This morning in our papers, I encourage everyone to do their duty, get involved in this election campaign, and vote.
Here's a thoughtful response from a reader named Dan Payment:
Good Morning Mr. Akin,
It has always been my contention that one has a duty to vote. It is a right that has been earned again and again through the sacrifices of our servicemen during the many conflicts this country has participated in since it's founding. I make a point of voting in every election, because I believe I should. But I also believe that there should be someone to vote for. For too many years now, our politicians have lost sight of their responsibilities! Their duties are to be stewards of our rights and freedoms, lobbyists for the betterment of our lives, and above all, they should be honest. Unfortunately, none of those duties are being fulfilled, and haven't been for entirely too long. They've saddled us with untold debt (children being born this very day arrive in this life with a debt greater than $16K dollars. That is unconscionable!) We're told the proper form of address is “the Honourable” or the “Right Honourable”, yet they demonstrate over and over again that they have no concept of the meaning of honour. They make irresponsible promises of all sorts of new “benefits” and “entitlements” each election, very carefully neglecting to mention that these promises are going to have to be payed for, and that the money to pay for them comes out of our pockets. They lie quite conveniently to get themselves elected, then once on their thrones, they renege and concoct all kinds of spurious reasons why they can't follow through with these promises (“Oh, we didn't know we were inheriting such a debt from our predecessors” is a good one, obviously Mr. Harper didn't take the time to do his homework, or he just plain lied!)
They award themselves all kinds of perquisites and benefits at the expense of taxpayers, saying that they work so much harder and in poorer conditions than the rest of us. I don't recall ever seeing any of them spend any time in the same isolated postings I “enjoyed” while I was in the Forces, nor hearing about any of them serving in war zones or hazardous postings. I know that I never got any time off without having to submit a leave request to account for every day of my leave allotment, and one started with two weeks vacation and earned extra by years of service. They seem to take whatever time off suits them, and many don't even show up for critical votes. A member of the Forces must work for at least 20 years before he qualifies for a reduced pension, while these “hard workers” qualify for full pension and medical benefits with only one term in office. Sounds really rough to me. And don't even think about dismissal. While in the Forces, I saw many cases of people get what we “affectionately” called “thirty, thirty and thirty” for relatively minor infractions. What the triple 30 means is 30 days stoppage of any leave (basically confinement to quarters if you were single) 30 days stoppage of pay, and 30 days of at least four hours a day extra work and drill. Dismissal from the Forces meant a return of pension contributions and you'll never have another government job. Dismissal from any Parliamentary position appears to mean that you get a golden handshake, full pension and benefits, and you get to go work as some sort of senior advisor or something similar. They're wasteful, greedy and childish, just watch how much each of the newly elected will spend to refurnish their offices, because they don't want anything to do with the trappings of their predecessors.
Another duty of a politician is to represent the wishes of his electoral district. When did that happen last? The lobbyists and gladhanders that haunt Parliament Hill get more attention and reaction than the voters who elected the politicians, and we have so many politicians who “vote their conscience” instead of voting as their constituents demand. When I first heard of this years ago, I knew then that our political system had failed and that this country was doomed. Anyone, voted into any position by a majority, be he dog catcher or sheriff or Prime Minister, has an obligation to represent the feelings and interests of the people who elected them. “Vote your conscience” is a deliberate and unequivocal insult! What it says is “I don't care what the rest of you say, my way is better and I will do as I please!”
The other problem with our political system is that, despite Mr. Harper's assertion that we can “vote him out in four years if we don't like what he's doing”, that still means we have to endure four more years of bad management. We have no means, short of another election, of getting rid of politicians who lie, cheat or abuse their privileges. At least in the United States, Americans have the right to “recall” any politician, right up to the office of the President. We need an immediate means of holding our representatives to account for their actions. When you discipline a child or pet, you do it immediately if you want the message to stick. Otherwise, they forget what they did wrong, and maybe you did as well, and waiting makes them wonder what they're being punished for. It's the same with politicians, we need to be able to say “you screwed up, one more time and you're outta here!” Otherwise, four years down the road, we've forgotten the incident or they've dismissed it as trivial, and they get re-elected to do the same thing to us again.
One more thing that I don't understand is this contention that most people have “my grandfather was a Liberal, my father is a Liberal, and I'm a Liberal” (or Conservatives or whatever.) Where is the sense in that? If you don't study the issues and then vote for those that make the most sense, then you're just wasting your vote. If you are so locked into voting for the same party all the time, you miss the opportunity to better the system. You're stuck with the same-old, same old.
