The Less Money I Earn, The More Taxes I Pay

Ok, so why is it that the less money I seem to make, the more I seem to be paying in income taxes? Oh yeah, it's because I can no longer afford those TFSAs and RRSPs etc. So I guess the message is clear. It's not the upwardly mobile folks, those with the BMWs parked up their arses who are contributing the lion's share to our social programs via our taxes. It's the people who need them most. 

To start off with, I was divorced several years ago. I won't get into the details, but let's just say, my wife got the house and the kids, hence the tax deductions. I got the guinea pig. I think I need to have a word with my lawyer. 

Anyway, about a year after the initial separation, I also lost my job. And because of the circumstances, I didn't qualify for E.I. So I spent several month's living off of my credit cards until I could find another job. Those several months created a credit "monster" that I'm still dealing with. 

And one just doesn't walk in off the street into a good paying, permanent job anymore. You start off on low paying contract positions with no benefits. I finally landed a permanent position after about two years. And from those I've spoken with, that's GOOD!

In the mean time, my credit monster got bigger and bigger, and the banks, who used to love me to pieces and constantly offer me new and creative ways to give them money, suddenly became my worst enemies. I went to my old friends, the CIBC to be precise, the folks who I had faithfully done business with for over 30 years, with cap in hand, asking for help. But seeing that I was no longer in a position to give the nice banker-lady money in all sorts of new and different ways, I was told to take a long walk off of a very short peer. All of which reminds me of the quote by Robert Frost: "A bank is a place that offers you an umbrella in fair weather and asks for it back when it begins to rain". 

Anyway, the make a long story even longer (as my dad used to say), I've had to make a deal with the devil (in this case, the federal government) in order to slay my credit dragon and keep Tony the collection guy from harassing me. But I will be paying this credit debt off for a long time to come and in the mean time, I have no credit rating what so ever. The only people who will look at me even sideways anymore are the legalized loan sharks, Money Mart. But I am earning money again albeit, much less than I was before. Which brings me back to my original statement about income tax. 

As an upwardly mobile middle-classer with a combined six digit income, the million dollar family, a house, RRSPs etc, I never paid one red cent in income taxes. The government was always giving me (us)money back. Which was great at the time. But now that I am bringing in only a tiny fraction of what I used to make, the government seems to be hitting me up big time for tax money on a regular basis. I, and all my border-line poverty level friends with no tax shelters available to us, seem to be the ones who are covering the cost of our once proud social programs. 

I can say that as a middle-classer with tons of opportunities to shelter my money - legally - I contributed zip-doodah  to the welfare of the nation. And I (we) were small potatoes. I can only imagine what the REAL movers and shakers with some serious cash can get away with - legally or not. I think of those billions of dollars those guys have squirreled away in off shore accounts and those massive corporate tax breaks that have resulted in zero trickle down. So I know that they aren't contributing diddly to the nation's welfare either. If anything, they're sponging off those taxes you and I contribute. 

And I say "once proud" social programs because they are slowly being gnawed to death by the many headed hydra known as the corporate welfare state. It was recently revealed that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs failed to spend a billion dollars earmarked for social programs for indigenous people. But what happened to that money instead? Oh yeah, there was that whole balanced budget thing. Have to keep Moodies and all those other big bank type guys who establish credit ratings happy. 

And I see those all pervasive "Economic Action Plan" signs everywhere. They're made in the States or so I've been told. I imagine they don't come cheap. But instead of my tax dollars going toward improving healthcare or education or eradicating poverty, they seem to be going towards free advertising for the ruling party. "Merde"!

Oh, and going back to that whole balanced budget thing, It seems that a HUGE chunk of the money that was used to make the books look all nice and orderly, came from OUR E.I. fund.That money ISN'T supposed to be TAX money. It's supposed to be OUR insurance policy against hard times such as I and the 40% of all claimants who never get a chance to collect experience . I guess that's because OUR collective welfare isn't as important as having well sauteed books. But that's a story for another day. 

So as I said in my opening paragraph, it appears that the lion's share of contribution to our once proud social programs seems to be being covered by the people who can least afford to do so. And the more they pay into it, the less service they get, because you know, signs and illusory balanced books and all are way more important.  So don't tell me the system isn't stacked against us. Don't even THINK of telling me the game isn't rigged. The whole system is rotten beyond belief. And the rot is so deep and so old and so ingrained by folks who care more about votes and their own personal bottom lines that it can never be fixed from within. In my own humble opinion, the whole damn thing needs to be blown up and we need to start from scratch, kind of like what Iceland did. They bailed out the people, put the banksters in jail and rewrote their constitution. 

The Enemy Within: Fear And Loathing In Harperland

Harper "snubbed" Chief Justice McLachlin when
she tried to warn him about issues relating to Marc
Nadon's qualifications

It should come as a surprise to no one that Stephen Harper has decided to pick a fight with the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly with Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. 

Citizen Stephen has recently claimed that it was "improper" for Justice McLachlin to attempt to contact him regarding the appointment of Marc Nadon  to the high court during the evaluation phase of the process. 

