Why Conservative Policies are Better for the Middle Class

People can’t afford to fall prey to false rhetoric, no matter how favored it is by the mainstream media or how often it is repeated. When it comes to a nation’s economic future, facts must dictate one’s choices.

When it comes to what’s best for working people, for the struggling middle class and for those who are not yet at that level, Conservative policy is head and shoulders above that of the Liberals. It is more sensible and designed to work. Conservatives understand the need for a strong middle class, and most conservatives are members of that financial category.

By contrast, the failed platform of Liberals has been discredited and rejected in every country that’s had to endure its results. Just look at Western Europe, where every country has gone conservative in order for the average person to have a better life. Liberal policies simply don’t work and actually harm those they’re designed to help the most.

Here’s why:

On the simplest level: when you bite the hand that feeds the economy, you bite the hand that feeds the economy. In other words, when you tax small business excessively, you prevent this sector from being able to hire workers or develop/distribute products that would fuel the economy. Tax rates that are low allow businesses to hire workers, pay them satisfactorily (a key element in getting good results) and reinvest in product development, which in turn fuels more jobs and overall business.

Take unemployment numbers as a measure of economic effectiveness. The United States is reeling from a shockingly high unemployment rate of 6.1% (which was expected, based on normal economic cycles; but that’s for another column). Until just two years ago, such a rate would have been shockingly good in Canada. In Western Europe, liberal high taxation policies led to permanent double digit unemployment and total economic stagnation, something that is only beginning to change as more conservative leaders have recently been elected.

It’s time to stop believing hype and to examine the facts as they are and as they work in any economy.

Which brings us to the Dion Liberals:

The Chretien and Martin governments had the results of both the US and North America free trade deals, the significant reduction in personal income tax and other measures handed to them from the Conservative policy years. True, the personal tax reductions were offset by the unpopular but needed GST, but the sales tax put the burden on spending, encouraged personal savings and promoted business development (which is, again, synonymous with jobs) to Canada, as income tax levels are far greater consideration for companies in deciding where to locate than sales tax ever is. For further details on the extent of the benefits of the economic policies handed to the Chretien Liberals from the Mulroney years, I’d encourage all to read Professor Stephen Gordon’s detailed account, available here.

The Chretien Liberals knew what they were handed, and they knew well enough to leave things alone. Dion would make no such “mistake.”

Stephen Dion is by far the most radically left leader the Liberals have ever had. He is also among the most clueless on the economy. What’s worse, unlike past leaders who recognized their lack of knowledge in this area, and deferred to more qualified ministers in this area, Dion fails to acknowledge his own limitations. And such a failure would no doubt be fraught with disaster.

Which is why it’s important to encourage one’s friends to vote for the party that will truly have the best interests of the middle class and the poor (who also need jobs, more so than anyone else), in mind. It’s a primary reason to vote Conservative.

Overcoming Illusion with Reality

On another note, the Conservative’s biggest problems are PR, i.e. public perception. Prime Minister Harper has done much since he took office to defuse this perception, but the idea that Conservatives are only “good for the rich” and other commonly held fallacies are still prevalent.

The only real way to overcome this is to educate, to clearly and succinctly explain the benefits of Conservative policy and how the Conservatives do in fact look out for the middle class (and are much better at doing so than any of the other parties). Moreover, the best time to do this is during a campaign.

Still, new and bold actions will speak louder still. If Conservatives want to rebrand their image, and shock the Liberals in so doing, they will propose, and run on, each of the following:

• Implementing financial literacy education in high schools, so that teens know the difference between responsible use of credit and wasteful spending and the tangible benefits that good credit and accumulating savings can mean in their lives. Such a course should also cover how to balance a checkbook, when to buy, lease or finance a car, the difference between safe and risky investments and clearly outline the real benefits of staying in school and avoiding crime.
• Implementing a life skills training course for middle schools in which students learn confidence building skills, good social interaction, how to stand up to peer pressure, the tangible benefits of doing so and how to function in the workplace.
• Promotion of an alternative sentencing program that reforms non-violent criminals and all who don’t present a significant risk to society as an alternative to incarceration. Such a program would be labor oriented, much shorter and tougher. Study after study shows short labor sentences to be exponentially more effective than incarceration. It is also a far more humane alternative. As a side benefit, it would cost no jobs as existing prisons and their staff would oversee the labor programs and bid on public works contracts.

