The Blame Game

The fact that I experienced physical and verbal abuse at the hands of my teachers during my Catholic education probably has a lot to do with my visceral response to arrogance. Having someone presume to sit in judgement on another is both a humiliating and ultimately enraging experience, one that most of us have probably experienced at some point in our lives; however, even that realization does not not in any way make the experience more acceptable or palatable.

It is therefore within the above context that I take great exception to politicians who presume to lecture us on our shortcomings as voters. Either we are the victims of 'the politics of fear,' according to Andrea Horwath, or the dupe of unions, or the failure of Tim Hudak's leadership, both of which are popular views of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Consider what a truculent, unrepentant Horwath had to say after finally emerging from hiding on Wednesday:

The NDP leader insisted Wednesday her party lost on June 12 because the Liberals frightened Ontarians into voting against the Progressive Conservatives.
“Look, the people in this province, they made a decision to basically choose fear — or to vote out of fear — as opposed to choose positive change,” she said.

Just in case we might prove resistant to such a simplistic and insulting analysis, the NDP leader repeated and expanded upon her insights:

“Out of fear, the people of Ontario voted. They strategically voted to keep Mr. Hudak’s plan off of the books . . . . That’s their decision to make,” she said of the PC leader who will step down July 2.

“That means we have a lot of work to do around the strategic voting issue.”

Apparently not given to much introspection, she has not considered stepping down as leader, telling all assembled that it was “absolutely not” a bad idea to force the election by rejecting the May 1 budget.

The Star's Martin Regg Cohn takes a less enthusiastic view of Horwath's 'achievement.' In his article, entitled Andrea Horwath shows hubris over humility, Cohn points out an objective truth:

News flash for New Democrats: The NDP lost three key Toronto MPPs and elected three rookies in smaller cities, winding up right where it started — in third place with 21 of the legislature’s 107 seats. .... Horwath lost the balance of power she’d wielded since 2011. No longer can New Democrats influence a minority government agenda.

Cohn is puzzled by the oddly triumphant tone that Horwath has adopted in light of her non-achievement:

And what has she learned? Party members and union leaders “have all said to me you’re doing great, you’re a good leader, stay on.”

Reporter: “You said you have no regrets with the campaign, but are there any mistakes that you might have made during this campaign?”

Horwath: “We were able to connect with a whole bunch of people that decided to vote NDP for the first time ever. We’re excited about that.”

Mistakes? She can’t think of any.

It would appear that Ms Horwath may have to await the mandatory leadership review at her party's convention in November to be brought down from her current lofty perch of hubris.

In case you are interested in how the Progressive Conservatives rationalize their loss, Steve Paikin's The Agenda is worth a view as well:

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Like many who follow politics closely, I consider myself to be deeply cynical. Probably the best window into the human soul, politics is the arena where often the worst aspects of our natures prevail; greed, selfishness, abuse of power all have ample opportunity to find expression in this venue.

Yet despite many years of observing these terrible truths about ourselves, I have never completely abandoned hope for the possibility of something better. Recent events have provided some basis for that hope, despite the best efforts of the Harper neoconservatives to remake us in their own image and accept them as Canada's natural governing party and all that that implies.

In this vein, a couple of articles are worth perusal. The first, Seven things Kathleen Wynne's victory tells us about ourselves, offers two especially important insights:

It’s about character.

“It shows that Ontarians don’t vote first for platforms or policies,” says political consultant Randi Rahamim with the Toronto-based firm Navigator Ltd. What people sense is bred in the bone proved more important than the Liberal scandal over gas plants or the ORNGE air ambulance fiasco. “Character matters most and people have a gut feeling about that. Who do they want to have a coffee with?”

I regard this as especially important, inasmuch it suggests that we have not totally lost the ability to relate to politicians as fellow human beings, regarding them as more than just stereotypes of self-interest and corruption. To see the face of human integrity in our leaders implies we are able to look beyond those who can best serve our own narrow interests through more tax cuts, tax credits, and continued erosion of the traditional role of government.


She makes us feel good about who we are as a community and, on a wider scale, a province.

[Peter] Donolo compares her appeal to U.S. President Barack Obama’s effect on Americans in his first campaign in 2008. “There’s a real sense of optimism that they see reflected in her,” says Donolo.

