NDP math for beginners!

Much has been made over the NDP blasting the PM's handling of the first nations community of Attawapiskat. Some $90,000,000.00 has been spent on this community and that's just the amount since the Conservatives have been in office.

As PM Stephen Harper pointed out, when you divide that $90,000,000.00 by the 1,800 people within the community, you end up with each man, woman and child getting about $50,000.00 each.

Splitting hairs as they always do, the NDP say that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit and when you break it down the total is either $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 or $6,500.00 per person. Well... they couldn't seem to decide on one number. So three figures are better than one.

However, if we take them at their word (like the sheep do) that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit, over 5 years that would be $22,500,000.00 in total.

When you subtract that from the $90,000,000.00 spent you end up with $67,500,000.00 left.

Divide that by 5 years and you have $13,500,000.00 per year.

Divide that by the 1,800 people in the community and you have $7,500.00 per person / per year.

Which basically means that the margin of error on the NDP's figures is somewhere between 15% (at the $6,500.00 amount) and 50% (at the $5,000.00 amount).

Utterly spectacular math skills they've got going there. And they wonder why the clear majority of the country won't let their grubby hands anywhere near the country's finances.

Play With Fire, Get Burned

By now, we are all aware of the leaking of the Auditor General's report on G8/G20 spending. We of course have the blowhards on both sides crying foul.

The lefties are convinced this report is a damning picture of what the Harper government is about and just another scandal proving so. Not that they ever needed proof of this; they've swallowed every faux scandal that has been thrown out since Harper took power, practically all of which proved to be false.

The righties are saying this report is completely worthless. As a draft report, it is not the final findings of the Auditor General and thus cannot be taken at face value. Mind you, even the Auditor General Sheila Fraser herself has cautioned the public against accepting this report and should wait until the real report is presented in Parliament.

Now, this whole brouhaha doesn't change my opinion of who to vote for. The timing and means of this release (along with the AG's warnings) tells me this is at best dirty politics by the Opposition and at worst outrightly criminal. That kind of move just affirms my opinion of Ignatieff as nothing more than an opportunist and Layton as the pompous hypocrite he is. After all, while the Contempt of Parliament finding by the Opposition causing this election is questionable, the releasing of an AG report outside of Parliament is by legislation a reason for a charge of Contempt.

But the truth of the matter is actually much more simple: if you play with fire, you're going to get burned.

Many Canadians -- including a slew of bloggers in the Blogging Tories blogroll -- were unimpressed at the scope of spending for the G8/G20 summit. The largesse was unfathomable and quite simply reckless. If you don't think so, just look at how many Blogging Tories are screaming from their roofs over Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton's spending promises.

As any true fiscal conservative knows, the bigger the government initiative, the greater chance for waste and/or error. And also the bigger the chance for pork-belly spending. Whether or not this erroneously leaked report -- I won't call it the AG's report since it was not released by and is not being endorsed by her -- turns out to be a true representation of her findings, the simple fact is that this is simply a matter of the chickens coming home to roost.

Maybe Harper should use this as a lesson and take a long look in the mirror asking himself what he really believes in regarding government spending.

But I -- and I'm sure many people who warned about the G8/G20 spending -- also can't help but say... I told you so.

The Communism Tax

You gotta love MoveOn.Org and it's sheer honesty/transparency.

If there's one thing that modern politics has illuminated it is the fact that extremists like to hide in the shadows until the coast is clear and then implement their deepest fantasies as if it should be a self-evident life truth. The most recent example can be found in an enlightening MoveOn article titled Top 5 Problems With The Tax Deal.

(Cue scary music)

Since the age of Joseph McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the left has done its best to paint the idea of a Communist threat to the West as laughable and paranoid. McCarthy has become the boogeyman thrown up any time a center, right-of-center or far-right citizen has suggested that certain leftist policies sit in the ranks of Socialist or Communist ideology.

Now, I'm not one to jump around labelling leftists as Commies. In fact, I don't think I've ever accused the far left of secretly being Communists. But the aforementioned MoveOn article really goes to show how far the left has gone in its unabashed audacity to propel extremist ideology. Clearly, the intent on the part of this organization, founded by a leftist-loved billionaire who purposefully destroyed the livelihood of countless working class Britains, is to demonize the wealthy and exalt the perceived suffering and/or inequality of the working class.

(Yeah... the irony is hilarious.)

This attitude alone would be enough to confirm that there certainly is a tinge of Communism to the modern far left. But there is one thing that the far left (and increasingly the supposedly moderate left) has fought for that does more than anything else to reveal Communist ideology. And that thing is the Estate Tax otherwise known as the "Death Tax". There can be no clearer modern example that the left believes the state should own everything than this.