What Harper fails to mention in his spinning of the whole Nadon debacle, is that McLachlin was merely doing her job by advising the Prime Minister of the presence of "red-flags" regarding the qualifications of a potential appointee. He also doesn't mention, that McLachlin also subsequently swore Nadon in as a Justice of the Supreme Court. It was McLachlin's peers, led by previous Harper appointee, Quebec Justice Richard Wagner, who, in ruling on a Constitutional Challenge from Toronto Lawyer, Rocco Galati,  determined that Nadon was not qualified to sit on the high court as a member from Quebec.

But Harper had been stung by five straight rebuffs from the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of some of his ham-fisted attempts to change the way Canada does things. And as I pointed out in this article about my belief that our current Prime Minister suffers from a significant mental illness, he does not forgive a slight. Ever!

To this day, Steve carries a grudge against the Liberal Party, Pierre Trudeau and anyone who happens to bear the name Trudeau, as a result of the National Energy Program in 1980. Thirty four years is a long time to carry a grudge. 

Harper also carries a mean "hate-on" for the United Nations for turning

Stephen has all but declared a
"shootin war" on the U.N.

 down his bid for a seat on the Security Council in 2010. Since then, Stephen has paid little heed to any recommendations the UN has made, has outright blocked many of their initiatives and has undermined them at every opportunity. He has chosen to align himself with fellow NATO cold-war allies when dealing with international crises, so gone are the days of Canada as world leaders in peace keeping. Harper has even gone so far as to suggest that the U.N. is redundant and should be done away with. 

But as Toronto Star journalist, Chantel Hebert points out, this is how our Prime Minister deals with those who attempt to apply checks and balances on his autocratic rule. He and his spin-doctors attempt to smear and to discredit them and to generally declare war on their very existence. 

Stephen Harper, a prisoner of his own paranoid
delusions. The problem is, he's dragged us
 right into the cell with him.

Yes, mental illness can be a bitch. You see the world as a decidedly hostile place.  You are surrounded by enemies and  you are constantly on the lookout for the next conspiracy. You see yourself as constantly being the victim of the intentions of shadowy figures and you trust no one. Former Harper mentor, Tom Flanagan, who is now "persona-non-grata" in Harperland, recently said that Stephen's erratic behaviour can see him swing from incidents of "white hot rage to long periods of depression where he is incapable of making a decision". 

But getting back to Stephen's feud with the Supreme Court, he declared  at the Conservative Convention in Calgary last November that the courts are the enemies of his vision for a reformed Senate. There's that word, "enemy" again. Senate reform has been one of Harper's central goals and the high court's ruling that he didn't have the authority to unilaterally alter the make up of the Senate, how Senators are chosen or how it does business, was a major setback. To him then, the Supreme Court Justices are evil conspirators, out to quash his heroic efforts at remaking Canada in his own delusional image. 

The truth is, the Supreme Court never said the Senate can't be

The SCOC never told Harper the Senate
couldn't be reformed. Just not HIS way.
Rule of Law Stephen, rule of law.

reformed, or even abolished. But there is a formula for doing so as stipulated in the Constitution. They merely said that Harper's idea of reform can't be achieved in the manner in which he was attempting to do it - unilaterally and without consultation with, or input from, the provinces. And since Harper is incapable of building consensus (hence his refusal to attend First Minister's Conferences) his dream of Senate reform went up in a puff of smoke. 

And that the SCOC blew Harper's half-cocked efforts out of the water based on the Constitution (which he automatically loathes because it is a Trudeau invention), was probably more than he could handle. Hence his shot across the bow of Chief Justice McLachlin. 

So it's no wonder then that Stephen blames the Supreme Court for his failures. He see's them as treasonous villains for upholding a law (the Constitution) he views as being purely sinister. Just as someone with Paranoid Personality Disorder would do. So he will seek to have the "Supremes" tried, convicted and executed in the court of public opinion just as he has with all other transgressors.  Which is all the justification he needs to attempt to invoke change within the high court as well. 

So if Stephen's ruinous tenure survives past 2015, look for Vic Toews to be elevated to the highest court in the land. And may God have mercy on us all. 

If Stephen has his way, look for this man to be
elevated to the SCOC. Yes, this is Vic Toews,
he of the "impregnated baby sitter".

The Illusion of a Democratic Senate

A central plank in Stephen Harper's election platform in previous federal run-offs, has involved Senate Reform. This is a notion that he has played lip-service to with the introduction of Senate reform legislation that would see each province nominate elected Senatorial candidates to the Prime Minister every time a seat representing that region becomes vacant in the Upper House. The Power of course, would still remain with the Prime Minister. He could choose to appoint a nominated Senator... or not. And his appointment of no less than 48 Conservative Cronies, mostly like minded, defeated election candidates to the Red Chamber is an indication that Harper has no interest in relinquishing his strangle-hold on the Senate and that his legislation, like his current government, offers only the illusion of democracy.  Thus far, the only province that has offered elected Senatorial candidates is Harper's home province of Alberta. But with the appointments of elected Senatorial Candidates such as Bert Brown and Stanley Waters, both of whom are ex-Reformists,it was pretty easy for Harper, also an ex-Reformist, to rubber stamp their appointments while still  pretending the process was democratic.   

