Category Archives: Provincial

Addiction, Federal, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

It is a BUSINESS.

Leave a comment

It is not about gangs and crime – it is about business.

Abbotsford Chief Constable Bob Rich’s statement at the recent gang forum in Abbotsford that one average-sized grow operation in the Fraser Valley can net a gang between $500,000 and $1 million a year underscores that above all else the illegal drug trade is not about gangs and crime but about BUSINESS.

Indeed the illegal drug trade is currently the big, highly profitable, international business whose operations and operating principles reflect pure unfettered capitalism. Indeed the illegal drug trade is more purely capitalistic than the legal drug trade.

Choosing to ignore the reality that the illegal drug trade is a business as the legal drug trade is, simply results in flawed public policy on the issues involved.

Consider that even though the cigarette business results in the death of one third of its users it continues to be profitable because, despite the negative health hazards (including death) people ignore the negative consequences and create a demand for cigarettes which the cigarette industry is happy to provide – corporate profit being more important to the business than the cost to people or society.

The alcohol industry also imposes heavy costs on users and society but again people ignore the negative consequences and create a demand which business is happy to provide – corporate profit being more important than the cost to people or society. Do not overlook the irony of the beer industry campaigning against California’s proposition 19 (legalize marijuana) to protect its profitability from a legal marijuana industry.

The financial services industry sold worthless paper to the public (and each other) all in the name of corporate profit, extravagant salaries and bonuses while ignoring the cost (in the end ¾ of a trillion dollar cost) to society and the disastrous cost that many individuals paid (bankruptcy and losing their homes).

Asbestos use is banned in 52 countries, including Canada. Yet the Canadian asbestos industry exports 200,000 tonnes of asbestos a year to developing countries and crusades to keep the substance off the international list of hazardous materials. These exports are killing people, giving them asbestosis, but what does that matter – it is profitable.

North America is dotted with toxic wastes sites; Abbotsford was stuck cleaning up a toxic waste site when the operators walked away after sucking all the profit out of the operation they could; illegal dumping of toxic waste continues to plaque the environment and governments – all in the pursuit of profit.

It is irrational to expect the illegal drug business to operate on principles, or lack of principles, any different than legal businesses – maximize profit at any cost.

It follows therefore, that to end the illegal drug trade requires taking the profit out of the business.

The cost of doing business must rise to a point it makes the business unprofitable or the cost of being in the business must rise to the point that no one wants to be employed in the business or the demand for the product must be reduced to the point that the costs of doing business are no longer covered.

Reality in the illegal drug business is the fixed nature of the demand (rising prices do not proportionally decrease demand) for the product (drugs). This results in an extremely elastic price; resulting in the price of the product rising to offset any increased costs of doing business and maintaining the high profit margins of the business.

More resources for the police, more success for the police simply drives the price of the product higher to cover the increase in costs, with the higher product prices resulting in increasing crime to cover the increased cost of drugs – a classic catch-22 situation.

The elastic nature of the price means that the cost of doing business cannot rise to the point of rendering the business of illegal drugs unprofitable.

The high profit margins, the decreased economic fairness/opportunity and the fact we have created a consumption society where individual’s worth is based not on the person but on the person’s possessions makes available an unlimited labour pool whose members are focused on attaining money/possessions at any cost. A labour pool to whom incarceration and other possible negative outcomes are simply part of the cost of doing business.

That as a society we have made human life the cheapest commodity on the planet and possessions the measure of a persons worth means that you can run all the ‘gang members are losers’ advertising campaigns one chooses – with the labour pool desperate for making big $$$$$ that our society has created, the illegal drug business will have no difficulty finding replacement and/or new employees.

The reality that you cannot render the illegal drug business unprofitable (or less than highly profitable) and that you cannot deny the business a ready supply of employees means that, in order to have any significant, long term effect on the illegal drug business you need to decrease demand to the point that the costs of doing business are no longer covered and/or the wages available are not sufficient to offset the costs of employment in the business.

Pouring ever more resources into police services, the courts and locking more and more people up for longer and longer periods will accomplish nothing except to steadily increase taxes (or fees, premiums, etc) and/or add substantially to the debt and/or force reductions in funding for other areas (healthcare, education).