I think it's fair to say that most rational people believe business owners who pay:

• income tax
• sales tax
• property tax
• corporate tax
• payroll tax
• wealth tax
• capital gains tax

...and the myriad other taxes out there over the course of their lives in creating, building and developing something of worth -- such a business -- have already paid their fair share of taxes to acquire that which is rightfully theirs. It was their ingenuity that resulted in the formation of a successful business. The resultant property is theirs. They've contributed to the well-being of others by creating opportunities for those people to earn a living. They worked hard to attain success and they should have every right to leave the fruits of their labour to whomever they choose.

The far left? Ehhhh... not so much.

As much as they try and deny it -- while simultaneously opposing broad-based tax cuts or creating carbon taxes on innovative, industrialized nations -- the far left firmly believes in wealth-redistribution. It's undeniable now. It is their clear and firm belief that those who achieve success in their lives don't really deserve it. No, the people who deserve it are the so-called under-privileged.

(And whether under-privileged by circumstance or by choice, the left really doesn't care because everybody's a victim anyhow.)

The Estate Tax is the clearest piece of evidence demonstrating that the far-left believes the fruits of success belong to the state and that the state can claim ownership over whatever it wants. In fact, the folks over at MoveOn.org have gone so far as to call the government not taking a percentage of the estate of the deceased a "millionaire's bailout".

Think about that for a second. In the eyes of the left, the government not taking your property is equal to the government bailing you out!

Communists believe that the government -- a.k.a. the people -- have rightful ownership and sole determination for the distribution of all property. You don't own a thing; everything belongs to the state. It can only be from that mentality that a person could delude themselves enough to perceive the action of letting your heirs keep that which you have built translate into the government giving these things to your heirs. It's absolutely mind-blowing!

When you combine this with the fact that liberals aren't as generous as tippers or that studies show conservatives to be substantially more charitable than liberals, the hypocrisy is rather appalling. The gimme-gimme attitude of the modern left is just another thing that confirms my belief that conservative attitudes towards economic and financial issues are far more logical -- and ethical -- than anything the left has going for it these days.

They don't have it in themselves to give selflessly when they see somebody in need. They'd rather the government take things on their behalf and redistribute it with them taking the credit in being "progressive" and "caring".

As I said, I'm not one to go around calling leftists Communists. But with open calls for an Estate tax that usurps 55% (read: more than half / the majority share) of those possessions which you would give your spouse, children, friends or whomever you choose, I have a much harder time not seeing a strong Communist element to the modern left.

It's because of this that I believe "Death Tax" isn't quite descriptive enough and there's a much more appropriate name for the Estate tax: the Communism Tax.

It's a Wonderful Life: Or Why We Need More Billionaires

Since I was a young boy I always admired Frank Capra's classic It's a Wonderful Life. As a moral and spiritual story it is without parallel.

It only dawned on me today of a hidden lesson in capitalism contained within a specific segment of that film:

I was thinking today about the central argument of wealth-redistribution: what does any wealthy person in the world need all that money for. It was an argument that I myself had considered as valid for the longest time. After all, it's not like they could ever use all that money in their lifetime.

Today the central conceit of that argument finally hit me. Rich people don't actually have all that money.

If one takes the reactionary point of view that rich people are hoarding vast wealth for themselves and not spreading it around, sure you could believe that one never needs that money. But I can't really imagine Bill Gates owning a vault that on a weekly basis he runs into, diving into the money singing, "Look at me! I'm so rich! I can swim in my money! Yippee!"

Of course not.

In reality, they don't actually have that much money in their possession. That money is in investments here, there and everywhere. As such, rich people actually are using all of that money. And not in a self-centered way. It is being used via investment groups or banks to fund other businesses which in turn grows the economy resulting in further wealth for others. And this reclaimed wealth allows more people to invest which results in further growth which results in further prosperity.

As amazing as it is to say, Billionaires are themselves a form of wealth redistribution!

It all relates to that one scene in It's a Wonderful Life perfectly, to which I will paraphrase:

"The far-left is thinking about this all wrong. The money isn't in the rich people's pockets. It's not hidden away in some vault somewhere for them and them alone. It's in your homes. It's in your employers' businesses. It's the means by which you yourself are prosperous."

Every time a rich person buys property and builds a new house -- no, an angel doesn't get it's wings -- they are in effect redistributing their wealth to the people who supply the wood, to the companies that build the nails, to the chemical plants that develop the paint. Every time they furnish that house they redistribute their wealth to the stores they purchased them through, to the manufacturers who built their furnishing, to the raw material suppliers.

And in effect to every single person those channels employ.

By having all of this extra money, Billionaires take very little out of the economy while providing the means to actually build and grow the economy. It's the very reason why government stimulus spending is ridiculously inefficient when compared to broad-based tax cuts. Rich people actually have very little of their money available at any given time. Most of it is being used to build the economy. To grow businesses.

Dare I say... to employ people!

Until the far-left finally realizes that being rich doesn't mean hoarding but in fact means providing the means for economic growth, they will have little positive effect on the economy. We need more billionaires if only so that they can use their money to build the world's economy.

God knows the government ain't any good at it.