Apolitical Staples

Typical socialist, using Doublespeak to say…. Only those within the party will prosper. A Canadian version of Soviet Gangsterism, if you will.

The canadian tax system is biased in favour of small companies, that’s what Manley meant.

But fixing federal spending to a percentage of economic output is a recipe for a constantly increasing federal government.

Not only that, but it makes a mockery of the (slim) justification that was formerly used for the existence of the government, that it must exist in order to perform functions that cannot be accomplished by private citizens and by the private, voluntary organizations to which they belong.

But Manley couldn’t be bothered any more to pretend to go through the exercise of enumerating those functions and justifying why you need Big Nanny to perform them for you. It’s nothing but a shakedown - “How much do I need to run your government? How much you got?” It saves time, and let’s face it, the governmentalists can’t make a serious point-by-point argument to justify their predations anyways. All they seem to be able to come up with are, “Well you needed those services anyways so that’s why we deliver them with a unionized government monopoly,” and, “Yeah but [The Kaiser/Hitler/Ronald Reagan/Osama] is a lot worse so stop complaining.”

A Canadian version of Soviet Gangsterism, if you will.

Indeed. The difference between the two systems is only a matter of degree. Soviet gangsters aimed to confiscate 100% of what people produced whereas Canadian gangsters are content with a modest 50% or so of your property, as long as they can exert strict control over what you do with the other 50% (preferably through large, multilayered political and bureaucratic entities in order to provide the fullest possible employment for hacks and cronies, plus the greatest opportunities for disguising their failures and shifting blame - which explains Manley’s fascination with the EU).

Doublespeak, indeed. Remember Manley’s January, 2000 plan to shovel $20 million of our money into the Ottawa Senators?

It was at that point that I realized that the Chretien Liberals had gone off the rails (and I was working in a Liberal Minister’s office at the time). Since then I haven’t seen them do anything to make me change my mind.

Excellent post, Greg. And you’re right, Manley’s suggestions are a mix of Keynesian economics blended with a dash of Walter Gordon economic nationalism (i.e. to “buy back” Canada). A far cry from being fiscally conservative. Not to mention, the latter folded like a cheap tent.

I’m more convinced than ever that John Manley is well past his “sell by” date. I find it interesting, though, that he’s thrown this out there now.

Do you suppose a bad outcome in Outremont, St-Hyacinthe-Bagot & Roberval-Lac-St-Jean on September 17 might trigger a “Night of the Long Knives” in Liberal land … and that Manley thinks that this time it’s worth sticking his oar into the mud puddle and contesting for the leadership?

Manly is appearing right on schedule. I always felt, when he left, that it was only to let the initial leadership contestants beat each other to death so he could move in later and take the brass ring.

He has nothing to offer but blind ambition. That may be enough for the Fiberals, but he leaves me feeling hungry for some real substance.