TheStar.com - PM hurt by McGuinty tax hike: Poll

TheStar.com - PM hurt by McGuinty tax hike: Poll

The assumption from this poll is that the implementation of Health premiums, maybe that should be levies or, better still, taxes, are the real cause of the Liberal's slide in the national polls.

From my perspective there are two possible reasons that could be true.

1. The unique structure of the health tax. The lowest income earners, $20,000/year, will have to pay 1.5% of their income. Like most taxes, this one is also a sliding tax. However, what makes it truly unique is that, as income rises, the percentage decreases. The person who earns $200,000 only pays a 0.45% tax rate for health care.

In one sense I am not against a health premium as a means of educating the public that Health care is not free. However, the goal this time was just to raise cold hard cash. The obvious problem is that premiums must be related, at a minimum, to the coverage provided; i.e. The same for everyone. Apparently for the Ontario Liberals, who have an underlying belief that services provided and income redistribution are forever linked, a premium was unacceptable.

Hence McGuinty & Co. had to implement a tax, which could tie the amount you earn to the size of "premium" you will pay. Surely the answer should have been to set at least a flat tax rate based on income. I, for one, wonder if they had picked a flat rate of 0.5% and applied that to whatever income was earned beyond the $20,000 minimum, how much would have been raised. Regardless of what percentage was picked to raise the amount specified, the lowest income earners would have paid less.

The only reason to implement a downward sliding tax rate as income rises combined with a maximum tax of $900 would seem to be to curry favour with the higher income earners.

2. Fear of the Martin promise. Martin's problem is that he was short on specifics; where did the $9 billion suddenly appear from and/or how was it to be raised. Those in Ontario, the key province to Martin's success, had just been bitten by a similar promise which, in the end, saw the implementation of the previously mentioned health tax.

Generally speaking, specifics seem to strike fear in the minds of politicians because they limit their ability to manoeuvre or change their mind. The secret to political speak normally is to sound specific while leaving gaping holes to escape through in the future.

From my perspective, the drop in the polls is indicate of an electorate that is in no mood for political speak.

Toronto Sun: NEWS - Martin vows to quit if he breaks word

Toronto Sun: NEWS - Martin vows to quit if he breaks word

One of the truly interesting aspects of following politics is its absurdity at times. The above article provides a prime example.

Thanks to the contents of Dalton McGuinty's budget, plus other promise-breaking actions since his election that was based on promises and the need for change, the veracity of Liberals of all stripes has been called into question.

Add to this the previous federal Liberal campaign promises of such things as getting rid of GST or providing $500 million for Toronto's waterfront, trust of Liberals is deserving of voters cautious scrutiny.

When you combine all the various aspects of provincial and federal Liberal campaign promises and governing actions, you are left with a very sizable credibility gap. This leaves a very important question to be considered.

Does the promise to quit by Paul Martin, if he breaks his word on putting $9 billion more in health care over the next five years, have any validity? While considering your answer, remember that the average length of time of the last three Liberal governments has only been 3 1/2 years.

Somehow or other, I do not think a Liberal promise to quit, if another promise is broken, is going to attract many voters.

From my perspective, the only thing more absurd would be if this Liberal promise attracted a single voter, much less slowed down their slide in the polls.

Is Canada Going Awry

Almost everyday there seems to be yet another example of our country going awry. Campaign funding, the price of gasoline, price of beef, promises of no tax increases and no deficits are some of the latest examples that come to mind.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, upholding the limiting of third party spending in election campaigns, gives weight to the concept that money can and does influence voting, i.e. money buys votes.

Fair enough. But, why then, is it reasonable that the Bill C24 amendments to the Canada Elections Act calls for the major portion of campaign funding to come from the public coffers, which will be allocated to the political parties based on the number of votes received in the previous election. In other words, it favours the majority party, if money does indeed buy votes.

I object to this bias. I believe any election funding derived from our tax money must establish a level playing field for all official parties trying to get their message to eligible voters; i.e. in every riding, each party should get the same amount per voter.

I wonder why there hasn't been an unholy uproar over the C24 self-serving funding formula from the other political parties, their supporters and the media.

Gasoline pricing raises the inevitable question of; who's gouging us now? The universal answer is "not us". Well, whoever it is appears to be sharing 30-35 cents/litre and neither the federal nor provincial governments seem able or willing to identify the culprits.

In 1991, the last time a barrel of oil cost $40, the price of gasoline in our nation's capital was 58.9 cents/litre (the product cost 33.5 plus 25.4 tax). This Monday, gas was over 92 cents/litre at some Ottawa stations. Since the cost of a barrel is relatively the same now as in 1991, it isn't the oil producers gouging us. Most agree, it also isn't the retailers.

This leaves two groups; the refiners/distributors and the taxing authorities. I'd think with these two clues our federal and provincial governments just might get a hint about who is ripping us off. Another hint for them, just look in the mirror to find one of the two.

The pricing that really angers me is the price of beef, and not because steak is my favourite food. Not long ago a farmer told me of having to sell some cattle, getting just slightly more than $100/animal, a significant loss. Last week, we purchased a complete steak piece for $10/lb for a total of $168.

Surely, someone in the morass of government ministries and agencies could ensure that our cattle producers get their fair share of the money consumers are paying for beef.

Then, there is the debacle of the Liberal budget announced last week with its increased taxes called Health levies, increased fees, increased hydro costs plus a whopping deficit, all contrary to election promises. Although these promises were not met, it did not deter the promise-breakers from promising a balanced in budget in four years.

The Mike Harris experience taught voters the need to carefully evaluate campaign promises because of what their implementation might entail. Unfortunately for Premier McGuinty, a side effect of the Harris lesson is that voters are more aware of what is promised and more critical and angered by non-delivery and/or unexpected impacts.

On Sunday, Paul Martin, arguably the man most responsible for the funding crisis in health care due his funding cuts, promised during the opening salvo of the election to be its saviour by now pouring our money into health care.

Apparently, not only does the Premier seem reluctant to buy into Martin's health care promises (maybe he is worried that birds of a feather really do flock together), he seems determined to implement his health tax whether Martin's promises go the way of his or not.