The above proposals will show the Conservatives to be the most cognizant party and the only one with fresh ideas that truly benefit society. This is change public misperceptions and embodies the spirit of good government.

Black and Radler, Victims of Fitzgeraldian Injustice – And They Should be Pardoned

Imagine if someone operated a business in a certain country according to the laws of its land and then decided to take their company public in another country with similar rules and regulations. In doing so, they made sure to follow all statutes and laws listed on the books, that precluded nothing about business practices that were the norm in their native land, although somewhat less common in their new one, uncommon but not illegal.

Then imagine that a prosecutor with a history of seeking high profile indictments decided to charge the company owners for acting against the interest of the shareholders (even though they were unaffected by the business dealings, none of which broke any written laws or precedents or caused them any actual harm). As a result they were threatened with prison sentences.

The above scenario is preposterous, but, unfortunately, you can stop imagining. It is exactly what happened in the Conrad Black and David Radler cases. The situation is egregious and needs to be rectified.


For those who want a basic overview of what transpired, read the italicized text. For those who are already familiar with the miscarriage of justice, feel free to skip this part:

The main issue of contention was that Conrad Black and associates received payment for non-compete agreements instead of bonuses. Being that they lived and filed taxes in Canada, these non-compete payments were tax free. They are often used in Canada for this very reason.

There is no law against payment for a non-compete agreement in the United States (they are just subject to taxation in the US, an issue that was not violated by Black or Radler, making them uncommon but not by any means illegal), yet Black and his business partners were charged for receiving non-compete payments instead of bonuses. The prosecution lost its ridiculous case on most of the non-competes, but won on one non-compete in which Black and Radler agreed not to compete against another company that they owned.

Now, on face value, agreeing not to compete against another company you own seems over the top. But in actuality it has a very specific meaning:

A) It prevents one company, with one group of staff, from competing against the company with other interested parties.

B) It lasts longer than the time you sell the first company – In other words, Conrad Black and David Radler are still bound not to compete against newspapers they no longer hold ownership in precisely because they signed the agreement that prosecutors characterized as ruthless and a farce.

C) Identical deals have been done almost regularly in Canada and have always been allowed and there is no law against it in the United States.


Although several members of the jury leaned toward acquittal, they formed a compromise, something that is the antithesis of the principal of unanimous verdict. Those who favored conviction seemed to do so without regard for the case, with intense bias against corporate executives in general (which is unfair to those like Black and Radler, who stewarded their corporations well and earned much for the shareholders until baseless allegations and a hostile takeover ate the equity, none of which was caused by Black or by his associates).

On one day one of the members stormed out of the jury room angry, while other members were seen leaving their deliberations in groups. Most egregious of all, one of those pushing conviction said that her mind was made up when she her Black complain about shareholder sentiments.

Now, an executive who’s doing a good job will receive many complaints, many of which generally express anger over the fact that he didn’t do something that would have been detrimental to the company in the long term, even if it seems like a good idea at first glance. His frustrations are akin to a manager venting about employee complaints, a customer service rep expressing dismay at a large number of customer complaints or any other position in which one hears negative reaction from the public, even concerning matters that are beyond their control. I’m not saying that we should pity executives. I am saying that their occasional frustration at the number of complaints, often made without analyzing the issues, will naturally lead to frustration.

The tape showing Conrad Black’s frustration, which had nothing to do with the criminal charges against him, but was simply shown by the prosecution to inflame some of the jurors. To even allow it into evidence, the prosecution claimed that the tape supported a tendency relating charges that he was later acquitted of. But while the tape showed no lawbreaking, it did bias the jury with regard to the case in general. At least one juror, by her own admission (in interviews after the verdict), convicted based on a disdain for Black resulting from this tape and frustration at shareholders. She used this to convict him of charges not relating to the tape. That is wrong and an injustice. It needs to be corrected.