There’s so much to get us down, starting with the lack of jobs and the way a dollar doesn’t stretch anymore. That could have been lethal for Wynne; her own party has been in power since 2003.

Instead, she included her definition of government as part of her stump speech, stressing that people pay taxes to cover social services. She also made it clear the government must respect the value of hard-earned dollars.

Clearly this is related to the issue of character. People's response to Wynne was, once again, a human response that includes concern about the larger community, something the federal government has been working steadily and consistently to undermine, and mirrored in Tim Hudak's gleeful blood lust for cuts.

In her column today, Heather Mallick writes on a similar theme of optimism. Entitled Liberals won because voters aren’t cynics, she reflects on Wynne's election win as a victory for the inclusiveness that progressives fight hard for:

We elected a woman premier, imagine that. I spent years worrying that the advance of gay rights had seemed to sidestep women, with lesbians as hidden in the shadows as ever.

There was a time when a divorced woman who had fallen in love with another woman would have been shut out of public life. Welcome, Premier Wynne.

Wynne’s budget was left-wing in that it had goals that can only be accomplished by government. The job of government is to be visionary, to plan for the future. The private sector can’t do that because it isn’t built into their structure.

And there was Wynne winning votes partly with the sheer force of her obvious decency, warmth and humour, a Canadian version of another much-loved politician, Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

While I am far from certain that the Liberals deserved the majority they achieved, and while I have been around long enough not to get too swept up in a self-congratulatory mood, this election experience does give hope that "the better angels of our nature" Abraham Lincoln referred to in his inaugural speech more than 100 years ago have not deserted us; rather, it seems more likely they have lain dormant, awaiting someone to reawaken us to their reality.

A Post-Election Reflection

I don't want to comment directly about last night's Ontario election, given that it has been incisively and very competently observed by others already. However, I want to address a comment my friend Tom, who voted Liberal, made on Facebook:

And here's why the system is broken: @51% voter turnout -- up marginally from the historic low of the 2007 provincial election. The winning party gets 38.6 % of those who voted, which means in the neighborhood of 19-20 % of the eligible vote -- but they have a comfortable, some have said overwhelming, majority!

I replied:

What you say is true, Tom, but barring electoral reform, the easiest way to remedy this problem is for more people to vote. As you may know, I have no sympathy for those who say they don't vote because there is no one to vote for, or they don't 'do' politics, etc. Laziness and inertia and apathy are poor reasons not to participate in the rights and responsibility of citizenship. In fact, to be quite honest, I have little respect for the kind of self-absorption that breeds such behaviour.

We are, of course, well aware of the fact that Harper achieved his majority government with minority support from the electorate, something that has apparently never bothered either that regime or its supporters. However, I suspect we will now be subjected to a barrage of right-wing commentary that will include the claim that because Kathleen Wynne was elected by a minority of eligible voters, she did not really get a mandate from the people. Such hypocrisy, however, is nothing new, but those who are truly distressed by the Ontario results need to look to themselves to blame if, in fact, they are among the 50% who did not vote.

Such is the price of indifference, sloth, and disengagement.

A Timely Reminder Of Tim Hudak's Magical Thinking

While we should be back from our trip tomorrow in time to catch the Ontario election news coverage, this seems an opportune time to remind readers of the kind of magical thinking so favoured by extreme right enthusiasts such as young Tim Hudak. Tim, as you may recall, has made even lower corporate taxes a major part of his plan to create one million jobs, despite the fact that Ontario's rates are among the lowest in North American, and despite the fact that no apparent empirical data supports the equation that lower business taxes create jobs.

Here is a letter from today's Star that I think makes the point rather nicely:

Leaders make one last push as campaign winds down, June 10

The Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. recorded $1.08 trillion in profits last year. That was an increase of 31.7 per cent over the year before. During that time, these same companies increased employment increases of 0.7 per cent.

A similar picture exists on Canada. In 2001 corporate tax rates were 22 per cent. Today they stand at 15 per cent. We’ve lost $6.1 billion in government revenue while corporate profits have skyrocketed to $625 billion.

Tim Hudak talks about creating one million jobs through a lower tax rate. During the Mike Harris years in Ontario this philosophy did not work out very well. The provincial debt during the Harris years went from $90.7 billion in 1994-95 to $130.6 billion is 2002-03. This, while cutting many jobs and services and giving the province the legacy of Walkerton among other atrocities.

