Since coming into power, Harper has pursued the “starve the beast” tactic [...]]]> The recently published federal budget reveals the true colors of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives: a buy-now, pay later, inflexible federal government that cannot respond to changing needs of Canadians. This is a follow through of his strategy to turn Canada into a conservative nation.

Since coming into power, Harper has pursued the “starve the beast” tactic of lowering overall federal tax-base by cutting consumptive taxes and income taxes. This eliminates fiscal flexibility and increase strains on federal treasury. It is no wonder when the global recession hit, our federal budget went into a tailspin.

The 2012 budget is the concrete follow through of Harper’s vision. Less government, less taxes, and less of Canada. Harper is effectively asking the next generation to shoulder responsibility of future tax increases, lower retirement benefits, higher healthcare expenditures, and lower environment protection.

If this was a pragmatic budget, OAS would have been phased in right away. Instead, we have to wait ten more years for this to phase in. That ensures a certain large aging voting bloc would be satisfied.

If this was a pragmatic budget, consumption taxes would have been restored to ensure fiscal balance while maintaining income tax cuts.

If this was a pragmatic budget, environmental protection agencies and protocols would not be cut, because afterall, resource development comes at a cost to Canadians and government. This does not protect the people living in proximity of mines and forestry industries.

Make no mistake – this is an ideologically driven budget, not one based on actual needs of Canadians. Canadians can expect less service, higher environmental costs, lower benefits within one generation.

The progressive movement has not fielded a strong candidate to challenge. So, as a nation, we have voted for Harper and pay the price.

The younger generation will anyway.

Here is an initial sketch of websites that I often [...]]]> As a politically engaged Canadian community, I thought it would be a good idea to open up a discussion here on Open Progress about which sites should be included in our Blog Roll (for those new to blogging read this on Blog Rolls).

Here is an initial sketch of websites that I often visit and rely on for news and information about Canadian politics. What progressive sites or blogs do you like?

Advocacy Groups:

• Leadnow
• Operation Maple
• Shit Harper Did
• Council of Canadians
• Avaaz,0rg

Activist Tools:

• The Petition Site

Blogs:

• Progressive Bloggers
• Impolitical

Think Tanks:

• Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives

News Media:

• Nationalnewswatch
• Globe & Mail
• Macleans
• CBC Politics
• Rabble.ca
• Real News Network
• The Tyee

Have I missed any other great Canadian blogs or progressive websites?

“Thomas Mulcair is an opportunist whose high-tax agenda, blind ambition and divisive personality would put Canadian families and their jobs at risk,” said a statement by Conservative spokesperson [...]]]> Before Thomas Mulcair was able to give his NDP leadership acceptance speech, the HarperCons launched an  Alerte-Info-Alert email missive to reporters, who dutifully reported it:

“Thomas Mulcair is an opportunist whose high-tax agenda, blind ambition and divisive personality would put Canadian families and their jobs at risk,” said a statement by Conservative spokesperson Fred DeLorey.

“Mulcair has said he would bring back a risky, job-killing carbon tax which would raise the price of everything — even though Canadians overwhelmingly rejected carbon taxes,” warned DeLorey.

No surprise that the HarperCons would launch an attack on Mulcair but I didn’t expect them to send it “literally the minute” he won and before he even starting speaking. I wonder how long it will take for them to launch their attack ads, like they successfully did with previous Liberal leaders Dion and Ignatieff.

Earlier this week, the Conservatives attacked “interim” Liberal leader Bob Rae for his record as the NDP premier of Ontario during the recession in the early 90s.

I have no doubt this latest attack will be successful. As far as we can measure something like that, we will soon see Bob Rae’s poll numbers decrease. And if the HarperCons are successful with their nascent attack on Mulcair, Canadians who have no clue who he is will sour with him just like they did Dion and Ignatieff.

It is no wonder that, as Mulcair noted in his inaugural press conference as leader this morning, 40% of Canadians didn’t bother to vote in the last election and even worse 65% of young people age 18-25 didn’t bother to vote.

We must come together and figure out a way to fight back against this negative campaigning and politics of fear that the HarperCons have been able to deploy so effectively, just like their Republicans cousins south of the boarder under the tutelage of Karl Rove.

For this first non-introductory post, I just want to take a second to go over [...]]]> An important part of what I want to explore on this stream is the difference between the three concepts. I don’t think it’s going to be nearly as easy as it seems, and I look forward to all y’all’s comments.

For this first non-introductory post, I just want to take a second to go over what I, initially feel should be the differences, and then we’ll move on to exploring in more depth.

First, liberalism means maximizing the freedom of individuals. This can take on different focuses, and different voices. It’s always been that it includes a belief in a free market, but I think the case could be made that such support only lasts as long as that’s the best way to maximize freedom. Right now, it is – we allow people the freedom to trade freely with each other. But could it turn out that such isn’t the best way to really maximize their freedom? I think, theoretically, yes.

Which of course leads to socialism. Now we’re talking about cooperatively managing the economy. Democratic socialism? A belief that our current democratic system should be pushed towards the social direction. There are also associated values, and I think there’s at least a relationship with liberalism – socialists believe this shift away from free market capitalism will finally mean freedom for all.

Finally, progressive has become the bigger, mushier term. I think a big root for this is the American use, in which Democrats panicked about being “tarred” with the term “liberal” and tried to go in another direction. I think it’s now just a broad term meaning “more left than others”. I’m not sure how it helps us when we talk about socialists, but I think it helps with a distinction amongst liberals. Progressive liberals would be liberals who identify a need to deal with structural challenges in society to actually make people more free, whereas liberal liberals might be unsure.

I’ll dig into this more, but what do you think?