An ironic twist is that cutting the social programs that governments consider soft or easy to cut will increase the demand for products supplied by the illegal drug business, resulting in increased costs far higher than any costs ‘saved’ through program cuts.

As Alcoholics Anonymous, an organization with a great deal of experience with addiction, says “Doing the same thing, the same way, over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity”.

Rather than learn and change what we are doing, governments, and far too many citizens, advocate spending more to do more of what isn’t working. Is that not insanity2?

This pointlessly insane and substantial resource wasting behaviour results from overlooking or ignoring the fact that whatever labels you choose to apply to the illegal drug trade, the trade is at its core a business.

In order to achieve positive desirable outcomes when dealing with this business, it is a MUST that policies reflect that it is a business.

It does not matter what we as a society believe or what we as a society want to be the case – an analysis of the illegal business reveals that the only effective approach that will make permanent, long term inroads in the illegal drug business is to focus our resources on reducing demand, getting customers of the business into recovery.

Analysis of illegal drugs as the business it is reveals that it is pointless insanity to continue to increase the resources we waste on current policies.

Reducing demand is the only approach that will reduce the illegal drug business by reducing demand.

[‘Only approach’ short of fundamentally changing the nature of the business through legalization; an approach that, no matter how rational, is unlikely to occur until current policies inflict so much financial cost, financial pain (and that point will come), that no other option is left but legalization.]

Unfortunately demand reduction, requiring patience, commitment and time, is not the fast, easy, miracle solution governments and citizens want.

Meaning both the problem and waste of resources will continue to grow, until financial pain forces policy change.

Addiction, Federal, Municipal, Provincial

“And how will you be paying for that?”

Leave a comment

The interesting thing about reading and watching the reporting on the Abbotsford town hall meeting was not what speakers such as Abbotsford’s Chief Constable Bob Rich or Ed Schellenberg’s brother-in-law Steve Brown had to say, nor the comments and statements from the public – it has been said before in other forums on crime and will be repeated again and again at future public forums on crime, often by the same people.

When boiled down the refrain from speaker after speaker was – more, more, more, more, more, more ……

The 800 pound gorilla that only one group raised and that everyone else ignored and/or failed to address, the 800 pound gorilla that renders all comments, statements and calls for action moot without it being addressed, is $$$$$$$. How are we going to pay for the more, more, more, more, more, more ……?

During Abbotsford’s budget process for the coming fiscal year a fiscal reality facing the City of Abbotsford is that leaving the funding for the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) at the same level as last year would necessitate cuts to the APD.

In order to just maintain the APD at the same level of operations as this year’s level will require an increase in the APD budget. Increasing the activities of the APD would require an even larger increase to the APD’s budget.

Increases to the APD budget are not measured in just the increased in property taxes; it is important to consider the costs to other city services that are forgone or cut to fund the APD budget appetite for yearly funding increases.

The Abbotsford Fire Department is undermanned for a city the size of Abbotsford. Yet the hiring of new firefighters is on indefinite hold because of the voracious appetite the APD (and the other lower mainland police departments) have for increases in funding.

Recall that in Vancouver, and other metro Vancouver cities, cuts were made to the staff and equipment of fire departments in order to have money to meet increase police funding needs.

At what point will the need to decrease the investment in fire departments to fund increases to police departments result in significant increases in fire losses and the cost of fire insurance?

It is not just the fire departments; cuts will need to be made across the board on city services to avoid large property tax increases – all to meet the increasingly voracious appetite of police services.

Cuts that will be required year after year as police costs devour an ever increasing percentage of city budgets.

And police costs are the cheap part.

Faster court processes, more trials, less plea bargains and more incarceration – these all require significant increases in resources both provincially and federally – resources that come at substantial cost.

The federal conservatives speak of spending $9 BILLION to build new prisons. And building the prisons is the cheap part. Operating the prisons is the costly part of increasing the prison space in the country, requiring as it will year after year after year of increasing expenditures.

Interestingly, at a time the federal Conservatives are speaking of the need to incarcerate ever increasing numbers of people, the conservative government has made cuts to the current years Corrections Canada’s budget. If the government finds it necessary to reduce the costs associated with the current levels of incarceration – just how do they propose to fund the ever increasing costs associated with increasing levels of incarceration?