Former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney tried to convince Canadian corporations to spend some of the “dead money” they have been sitting on after accumulating such large profits over the years. To date, the corporations have not responded.

For years, right-wing government leaders from Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan to Mike Harris have been selling the supply-side economic lie. It didn’t work for them and it won’t work for Tim Hudak. A first-year economics student could tell you the reason for this. The rich don’t tend to spend additions to their revenue. The poor do. The rich accululate this money as the corporations in Canada have been doing for years.

In the Conservative attack on Kathleen Wynne on the radio, they end by asking, “Can you afford to vote for Kathleen Wynne?” I am wondering if I can afford not to.

Carl Nelson, Huntsville

Contempt Of The Electorate?

Tom, a friend of mine, posted the following on Facebook yesterday:

Kind of tired of all the polemical posturing in the latest election. However, can anyone provide one instance in history -- at least, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution -- where, corporate or business tax cuts, the basis of trickle down economic policy, have been primarily responsible for an upsurge in hiring or the oxymoronic fictional concept of job creation.

I replied:

Tom, you are asking a question that the media refuse to ask. Considering who owns most of the media in this country, this is perhaps not so surprising.

To which Tom replied:

I think that's partially true, Lorne. However, how come politicians and supporters of those on the other side [of the] argument don't keep asking the question and insist upon an answer. I've been looking for such an historical antecedent and can't find anything.

I wrote back:

A good question. Perhaps it reflects their belief that the attention span of the average citizen is short, and boring them with facts is counter productive? Sound bites do seem to rule the day.

Tom makes an excellent point about the dearth of questions asked about the right's underlying premises. Indeed, the Liberals have only gone so far as to ridicule the accuracy of the job-creation numbers Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak claims will ensue from both his gutting of public service jobs and reduction in corporate tax rates. Nowhere is his philosophical foundation questioned.

Kim Campbell, in her short career as Canada's first woman prime minister, once infamously observed that political campaigns are not the time to discuss policy. She was much pilloried for that comment, but perhaps it was simply an oblique expression of disdain for the very people whose support politicians seek on their road to power. That contempt seems to be more and more the default position of those who lead us or aspire to.

In his column this morning, Martin Regg Cohn laments the fact that Tim Hudak will not be taking part in the Ontario leaders' debate in Thunder Bay, attributing crass political calculation to his boycott, and not the 'scheduling conflict' Team Hudak claims.

Cohn calls his decision a disrespect for democracy, and yet I have long given up on such debates, reflecting, as they do, the very contempt that is the subject of this post. Far too frequently, instead of engaging in the thrust and parry a real debate entails, politicos are all too content either to simply rework their stump speeches into their responses or answer the questions they wished had been asked, rather than the actual queries. Avoidance and obfuscation seem to rule the day, and the journalists moderating the panels rarely seem to hold them to account.

How we arrived at this sad state is not an easy question to answer, but undoubtedly the pernicious influence of the Harper regime and its worship of ignorance is a factor.

Two brief letters in today's Star make this point:

Gutting Statistics Canada is a pound-foolish strategy, Opinion May 19

Anyone with brains could see that gutting Statistics Canada would be a disaster for future governing of this country. To me, it represented one of the first major steps of Stephen Harper’s “secret agenda” of remaking this country into his little fiefdom of conservative domination into the future ruled by ideology not evidence-backed policies.

It will be the ruination of this once small but proud country.

Ann Goodin, Burlington

I don’t think money is the main motivator behind gutting StatsCan, although it’s a great excuse. It’s been obvious for years that the Conservatives don’t like pesky facts getting in the way of their ideology.

They’ve also figured out how to data mine us so they have info we’ll never see (those pesky facts again).

Ellen Bates, Toronto

That is not to see that any of us gets a free pass when it comes to embracing ignorance. Far too many have stopped taking the political process seriously, seeing it more as a source of soap-operish entertainment than as fundamental to the health of our country. Anyone who doubts that need only refer to the antics of a Rob Ford and the tenor of so many reactions to them. Or ask yourself this: What comes to mind when you think of Maxime Bernier and the misplaced government documents?

