The Minimum Wage Debate

This afternoon I was riled by a debate on minimum wage that I heard on CKNW, which you can listen to here (starting at 36:00). Many of the callers irritated me so much that I sent the host, Jon McComb, this e-mail:

I am now hearing with increasing regularity the following refrain from NDP callers: "If a small business can't afford to pay more than the minimum wage then maybe it shouldn't be in business." Have A-N-Y of these people ever tried running their own businesses?!?!? Why do I think not. As someone who has - three of them to date, I'm more than a little insulted by this comment and the assumptions behind it. These people seem to believe that:

1. Pretty much anybody can start their own business and be quickly on the road to riches with little to no effort.
2. There's absolutely no risk to running one's own business.
3. The only necessary requirement to being a business owner is insatiable greed and a desire to "step on the backs" of working people.

Does the majority of your audience actually believe such socialist claptrap?

As a small business owner, I work hard and struggle every single month. When one of my ventures failed, I was personally stuck with a fairly large debt, which I'm still paying back today. In my career, I've paid people as low as $11 per hour and as high as $XX per hour. Those are my personal truths. I don't complain about them normally but when I hear such despicable language about business owners coming out of the mouths of my fellow British Columbians, the hairs on the back of my neck go up.

One thing's for sure: If the minimum wage is raised then it will have a cascading effect upward on all other wages throughout out society. And that in turn will drive the prices of everything up as well. Do I want more people to live a prosperous life? Absolutely. Do I think that raising the minimum wage will help in this regard? Absolutely not.

John Howard Interview

Australia's terrific past PM, John Howard, is interviewed by Leah Costello of the Fraser Institute:

Snapshot of Canadian Politics

My time away from Canada has separated me from watching the spectacle of the sport that we call Politics. Returning a couple of days ago, sure it's fun to watch the Video Professor come to the realization that his brightest moment in the sun has now passed.

And I almost spat out my coffee yesterday when I heard a fellow call into Vancouver's CKNW and condemn Harper for not increasing EI to 2 years! He thought this was a terrible injustice and not very "Christian" of our PM.

But in the bigger picture, I can't help from thinking that with all of the parties we're just watching a well rehearsed stage play, with each actor playing his role to keep us entertained.

Last night I received an e-mail from a fellow on Facebook who created an anti-Coalition group. He's super ecstatic about the budget and even more so that the Coalition is now dead.

But I can't get very excited. I pointed out to him that the Conservative Party is no longer a conservative party. Oh sure, they're clearly the least worst choice but what REAL efforts did they make to control spending? I don't see much.

And now we have a new deficit of tens of billions of dollars and everyone is ecstatic? Sorry, but count me out of that Conga line.

A Good Reason for Canadian Businesses to Buy Computers

There's an interesting gem at the bottom of Page 23 of the new federal budget:

Introducing a temporary 100-per-cent capital cost allowance (CCA) rate for computers acquired after January 27, 2009 and before February 1, 2011.

This means that businesses, be they small or large, can write-off 100% of computer purchases rather than having to depreciate them over time. More incentive than ever to buy a computer!

2 Overarching Questions for 2009

Here's a key section from Obama's Inauguration Speech:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Let's be very generous and give him a year. By January 2010:

1. How many major, wasteful programs do you think will be cut?
   
2. Precisely what will happen to those in the public sector who have poorly managed the public's money?

If he proves wrong my healthy skepticism then I too will become a believer. Otherwise we'll know that these were merely "words, just words" and it'll be same old, same old.

The Poor Math Skills of the Left

Le Cabal de Trois has just announced that they plan to spend $30 Billion once they seize power from the democratically elected government. If you think that this money will be spread evenly and spent wisely then you are dreaming! It will be absolutely wasted on corporate welfare and union welfare.

At the same time, the supporters of Le Cabal are adamant that "there's no need for another election". "After all," they add, "it would cost $300 Million."

Our friends on the Left clearly must have failed Grade 8th Math. To help them out, let's illustrate with big bold digits precisely the difference:

• Option #1: Hold an Election - Cost: $300,000,000.00
  
  
• Option #2: Avoid an Election - Cost: $30,000,000,000.00

Option #2 will be ONE HUNDRED times more expensive than Option #1. And if the people of Canada so decide in their favour, then Le Cabal de Trois can still spend the huge amount a few months later.