The sizable funding increases needed to pay for substantial increases in incarceration levels have to be paid for somehow.

How will you choose to pay for increasing levels of incarceration – large tax increases to provide the $billions needed to fund this course of action OR do we fund the $billions needed through major cuts to healthcare and other programs?

Realistically healthcare and to a lesser degree education, are the only budget areas with sufficient funds to begin to offset the costs of a policy of incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate. Indeed, given that healthcare costs are consuming an ever increasing percentage of provincial budgets (threatening, at least mathematically, to require 100% of provincial budgets) and that a policy of ever increasing levels of incarceration will consume ever increasing levels of future provincial and federal budgets (unless taxpayers are willing to pay annual tax increases to cover the costs of incarceration) then at some point a decision, a choice, will be required between funding healthcare or funding the incarceration of increasing numbers of people.

“Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.” George Santayana

The only thing that kept the state of California from bankruptcy was the fact it was a government. The main driver of California’s budgetary debacle was its policy of incarceration, incarceration, incarceration and the prohibitive costs associated with that policy. Addressing California’s budget crisis is why governor Schwarzenegger proposed legalizing marijuana.

The state of New York recognized and publically acknowledged it too was on a path where, without massive tax increases, all the state’s budget would soon be spent on the policy of incarcerate, incarcerate, and incarcerate. New York State chose to back away from incarceration in order to avoid a financial/budgetary disaster.

Smaller states had already found that they could not afford to pursue a policy of incarceration, incarceration, incarceration and abandoned policies that require ever increasing levels of incarceration.

It would be … to be blunt … STUPID to waste resources, in particular the resource of time, to follow a policy that simple mathematics and results of following the policy in other political jurisdictions demonstrate to be economically unfeasible to the point of budgetary meltdown.

Abbotsford, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada cannot afford the massive waste of resources that being unwilling to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions who pursued policies of incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate – simply because they do not want to hear evidence that makes clear that giving into the desire for vengeance by incarcerating more and more people for longer and longer periods of time is financial and budgetary suicide.

We simply cannot afford to act like children, refusing to acknowledge what the cost of pursuing a policy of incarceration will be because we do not want to hear anything that would interfere with doing what we want to do – lock ever increasing numbers of people up.

Unless of course increased taxes, decreased healthcare and other services while dealing with continued increases in mental health, addiction and the crime associated with these health/social issues is what citizens and politicians are seeking to achieve?

The truth, unpalatable as it may be to many, is that as a society we lack the resources to continue to pursue policies that are ineffective simply because they are based on what people believe to be, or want to be, true.

Truthfully, we can no longer afford to pursue policies that are ineffectual period; our decreasing resources dictate pursuing policies based on effectiveness not on palatability or “but I want to”.

Federal, Issues, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Action speaks louder than words

Leave a comment

For years I have watched as businesses, organizations and other assemblages in Abbotsford, some of which one would have expected more character or compassionate behaviour from, have erected fences and gates on doorways, stairways, walkways, overhangs or other locations were the homeless had sought shelter from the relentless rain of our rainforest/rain-coast weather.

I have listened as governments, politicians, businessmen, unions, churches and people have all spoken about the need to do something about homelessness and poverty – or more accurately the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; pointing fingers and declaring it was not their responsibility.

Listened as people and assemblages evoked ‘undeserving’ and other such rationalizations as excuses for turning away from the need for action; ignoring the truth that action or inaction is not about the people in need but about us – our character, the essences of our souls/spirituality, the very nature of the society we have chosen to build.

Watched Abbotsford politicians scramble to say the right words, utter the proper catch phrases and language, while failing to provide leadership on housing – all the while managing NOT to have any affordable rental housing built or even break ground while the communities around Abbotsford have been building affordable rental housing.

Heard ad nauseum from Abbotsford’s politicians that they have no money to invest in housing that poor and homeless citizens can afford to rent; yet these same politicians have $millions$ to spend to buy a professional hockey team for a local hotelier and other wealthy (and housed) citizens.

Watched the gnashing and gnarring of teeth as people, politicians et al wring their hands and denounce society as defective, deficient. As thought the ills of society have no connection to or do not result from the choices made, actions taken (and untaken) of people. Our society did not, does not, spring from a void or the choices and actions of some mysterious group of ‘others’.