I will end what has been perhaps a bit of a meandering post with one final letter from today's Star. During this Ontario election campaign, both Mr. Hudak and Ms. Horwath have made much about our hydro rates. It is taken as undeniable that we pay some of the world's highest rates thanks to Liberal incompetence and corruption. Here are the facts:

Business shifts election focus to power prices, May 15

Most people realise that just because a politician (or party rep) says something, it doesn’t mean it’s true. The latest scuttlebutt is the “sky-high” prices we pay for electricity in Ontario making us uncompetitive and putting a strain on working families.

Let’s face it: nobody wants to pay more for anything, but before voting for political parties who are promising to lower your hydro rates, consider the fact that electricity prices in Ontario are actually not high at all.

Hydro Quebec routinely surveys electricity rates for consumers/small business and large industrial customers across North America. In 2013 it may surprise many people to know that at a kw/h price of $0.1248, Toronto has lower hydro rates than Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Halifax, Charlottetown, and St John’s. In addition, it has much lower rates than Boston (0.165), Detroit (0.1554), New York (0.2175), and San Francisco (0.2294).

If one looks further abroad, a 2011 comparison of electricity rates (all in U.S. dollars per kw/h) world wide indicates that after adjusting for relative purchasing power, Canada has the lowest rates in the entire world. Not adjusting for purchasing power, we have the fourth lowest rates in the world at $0.10, just above India and China at $0.08 each and tied with Mexico and South Africa.

The average price in the U.S. in 2011 was actually $0.12, more than we pay in Toronto. The top five? Denmark: $0.41, Germany: $0.35, Spain: $0.30, Australia: $0.29, and Italy: $0.28. Even Brazil has higher rates at $0.17.

Ontario has a massive electricity grid to maintain relative to its population. Part of this cost is offset by relatively cheap hydro electric power and the artificially low cost we pay for nuclear power, but maintenance on a system this large requires substantial and on-going investment.

Before voting for a party promising to cut prices, ask yourself this question: Who is going to pay for them?

Rob Graham, Toronto

The Common Sense Revolution Redux ( A.K.A. Tiny Tim Roars)

H/t Theo Moudakis

If you have resided in Ontario for some years, and were of a certain age when Ontario's Common Sense Revolution was conducted by Mike 'The Knife' Harris, you will recall it was a time of great upheaval that, contrary to the mythologizing that the right-wing so much enjoys fabricating, left the bulk of Ontarians worse off.

It was a time of job cuts, dissension, the sowing of hatred against various groups that fell into Harris' crosshairs, monumental downloading of provincial responsibilities to municipalities for which property owners are still paying dearly in their tax bills, the selling off of Highway 407 to cover fiscal ineptitude and balance the books, etc. etc. And yet, Harris was wielding a mere hatchet in his reductionist zeal compared to the battle axe that his acolyte, young Tim Hudak, plans to use should he win the election.

With the magical thinking so favoured by the extreme right, Hudak says that to balance the budget he will slash 100,000 public sector jobs out of whose ashes, along with more corporate tax cuts, will emerge one million 'good-paying jobs.' Forget for a moment that both strategies has been amply discredited and look closer at the numbers.

In a piece in today's Star, Kaylie Tiessen and Kayle Hatt analyse what will be involved in these cuts:

Statistics Canada indicates there were 88,483 Ontario public servants in the general government category in 2012, the most recent year of data available.

This includes the core public service, agencies, boards and commissions (such as Metrolinx, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Niagara Falls Bridge authority and several hundred other organizations), provincial police and judicial employees.

Eliminating 100,000 jobs would amount to 15.3 per cent of Ontario’s provincial public servants — 1.5 per cent of the total jobs in Ontario.

And this means the broader public service, including those involved in public education and health care, and would likely range from teachers, educational assistants, community home-care providers, nurses, etc.

The writers also make a point that Hudak conveniently chooses to ignore: the multiplier effect:

The federal ministry of finance estimates the multiplier effect of government spending is approximately 1.5. That means every dollar the government spends generates an additional 50 cents in economic activity through increased consumer spending, business activity and other second order effects.

Using that multiplier, we estimate the impact of cutting 100,000 good jobs out of Ontario’s economy would result in the loss of an additional 50,000 private sector jobs — because those who used to be employed in the public sector would no longer have the money they need to participate in the local economy, go to movies, eat at local restaurants and shop in local stores.

Essentially, the boy who would be premier demands that we bow at the twin altars of austerity and corporate tax reduction. Hudak tells us that it will be good for all of us, although it is truly difficult to discern any beneficiaries in this mad gambit.

