by Klaus Rohrich
June 1, 2004
as far as intellectual lightweights go, Jack Layton has done pretty well for himself and his party. But, then, Layton excels at glibness, so why would he need substance in his campaign platform? Looking over the NDP’s plans for our future, there is a common theme: if there is a problem the solution is always money, someone else’s money.
Layton and his partner Olivia Chow (Canada’s own version of Bill and Hillary and John and Yoko all rolled into one) are leading the charge against fiscal responsibility with spending plans that would make even the most profligate spendthrift cringe.
Of course items such as childcare and health care top Layton’s list of priorities with promises of spending ever more on both. His plan for more and better child care includes the introduction of a national child care and education program that will focus on pre (!) and post-natal care, early childhood education and helping parents both in the workplace and at home. To be sure, Layton can’t put a price tag to his nanny-state programs because he’s unable to figure out the cost. But suffice it to say that he plans to spend a lot of your money on his childcare initiative.
If you think that today’s kids are angrier and more alienated from their families than a generation previous, just wait ‘til Jack and Olivia get through with them. They’re advocating a soviet-style childcare initiative that further diminishes the role of parents and will dramatically increase the government’s involvement in family life.
So if you like what our postal service is doing with the mail and think that the current health care system is working just fine, then you’ll love what Jack is planning to do to your family and kids.
His promise to fund 25 percent of all national healthcare and once-and- for-all drive a wooden stake through the heart of the idea that anyone could profit from providing healthcare, will assure us that more wheels are going to fall off the healthcare wagon. again, his only idea on fixing what ails the current healthcare system is to add more money. To be fair, that’s what both the Liberals and the Conservatives are advocating as well, as this seems to be some mantra that politicians must chant in order to get elected.
But here’s a novel idea: There is too much money in the healthcare system already. adding any more will not improve the quality of care. If Jack (or Steven or Paul, for that matter) really want to "fix" our healthcare system, they must be prepared to look at all possible scenarios, not just those that provide the best sound bites. In this case, Layton is the worst of the bunch. His idea that the only thing Canadians need to do to save their fabled healthcare system is to cough up more moolah, betrays his utter lack of imagination and total ignorance of what’s really wrong with the system. Under Jack’s healthcare plan there will be several layers of new bureaucracy to oversee the bureaucrats that are overseeing the bureaucrats.
Layton’s plans for the economy are sure to plunge us into a deep, 1930s style depression, as he promises to focus on job creation and the restoration of employment insurance and training programs cut by the Liberals. The very idea of beefing up employment insurance and adding retraining programs betrays the fact that Layton’s policies will result in fewer jobs and more government rewards for not working.
at this stage in history it’s trite to say that a government cannot spend itself into prosperity, but someone seriously needs to inform Jack Layton that this is the case. If your economic plan is mostly about maternity and parental leave and giving benefits to part-time workers, then it’s a cinch that under Jack’s system, fewer of us would work. His entire economic package deals more with providing for those who chose not to work than with allowing business to create wealth.
Concomitant to Layton’s "New Economic Plan" (shades of Stalin and the USSR) is his taxation policy, or as he likes to call it, his "fair tax" policy. Simply put, the policy entails making the rich pay. (Definition of rich: anyone making $1.00 a year more than me) Newsflash, Jack: if it weren’t for "the rich", there would be no wealth, hence there would be no commerce, hence there would be no jobs, hence there would be universal poverty. Is this too complicated for the average socialist mind to absorb?
Then there is Jack’s proposed "defense policy". On the one hand, Jack seems to think that we are spending entirely too much on defense, despite the countless warnings from independent, non-partisan organizations, that are alarmed over the state of our military. On the other, he wants to improve the pay, benefits and living conditions of the troops. So he’s essentially turning defense into a social program.
Canada’s defense spending in relation to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is about half of what NaTO countries spend on average. (Maybe Jack doesn’t know that Canada belongs to NaTO) Yet by the same token, Jack wants to make Canada and its "defense forces" the model for international peacekeeping. Someone needs to tell Jack Layton that effective "peacekeeping" usually only happens when you have enough guns and ammo to make potential combatants think twice about stirring up trouble. It doesn’t happen as a result of holding hands around the campfire singing "Kumbaya, My Lord".
Layton’s plan for Canada’s education system will guarantee that the quality of post secondary education in Canada will continue to decline, turning the "brain drain" into a southbound flashflood. He plans to lower tuition fees for university students, will offer interest-free loans for higher education and will make sure that no educational institution operates at a profit. In addition, he will also make it easier for graduates to default on their student loans by offering them bankruptcy protection. Under Jack’s system, university graduates can march from the graduation ceremony straight to bankruptcy court and emerge debt-free. Why not just give every newborn a Ph.D. at birth and save all the money he plans to waste? This way the kids will have lots of self-esteem, which is all that matters anyway.
Jack Layton has proven former Conservative Prime Minister Kim Campbell correct in that a political campaign is no place for a serious discussion of the issues. But then, with only 25 percent of the electorate bothering to vote a discussion of the issues isn’t really necessary.