Michael Campbell Has His Own Website

Michael Campbell, one of CKNW's financial pundits, now has his own website: www.moneytalks.net Interesting stuff throughout!

Huffing and Puffing In The Ottawa Sandbox

Bob Rae and others in Ottawa are whining at the top of their lungs that the big bully, Stevie Harper, is going to remove all the toys (read "public funding") from their community sandbox. Even though the parents (read "taxpayers") of the neighbourhood kids are struggling to make ends meet these days, Lil' Bobby is demanding that new toys be purchased every year.

So he and his pals are now pouting, walking around with their little arms crossed, and stammering that they're no longer going to play in the sandbox. The parents, seeing their little ones so upset, nominate a woman in the neighbourhood, who is not directly connected with any of the children, to listen to all sides and decide what to do. Her name is Michaëlle. As an aside, all of the fathers of these kids think that Michaëlle is the hottest woman in the entire neighbourhood so they secretly relish getting to talk with her as often as possible! ;-)

Michaëlle calls together all the kids:

1. Not so little Stevie Harper
2. Un petit garcon, Stephane Dion
   
3. Lil' Bobby Rae
4. Mikey Ignatieff (who recently arrived from Boston)
5. Lil' Jack Layton (who already has a little business selling computer tutorials on DVDs)
   
6. Un autre garcon, Gillie Duceppe
   
7. And the only girl of the bunch, Lizzie May
   

Michaëlle looks at all of the children and then focuses in on Lizzie. She asks her, "Young lady, you only look to be about 3 years old. Do you really play in this sandbox with the older boys?" Lizzie, who has seemingly been speaking non-stop since she turned one, starts talking about all sorts of wonderful things: "Green faeries in the forest and tricycles made by Suzuki that run on water and a white unicorn nicknamed 'Gore' and . . . ." Michaëlle, sensing this is going to go on for awhile, turns to the boys and asks them if Lil' Lizzie really plays in the sandbox. In unison, the 6 turn toward Lizzie and say "Non!" So Michaëlle asks the little girl to go back to her parents. She does so reluctantly but strolls away, talking to herself all the way home.

Michaëlle then asks the boys, "I trust you all understand that your parents have given me free reign to make whatever decision I wish. I need your promise that you will abide by whatever I decide."

Hearing this, Gillie puts his hands on his hips and says, "Madame, I hate this sandbox and I hate these boys. They're not mes amis and I will never agree to anything they ever say. I'm going to get someone to build me a new sandbox and I'll play there with my other friends!" With that, he stomps off.

Michaëlle rolls her eyes and continues, "Okay, is there anything else important that any of you want to tell me before we actually discuss things?"

Somewhat sheepishly, Stephane slowly raises his hand and says, "Well, the fact is that mon papa got a job in France and we're moving soon. So I won't be playing in this sandbox much longer anyhow. I think I better go." And with that, he politely leaves.

Michaëlle is somewhat ecstatic by this turn of events because the untenable group of 7 fidgety kids has now shrunk to just 4: Stevie, Bobby, Mikey, and Lil' Jack. She looks at them all and then focuses on Stevie: "From what I understand the other three seem to not like the way you're running the sandbox." Stevie nods and says in a very confident voice, with a barely detectable grin, "Apparently so."

She then looks at the other three and says, "Boys, perhaps you could tell me precisely what your issues with Stevie are?"

In a cacophany of little male voices she hears some semblance of the following: "Well, well, he's not playing fair. He wants to take away all of our toys and then we won't have anything to play with in the sandbox. Did we mention that he's not playing fair, you know?!"

This goes on for a few minutes, with the three of them endlessly repeating themselves. Eventually Michaëlle raises her hands and says, "Okay, okay, I think I get it! Stevie, could you explain things to me from your perspective?"

He contemplates for a moment and then starts talking:

Well, just last year our parents bought us a new set of toys for the sandbox. I've recently heard my parents talking and Dad might be laid off from his work soon. Mom has already had her hours cut back at the bank where she's a teller. My Uncle Bernie was up here from Windsor last week. I overheard him telling my dad that he and all his friends might be losing their jobs soon too. So I just decided that because our parents are going through all of this, it really doesn't make sense for them to keep on buying us new toys. Sure, in the big scope of things, the cost of the toys isn't a big part, but it's the principle of it and we need to show we care too. After all, money doesn't grow on trees.