The same juror raised another troubling issue. The judge clearly instructed the jury that in order to convict on obstruction, they needed to decide with certainty which investigation Black had allegedly obstructed. But in the same interview days after the verdict, the juror admitted that she hadn’t (and implied that neither had most of the jury). This was a clear violation of the judge’s instructions. It was a violation of legal tenets used to determine innocence or guilt. Yet it was done, and it needs to be corrected.

The decision of the jury wrongheaded and judge had to throw out one of the convictions as there was no possible way that one of the defendants had committed the wrong the jury had convicted him of. This too shows that the jury engaged in faulty reasoning and is another reason that their entire verdict should be scrutinized. It seems that the Illinois judge was unaware of the Toronto Star interview in which the juror tacitly admitted bias and disregard for jury instructions. Had she known I can only hope that she would have vacated the ruling.

That admission may only be that of one juror, but even if she weren’t expressing the sentiments of many of the others, as most certainly seems to be the case, a unanimous verdict is needed in establishment of guilt and in this case, her actions negate that. For this reason justice demands that Black and his associates, including David Radler, who pled guilty to avoid the jury bias that appeared all too likely and that resulted in the above errors, should never have been convicted. They should certainly not suffer for having committed no actual crime. Such suffering is inhumane.

There is a compelling reason for Black, Radler and associates to be pardoned. Justice demands it. Patrick Fitzgerald has prosecuted numerous high profile cases with the flimsiest of evidence and has built his reputation on same. Even the most vocal Bush critics, as well as numerous former prosecutors, were amazed that White House aide Libby was charged while Richard Armitage freely admitted that he was the leaker (acting on his own accord and not breaking any formal laws, as Plame was not a covert foreign agent within 5 years of the leak). Jurors who convicted Libby felt that Fitzgerald could not get his target so he found someone, anyone he could reach, to keep what was a high profile case going. One even asked that Libby be pardoned (which he was not, having so far only received a commutation).

Yet Fitzgerald’s penchant for high profile cases in which he turns and twists facts, as was seen in the Black case, has gone unchallenged. Light needs to be shed on his actions and the harm that they have caused. The President, by rightly showing a pattern and exposing Fitzgerald’s tactics will also shed light on the Libby case. He needs to do the right thing and prevent innocent such as Mssrs. Black and Radler from going to prison based on emotional manipulations of the jury in a case where no crime was committed.

Conrad Black and David Radler, in their journalistic careers, have done more to improve relations between the US and Canada than anyone else. They have fought vigorously for freedom of the press. But most of all, they committed no crime. They should petition the President to do the right thing and right the egregious wrong brought on by a grandstanding attorney who has harmed many people in his rise to fame. Regardless of what they do, the President should do the right thing and pardon them, preventing needless human suffering that is uncalled for in this case.

How to Effectively Refute (and Preempt) the Media

Prime Minister Harper is right to point out the hypocrisy and skewed reporting of the leftist media. Listening to them also provides an indication as to where they are headed and how best to stop them in their tracks.

To start with, having been successful to some extent at changing public opinion on the war in Iraq, these anti-war even at the cost of self defense infogeeks are now trying to turn public sentiment against our presence in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Harper needs to do two very important things to combat this. The first is to explain the importance of our international obligations, the restoration of society and women's/children's rights in that area and how we are responsible for our own defense on a global level.

The second, and this is the important part, is he must consistently preface these remarks with "The Liberal Decision to commit forces." i.e. He must say how the Liberal decision was the right thing and one of the few right-headed decisions they made. Doing so will not only get his message of the necessity of the mission across, but will also deter the opposition and their sycophants in the media that are the Canadian Press Corps from making an issue out of this, it then being at their peril to do so. This must be done constantly and continuously to be effective.

The second line of attack being organized by the media is being hinted to, unwittingly, by Jim Travers of Toronto Star infamy. It concerns national unity. In a weekend column Mr. Travers so poetically obfuscates, when describing the result of the last election, that "Canadians were uncharacteristically open to simple solutions for complex problems and to the minimalist proposition that a country that once aspired to greatness should now muddle forward as no more than the sum of its provincial parts."