Society is the consequence of the additive effect of the choices and actions we all make and or take. Leaving one pondering whether people will ever understand that our society will not improve until we as individuals begin to ‘Let it begin with me’.

Pondering whether poverty and homelessness and other social ills will continue to grow and worsen as people, politicians, businesses, organizations, other assemblages seek to blame others and avoid taking personal responsibility for their choices and actions and the consequences of those and actions – and inactions.

Still, today …

B is one of the homeless living on the streets of Abbotsford. He had been taking shelter under the overhang at a warehouse that had remained empty since it was completed, but which had recently been leased.

As part of managing the move into this new location P had become aware that B was living sheltered by the building and had spoken with B about his situation, the realities of B’s life.

There were no demands that B leave the shelter provided him by the building; no fences or gates to deny B access to the shelter provided by the building; no calls to city hall demanding the city, the police, remove B.

Instead P provided a home for B. Looking at it most people would see a garden shed; unless they looked through B’s eyes or the eyes of those who are or have been homeless. There is drainage, a solid floor, a roof and walls proof against wind, rain and snow that will keep bedding, clothing, other belongings as well as a body dry.

There was no declaration that it was not his responsibility; no screaming about the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; no pointing of fingers to assign blame; no wringing of hands about the need for a ‘solution’. P simply took action and provided shelter for B.

Homelessness, addiction, mental illness are people problems and as such they are complex and troublesome issues without fast, easy solutions; looking for a miracle, arguing about who is responsible – someone else – and waiting for someone else to do something allow these problems to grow.

There are numerous best practices that we know work to address various aspects of these social issues; we know that we can, over time, reduce the numbers of homeless, addicts and mentally ill on our streets.

If we commit to addressing these issues, commit to doing what it takes for however long it takes, we can deal with these issues.

The key is, as P did, not to dither but to act.

Caveat emptor, Provincial

Reality begins to set in.

Leave a comment

I was watching the 11 PM CTV news on Saturday September 18 and got a certain satisfaction as well as a chuckle from their report on the anti-HST campaign where the CTV Vancouver news department, for the first time by any mainstream media, began to ask people about the $1.6 Billion that the federal government paid to the BC government to enact the HST and that would return to federal government coffers if the HST were to be repealed.

The people they interviewed on camera both felt that it was better to keep the HST than to return the $1.6 Billion to the federal government. The report also cited emails from people who had signed the anti-HST petition asking how they could get their name off the petition now that they were aware of the $1.6 Billion consequence of repealing the HST.

Of course the organizers of the anti-HST, are trying to obscure the reality of the $1.6 Billion dollar cost by speaking of negotiating with the federal government even though there is nothing to negotiate as the purpose of the payments to BC were specifically for the purpose of inducing the BC government to implement the HST.

The first payment was tied to the introduction of the HST legislation, the second was tied to the day the HST came into effect and the final $475 million is payable on the first anniversary of the HST becoming law.

Clearly the federal government made the $1.6 Billion payments to the BC government for the enactment of the HST and is entitled to a refund if BC violates the agreement by repealing the HST; the same contract law that applies to individuals and corporations applies to governments as well.

There is no need for the federal government to negotiate if the HST is repealed in BC. If BC reneges on its HST agreement with the federal government they can reclaim, would be entitled to reclaim, any monies due them by the simple expedient of reducing transfer payments to BC by the amount they are owed.

Since the federal government makes transfer payments for healthcare and education exceeding the $1.6 Billion level they don’t need to ask the BC government for repayment, they can simply deduct any monies due the federal government for repeal of the HST from the transfer payments.

That is the reality of the consequences of repealing the HST and no matter how Mr. Vander Zalm, Carole James, the NDP and the anti-HST campaign wiggle or obfuscate this will remain the reality.

Which one hopes will leave Carole James and the NDP to explain how it is that they propose to increase spending on education and healthcare at the same time they are advocating, championing, cutting the $ 1.6 Billion in federal HST funds out of the BC budget.

And Mr. Vander Zalm et al to explain why it was they failed to address this major consequence of repealing the HST as part of their anti-HST campaign.