As I see it today, the biggest problem with Canadian politics is that we really don't have any choice. It doesn't matter whether one is Liberal, Conservative, Bloc or Green, they're all tarred with the same brush. They'll lie, cheat and promise “cakes and ale” to get elected, then renege the moment they're in office. We really need a response box on the ballet for “None of the above”. As far as election promises are concerned, we can't afford any of what they're promising, and they know it. I'm 63 years old and in relatively good health, with a bit of luck I might make it another 20 to 30 years. I can't say that I'm enthusiastic about the future though. The way these liars, wastrels and profligates are spending our money on promises and dreams, instead of figuring our how to fix the mess we're in, I truly believe that Canada is going to become a third world country before I die. That saddens me immensely, we have so much going for us but we're being led down the garden path by fools and liars.
I intend to vote in the next election, I don't know for whom, there isn't one of them that I believe in or trust, but as I mentioned earlier, I'll be voting by the issues. The one who comes closest to promising what I believe to be realistic is the one who I'll vote for.
Besides tarring the Greens (who haven't had a chance to renege on any campaign promises) with the same brush as the others, this is an excellent response to our current situation.
I agree wholeheartedly with this person's thoughts on the state of the Canadian political system and the people that run for office in it. However, there is a “None of the Above” option with the ballot that most do not know about. You can abstain from voting. You show up with your voter's card and required ID. You get handed your ballot, and you return the ballot back to poll clerk immediately and say “I abstain from voting”. It does get marked down as such that is happened.
Hear, Hear! Exactly why I have not voted in last election. There was no box stating None of the Above.
While I know I can go to the polling station and state that I am refusing to vote. As a former RO (Returning Officer) I know that it is not taken into account by the powers that be, let alone the very strange looks on the faces of people at the polling station.
Also taking into account previous comment re: Green Party not being tarred…
WHERE IS THE SMALL-C CONSERVATIVE AMONG THESE PROGRESSIVES?
The big spending 2011/12 proposed budget which is now called the Conservative Party’s 2011 election platform confirms Harper’s Conservative Party is categorically not small-c fiscal conservative. Rather than boldly push back the welfare state, our so called fiscal/social conservative Harper has expanded statism with massive spending increases, tax revenue increases, and social-engineering policies that have driven us back to a gigantic, disconcerting debt level.
Rather than proposing to increase total expenditures by $2.2 billion in 2011/12 to $278. 7 billion, with a 2011/12 deficit of $30 billion, and increasing tax revenues by over $50 billion over the next five years, a legitimate fiscal conservative would campaign on a platform that would implement severe, meaningful cuts which would divert spending back to 2008 pre-stimulus levels. By refusing to return to the 2008 numbers our left plunging PM is locking-in the much higher post-stimulus levels as the expenditure base for future budgeting purposes.
Our progressive Prime Minister’s approval of statism and egalitarianism that has led him to immensely expand government and irresponsible increase spending since 2006 denotes that he has no vision and has abandoned his small-c fiscal conservative principles for an office. Rather than continue to put off the tough decisions, Harper’s proposed 2011/12 budget should have conceded that we can no longer put off the train wreck of both a high deficit ratio of 2.8% of GDP in, and debt to GDP ratio of 32%.
So, If Comrade Harper doesn’t have small-c fiscal, social, and judicial visions that will morph Canada back to a deficit-free, free-market economy what about Comrade Ignatieff? The inconvenient truth (to borrow a phrase) appears to be that the leader of the Liberal Party/coalition’s vision would continue to propel Canada towards European nanny statism, with what would most likely be an even larger deficit/debt. This, of course, would ultimately lead Canada to economic disintegration, and possible devastation similar to what is happening to some of Europe’s nanny states.
The Liberal Party’s values as promulgated can only be portrayed as: bigger government, more spending, higher taxes, and also soft on terrorism analogous to Khadr hugging Harper.
Comrade Ignatieff has substituted the Liberal Party’s classical liberal philosophy of the 18th century into a statist attitude that doesn’t promise equal opportunity for all but rather equal results for all bestowed by a progressive state through a hidden agenda of social engineering.
