On this Strictly Right, Ari examines the Alinskyite tactics of the Left, the failure of socialized medicine in the UK, why people lie about Ronald Reagan, and much more.
Listen Online:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.
Not a minute after Jared Loughner opened fire on a crowd in Arizona, members of the media began frothing at the mouth, dreaming of blaming the shooting on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Plain et al.
It turns out that Loughner is a leftwing, atheist/occult, pothead, and most importantly, mentally disturbed. However, seeing a political opportunity to attack the Right, the media did not let the facts get in the way of a convenient narrative.
One of the most sickening assertions has been that Sarah Palin is somehow responsible for the shooting, because she targeted Rep. Giffords’ district.
If Palin is responsible for the shooting of Giffords, you would expect politicians to remove similarly ‘inflammatory’ rhetoric from their websites, right? After all, with the knowledge that targeting a district inspires violence, as the media is telling us nonstop, only the most irresponsible of people would continue to incite hatred.
How about Canada’s own communist party, the NDP:
“Taking aim,” bull’s-eyes, “send Harper packing”. One can only presume that the NDP is planning on shooting targeted Conservatives, and sending them packing in body bags, right?
Of course, making such an assertion is patently absurd. Taking aim, bulls-eyes, and sending people packing are all political metaphors. If someone read that map and took it as a call to arms, they would have to be mentally unwell.
Even if a Tea Party conservative opened fire on innocent civilians, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or any other liberal Emmanuel Goldstein would not be responsible. Some people are deranged. It is not possible to ascribe a logical reason to an illogical act. The Left’s attempt to pin the Arizona shooting on anyone but the lunatic involved is both libelous and malicious.
According to Neil Reynolds of the Globe & Mail “when it comes to setting corporate tax rates, you get to choose between expansive revenue with lower rates or restrained revenue with higher rates.”
Canada’s Conservative Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, has brought his country’s corporate tax rate down from 21% to 16.5% over the past six years, with a final cut scheduled, bringing the rate down to 15%. With the rhetoric on the Left about “corporate giveaways,” you would not be blamed for thinking that Minister Flahrety’s rate reductions were an irresponsible reduction of government revenues, especially during a recession.
The facts paint a very different story. Corporate tax revenues are higher today than when Minister Flaherty began slashing rates. In 2002, with the old rates intact, revenue from corporate taxes was $24.2 billion; 2003, $22.2 billion; 2004, $27.4 billion; 2005, $29.9 billion. In 2010 corporate tax revenues were $30.3 billion, equaling the average of the past nine years. Additionally, corporate tax revenues provided 13.9% of government income in 2010, compared to the past decade’s average of 12.6%.
This should not come as a surprise. The argument over tax rates and tax revenues has been settled. To a point, lower tax rates result in higher revenues, whereas higher rates result in lower revenues. The static modeling used by many economists is premised upon “ceteris paribus” – with all other things being equal. Static modeling is constantly used to justify claims that tax rate reductions will result in lower government revenues. In reality, all other things are never equal.
In a dynamic economy, all events are interrelated, and changes in one secotr can, and usually do, effect all other sectors. Therefore, when tax rates are raised the government consumes capital that could have been invested in a business that could create more jobs. A more profitable business, with higher earnings and more employees results in larger tax revenues. Additionally, lower tax rates act as a disincentive to sheltering capital. When tax rates are lower, people conclude that it is more sensible to invest in a thriving economy, increase their capital, and thus pay more in taxes. Conversely, when tax rates are increased, less money is spent in the private sector, money becomes idle, and tax revenues decrease.
The evidence of the success of tax cuts is overwhelming. The numbers on income taxes are irrefutable. From a research paper I wrote on the flat tax:
In 1921, before the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts the top income tax rate was over 70% , while government revenue was $700million and the federal government’s real revenue growth rate was -9.2%. Following the tax cuts, the top marginal rate was reduced to 25% , resulting in the government revenue growth rate rising to 0.1% and government revenue to $1.2 billion . In 1961 the top marginal income tax rate was over 90%, while government revenue was $90billion with a revenue growth rate of 2.1%. Following the Kennedy tax cuts, the top marginal rate was reduced to 35%, government revenue boosted to $155 billion and the growth rate had gone up to 9% . In 1980 the top marginal rate was 70%, government revenue was $550 billion with a growth rate of -2.8%. President Reagan cut the top marginal rate to 28%. The result was an increase in government revenue to $1.4 trillion , with the growth of government revenue rate rising 6.4%, up to 3.6%.
Results were similar under President Clinton when capital gains tax rates were reduced. Revenues and the rate of revenue growth increase dramatically when tax rates are cut.
Canada’s reduction of corporate tax rates will attract more business to Canada, which can now boast of having the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7. The corporate tax rate reduction in Canada is yet another tax cut success story.
On this Strictly Right, Ari analyzes the the media and the Left’s reaction to the Arizona shooting, the hypocrisy of the Left on profiling, the success of Canada’s corporate tax cuts, the targeting of Sarah Palin by the left and more.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.
Gerry Nicholls writes. Hilarity ensues.
After much research, I have come up with a list of Canadian political books that would even please grumpy old Ebenezer Scrooge, assuming, of course, Scrooge … you know actually cared about Canadian politics.
Anyway here’s the list of 10 gift books:
- How to annoy left-wing kooks and pinkos, by Don Cherry. (Special foreword written by Rob Ford)
- Crush, Kill, Destroy: My life in politics, by Stephen Harper
- My obvious intellectual superiority – political asset or liability? by Michael Ignatieff.
