 |
     |
|
|
So Paul Martin and the Liberals have fuel added to the underlying message they want to get to the people: look at what we've done for the economy. Or, as one Arkansan was wont to say, "It's the economy, stupid." How so?
The OECD has issued an economic warning to Canada: be careful, you're doing too good of a job and you (Canada) risk spinning out of control (OECD warns hot economy could tip into overdrive). Their economic forecasts for the coming years have been raised and their counsel to the country's leaders is to not stimulate any further with tax cuts or spending increases.
Now how's that for a position? Our platform is, we've done so well for you over the past decade that doing more would risk hurting you. No tax cuts; no spending increases that would stimulate the economy. We're going to simply pay down debt . . . and we've got a long way to go.
Not exactly the most appropriate spin, nor the best course of action. Why? Because it's about targetted tax relief and targetted spending. While Canada's economy may be hot today, it won't always be if we follow the status quo. It must be common sense -- or simple logic -- that when times are good, one uses those spoils to built more and more so that the good times continue to roll. How? Well, it's abundantly well known that Canada's productivity has been declining. So, invest in technology, equipment, and productivity-enhancing process. It's clear that Canada's post-secondary (let's not get into childhood) and continuing education systems could stand bolstering. So target those programs that enhance future productivity. What about a strong defense? How does that lead to productivity? Well, it doesn't really. But, at the end of the day, a nation that can't defend itself -- let alone lend out its troops to other nations (and collect markers for the future) isn't really independent at all. Its will can not be projected. Sorry Mr. Axworthy, "soft" power is no power at all. Influence is a dicey thing and, like a viable threat, has to be credibly supported.
The long and the short of it appears to be that now is hardly the time to increase "living" expenses with the surpluses and broad economic gains. It's time to invest. Hot be damned.
So there's an election in Canada -- again. It got me to wondering about what was going on in my riding. There are at least two candidates: the incumbent, Pierre Poilievre (Conservative) and Michael Gaffney (Liberal). For various reasons, I've decided to support Gaffney and the Liberal government. One of the ways I'm going to do that is by raising the battle here.
Let's start with an obvious difference between the two men. Poilievre is a young man -- in his mid-twenties. Conversely, Gaffney is a little more experienced with life: in sport, in business, as a family man. A quick glance at his resume alone, never mind a conversation with him, shows the breadth of his experience. So when he talks about things like funding education, it's worth engaging and arguing. He's obviously had the chance to think about it as a student, as a tax-paying businessman, as a coach of student athletes, and as a father with children that will continue the cycle. On his own blog, Michael relates a story about when he learned about the Australian government's funding scheme, The Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). Rather than relate how the scheme works, read Michael's post, Should Canada implement a university student loan progam like Australia? (which has pointers to the Australian government's explanation).
It's an interesting scheme, not especially unlike the Canada Student Loan program, with some critical exceptions. First, unlike a CSL, the government seems to fund and underwrite the loans (not a major bank).
Second, the repayments are not made on a fixed time basis (i.e., six months after you're out of full-time schooling), but rather begin at a reasonable threshold income level. This makes perfect sense. When a student that's had to take out loans finishes school, he or she immediately enters an economic chasm: new living expenses, furnishings, transportation, and so forth all while the student's annual income is likely at its lowest except for when (s)he was waiting tables during high school. Conversely, tagging the repayment "tax" as a source deduction from earnings only after the former student has reached an income level that can sustain the repayment amount, makes much more sense. And, as the income level rises, so does the repayment contribution.
As noted in Michael's post or in one of the comments to it, the Australian scheme is indexed to inflation only. Interest does not accrue on it. The same goes in Canada as long as the loan is not in repayment mode, at which point interest kicks in. If the Australian scheme doesn't charge interest even during the repayment period . . . wow! What a program.
It is by any means a program that big-L Liberals in Canada would be right and justified to support. It is fair and hopeful. It would offer opportunity with responsibility. What more should anyone ask for except a helping hand?
Gaffney's astute to evaluate this program. If you have a young family and are looking at that beautiful ten-year old wondering about the spiraling cost of education, think about Australia's HECS and what it could become in Canada.
No, I wasn't critically ill or otherwise institutionalized (any more than usual). Thank you for asking.
My absence -- for the one reader that continues to show interest here -- was due to a not-unexpected increase in workload that has momentarily subsided. It will pick up again later this afternoon, I'm sure. As you know, frankly, I don't care whether anyone reads this or not; I'm not getting paid for it in any way. But, I miss the writing. Turns out that writing -- and getting better at it (I hope), which is my main purpose here -- is like exercising at the gym or with the aerobics class. It's habitual and addictive in its own way. Anyone who has regularly run, pressed iron, or done aerobics knows that the first day away is difficult because you feel like you're missing out -- you're guilty and physically unsatisfied. Day two in a row is also difficult yet sort of easy in a guilty-pleasure kind of way. The thrid day is definitely easy, and so it goes . . . until you've put on a little roll and just don't feel right again. Then you get back and remember why it was you were doing it all in the first place.
That's what this little blog is, and it's time to start working off the vacation weight.
This has been hanging around in draft for a while . . .
The Scott Paper Company, in Canada (God bless their curling-loving little hearts) has chosen to rebrand its "bathroom tissue" product (Cottonelle) to Cashmere. Check out the Website splash page here. At first I didn't care. After all, I don't buy the product for my household. Moreover, it never really seems to matter which brand it is, we tend to stick to the 2- or 3-ply variety that's not made of sandpaper.
Then I found it amusing. Why, I wondered, would you bother to rebrand a long-standing toilet paper? I'm sure that the marketers among us could, if plied with adequate intoxicant or market statistics [intentional redundancy], come up with a number of valid reasons for changing the name. Although, frankly, I wonder whether anyone ever really looks at the name once they've become familiar with the look of the package -- especially on toilet paper. But I am hardly an expert.
So it struck me (after checking out Kimberly-Clark's Website): the license for Canada must be expiring and not being renewed. Hence a name change. Could mean a toilet paper war among Cashmere, K-C's Cottonelle, and Charmin -- along with the no-name brands. Whatever.
Interest social comment though: I guess that it's just not good enough to wipe with cotton. A more luxurious and expensive consumable proxy is required. What's next?