The problem is, the Supreme Court of Canada declared in 1980 that Parliament does not have the constitutional right to, in any way, alter the "characteristics of the Senate" with out the Provinces. This of course, would open up a new round of constitutional wranglings. Since Harper is not known to be a consensus builder and is not prone to consulting the Provinces on much of anything, this is not likely to happen. Thus far, the Province of Quebec is the only region to issue a constitutional challenge to the proposed legislation. Not that it would in anyway, put the brakes on Harper's agenda as he has little regard for the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Now the notion of a "Triple E" Senate (an acronym for Equal, Elected and Effective) has been bandied about for years. A great notion on the surface of it. I mean, who wouldn't want a democratically elected legislative body representing them..... kind of like what our House of Commons is already supposed to be. So then why on earth would we need TWO such legislative bodies? What would their relationship be? Which one would hold trump over the other? Which one is the TRUE voice of the people? We have to look no farther than our immediate neighbors to the south to see that  this kind of system enables nothing but stagnation and ineffective government. As is happening here in Canada at break-neck speed, we  are witnessing real power in the States shifting from the duly elected officials to the cadre of non-elected strategists, (such as we currently see with our PMO), in addition to well financed lobby groups. 

The intent of the Canadian Senate when it was first formed, was to act as a brake on rampant partisan politics in the Lower House, to provide a "House of Sober Second Thought". While the Senate, since it's inception, has rarely been completely free of partisan politics- Senate seats being regarded as plumb positions for former cabinet ministers, ex-Premiers and political cronies- it has in practice, seldom interfered in the passing of bills put to it by the duly elected Lower House. It would debate a bill, offer criticisms,  recommend said bills to committee and on very rare occasion, delay the passage of a bill it deemed unworthy,  but it would ultimately, never overturn legislation passed through the House of Commons...until now. 

Senator Bert Brown of Alberta with Stephen Harper
Yup, this was a real non-partisan selection.

From 2006 to 2011, while he held successive minority governments, Stephen Harper, counter to his Senate Reform election promises, took sole control of the Senate, showing cronyism and partisanship to a degree never before seen with appointments to the Upper House. In so doing, he took control of the country's legislative process. He used his Senate majority to defeat opposition bills passed through the House of Commons and to ensure bills he supported in the Lower House, survived the scrutiny of the Red Chamber. Now of course, Harper has his fraudulently won majority Government in the House of commons so control of the Senate isn't quite as critical. But because of his desire to quickly cram through massive legislative bills that would drastically alter our country before he is finally voted out of office by Canadians, sickened by the stench of his corrupt regime, he still needs the backing of the Senate in order to ensure a speedy passage of his agenda. 

So it sounded real nice, what Harper said about Senate Reform while on the campaign trail. He has even taken a few half-hearted swipes at the venerable Upper House.  But much like anything else Harper says, what he actually does is completely different (with the exception of his promise of not knowing Canada by the time he's done changing it). Any attempts at reforming the "basic characteristics" of the Senate are unconstitutional if done unilaterally. The Quebec challenge could well prove this true. The constitutionality then, of those so-called "elected" Senators from Alberta could be challenged. Even the eight year "terms" all Harper Senators agreed to after 2008 could be challenged. Look for Senators themselves to open this debate up once Harper buys the farm in 2015. 

Now don't get me wrong. I most certainly feel that, like our election process, our Senate needs to be overhauled. The idea of there being a genuine "House of Sober Second Thought" is not a bad one- that there is a body of learned and scholarly folk somewhere about who can look at a piece of legislation passed through Parliament, separate out the wheat from the chaff and if necessary, send it back to Parliament for further discussion, on to committee for review or simply rubber-stamp it as is.  But to do this effectively (the third "E" in Triple-E Senate) it needs to be free of any and all partisan allegiances. Thus, Senators should not be members of ANY political party despite previous affiliations. Nor should they have the ability to veto anything passed through the Lower House. In my humble opinion, I would rather see Political Professors, Economists, Judges, Artists and Scientists sitting in the Red Chamber rather than defeated election candidates and former football players. People who are learned and can make intelligent, even handed recommendations to the folks in the House of Commons. These people would be the "fine tuners"- in baseball parlance, the "closers", the ones who bring the game to a successful conclusion. They should in no way be confused with the "Voice of the People" that The House of Commons should be, but more of a non-partisan advisory body.  But again, this would significantly change the selection process and thus, require a new round of Constitutional negotiations with the provinces. So don't look for this to happen any time soon. 

But in the mean time, we have to live with a Senate that is about as credible as our current fraudulent Government. They both suffer from the Harper "Smoke and Mirrors" treatment. 

"And now, for my next trick...."