us.
That is not at the root of public financing! It is designed to be a system that engages people to contribute to the party that espouses their ideas. It's known the world over as a democratic expression given to the people. Getting a tax credit for it is a perk, but it shouldn't, well in fact can't, be considered to be the only motivation.
Anyway, all of that to say, be on guard. If there is an election this Fall, this will be on the Conservative agenda and the spin will come faster than you can blink. You'll undoubtedly be told that your money is supporting the evil Bloc and therefore it must end!
Don't be spun. For our country at this point in time, the system we have makes sense. I'd like to see the contribution limit raised personally, but outside of that, this is yet another ploy to undermine and eliminate government and your participation at the same time.
Sad, but there is no longer any reason to guess what he's up to.
We know.
8 comments:
You know, you're reading Flanagan wrong. He's teaching this semester, and this column does not help Harper's case.
It doesn't hurt, once in a while, to show some respect to one's opponents, even if you perceive their ideas as being contemptible.
Okay?
Anon, show respect? For Harper and his vision of this country? Flanagan supporting that vision?
Um, they have shown respect for our ideals how exactly? Contempt is a more apt descriptive of what they put forth.
No sorry. I do not think my post was disrespectful, but I do not sanction their ideas and I have the right to put that out there.
He's teaching this semester? Yea...he's taught many...what's your point?
You think he teaches outside of his ideology?
More fool you, if that's the case.
Of course his column helps Harper. It plants seeds and that is what this group is all about.
Obviously your's have been watered and fed.
KNB, Bravo, you are most correct when you talk about Flanagan. He is a digrace,and I believe, still feeding Harper.
I agree with Anon. This is Flanagan's vision alone.
It's time to stop hating for the sake of hating.
"That aside, Chretien should be lauded for bringing in reform, though I think the $1,100. cap was too low."
I do not think Chretien made it $1100. I recall that was done shortly after the liberal leadership race and was agreed upon by all but the LPC. Conveniently, it managed to hamper the leadership candidates ability to pay of their loans, as those loans were taken on the basis of a $5000.00 cap. At least that is how I recall it.
In any event, I am not sure how anyone condemns the federal allowance to political parties and yet still agrees with the tax credit. It still costs Canadians to allow people to write off these donations.
Also, if you are going to remove the subsidy, where is the justification for having any cap on personal donations?
Anon - respect given is respect "earned". Flanigan should be giving an all round seminar - not a one sided idealogy. After all, his salary would be from taxpayers of ALL political stripes.
Chretien had a $5,000 cap - the Tories in collusion with the NDP had it reduced in their joint (coalition anyone?) effort to hurt the Liberals.
KNB,
Spit venom if you wish. I personally think it's because you don't like his name.
But regardless, Flanagan's right.
The system is only half way fixed. It can be further improved in a way that is non-political and it should continue to move in that direction.
If Harper had made it a campaign promise to abolish the subsidy, last fall would have turned a lot differently. That's a fact you can take to the bank. If an election is called, he should make it a plank and then follow through. There is absolutely no reason why the Bloc should be funded by the Canadian tax payer to the extent they are without the taxpayer being asked to confirm their intentions.
This is a path to political corruption. Don't forget about those that are entitled to entitlements.
Tomm - the Canadian taxpayer funds all parties through a generous tax write off for all political contributions. How do you justify one and condemn the other?
Post a Comment