The more people who understand these facts, one hopes, the less support Hudak's demented vision will receive on June 12.

Connecting The Dots

H/t Ruth Blair

Following Politics Too Closely Takes Its Toll

I imagine that many people who follow politics closely do so in the belief that it is one of the few arenas that offers the possibility of change on a wide scale. Enlightened public policy, backed by the appropriate fiscal measures, can help bring about greater social and economic equity, thereby contributing to a more balanced and compassionate world. Unfortunately, perhaps inevitably, that hope is almost always dashed. Consequently, many of us fall victim to a deep cynicism about human nature.

In the current Ontario election campaign, there is much about which to be cynical. Three parties, all deeply flawed, all vying for our vote. There is the prospect of voting for a government long past its best-before date, the Liberals, whose leader, Kathleen Wynne, has thus far been unable to lay to rest the ghost of Dalton McGuinty. Next, Tim Hudak, leading the Progressive Conservatives, seeks to resurrect the ghost of Mike Harris, accompanied by an egregious contempt for the electorate's intelligence, reflected in his facile use of a fictitious number, one million, for the number of jobs he will create by cutting 100,000 of them.

At one time, solace might have been found in the New Democratic Party. Sadly that time is no more.

Its leader, Andrea Horwath, now inhabits an unenviable category. Having abandoned traditional progressive principles, like a pinball caroming off various bumpers, she emerges as one wholly undone by a lust for power.

Having forced this election by rejecting a very progressive budget on the pretext that the Liberals cannot be trusted, she is floundering badly as she tries desperately to reinvent herself and her party as conscientious custodians of the public purse, promising, for example, to create a new Savings Ministry, cut $600 million per annum by eliminating waste, and lower small business taxes.

Few are fooled by her chameleon-like performance. Carol Goar's piece in today's Star, says it all: Ontario NDP sheds role as champion of the poor: Andrea Horwath campaigns for lean government, forsaking the poor, hungry and homeless.

Horwath, says Goar, is so preoccupied with winning middle-class votes, assuring the business community she would be a responsible economic manager and saving tax dollars that she has scarcely said a word about poverty, homelessness, hunger, low wages or stingy social programs.

She continues her indictment:

She triggered the election by rejecting the most progressive provincial budget in decades, one that would have raised the minimum wage, increased the Ontario Child Benefit, improved welfare rates, and provided more support to people with disabilities. She parted ways with the Ontario Federation of Labour and Unifor, the province’s largest private-sector union. And she left MPPs such Cheri DiNovo, a longtime advocate of the vulnerable and marginalized, without a social justice platform to stand on.

No vision. Not a scintilla of progressive policy. Only the perspective of an uninspired and uninspiring bookkeeper.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here, is what Dante said was inscribed on the entrance to hell. These days, it could equally apply to those who have thrown in their lot with the Ontario NDP.

The Ontario NDP: The Party of No Damn Principles?

That is the conclusion Rick Salutin recently came to in a column entitled Andrea Horwath's right-wing populism.

Describing her as a right-wing populist, full out, Salutin explored the framework within which this unpleasant and inconvenient truth emerges:

She’s Rob Ford, thinking always about saving taxpayers money simplistically by cutting waste and public salaries, in order to hand out $100 Hydro rebates: that’s gravy train talk, province-wide.

She’s Mitt Romney appealing to his base when she invokes concern for “the job creators and small business,” i.e. the makers not the takers.

She’s Margaret Thatcher when she opposes any meaningful revenue increase for public projects like Kathleen Wynne’s pension plan and transit expansion.

And she’s Mike Harris when she advocates “a government that makes sense” and emblazons “Makes Sense” on her campaign bus. That’s no coincidence, it’s an evocation of Mike Harris’s “Common Sense” motto. These things don’t just happen, they’re focus grouped to within a breath of survival.

With each passing day, Salutin's acerbic analysis rings increasingly true.

On Wednesday, continuing her slow tease out of 'policy,' Ms. Horwath promised to encumber the cabinet with a new ministry for 'cutting waste' at Queen's Park:

The Minister of Savings and Accountability would be charged with finding a half a per cent of savings – about $600-million – in the annual budget each year.

With little more than her usual rapid blinking that accompanies each departure from traditional NDP principles, the leader averred “There are a lot of people around the cabinet table whose business it is, whose job it is to spend the money,” but “What I want is someone there who’s going to be able to save the pennies.”

