PS. This was from the pen of Ted. I can take no credit for it.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Added To The Lexicon
Harper Hŏ’lĭday (-dā, -dĭ) n., & v.i. 1. n. month or multiple months of recreation when work remains outstanding, when no work is done; period of this, paid vacation, esp. annual paid vacation, eg. Although the renovation was not halfway done and already behind schedule, the carpenters took a Harper Holiday anyway and still expected to be paid. 2. v.i. to avoid responsibility or accountability, eg. John had not studied enough so he Harper Holidayed his mid-term examinations. 3. n. act of avoiding or undermining fundamental democratic institutions, eg. the Prime Minister saw his popularity declining and risked losing a confidence vote so he declared a Harper Holiday to avoid further investigations and accountability. [OE haarpr haligdae]
PS. This was from the pen of Ted. I can take no credit for it.
PS. This was from the pen of Ted. I can take no credit for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The new budget will include the de-funding of political parties, likely a carbon-copy of the move that created the coalition.
This time Harper will happily see his gov't fall on the issue and happily campaign on it as well.
And the somnolent Canadian voters (or some 40% of the less than 60% that vote) will hand him a majority.
And there you have it - the end of Canadian democracy and Harper didn't even need to burn down the Reichstag to accomplish it!
A valuable addition to the language, worthy of inclusion in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary.
Thirty minutes after the post and it's already come into common use in my household.
I wonder if it would fall on the issue? Libs fundraising numbers are up a fair bit since the Dion Days, so who knows it might be such a killer for thme. And its a long way from saying something in a budget to working a real bill through a minority parliament.
O/T, but I was wondering if anyone knows if this is appropriate or not:
I get CHEX TV (small town station via CBC). This is Dean Del Mastro's riding - Peterborough.
Ads upon ads show Dean Del Mastro in hockey sweater with some hockey players - the catch. This is a United Way fundraiser. On the left side "United Way Hockey" - on the right of the screen "Conservative w/Con Logo"
Is this apprropriate for a charity like United Way to have the Conservative Party logo?
Anyone know?
RS, Theres pictures as DelM's website
http://www.deandelmastro.ca/EN/6536/85276
but it looks like team Tory vs. United Way. If that's whats in the ads, then I'm not sure its a big deal.
Oops! I see CPoC insignias on the United Way team uniforms (right shoulder)
"I wonder if it would fall on the issue? Libs fundraising numbers are up a fair bit since the Dion Days, so who knows it might be such a killer for thme. And its a long way from saying something in a budget to working a real bill through a minority parliament."
I doubt any party would allow this to be the election issue. They would bog it down in committees instead.
If it were me, I would allow it to go to committee, and then propose instead that the generous tax write off for politcal donations be reduced or eliminated. They would need to get some numbers there, but I would not be surprised if that write off cost tax payers more than the subsidy.
Someone needs to crunch the numbers on how much the CPC cost taxpayers through this generous write off.
its funny, but atleast we see the PM once in awhile.
Iggy is the one that disappears from view for weeks at a time. Even Dion we got to see fairly often.
For a man who wants the top job in the country... he sure takes a lot of time off. Just glad the iggy isn't on my company payroll.
I've mentioned it before and will again -- the answer to the CON plan to eliminate public funding of political parties is easy - support the bill and then make it the voters' option. When you go to vote there will be a box at the bottom of the ballot -- 'Do you wish to subsidize the party of your choice with a $2 subsidy.'
Those who don't want to fund political parties this way will have their way; those who want to subsidize, can.
And it remains tied literally to those who vote and those parties they support. Unlike the heavily publicly funded charitable donation levels.
The Liberals should have this in the hopper and bring it out, saying they too wish to end the current system as it applies.
Someone needs to crunch the numbers on how much the CPC cost taxpayers through this generous write off.
It's hard to get an exact number considering that the tax write off changes with the amount donated.
According to this article the Conservatives got $18.6 million from 108 000 donors. This breaks down to $172.22 per donor, and since it's under $400, 75% of the donation could be written off by the donors.
Total potential tax write off: $13.95 million. * in real life, the number would be less since there were probably people who gave more than $400.
$13.95 million is just slightly less than the total vote subsidies given to the Liberal, NDP, and Block in 2008 (number based on this article.)
In 2008, The Conservative vote subsidy at $10 million is apparently more than the total combined tax deductable donations to the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc (Correct my math if I'm wrong... not that you ever really need to ask someone to do this on the internet. ;) .
And it remains tied literally to those who vote and those parties they support.
I believe they have something similar in the United States, where you can check something on your income tax form that funnels money to the public campaign financing.
But the whole thing about eliminating the "public subsidy" is sort of a false argument. The CON's plan in the past didn't touch on the tax write offs and it probably never will because of how much -- sometimes about 66% of their funding -- is via tax deductable donations.
Post a Comment