I'm not going to get into the fact that the truth is that Conservatives have proposed overall commonsense solutions which were very complex in forming while Liberals have instead chosen to provide a litany of complaints (no doubt in an effort to appear smarter to the unattentive by belittling their opponents and as a prelude to once again employing their favorite tactic, that being fearmongering and obfuscation). The leftist media takes its queues from the Star and will soon be saying that the Conservative solution to provincial/federal relations weakens the country, citing the same nonsensical argument Travers does and with about as much proof. The Prime Minister must respond to this offensive. He must explain how paying attention to the uniqueness of every part of the country strengthens the nation as a whole. He should also point out how Liberal efforts to ignore the differences inherent in the different regions and provincials only served to fuel divisiveness and a perception by at least a few provinces that they were being ignored.

To Rehash:

To combat the barrage of feces coming out of the national media, the PM needs to articulate the reasons that our Afghan mission is necessary and to remind everyone, in a way that it doesn't seem purposeful but that gets the point out nonetheless, that it was a Liberal decision. This will preempt the media's attempt to "blame" PM Harper for a Liberal decision and may stop their war against the mission in Afghanistan completely.

And

When the media wishes to distort other issues and to sanctimoniously proclaim how great their positions are (i.e. the positions that the Liberal Party espouses at any given moment and for as long a duration) and try to belittle Conservative policy without cause, the PM needs to react, explaining the firm logic of his government's policies and exposing the policies favored by the Liberal opposition and media for the nonsense and spin that they are.

And in general, look to the Star for clues as to where the leftist media hit-job machine is aiming its bullets. Refute accordingly.

Liberals say "Trust Us, We Lie" Conservatives Need to Say Something in Return

Bill Graham wants the public to trust the liberals again and right after saying so he added three new lies for good measure. The government must counter them and expose him and his party for the frauds they are.

Graham claims that the new budget gives targeted breaks to the rich while raising taxes on middle and lower income brackets. Although this is the canard liberals have used for 40 years (some for 70) it has little to do with the truth and is nothing short of pandering and demagoguery. In effect, what Graham was saying was, "trust us, we lie through our teeth."

That said, the unfortunate truth is that some people, mostly those who trust what is presented to them by the media and don't do any fact checking on their own, believe whatever quote of Graham receives prominent coverage. Some of this is due to clear media bias, hyping Graham's quotes and giving the Liberal voice more coverage than the views of the Conservative Party. However, constantly hammering the truth at the media to counter some of these lies is essential and should result in at least some increase in coverage for our side and for the true hard facts.

To begin with the budget lowers taxes, both the income tax and the GST, the consumption tax, across the board. In anticipation of a possible Tory victory, the Liberals proposed to reduce the lowest tax rate from 16% to 15%, removing certain widely used tax credits to do so. The Conservative budget lowers the 16% to 15.5% while keeping some of the tax credits in tact. The Tories did not raise taxes as Graham so brazenly claims. They ignored a Liberal promise that would benefit no one (benefiting no one is the hallmark of Liberal promises) in favor of true tax cuts. The lower and middle brackets receive the most benefit from the new budget but all you hear and read from the press are Graham's comments. Graham's spin somehow takes precedence over the truth.

Graham then went on to criticize the government for removing the Grit's Day Care incentive. But the Liberal transfers to the provinces had no guarantee that they would be used for day care and some provinces had already developed plans to use them for other things. The Conservative plan provides direct relief to each and every family in Canada. There is another issue that bears mention. When asked why the Liberals don't trust families with direct child reimbursements one prominent Grit opined that Canadian parents may use these funds on "popcorn and beer." Liberals have constantly demeaned families and the average taxpayer. The Tory plan helps parents who stay at home with their children as well as those who work. The Liberals believe that parents are incapable of caring for their children without the assistance of government day care programs and outside intervention (while this may be true of staunchly liberal parents, who after decades of being fed self-centered emotional, feel good "crepes" are too self-absorbed to provide proper parenting without training, this is not the case for the overwhelming majority of parents).

