Moldy Peaches

Two media developments have greatly assisted the Conservative movement in both Canada and the United States - news talk radio and blogging.

News talk radio, primarily now dominated by conservative hosts, is popular amongst many individuals who spend a great deal of time commuting to and from work / worksites, working on a jobsite. Many of these stations have become agenda setters and encourage citizen outrage. An hour of rage on a Saskatchewan radio station sums it up.

On the blogging front, the Conservative movement in Canada - not sure the same can be said in the US since Howard Dean made effective use of the internet during his 15 minutes of fame - has really done a great job organizing, hosting and posting stories around the clock and country. In fact, some of the best writers (many whose viewpoints I rarely agree with) are solid contributors now to public policy discussion in the country.

The use of the internet and blogging by Conservatives hit home when I received the following message:

My name is Alan Robberstad
I am a Canadian.
One voter out of millions of Canadian voters.

Paul Martin is no friend of mine.
Liberal governments have not made my life any better. Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.

Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party became Prime Minister many years
ago. Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin...LEST WE FORGET

Since 1993:
(1) My taxes have increased.
(2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.
(3) My personal expenses have increased.
(4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.
(5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.
(6) My costs to educate my children have increased.
(7) Government interference in my life has increased.
(8) My personal debt has increased.
(9) My income has stayed more or less the same.
(10) My savings have decreased.
(11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.
(12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.
(13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.
(14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.
(15 )My trust in the immigration system has decreased.
(16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.
(17 My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have disappeared.

That is my story since the Liberals came to power. I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberal. I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party on January 23, 2006. I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. Do I like the Conservatives? Not particularly......I don't really like Politics. I am not political by nature. I am not passionate about politics. I am a middle age guy (48). I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton. I have a wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17). I have no pets. I am a middle class man. I don't usually say too much. Until now. Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by: (1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec. (2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec. (3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec. (4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec??? The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is: (1) Not a lawyer. (2) Not a multi-millionaire. (3) Not from Quebec.

Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will: (1) Reduce my taxes. (2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.(3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government. That's good enough for me. I'm going to give the Conservative party a chance with my vote. But wait! Paul Martin is now saying the same thing. My mother told me forty years ago: "Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me!"

The Liberals have had 34 years to be financially responsible. Remember, Jean Chretien was Trudeau's Finance Minister. Remember also, Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's Finance Minister. These people have been raising my taxes for thirty four years. They have been mis-spending my tax dollars for 34 years. 34 years!
And now Paul Martin says he'll stop taxing and spending. No way.

Thank you for reading my story so far! Why am I telling my story to you? Although I feel alone, I know that I am not alone. Your story may be similar to mine. And you may also feel alone. One small voter in the midst of millions of voters. What can you and I do together to change things? Here is my idea: Lets you and I join up together. Just you and I. Together. As a small team of two. How can you and I fight a huge political machine? You and I have two things that we can use:
(1) Our individual personal connections.
(2) The Internet.

The Internet is supposed to be this global zing tool, right? Let's put it to use. I have 27 Canadians in my personal e-mail address book. I am sending this e-mail to each of them. I'm asking you to do two things (1) Forward this e-mail to every Canadian in your own address book. (2) Vote against Paul Martin and the Liberal Party on January 23. Vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding. I have probably written this e-mail too late. As I said I am not politically adroit. I feel like Peter Finch, in the 1976 movie "Network", when he shouted: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Please, forward the e-mail RIGHT NOW!!

As I type these last few words the voting begins in less than 18 days. 432 hours till voting begins. I hope the Internet is as fast as some people claim it is.
This may not work. This e-mail may "fizzle out" and go nowhere. But you and I will have tried, won't we have?

My best wishes to you.

My best wishes to Canadians everywhere.

My thanks to David Stokes from Toronto
He actually wrote this just (5) days before the last federal election in 2000.
Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me!"

Alan Robberstad
Edmonton, Alberta
June 10, 2004@ 3:00 p.m.

Alan's email got me doing a little factchecking. Since 1993:

(1) My taxes have increased.

Let's take a closer look at this allegation. What is the source of this supposed tax increase? Taxes are a function of one's own personal circumstances, not just government tax rates which in most cases have decreased at the federal level, not increased, since 1993. (Source: Rev Canada tax forms, and budget info on the federal Department of Finance website.)