Caveat emptor, Media, Provincial

Hypocrisy, duplicity and the HST – Top 5 countdown.

Leave a comment

Caveat: It is now early in the AM of Tuesday September 7 and this countdown is as of this specific point in time. I have added this caveat because, as noted, the principals are seemingly striving on a daily basis to be # 1. As a result the order of the countdown has changed several times. In order to facilitate finishing and publishing the countdown the order will be frozen as it is at this point in time.

Watching the evening news Thursday September 3, 2010 it seemed to me the question is not so much about whether the public is faced with deceit on the matter of the HST, but which of the five principals involved is guilty of the biggest deceit.

So here is my take on where the 5 principals involved in the HST brouhaha fall on a list from the least deceitful to the most deceitful.

Number 5 is the Liberal government.

When I started writing this the Liberals had been #4 mainly as a result of the level of distrust they have earned during their time as the government. As I was writing this piece the behavior of one of those in the top 5 shot them out of 5th place and up the list, leaving the Liberals to fall into the number 5 slot.

The fact that Liberal government only earned the #5 position reflects not the innocence of the Liberals but how considerable the offensives against TRUTH committed by the other parties involved in the HST brouhaha were, are and continue to be.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a fan of Colin Hansen. His decisions and policies as Health Minister and now as Finance Minister have led to the rationing of mental health services even as the demands on these services grow. This rationing has lead to deaths, including those of innocent bystanders, and has inflicted undue pain and suffering on those denied mental health services as a result of this rationing.

That being said, calls for Colin Hansen’s resignation by Mr. Vander Zalm and the NDP, based on the sin of omitting to talk about the possibility of the HST, is spurious and laughable in light of the behaviours of Mr. Vander Zalm and the NDP in omitting to disclose or discuss the $1.6 billion dollars of federal money cost of repealing the HST.

If the bureaucrats in Victoria had not been talking to the bureaucrats in Ottawa about PST, GST and a HST they would not have been doing their jobs; especially in light of the Ottawa/Ontario HST discussions.

The question of when Mr. Hansen (or even Mr. Campbell) was aware of these communications or the content of the communications is not important either.

The only question of import is when did the Liberal government made the decision to accept Ottawa’s $1.6 Billion dollar bribe and implement the HST?

I rather suspect that the answer to that will ever be known past the level of reasonable doubt.

In judging the level of offense of the Liberals there are two additional questions that need to be taken into consideration. 1. Whether the HST is, in the long run, a decision in the best interest of the province of BC. 2. Given that Ontario opted to adopt the HST and that the federal government had offered the same $1.6 billion bribe to BC it had given to Ontario, was there any reasonable choice for the government of BC other than excepting the $1.6 billion and adopting the HST?

Given the budgeting needs of BC would it not have been irresponsible to turn down the $1.6 billion; especially as most of those funds came out of the pockets of other Canadians and not the pockets of BC taxpayers.

Number 4 are the citizens of BC.

Who were #2 on the list until the actions of other principals over recent days moved them past the citizens of BC who have benefited vis-à-vis their ranking not for their innocence but for their consistency in not adding to the behaviours that have placed them on this list

In regard to those behaviours: the level of lying to themselves, at least one hopes it is lying to themselves, demonstrated by the citizens of BC on the HST and the finances of the province of BC is alarming; especially at a time when tough economic and policy choices need to be made.

This outrage at politicians lying is farcical in light of the fact that voters have been rewarding politicians who lie to them by electing those who told them what they most wanted to hear, no matter how unrealistic the promises where, and punishing anyone who told a truth voters or citizens did not want to hear.

It is unreasonable to reward politicians, news media and others for lying then get upset when they lie.

Citizens are guilty of major offenses against logic; wanting more and more services but not to pay for them. For example: parents demand government keep underutilized schools open, but have you ever heard those parents state they were willing to pay the extra costs of keeping those schools open? When the costs of keeping underutilized schools open to appease parents results in other budget cuts parents do not call for closing underutilized schools so those budget items do not need to be cut; they demand the government spend more money – without raising taxes – as if the government has Rumpelstiltskin spinning straw into gold in the basement of the legislature in Victoria.