The basic building blocks of Ignatieff’s Liberal Party appear to be expensive and compulsory bilingualism, multiculturalism, simulated social equality, centralism, and nationalism; all apparatus of a veiled agenda of unlimited social engineering by a progressive state.
Ignatieff has promulgated distinct policy differences that plunge the Liberal Party far to the left. The Liberal party’s flagship issues include more government intrusion by means of a larger more expensive government, more spending, and more job slaughtering higher corporate/personal/sales taxes. Canadians don’t want this combined with the Liberal’s coddling of terrorists, supporting the slaughter of even more unborn persons, plus increased immigration levels and wealth redistribution.
Examples of the parties move to the radical left, is its plans to implement two new extremely expensive, deficits expanding entitlement programs: an universal Child Care Program ($5-6-7 billion annually) that will hire uncaring, overpaid bureaucrats to bring up our children and over-regulate parents, and an billion dollar annually Family Care Program. Unpatriotic Ignatieff’s avocation that laid-off workers receive unemployment benefits after only 45 days/yr of employment would increase unemployment, decrease productivity, and increase premiums of those left employed. He has also indicated that his party would increase the GST tax by 2 points, and maintain job slaughtering high corporate taxes. Comrade Ignatieff would also inflict either a carbon tax or a Cap, Tax & Trade “Ponzi style” system on us which would increase taxes, increase the cost of everything we buy, and would slaughter millions of jobs as it transferred wealth from wealth producing provinces to other provinces/countries.
Alas, our progressive leaders have all been bragging about how much more, new spending they are proposing, rather than how they will be responsible enough to stabilize the economy by eliminating the deficit/debt. So, the question is: which one of these progressives is going to lead us to European style nanny statism?
–machiavelli
This is the kind of thing I was talking about in my original submission. These high-priced leaders seem to know less than the average six year old about fiscal responsibility. They're committing us (the taxpayers of Canada) to spending billions of dollars that we don't have and can't afford. Is it that they don't care (the “I've got mine, the rest can go hang!” attitude,) or are they really this stupid.
We, the 39 billion or so of us that make up the population of this country, are the owners, not them. We tell them what we want. If we are ever going to improve things in this country, we have to demand change. With the technology that is available to us today, there is absolutely no reason for ALL Canadians not to be informed and involved in the political process. The hardware and software and networks already exist to make it possible for each and every one of us to have our say in the political decisions that are made in our names.
Because I work in the IT and Security industries, I know that the initial expense of setting up such a system would be relatively minor (unless the bureaucrats get their fingers into it!), and it can be done so that people can actually vote on EVERY issue that involves our wellbeing, be it on a local, municipal, provincial or national level. And that is exactly what the professional politicians are afraid of. By doing so, we take away their perks and status and reduce them to exactly what they are, high priced lawyers! We need them to advise us on the legality (National and International) of every issue, but that's all we really need them for.
There are other considerations to such a system, I know. You still have to encourage people to educate themselves and get involved with what's going on in our world, so they can make intelligent, informed decisions. Any monetary, moral, ethical or social commitments must be discussed, with clear representation of the positive and negative implications of each option.
This would help to alleviate the incidents of the partisanship and cronyism, and ensure that any contracts, commitments or obligations put forward in our names are being fairly awarded. The habit of a politician going into a ward or district and promising enormous sums of money for some new construction project or other has to stop. I read yesterday that our illustrious Ontario premier, McGinty the liar, was planning on awarding something in the neighbourhood of $14.5 BILLION dollars to Toronto for the upgrade of their transit system. Is this man really that stupid, or is this another one of his lies. Our provincial coffers are literally coughing up blood now, he has taken us from being one of the wealthier provinces down to being a have-not province, and there's nothing to indicate that this is going to get better. How can one man (or even the entire provincial Liberal cabinet) commit the rest of Ontarians to this kind of debt? Or take Messrs Harper and Ignatieff (please, take them both, preferably somewhere far away.) They're committing us to more huge expenditures on the National level that we can no more afford.
More and more in recent years the tendency has been to disregard the true financial status of our economy and promise anything just to either get elected or to remain in power. The problem is, if these promises are not outright lies as we've seen in the past, they just commit us to deeper debts and a worsening of our lifestyles.
It MUST stop!
I may not be the most politically astute person in the country, I'll admit that freely, but I do understand right from wrong. We are heading down a very slippery slope with little chance of rescue if we don't act soon.
Dan