There is another issue which needs to be raised. The budget includes tax incentives for businesses. But unlike the Liberals who provided many incentives to businesses and just didn't publicize them (so that they could demagogue when Conservatives do so), Conservatives need to explain to the public the simple facts. Businesses provide jobs. When businesses receive incentives to do so the Canadian worker benefits. If one needs proof of this one need only compare the state of Ontario's workforce under Bob Rae to what it was under Mike Harris. Yes, Mike Harris, not Bob Rae, advocated policies that benefit average workers.

Most of all, Conservatives need to take the offense and start explaining their positions to the media while exposing Liberal lies and distortions for what they are. As a side note, anyone who wants to know about Bill Graham's idea of ethics need do no more than perform a google search on him. Surprisingly, the picture that comes up is not one that fits with the media portrayal of him as that of statesman extraordinaire. But most importantly, Tories need to start explaining their positions and need to begin now.

Important Alternative to Crime Legislation That Would Truly Help All of Society

Having been a staunch conservative since before the time I could vote I have always cast my ballot for the truly conservative party of the time. As someone who also served as a Director on my Riding Board for the Canadian Alliance I am very pleased with most of the enactments of the new government. But I am so displeased with one crucial aspect of this government's agenda, one which can be so easily made better for all. It is an issue which bothers many Canadians morally who feel as I do, even though, like me, they have no personal stake in this issue. It also represents a missed opportunity by this government, one which if taken advantage of can greatly increase the number of Tory supporters nationwide and do wonders for the party's overall popularity, a cause I have given significant effort to and hope to continue doing.

The issue at hand is the proposed crime legislation. Although it does not and will not effect me and although action does need to be done to ensure the safety of all Canadians, mandatory minimum sentences are not the way to go. Study after study documents that alternative sentencing, keeping an offender at home at night while performing weeks of back breaking labor by day, is more effective and has a greater effect on a person's rehabilitation into society. The difference between this approach and one which involves mandatory prison sentences is not only that by placing the offender in prison you are placing an already weak and destructive person in an atmosphere with constant reinforcement to lead a life of crime as soon as the offender is freed, thereby jeodardizing the safety of society instead of alleviating the problem, but by so doing one is also missing out on an opportunity to reform the offender, something which can be accomplished with a few weeks or months of truly hard labor. As the overwhelming majority of offenders are young, it is truly a shame to reinforce their negative behavior by surrounding them 24/7 with criminals instead of truly reforming them via alternative sentencing with a few hard lessons that can be absorbed quickly and which studies show would have lasting effects.

Should Tories champion alternative sentencing another great task would be accomplished. The party would cement its well deserved position as a party with original thoughts and that seeks to better society with bold, but needed proposals. It will also show the true compassion behind conservative philosophy as this solution is in the best interests of the offender, his or her children and in the end, of society as a whole. It is the compassionate and effective position and one which would put both Canada and the Conservative Government on the map as lead promoters of needed social change in a smart, beneficial and conservative way.

Alternative sentencing benefits offenders by training them not to reoffend as opposed to making them part of a greater gang of thieves, it benefits their families by keeping their children with a parent at home instead of behind bars whenever the parent's presence is more beneficial than his/her absence (and if not that is a matter for social services to handle and they could be alerted by the offender's work detail supervisor) and it benefits society by teaching offenders that criminality will be dealt with by way of swift and effective punishment not with time away spent solely with other convicts who most likely spend their days plotting away to alleviate their perpetual boredom.

The government that introduces it would have a ready refutation when their critics, devoid of ideas yet full of smears, accuse it of being "out of touch, heartless, etc." It is the compassionate choice, the sensible choice and the right choice. If enacted and explained in this context it will also be the extremely popular choice, forever cementing this government's repuatation as innovative, effective, original and caring. It will also make Canada an international leader in this area. What a shame it would be to miss such an opportunity and instead propose a solution that limits the power of judges familiar with their cases and which will surely be used as fodder by the opposition to rip this government's good name and all that it has fought so hard to accomplish to shreds the first time the results of this legislation are perceived to be unfair as usually happens with blanket bans or mandatory, across the board punishments. To the government - Please don't put the party in this position at a time when you can alternatively accomplish so much good for society as a whole and for the party at the same time.

Time to Cool It!