An astounding number of people who signed the anti-HST petition are not aware that a major factor in the BC government’s decision to implement the HST was the $1.6 billion bribe from Ottawa and that the $1.6 billion would come out of next year’s budget and back to Ottawa if the HST were repealed. Being against the HST and signing the anti-HST petition without being in possession of the facts is not only foolhardy but irresponsible.

It is even more irresponsible to be aware of the $1.6 billion (as are Mr. Vander Zalm and the NDP) and ignoring or burying one’s head in sand so as to avoid thinking about the $1.6 billion cost and the effect of having to repay that money will have on services, other taxes and the budget.

Choosing to believe that the media will report in a fair and balanced matter all pertinent facts on an issue so as to avoid the effort required to learn the facts themselves is further self deceit. News broadcasting is about ratings, not about informing the public; hence the ‘if it bleeds it leads’ credo of news broadcasting.

Perhaps the biggest, most self-deceptive lie people tell themselves is that they are not consuming their children’s future. Every lie citizens tell themselves to avoid dealing with issues or avoid paying for programs and services they want comes at the expense of the future, the much reduced and impoverished future our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on will inherit.

Number 3 is Mr. Vander Zalm.

Mr. Vander Zalm started the article in 5th place but advanced to number 3 through his actions on Friday September 3, 2010.

Mr Vander Zalm had earned the number 5 spot as he is guilty of lying by omission for his failure to address the consequences of revoking the HST. Unless Mr. Vander Zalm is so out of touch with the economic reality of the province and the lives of most British Columbians he cannot fail to be aware that, while the loss of the extra $300 million the HST would have raised for provincial coffers this year and next would inflict painful cuts on next year’s budget, it is the reduction of next year’s budget by the $1.6 billion of lost federal funds that were (or would have been) paid into provincial coffers for implementing the HST that will inflict severe reductions in services on the citizens of BC.

Paying for the loss of the $1.6 billion will fall mainly on health care and education as a result of their being the only budget areas that have $1.6 billion to cut. You cannot cut the $1.6 billion out of the next largest budget item, safety, because even if you cut the entire budget in this area – closing the courts, the jails, prisons, sheriffs, et al – there would remain the need to cut a further $0.5 billion out of the remain provincial budget.

The irony here is that Mr. Vander Zalm is guilty of the same offense he claims to be incensed about by the Liberal government – failing to disclose the inconvenient economic truths or facts that would reduce the popularity of Mr. Vander Zalm and his anti-HST campaign.

At least one hopes the high cost, $1.6 billion, of repealing the HST would cause citizens to reconsider the matter rationally.

Mr. Vander Zalm earned his move up the countdown as a result of his announcement that he would be targeting Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hansen for recall campaigns.

Recall legislation is intended to allow constituents of a riding to recall an MLA whose behavior they found unacceptable. Ignoring the question of possible negative consequences to our democracy and our electoral system this abuse of the recall legislation will inflict on government and governance, the fact remains that the legislation was intended for use by the constituents of a riding and not for the use of those outside the riding.

Mr. Vander Zalm’s malevolent abuse of the recall legislation to attack Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hansen demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that for Mr. Vander Zalm the anti-HST is not about principles or the good of the citizens of BC but about politics and settling old political scores.

This behavior raises the question of whether Mr. Vander Zalm is seeking political redemption. With the Liberals mortally wounded by the HST and the NDP mired in financial irresponsible nonsense could Mr. Vander Zalm be hoping to a Social Credit resurgence?

After all Mr. Vander Zalm is safe as long as the HST is not repealed and the cost and consequences of the loss of the $1.6 billion in federal funds is not revealed or does not come to pass. Since the Liberals, whatever their faults may be, are (one certainly hopes) to financially responsible to repeal the HST and forfeit the $1.6 billion in federal funds – Mr. Vander Zalm would appear safe of the repeal coming to pass front.

Given the willful blindness and obtuseness by BC citizens that earned citizens a higher spot on the countdown than the Liberals themselves, Mr. Vander Zalm would seem to have reason to hope citizens will not be demanding he explain the cuts to services he would make to compensate for the loss of the $1.6 billion in federal funds.

Number 2 are the NDP.