- Take your long census form and shred it, by Tony Clement
- Ten naughty ways to stimulate your economy, by Jim Flaherty
- The brain-dead moron’s guide to building a lasting political coalition, by Jack Layton
- Don’t let irrelevancy stop you from thriving, by Gilles Duceppe (Available in French only)
- Crying polar bears: climate fear-mongering for fun and profit, by David Suzuki
- Thanks suckers!, the Chairman of General Motors
(OK that’s only nine books, but given the sorry state of Canadian politics this is the best I could do!)
Students at a Canadian university decided to raise awareness about global warming (students may have missed the lecture on global warming in earth studies class, conflict resolution class or how to feel like your making a difference class) by…. taking their clothes off in public:
(there is no actual nudity in the video)
What does taking (most of) one’s clothes off have to do with global warming? Your guess is as good as mine. Give them some credit, at least they weren’t blowing up children this time.
Running a nation-wide advertising campaign telling people that you’re transparent: Priceless
Sun Media’s Brian Lilley reports:
Under attack for its lack of transparency and accountability, the CBC has taken out expensive ads in newspapers across Canada, promising Canadians that they will be up-front with information.A series of reports this week from QMI Agency have highlighted the CBC’s refusal to release information under the Access to Information Act, and their ongoing court battle with the Information Commissioner, an independent officer of Parliament over who gets to see those documents.
While the ad boasts of tens of thousands of pages released under Access to Information, it fails to mention that tens of thousands of pages have also been released with all relevant information removed, the result being either blank pages or pages covered in black marker.
The CBC continues to claim exemptions under sections designed to protect their journalistic activities or protect the government on issues vital to the economic interests of Canada. As a result, they refuse to answer simple questions such as how many trucks the state broadcaster owns.
[...]
The key phrase is “Documents of interest,” meaning CBC will decide what they release, and what they don’t, for the public to view.
A review of what has been posted on the CBC website shows that hundreds of access requests have been left off the site for now, including expense reports for CBC president Hubert Lacroix. The 110 blank pages supplied to QMI for expenses by board member Louise Lantagne, and the cost of honorariums provided to board members, are also missing.
Lilley also adds that because “CBC spends public dollars and is therefore accountable to the public. That should mean full accountability, including the cost of these ads.” He’s absolutely right. The CBC has a lot to offer as a broadcaster, and as a business (Lord knows to whom, however.) It’s quite simple though: If there was a market for what the CBC offered, it could hold its own in the free market. No private corporations could get away with witholding information like the CBC did. Heck, even the military has a hard time getting away with blacking out that many pages of important documents.
There may have been a time where the CBC was required, but that time has certainly passed.
From the Canadian Press
Minister Jason Kenney says Canada will not attend a UN conference on racism next September because the event will be a “charade” and a “hatefest.”The conference, dubbed “Durban III,” is intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the 2001 meeting in South Africa aimed at defeating racism.
Canada and several other countries walked out of that meeting after Iran and several other countries began ganging up on Israel.
Canada was the first country to withdraw from Durban II last year in Geneva.
Kenney says the UN General Assembly has chosen to “repeat and even augment the mistakes of the past” by holding a commemorative meeting in New York next year.
He says the government has lost faith in the process and Canada “will not lend our good name to this Durban hatefest.”
Kenney says Canada is clearly committed to the fight against racism, but he says the Durban process “commemorates an agenda that actually promotes racism rather than combats it.”
Despite legitimate issues I’ve had with the Conservative Party of Canada’s direction on fiscal issues and domestic policy, one area where Stephen Harper’s administration has never wavered is on pragmatic foreign policy and support for Israel. The latest decision by the government to refuse to acknowledge a special United Nations panel on d**k-all (“ending racism”) and, as such, refuse to take part in it, really shows the fact that they haven’t sold out.
The point is never to blindly defend a particular country, but rather to acknowledge when a country is being unfairly treated as Israel constantly is. The only thing the United Nations has ever done right in the Middle East is giving Israel back to the Jews like it belonged. Since then, the U.N. has been an anti-Semitic global orgy.
Prime Minister, please do more stuff like this.
BlazingCatFur has the latest scoop on how much of your money is going towards mosques in Canada. This isn’t a dollar here and there, this is millions and millions being invested through “Diversity” initiatives, even “Infrastructure” grants in some cases. Get the full list of every reason you need to be scared from BCF.
Yesterday BHP Billiton announced that it is withdrawing its bid for Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan. The Harper Government blocked the bid from BHP Billiton because the deal did not provide a ‘net benefit for Canada’ – according to Industry Minister Tony Clement. Whether or not the deal benefits Canada should have nothing to do with the deal. Companies are not in business to benefit the government, people, or the community – though private business does all of this – business is in business for money. Nothing else.
Industry Minister Clement commented:
We were concerned the bid would mean that other capital expenditures would not be forthcoming
Wow. So-called conservatives are telling companies how they should be investing their money. I wonder how Minister Clement defines small government.
It’s amazing that the Harper Government is so arrogant to presume that it has the moral authority to determine what is good for Canadians. You’d think that a ‘conservative’ government would understand that the government is not the grand arbiter of morality.
This is not the first time the Harper government has interfered with the free markets – recall the sudden elimination of income trusts. Millions of seniors saw the value of their savings plummet because of a Harper government decision. It’s a wonder that the Harper government even calls itself the ‘Conservative Party’.
The government is creating a made-in-Canada discount. If your public company is listed in Canada, the government may actively inhibit your ability to deliver value to your investors.
Its always sad to see how the Conservative Party of Canada now represents the fashionable right. It’s time that they stick to their principles – rather than trying to appease a small group of voters to the detriment of the country.
I’m curious how many government bureaucrats are holding short positions on Potash Corp (betting that the stock price will go down).