To the editor:
This is in response to Ben Eisen’s “Tories have a majority, what now?” Canadians did elect a majority Conservative government on May 2 in what was a most unexpected election result. But voters did not elect the Harper Conservatives on the policy directions advocated by Ben Eisen.
Mr. Eisen and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy are self-declared economic conservative/libertarian ideologues largely funded by major corporations, foundations and wealthy individuals. That means they advocate a drastically reduced role for government and a greatly expanded freedom for themselves and ‘the market’ to do their thing.
Do Canadians really want to leave the protection of worker’s rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, minority rights, consumer’s rights, the mentally and physically challenged’s rights, aboriginal rights and tenant’s rights to ‘the market?’
Do Canadians really want to leave health and safety in the workplace mainly in management’s hands? Do Canadians really want to leave protection of the environment to ‘the market?’
Do Canadians really want to put our health care system in the hands of insurance companies and private health-for-profit medical facilities?
Mr. Eisen goes on to advocate the removal of the federal government from many areas of public policy under the guise of a clearer democratic accountability. This approach sounds wonderfully simple – remove the federal government from participation in provincial policy areas and shift tax room over to the provinces.
This watertight compartments approach to the constitutional division of powers has never been applied in Canada. Do Canadians really want to abandon national health and social programs in favour of a mixed bag of 10 provincial and three territorial programs?
Are Canadians just a convenient collection of loosely held together jurisdictions or an increasingly national community accessing and benefiting from national programs that encourage greater equality of opportunity and social justice?
Mr. Eisen then attacks equalization programs as a burden on “taxpayers across the country, and forces residents of some provinces to subsidize levels of government services elsewhere beyond what they themselves receive.”
Economic conservatives and libertarians resent any program requiring individuals and provinces to assist others that for one reason or another are disadvantaged and unable to provide a basic level of social, educational or government services.
In their mind this is forced assistance that violates their rights to benefit from their good fortune and for them alone to decide whether and how to help those less fortunate. For them, it is a social Darwinian world, a struggle of the fittest.
Finally, Mr. Eisen advocates further tax reductions. This is the mantra of far right neo-conservatives. While appealing to the desire to pay less taxes, it’s real intent is to cripple governments by limiting government finances to the minimum thereby achieving their goal of “the government that governs best is the government that governs least.”
Conservative tax cuts, while claiming to benefit middle and lower income individuals, actually benefit the wealthy. For example, “Tuesday’s budget [Jan. 27, 2009] shamelessly massaged numbers and tables to give a false impression that the tax cuts favour low-income earners. In true form, Stephen Harper has used the budget as cover to advance the Conservative’s vision of a good tax system – one that is less redistributive, and encourages heavier reliance on private savings to meet citizen’s needs.” (Lisa Philipps, associate professor of law, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto Star, Jan. 30, 2009).
Canadians voted in a majority Conservative government less by choice and more by accident. Nonetheless, Harper’s Conservatives can be expected to proceed with their ‘regressive conservative’ plan to reshape Canada in their neo-conservative/libertarian ‘vision of the good society.’ Heaven help us!
Tom Joseph,
Thunder Bay
This is in response to Ben Eisen’s “Tories have a majority, what now?” Canadians did elect a majority Conservative government on May 2 in what was a most unexpected election result. But voters did not elect the Harper Conservatives on the policy directions advocated by Ben Eisen.
Mr. Eisen and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy are self-declared economic conservative/libertarian ideologues largely funded by major corporations, foundations and wealthy individuals. That means they advocate a drastically reduced role for government and a greatly expanded freedom for themselves and ‘the market’ to do their thing.
Do Canadians really want to leave the protection of worker’s rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, minority rights, consumer’s rights, the mentally and physically challenged’s rights, aboriginal rights and tenant’s rights to ‘the market?’
Do Canadians really want to leave health and safety in the workplace mainly in management’s hands? Do Canadians really want to leave protection of the environment to ‘the market?’
Do Canadians really want to put our health care system in the hands of insurance companies and private health-for-profit medical facilities?
Mr. Eisen goes on to advocate the removal of the federal government from many areas of public policy under the guise of a clearer democratic accountability. This approach sounds wonderfully simple – remove the federal government from participation in provincial policy areas and shift tax room over to the provinces.
This watertight compartments approach to the constitutional division of powers has never been applied in Canada. Do Canadians really want to abandon national health and social programs in favour of a mixed bag of 10 provincial and three territorial programs?
Are Canadians just a convenient collection of loosely held together jurisdictions or an increasingly national community accessing and benefiting from national programs that encourage greater equality of opportunity and social justice?
Mr. Eisen then attacks equalization programs as a burden on “taxpayers across the country, and forces residents of some provinces to subsidize levels of government services elsewhere beyond what they themselves receive.”
Economic conservatives and libertarians resent any program requiring individuals and provinces to assist others that for one reason or another are disadvantaged and unable to provide a basic level of social, educational or government services.
In their mind this is forced assistance that violates their rights to benefit from their good fortune and for them alone to decide whether and how to help those less fortunate. For them, it is a social Darwinian world, a struggle of the fittest.
Finally, Mr. Eisen advocates further tax reductions. This is the mantra of far right neo-conservatives. While appealing to the desire to pay less taxes, it’s real intent is to cripple governments by limiting government finances to the minimum thereby achieving their goal of “the government that governs best is the government that governs least.”
Conservative tax cuts, while claiming to benefit middle and lower income individuals, actually benefit the wealthy. For example, “Tuesday’s budget [Jan. 27, 2009] shamelessly massaged numbers and tables to give a false impression that the tax cuts favour low-income earners. In true form, Stephen Harper has used the budget as cover to advance the Conservative’s vision of a good tax system – one that is less redistributive, and encourages heavier reliance on private savings to meet citizen’s needs.” (Lisa Philipps, associate professor of law, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto Star, Jan. 30, 2009).
Canadians voted in a majority Conservative government less by choice and more by accident. Nonetheless, Harper’s Conservatives can be expected to proceed with their ‘regressive conservative’ plan to reshape Canada in their neo-conservative/libertarian ‘vision of the good society.’ Heaven help us!
Tom Joseph,
Thunder Bay