The NDP earned a higher ranking than the Liberals because, in addition to the offense of lying by omission for their failure to address the consequences of revoking the HST, the NDP have compounded the level of offense against TRUTH by their attacks on the Liberal government on funding for Healthcare and Education.

The NDP continue to call on the Liberals to increase funding for Healthcare and Education at the same time they are demanding the liberals reduce the government’s revenue by $1.9 billion ($1.6 federal money and $0.3 billion extra dollars for healthcare raised by the HST).

Besides moving them past the Liberal government on the top five countdown, this type of financial nonsense is why the BC NDP (as well as the federal NDP) need to build a strong, financial sound and responsible right wing in the party. The Saskatchewan NDP have demonstrated that an NDP government can be both progressive and financially sound and if the NDP elsewhere are to be viable alternatives to govern they need to build a financially sound and responsible wing of the party.

Post Script: Prior to NOW the NDP had been ranked #4, having been supplanted on the countdown by Mr. Vander Zalm’s efforts to achieve a higher ranking. However two occurrences have shot Carole James and her NDP to number two.

First was watching the video of Carole James speaking about how the people of BC wanted more Healthcare and Education. The second, and I admit quite annoying item was receiving an email soliciting donations to the NDP because “The BC Liberals are playing a dangerous game with democracy.”

Urging me to “Please do your part and make a donation today.”

I have a better idea; how about I call the NDP on the dangerous games they are playing with BC’s finances and financial future.

Ms. James and the NDP are, through their anti-HST policy, going to cut $1.6 Billion in federal funds out of the BC budget while they are calling for spending hundreds of millions of dollars (Billions of dollars?) on Education and Healthcare.

Leaving any financially responsible citizen wondering if Ms James and the NDP are trying to turn BC’s debt into junk bonds – or are they simply that far out of touch with fiscal reality ?

Number 1 is the media.

The media is the one group that remained unchanged in their placement on the top 5 countdown. Not surprising in light of their ongoing daily efforts to not ask any questions or convey to the public any information that would threaten to end this ratings winner of a ‘story’ for the media.

It is not just that the media is also guilty of lying by omission on the matter of the $1.6 billion that earns the media top spot as perpetrating the most consequential of HST deceits.

No, the most consequential media deceit is that they continue to foster the untruth that they are about reporting important stories, events and facts when in fact the media is about the bottom line. The priority of the bottom line has a profound effect on what makes it into the media.

Mr. Vander Zalm and outraged citizens railing against the government and HST makes far better theatre and thus ratings than Mr. Vander Zalm or citizens sputtering and trying to answer what services they would cut, or other taxes they would raise, in order to compensate for the loss of the $1.6 billion of federal funds.

Raising that question to Mr. Vander Zalm, the NDP or other leaders of the anti-HST campaign at the beginning may have scuttled the campaign with the result that the media would have lost this juicy bit of easy to cover theatre. When it is about the bottom line, it is about fermenting juicy theatre, not asking questions or raising issues that could potentially bring the drama to an end.

It is why media makes outrageous statements such as “the HST has resulted in the increased cost of most things”.

The GST is on no more items than it was before the HST came in. The PST was on more that 50% + 1(item or service) of the goods and services in the province of BC. Since the HST is the amalgamation of the GST and PST the HST was already collected (just as two separate taxes) on 50% + 1(item or service) the HST was already applied on ‘most (50% + 1) items.

If ‘most items’ have in fact gone up after the HST was brought in then the public is being bilked by those taking advantage of the introduction of the HST to sneak in price increases and blame them on the HST.

But you don’t see the media doing stories on the City of Abbotsford taking advantage to slip price increases at recreation facilities in under cover of the HST. Nor will you see mathematical checks of new prices to see how much is due to HST and how much to surreptitious price increases. Remember the GST portion was already applied to all goods and services so price increases should only occur on items to which the PST did not previously apply but now does – and those increase should be only 7%.

But that wouldn’t make for the theatre that stating “the HST has resulted in the increased cost of most things”. Which is why you get “the HST has resulted in the increased cost of most things” no matter how obviously untrue that statement is.

Theatre, ratings and the bottom line is what media is about – not the popular misconception of informing the public. Which is how and why the media earned the number 1 ranking in hypocrisy and duplicity.