For the 1993 tax year, the federal tax rates were 17% for the first tax bracket, 26% for the second tax bracket, and 29% for the third tax bracket. These tax rates remained unchanged until they were REDUCED beginning with the 2000 tax year (except for the top rate of 29%, which remained unchanged, although the income level at which it kicks in was raised to $100,000 beginning in 2001, thereby reducing the scope of it's application only to high income earners). The federal surtaxes remained constant at 3% and 5% from 1993 through to 1997, after which they were reduced, and entirely eliminated by 2001. Furthermore, full indexing of tax brackets to inflation was restored in the 2000 federal budget, retroactive to January 1st of that year, thereby elminating "bracket creep" (which would not have been a factor for this taxpayer if his income really hadn't increased over that time period anyway) and other adverse impacts of inflation. So if federal income taxes for this taxpayer have increased since 1993, it is probably because his income (or his spouse's income) has increased, or other aspects of his personal circumstances have changed.

If this taxpayer is looking only at his pay stub, rather than the tax system, he would have seen increases in his Canada Pension Plan contributions over that period of time. However, the CPP is separate from the tax system, and those increases reflect POSITIVE action to put the CPP plan on a solid financial footing, to ensure that Canada Pension will actually be available to this worker, and all others, when their time comes to receive funds from it!

(2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.

When the Liberals came to power in 1993, they inherited a fiscal deficit (diaster from the Mulroney Conservatives) of approximately $40 billion, attributable to actions of previous governments (both Liberal and Conservative) and economic circumstances. Until the deficit could be eliminated, debt mathematically had to continue to accumulate. However, the federal government has now had eight consecutive balanced budgets, and the federal debt to GDP ratio
(the commonly-accepted measure of national indebtedness) has declined from a high of about 68% in 1995 to about 44% in 2003, and the ratio continues to fall. This is a significant accomplishment. Paul Martin has been criticized for underestimating surpluses, but this (small-c) conservative approach has represented sound financial management, and allowed the country to pay down debt at a faster rate than would otherwise have been possible (thereby reducing debt service and freeing up fiscal "room" for other program spending), while at the same time allowing for REDUCTIONS in tax rates. Martin's critics have advocated reducing or eliminating fiscal surpluses, either via faster tax reductions or higher spending, or both, which in turn would result in SLOWER reduction of debt and debt service, or could even create debt increases.

(3) My personal expenses have increased.

How is this the fault of the federal government?

(4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.

Does this refer to seeing a GP, a specialist, diagnostic tests or an emergency room? Urgent care or something less threatening? No one doubts that there are issues to be addressed with respect to health care accessibility and waiting times, but one must be careful about blanket condemnations. More funding for health care is unquestionably required. It is the solid fiscal footing produced by Mr. Martin which now allows all parties to consider reinvesting in health care. And one must be careful about anyone who promises a "free lunch" (significant tax reductions, spending increases, and debt reduction, all at the same time!) Let's keep in mind that other parties, not just the Liberals, also strongly advocated the elimination of the deficit. This taxpayer may or may not have been among them, but it is
particularly hard to understand how those who demanded the elimination of the deficit can now be so critical of the person who is most responsible for actually eliminating the deficit! It took decades for Canada to reach the point of having multi-billion dollar deficits, accumulating mountains of borrowing in the process.
Debt service is totally non-discretionary, thus requiring the necessary spending cuts to be made in other areas. Did anyone really think the elimination of the deficit would be painless? The point is that the deficit HAS been eliminated, the debt to GDP ratio is falling, and health care spending is now increasing.

(5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.

In what areas? Are these fears justified? Statistics Canada reports (see The Daily, June 24/04 for the latest; data is based on that released by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics) that the national crime rate has been on a downward trend for over a decade, and now stands 27% below its peak in 1991. StatsCan further reports that violent crime has generally been dropping since the early 1990's, and the homicide rate has been on a downward trend since the mid-1970's. It seems many people continue to believe crime is on the increase (possibly because it takes only a few headlines of violent crimes to influence people's perceptions). And there is no doubt that any crime, when it happens to you or someone you love, is a traumatic,
perhaps even tragic event. But to what extent are the concerns of this person justified, and to what extent can they really be laid at the feet of the federal government?

