The Shotgun Blog
Monday, March 17, 2008
Lemieux: McTeague's bill was good
In Pierre Lemieux's latest column, "McTeague's bill was good," Lemieux explodes the myth that politicians and bureaucrats work in the interest of the governed. Instead, politicians and bureaucrats work for (surprise, surprise) their own interests. This means, in general, that policies will be, in general, liberticidal. Thus any bill, like Liberal M.P. Dan McTeague's education savings plan (Bill C253), that limits the amount of money the government receives in revenue, is a good bill.
"We can imagine a world where the passage of a bill like McTeague’s would be bad news. In this world, a benevolent government tables, in the interests of all citizens, a budget which sets taxes at the level required to finance essential public services. Thus, any tax break on top of this would disturb the delicate optimum, forcing tax increases elsewhere or the curtailment of crucial public services, and hurt everybody.
"The problem is, every statement in this scenario is false; the world it describes belongs to a fairy tale. The government is no more benevolent than the self-interested individuals who man it. There cannot be a budget in the interests of all citizens: like the typical public policy, a budget hurts some in order to help others. And optimal public services and taxes are a myth." Read More...
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lemieux: McTeague's bill was good:
So what? Mr. Lemieux feels a bill that agrees with his politics is good, this is news?
Never mind that it puts Canada in a deficit position? Never mind that it is a bill that benefits mostly wealthy people!
Posted by: Paul | 2008-03-17 8:21:53 AM
A "good" government would fashion budget bills in a manner which promotes-encourages the best energies, ideals and aspirations of its citizens, and then provides a "safety net" floor of human services, in law (e.g. absolute protection of innocent human life) or via direct financial support, to those (few) who cannot care for themselves in extraordinary ways (e.g. beyond the capabilities of their family and of private charities-extended family, etc. - i.e. the private sector).
Thus good government would focus on national defense and national public works (trans-national highways, hydro-electric/flood control/navigation water projects, etc.) and leave smaller scale "government" activities to local levels, States, Provinces, cities, counties, towns.
Project planning assistance, sharing best practices knowledge, national standards, etc. would be quite appropriate without necessity for mandates (even "envronmental" if we have ANY degree of respect for our fellow man - i.e. that "local folks" have every bit the same desire for caring for the health of their own property and area as do other people in distant government offices).
The mistake or conflict comes from lack of respect for the dignity of individual human beings and that is the Atheistic philosophy which does not view humanity as beneficial with purpose beyond materialistic use.
The more secular-materialistic you raise your children (until you reach the point where there are no children), the more oppressive-tryannical will be your government. Therein lies the heart of the matter, at the conflict of interests between integrity of natural human family and unnecessarily Mandatory Government schools.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the USSR was 10, before they merged into the U.S.A. Democrat Party, while America, at its founding was at 1, (I suppose Canada at its founding was at 3 or 4 connected to England?).
Where are we now and where do we want to be in twenty years?
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-03-17 10:17:16 AM
Having read his analysis I must agree. The claim that it would only benefit wealthy people is incorrect. The claim that it would put the government in a deficit position is correct and a result of present government spending. The remedy would be for the government to apply a real conservative budget: down-size the bureaucracy and government, begin cutting back on the numerous special social programs.
The most important point he makes is to expose the myth of government benevolence.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-03-17 12:40:45 PM
This post is starting to lot like yesterday.
Posted by: John West | 2008-03-17 3:25:22 PM
McTeague is full of verbosity and himself. He had plenty of chance to pull this last stunt when his Party was in power.
This Brenda Martin "affair", for want of a better term, is another example of a rush of interest which would be handled no differently if the Liberals were in power.
The one criticism on this "affair" is the fact the government has not issued an advisory to anyone who decides to go to Mexico.
If Paul Martin were in power with his nemesis Chretien in charge, he sure as hell would do exactly as the Conservative Finance Minister has done in the same situation.
The Opposition cannot dictate or play political games with the elected government's Budget.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-03-17 4:11:06 PM
Government will never relinquish any powers of taxation once they've been obtained. Nor will our standards of education improve. Its contrary to Government self interest. Ignorant, poor people are easier to herd. If we want change we have to haver an entirely different kind of situation than permanent deficit borrowing and spending with the bills being passed on to you, your kids, your grandkids.....in perpetuity.
We're so over taxed it has become pretty much a criminal act in itself. Yet we vote them in.
Posted by: JC | 2008-03-17 9:11:11 PM
This is just knee jerk partisanship. I don't believe the estimate of 900 million or 2 billion for an instant would be lost. The RESP program is a tiny program only a very small portion of the public takes advantage of anyways. The revenue take by allowing tax deductability would be puny.
Let the government fail on something more important - like, oh, I dunno, FREE SPEECH!
Posted by: Faramir | 2008-03-17 9:56:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.