So instead of them buying them, I think we should start trying to raise the money on our own to pay for the toys. My brother and I have already built a lemon-aid stand and I've put posters all around the neighbourhood saying that I will cut anyone's lawn for 10 bucks. There's nothing stopping Bobby and Mikie and Lil' Jack from doing the same. We can have more toys for our sandbox but we need to buy them ourselves.

"What a bright young man," Michaëlle thought to herself. But looking at the other three, she could see that their reaction was quite different. They were nothing short of stunned! Eventually, when they could talk again, there was but one word mostly coming out of their mouths: "But ... But ... But ..."

Then over the hedge, they all heard some other boy scream, "But I'm entitled to my entitlements!!" He giggled and could be heard running away. Michaëlle later checked the front of this house and the family name 'Dingwall' was emblazened beside the door!

Michaëlle looked again at the 3 boys beside Stevie, "Well, I think that your sandbox leader here has proposed something very interesting. I'm going to recommend that your parents keep him in as leader for the time being. Ultimately the decision is yours though. You can stop playing in the sandbox and demand that your parents hold another vote. But you know that this costs them time & money and you might not be happy with what they decide. In fact, they might just invite a whole new set of kids to come play in the sandbox with Stevie . . . ." She let those words hang in the air as she slowly strolled away.

Public Financing for Political Parties to be Slashed

Federal Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, is going to drop a bombshell in Ottawa tomorrow.

You may or may not be aware but for the past few years all of the major federal parties in Canada get $1.95 per vote on an annual basis. In the last election, roughly 14 million eligible voters cast their ballots, which translated to $27 million in taxpayers' money for the parties each year. Here are the funding cuts that Flaherty is proposing:

• Conservatives: $10.0 million
• Liberals: $7.7 million
• NDP: $4.9 million
• Bloc Quebecois: $2.6 million
• Green Party: $1.8 million

But when you examine what percentage of funding each party gets from public funds, a very different picture emerges:

• Bloc Quebecois: 86%
• Green Party: 65%
• Liberals: 63%
• NDP: 57%
• Conservatives: 37%
  

Some politicians are going to scream that this is dirty politics and is unfair. But is it? Here's why these politicians will be fighting a losing cause if they stay on this tangent:

1. The Conservatives will lose the most money by far.
2. The Bloc Quebecois' funding will be decimated, but who outside of Quebec will object? Many already feel that a separatist party, whose primary mission is to destroy Canada, shouldn't be funded in the first place.
3. Most people are generally sick & tired of all politicians of every stripe.
4. Demanding more money from Canadians as we (and the world) are entering a recession is a fool's gambit: "Dear Mr. Taxpayer, I know that you've lost your job and that you're struggling to keep your family housed & fed but don't you dare stop paying me even a cent less!"

And don't forget that each political party has every opportunity to attract more donations from millions of Canadians. It's long overdue that each party's supporters put their money where the mouth is. In other words, start walking the talk!

---

What's exceedingly delightful is to read the fever-pitched whining of the Radical Left at the CBC News site. The top rated comment asserts that this is simply Harper's latest move at creating a dictatorship. ROFL

It made me wonder how a psychologist would evaluate a person who constantly exaggerates everything to the extreme? I'm guessing that the term "Delusional Paranoia" might be used. Or equivalently "radical liberal" would suffice!

To Pay or Not to Pay

Imagine getting together with 3 to 5 acquaintances at a restaurant for dinner; not close friends, but acquaintances. The dinner is enjoyable. It's just one table and the bills are not separated (everything's in one). One person looks at the bill, does some quick math and says, "Why don't we just split it evenly?" For example, $20 each or $30 each, or $50 each.

You take a quick look at it and realize that yours was a more inexpensive dish, you had no alcohol unlike your companions, and you had no dessert, unlike your companions. So in the $20 scenario your portion was really only $15. In the $30 scenario, yours was only $20. And in the $50 scenario, yours was only $35. More or less.

Would you speak up and say, "Ummmm, actually, I only owe '$X.XX'" ? Or would you let it go and just pay the extra bit.

If the next time you all got together the same person said the same thing, and once again clearly consumed more, would you say anything this second time?

I'm most curious how normally handle this. I'm also wondering if there are any cultural differences in regard to how it is handled?

Wonder where all the Obama donations came from?