While those pennies saved be put toward progressive programs? Apparently not. Aware of the difficulty in finding $600 million in savings each year, Horwath said it could mean “hard decisions” about social programs.

So there you have it. Trimming the 'fat.' Saving the taxpayer money. Funding business to hire people. Apparently those are the new 'principles' of the Ontario NDP under Ms Horwath's 'leadership.'

Or perhaps Liberal party spokeswoman Rebecca MacKenzie put it even more tartly and accurately when she said, “It's impossible to know what Andrea Horwath stands for any more. She has gone from calling herself a socialist to mimicking Rob Ford and Tim Hudak.”

Why I'm Glad I Wasn't A Math Teacher

While those heard-headed pragmatists who rule the world today often disdain 'soft' subjects like English literature, sociology, and a host of other disciplines that require nuanced, as opposed to blunt thinking, I am glad that I was an English teacher instead of one dispensing the wonders of mathematics.

Even though he might have been what we used to euphemistically call 'a difficult-to-serve client,' young Tim Hudak these days must be causing his old math teachers (and probably their entire brethren of colleagues) some embarrassment and grief, for one simple reason: they just did not meet his needs, clearly reflected in the fact that his figures just don't add up.

During this Ontario election campaign, the would-be but failed wunderkind is traipsing throughout the province promising a remarkable 'million jobs' if only less enlightened souls entrust him with the task on June 12. But whatever arcane formula he is using to rescue us from our weaker moments of compassion for our fellow citizens and the necessary accompanying progressive legislation seems, to put it politely, flawed.

First, to his figures as reported in The Toronto Star:

Based on the previous decade’s average, 523,200 jobs would develop over eight years if he did nothing.

Lowering corporate taxes from 11.5 per cent to 8 per cent would generate an additional 119,808 jobs.

Ending wind and solar energy subsidies would spark another 40,364 jobs and cutting the regulatory burden of red tape would mean an extra 84,800 new private-sector positions.

Revamping Ontario’s restrictive apprenticeship programs would mean 170,240 jobs.

Hudak believes another 96,000 jobs would come from public transit expansion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.

In his second mandate — after the 2018 election — he would reduce personal income taxes to generate 47,080 jobs.

Have these numbers been vetted and approved by economists? Well, kinda, sorta, not really.

Apparently, as reported in The Ottawa Citizen, the Tories sought the imprimatur of one Benjamin Zycher, a Californian who’s associated with the Pacific Research Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, intellectual cousins of Canada’s Fraser Institute.

The only problem is that Zycher never looked at the Hudak plan:

His work was done months before the current election campaign and it’s not based on the specifics of what Hudak says he would do as premier. It’s a more philosophical take on eliminating regulations, giving up on green energy, cutting corporate taxes, and reducing trade barriers with other provinces.

Is this kind of faith-based, aspirational plan something that the voters of Ontario want to embrace?

As reported in today's Star, it would seem that young Tim has underestimated the discernment of the Ontario electorate:

Nearly two-thirds of Ontarians disapprove of Tim Hudak’s plan to cut 100,000 public servants to streamline government, a new poll suggests.

The Forum Research survey also found‎ 63 per cent do not think the Progressive Conservative leader will be able to create his promised 1 million new jobs, while 26 per cent feel he can deliver and 11 per cent don’t know.

Similarly, 26 per cent approve of cutting 100,000 public-sector workers — such as teachers and bureaucrats — while 62 per cent do not and‎ 11 per cent aren’t sure.

Parenthetically, one can't help but wonder if disapproval would be even higher if people knew that Tim's plan doesn't involve just the dismissal of faceless bureaucrats but also includes nursing home caregivers, educational assistants, front-line educators, homecare workers, etc., while upping corporate welfare through a 30% reduction in the corporate tax rate.

Rarely are voters offered such a dramatic and opposing vision. The embrace and elevation of the self to the exclusion of concern for the collective. I guess at least for that, we should thank Tim Hudak.

For more about young Tim, check out this comment by one of my blog readers.

Meanwhile, Back In The Land of Ontario Election Campaigns....

The mask of boyish innocence was slowly slipping away from young Tim Hudak.



H/t Toronto Star



H/t Ray Mirshahi

What Stephen Harper, Tim Hudak And The Rest of The Neocons Really Think