Infighting gets no one anywhere. Ronald Reagan, architect of the Republican majority had an 11th commandment of politics, "Thou Shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republican." Well, Canadian Conservatives and conservatives (i.e. members of the party and like-minded idealists) need to take a quick lesson from the Gipper.

It's sad to see how the media has skewed Garth Turner's level headed remarks. In interviews he's been full of praise of the Harper Govt. He merely points out one issue on which he disagrees. He does it mildly. As someone who agrees with the Prime Minister and not with Garth on this one, I still find it appalling that as soon as his interview was over, the statements he made, which can accurately be summed up as "I think this government is doing a lot of great things but I do disagree on this one issue" are immediately changed and rehashed in a way that would make the primary subjects of George Orwell's 1984 proud.

It's equally sad that some "conservatives" have taken to badmouthing as honourable and decent a man as Garth Turner as a result of these comments. The fact is that Garth Turner is a highly principled individual. He'd make a great Cabinet Minister. Canada, not just the Riding of Halton, is fortunate to have him in Parliament. PM Harper would be wise to immediately appoint him to a junior Cabinet post, at least, thereby stifling the Liberal media in their latest line of attack.

Most importantly: Whatever side you're on - Cool it! Conservatives can't maintain a proper government while fret with constant infighting. There will be disagreements. That's the stuff that makes a party stronger. The key is to get over them. Fast!

If you believe that the Emerson appointment goes against democratic values then fine. Recognize that nothing illegal or unethical was committed and don't make an issue of it to an extent that Liberals who just spent the past 12 years blocking every attempt at democratic reform use this as fodder to throw at a government that is finally taking steps in this area. If you believe, as I do, that no wrong has been committed, then don't impugn the dignity of a man like Garth Turner who has worked tirelessly to promote Conservative values and Conservative politics.

We have bigger issues to worry about. Like the fact that the overwhelming majority of Urban Canadians still have no understanding of conservatism and of the reasoning behind the issues we care about? Isn't that worthy of at least enough of our attention to pass up this "oh so important, one time chance" to smear and tarnish one of the most ethical MPs in Parliament today, one who just happens to be a member of our own party to boot?

In short; Thou shalt speak no evil of thy fellow Conservative. Translation for Montreal Canadiens fans, Go Emerson! Go Turner!

Note to PM Harper: Bypass the Media

It's interesting how the media never waits to attack a Conservative. Had they not launched their offensive during the first hour of Harper's Govt. they could have at least put on the appearance of impartiality. But why do that when no one calls them to the floor for it? Why bother when no one cares to recognize the agenda they have beyond mere reporting of the news?

Remember a little over six months ago when Belinda was heralded as a hero? What changed when Emerson did the same thing? Why aren't we hearing ad nauseam about how his move was "in the interests of the country," how politicians "have a right to act according to their conscious" and the plethora of other excuses then coughed up by the media?

Of course, the media, now taking their talking points from Bill Graham, are already defending their openly displayed hypocrisy accordingly: "Harper did it right after an election." Does anyone honestly think that the media would have given this story more sympathetic, Belinda-type coverage had this happened mid-term? I don't think there's anyone gullible enough to believe that. Not even the most stalwart of liberals are that gullible - they just pretend to be. On the contrary, a defection to the Tories would have been portrayed in a much worse light had it not happened on the day the new government was being sworn in, when people are most apt to cut the new guys some slack. Anyone who thinks that Emerson's defection would have received the same celebratory acclaim given Stronach hasn't listened to, read or seen a media broadcast in decades.

Note to Harper: Take heed. From day one, on every matter of policy, speak directly to the Canadian people. Hold press conferences, broadcast night time speeches, whatever - just go above their heads and don't rely on newsbytes. In other words, bypass the media. These "impartial" goons won't cut you any slack. (Though they will make up scandals where none exist. You're a Conservative, so you can count on them for that).

Note to the "mainstream" media: People are beginning to see your agenda for what it is. The slack you cut Liberal leaders (remember Jean Chretien's paper napkin, anyone?) and the muck that you spew against their Conservative counterparts has reached a level that you can no longer deny. Hypocrite, thy name is CBC (or the Toronto Star - take your pick).