Mark Steyn shares a few ideas:

As readers may recall, a couple of days ago it became clear that the Obama website had intentionally disabled all the basic credit-card-processing security checks and thereby enabled multiple contributions from donors with fake names. The excuse offered in the New York Times story was that, ah, yes, the Obama gang may appear to accept contributions from "Mr Fake Donor" of "23 Fraudulent Lane", but all those phony baloney contributions are picked up by their rigorous offline checking procedures. As many Obama supporters wrote to point out, simply because you get a message saying "Thank you for contributing to the Obama landslide, Mr S Hussein of 47 Spider-Hole Gardens (basement flat), Tikrit!" is no reason to believe any real money is actually leaving real accounts.

The gentleman who started the ball rolling made four donations under the names "John Galt", "Saddam Hussein", "Osama bin Laden", and "William Ayers", all using the same credit card number. He wrote this morning to say that all four donations have been charged to his card and the money has now left his account. Again, it's worth pointing out: in order to enable the most basic card fraud of all - multiple names using a single credit card number - the Obama campaign had to manually disable all the default security checks provided by their merchant processor.

The reader adds:

Last night on Sheppard Smith’s 3pm-ET show this issue was brought up briefly and they cited the Obama campaign falsely claiming that this sort of thing happens at the McCain site and that they catch these errors later in the processing. Well, it took three days to process my donations and they all skated through their rigorous screening.

And it doesn't happen at the McCain site. This reader tried donating under "John Galt" and "Saddam Hussein" to the McCain campaign and they rejected it.

This should be Journalism 101. I'm not the guy who made Obama's fundraising a story. The media did that when they ran hundreds of puff pieces marveling at his record-breaking cash haul, and in particular the gazillions of small donors. Isn't the fact that his website has chosen to disable basic fraud protection procedures at the very least a legitimate addendum to those stories?

Oh, sorry, I was waiting for the chirping crickets. But evidently Mr C Cricket is over at Obama Central charging 20 bucks to his MasterChirp.

10/25 12:58 PM

---

Is the media investigating these highly illegal actions? Of course not. They're too busy probing into Joe the Plumber's tax records and personal life (through whatever means necessary).

A Little History on the Great Financial Swindle of 2008

The Great Financial Swindle of 2008

Arguably the most important, clear, and concise article to date on the U.S. Sub-Prime Mortgage mess was published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. You can read it here.

Now that I have taken the time and made a concerted effort to gain a much clearer understanding of what caused this huge financial problem, I am absolutely amazed that Democrats and many of their friends in the media are trying to blame the Republicans for this problem. Does not truth matter anymore?

The REAL Reasons For the Current Financial Crisis

For anyone who cares about facts, here's a careful dissection of the current U.S. financial problems - how they started and who is primarily to blame.

Stephane Dion: Spending Like it's 1978!

Have you been following the amount of spending promises Stephane Dion has been making? The National Post has and so has Jonathan Kay. It's up to $80 Billion ... in just 13 days! I don't think it even cost God that much to build the Universe in seven!

Here's a quick comparison of the major parties so far:

1. $80.183 Billion - Liberals
2. < $20 Billion - Conservatives
3. $16.5 Billion - NDP

All projected over 10 years.

Interesting Discussion on the U.S. Federal Reserve

If you're as confused as me about what on earth is going with the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then do yourself a favour and listen to an interesting interview between John Batchelor and Jim Rogers. Tune to: 1:11:50.

According to Rogers, this is a blatant example of corporate welfare, protecting the riches of a tiny few, at the risk of hurting all the rest of us.

Average Canadian family spends more on taxes than life's necessities

Monday, April 16, 2007 - Canadian Press

VANCOUVER

Taxes are taking a bigger chunk out of the average Canadian family income than food, clothing and housing combined, a new survey suggests.

The Fraser Institute says the Canadian Consumer Tax Index is up significantly in the past 45 years.

The average Canadian family earned $63,000 in 2006, with nearly 45 per cent of that going to taxes.

Just over 35 per cent was spent on food, clothing and housing.

In 1961, the institute says just 33.5 per cent of income went to taxes.

The tax index includes direct taxation, such as income taxes, sales taxes, Employment Insurance and Canadian Pension Plan contributions, as well as hidden taxes, such as import duties, gas taxes and excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol.


You can read the full report here.