(6) My costs to educate my children have increased.

Education is primarily a provincial responsibility. Nevertheless, it's clear that all governments, federal and provincial, were facing the same problems of reducing or eliminating deficits, trying to reach balanced budgets, and yes, provincial pressures were increased by reductions in federal transfers. Some provinces (e.g the Conservative government in Ontario), chose to exacerbate their own problems by cutting taxes beyond the level required to provide what many would consider to be sufficient program funding, including that available for education. Again, see comments above under health care. The country has gone through a difficult transition from a poor fiscal framework in 1993 to a solid fiscal framework now, such that a national debate on spending priorities can be held and reinvestments can be made. In fact, the only level of government significantly reinvesting in education is the federal government. The investment is coming in the form of tax credits, research money, scholarships and more grants and loan funding.

(7) Government interference in my life has increased.

Again, in what areas? This is a pretty general statement which requires substantiation. I'm guessing many people would have a lot of difficulty identifying increased federal governement interference in their personal lives.

(8) My personal debt has increased.

How is this the fault of the federal government? How is this the fault of any government? The Conservatives would cringe at this point - where is your personal responsibility?

(9) My income has stayed more or less the same.

Inflation has been reduced to significantly low levels over the past decade or so. Of course, circumstances of individuals will vary, with some facing higher increases in expenditures than in their incomes. And some sectors have been more adversely affected than others. But how is this point relevant to choosing the next federal government?

(10) My savings have decreased.

Again, this statement requires significant elaboration if its relevance to a voting decision is to be understood. In what forms were the savings held? Real estate? Stocks? Other? What exactly has caused the savings to decline? Was the reduction caused by market fluctuations? Discretionary spending? To what extent was
any reduction truly the result of a federal government policy?

(11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.

As noted above, inflation has been reduced to the lowest levels in decades
over the past 10 years or so, another significant accomplishment of the Canadian economy. (Core 12-month inflation measured at 1.5% for May 2004, per the Bank of
Canada website.) Is the writer saying that inflation is still too high? Any level of inflation will result in some erosion of purchasing power, but it was not too long ago that a greater fear was the risk of DEflation. (See the Japanese experience over the past 15 years or so for the downside of THAT scenario!) And the primary responsibility for controlling inflation in Canada falls to the Bank of Canada, not the federal government. It's hard to understand just what point the writer is trying to make here.

(12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.

On Dec 31, 1993 the value of the Canadian dollar in US terms was approximately $0.76 US. In 2006, the Canadian dollar has traded in a range of about $0.84-$0.85 US (Source: Band of Canada website.) Currency values fluctuate, based on international financial flows and other factors. Yes, the C$ declined in US$ terms for a period of time (some would argue in part, as a reflection of an overvaluation of the US$), but it has recovered to earlier levels, in part, some would say, due to the significant improvement in Canadian government finances over the past 10 years, and an increased
level of confidence in Canada's financial and economic management. And many Canadian exporters have actually complained that the C$ recovered too quickly!

(13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.

Really? It seems to me that this is a complaint made of pretty much all elected officials, in all time eras. There is no doubt that there is always room for improvement, but it is doubtful that any party would have a monopoly on trust.

(14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.

Why? What changes do you want to see? In a few, high-profile cases the system has not worked so that means that we need to employ a lock em up and throw away the key approach?

(15 )My trust in the immigration system has decreased.

Why? Are terrorists flooding across the border? Are we letting the *wrong people* in? Are they stealing Canadian jobs?

(16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.

Who wouldn't dispute the problems with the gun registry budget and the sponsorship program. But, despite the deserved criticism of these programs, one should keep them in perspective. Total federal budgetary expenditures are on the order of $180 billion. The problem programs represent only a very small percentage of total
government spending. The Liberals deserve the criticism they have taken for these programs, but there is a much bigger picture here (see the significant fiscal accomplishments above). And Mr. Harper would have had us in Iraq. Does anyone think that would have been cheap, or a good use of funds?

(17) My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have disappeared.

And this is the fault of the government how? It is not clear that the writer's perceptions are well-founded, or that even if he has faced specific adverse personal
circumstances over the past decade or so, that those circumstances can be attributed to the federal governement.

Let the lies continue to spread in the virtual community.