Still Think We Are Right To Support Budget?

EI EI EI!!! Mulroney, then us, all made it all but impossible to qualify for UI/EI, and greatly reduced benefits, while using regressive flat-tax that are premiums to bump up federal balance sheet. Successive governments' quiet EI fraud is as immoral as provincial governments' quiet exploitation of unfortunates who gamble and their dependence on the revenues produced. Can't quit, can't be fired, have to be "laid off". And even then...anyone who's tried to qualify knows it's very difficult. Have some honesty, make EI accessible and a real income support, similar to pre-1984, best and quickest way to support demand in period of collapsing employee/consumer confidence, rather than empty symbolic quarter-measures. If we want to raise revenues, provincially & federally, honestly & openly raise taxes, rather than milking gambling addicts, and flat-taxing workers without corresponding income supports when needed.

But we Liberals, or the leader & caucus that supposedly represent us, are not just folding like a Flaherty suit, we ARE Flaherty. We are still supporting the budget, despite everything. We won't just wear this budget as much as Cons; given depth of their support and width but shallowness of ours, we will suffer for it way more. The coalition was our last chance. Zeus help us.

From CBC: "While he said his party still did the right thing in voting for the Conservative budget because it contains many helpful measures, McCallum added "there's still time" to bring in additional stimulus before the summer break if necessary".

Really McCallum & Co.? Terrible budget on x,y & z, workers screwed, but hey, we're still going to support it (well except for special 3-line whip precedent-setting NF&L exception), though, maybe, eventually, at some point, we might ask for something else to be done. Because it's not like we're in the most critical period now, when the sooner the proper counter-cyclical measures are taken, the better the effect. It's not like that was the whole basis for our economic statement outrage ages ago, oops, I mean a coupla WEEKS ago!

The Iggy-Liberals: how to screw the country & doom the party (don't forget Pablo & Co. are also running the nations' disunities file now. Wake up wake up wake up!!!

The sooner Dion is free of caucus obligations and can speak out, the better. Someone needs to talk some sense into the caucus & "leadership".

The Wrath Of Bond!

<< A couple of days ago, another old friend brought up Michael Ignatieff’s increasing tendency to refer to the country - Canada - as The Federation. “I thought Danny was the only trekkie”, he’d said over a coffee, “but that stopped once he got a piece of the action and became a have province.” The second friend took to calling him Sarek after that. “Buddy started out playing a Romulan, you know,” he reminded, tapping his finger on his nose, as if that meant something. >> - Bond Papers I hadn't thought of that, Iggy's Federation Fetish. Hmm. Excellent catch. I wonder if he'll start doing what nationalist/separatist intellectuals here like to do and refer to provinces (well, QC) as "états fédérés" or "federated states" - technically accurate, of course, but indicates a mindset. Trying to appeal to provincial-nationalists, I guess. I wonder why?

Mr Casey You Should Run Again

I caught Bill Casey's question of privilege on CPAC by chance - what scum these Cons are. Much as I'd like to see us win the seat against a lesser opponent, I think he should run & win again so as to demonstrate to the Cons that in his community, he remains trusted and they can't get away with this crap. Kudos to Hugo de Grandpré for proper ethical behaviour. Bravo!

Pay Equity Is For The Birds?

We Liberals are so angry about the inequitable pay equity provisions of the budget that we are going to angrily vote for it and then complain about them. That'll show 'em! Well done, Iggy & Co.!

Defending The Leader: Ramsay Cook Is Guilty of Misplaced Specificity!

Ramsay Cook, a nobody, recently wrote the following: "Peter C. Newman got the names right in his article Prodigal Sons Inherit The Party's Crown (Jan. 30), but not much else. He missed the obvious differences between Michael Ignatieff and his predecessors. Every Liberal Leader since Laurier had notable ministerial experience and each was elected by a convention. Mr. Ignatieff can claim neither, having the distinction of being the first leader to have been defeated in convention."

I hope all Liberals will join me in condemning Mr. Cook as guilty of misplaced specificity.