January 19, 2004
by Justin Boudreau,It never ceases to amaze me just how out of touch with reality leftists in this country seem to be. While I am one of the first to support the need for public healthcare and even the need for an adequate welfare state to help members of our society who legitimately need it, (those who don’t need it and are getting help is a matter I’ll get into at another point.) The fact remains that we, as a people, simply can not spend all of our time, energy, and resources helping the weak to the point of detriment to the average working people.
This past week the Toronto Star published an opinion piece written by federal NDP leader Jack Layton entitled "Cities Deserve Better" in his article, (rant may be the better word to use here), Layton launches into an attack on Prime Minister Paul Martin for his lack-lustre performance in his first month in office, as well as his actions when he was finance minister, with particular regards to Martin’s supposed failure to come through on helping Canadian cities. The editorial itself is slightly shorter than average, about 500 words, but it can be summed up in far less: "Whatever you're giving us, whatever your spending, whatever you are doing to help the cities Paul, It isn’t enough, we want more, more, more, more more!"
Layton demonstrates the fundamental flaw in NDP logic, (a contradiction in terms I know). If you spend more money on programs then you collect in revenues then you end up creating an uncontrollable deficit which only snowballs and causes the economy to spiral into recession and later depression. Spending money on cities to help them out is good, but keeping the economy moving, so that cities can grow and flourish better.
In Jack’s world we would have cities with great roads, cheap transit, government run water, hydro, gas, no gridlock and I’m sure everyone would be all smiles and laughter all the time. Of course the problem is that no one would have any reason to take the transit, or drive on the roads because we would all be out of work and we would all choke under the taxes that would be levied to pay for the water, hydro and gas. Given those options I’ll stick with Martin’s plan, thanks.
Jack is wrong, and I think even he knows it, but in true Layton fashion he needs to play with semantics and utterly wrong facts to try to make himself at least look right to the great unwashed masses. Layton gripes about Martins corporate tax cut. He can’t seem to understand how a $4.4 billion cut in 2000 is now in 2004 a $1.1 billion cut. Well Jack here it is plain and simple: $4.4 billion over 4 years means that in the fourth year it costs us $1.1 billion dollars, the other $3.3 billion has already been spent. I guess that underfunded education system Jack keeps going on about finally caught up with him.
Layton continues to bitch and moan about how the governments aren’t giving enough to the cities and how they should be spending more and cutting taxes less. But once again, there is a fundamental point that Layton is missing. No one else seems to be pointing it out to him, or the rest of his rabble, so now I am going to try and spell it out using as few big words as I can: Tax Cuts Create Jobs. Remember this one kids because it will come up on your final exam.
The tax cuts = jobs equation was so successful for the Tories in Ontario and alberta that Martin stole the page right out of their playbook. The fact has been proven so many times that the only people who don’t seem to get it are the NDP.
I know that I am probaly shouting into the wind here, but the point needs to be made. The only saving grace here is that, short of the nation's water supply becoming contaminated with crack Jack Layton will never be Prime Minister of this Country.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement