Dear Mr. Martin

[langeweile]

While we are on the subject....

A licence to steal

Monday, 16 May 2005
Pierre Lemieux


The basic economics of corruption is simple: corruption will occur when both corruptor and corrupted foresee higher expected benefits than costs. Take a few hundred politicians and an army of bureaucrats, give them $200 billion a year to spend, plus the power to control and harass, and the temptation of corruption becomes irresistible.

Corruption is not essentially about money. When a buyer offers money to a seller on the market, he is using money--a form of voluntary persuasion--to obtain benefits; but this is obviously not what we mean by corruption. And the definition of the Liberal party's lawyer--"using inappropriate means to gain undeserved benefit"--only begs the question. The essence of corruption is a breach of trust of an agent toward his principal: instead of doing what he was hired for, the agent works against his principal's interests and wishes.

Even if recent laws have tried to turn "corruption" (like "fraud") into a synonym for what the state dislikes, corruption traditionally involves politicians and public bureaucrats. It is easy to understand why: in the statocratic world, it is not clear who are the principals and how they can control their agents. And the bigger the state, other things being equal, the more corruption there will be.

Now, it is rather hard to differentiate cash corruption from the ordinary working of politics. Consider: what is the difference between bartering one's political support against the promise of state benefits (subsidies, protection against competitors, et cetera), and simply buying policies for cash? What is the difference between the Liberal government promising, for example, to give health fascists the hygienic society they want in exchange for their missionary support and promising benefits to Groupaction in exchange for straight cash? Why are politicians and organized interests allowed to barter favours but not to trade for cash? Why can politicians and bureaucrats take their loot in jobs and perks but not in straight cash?

There isn't much difference between political corruption and cash corruption. Politics is legal corruption.

Some economists argue that cash corruption is less inefficient than legal political corruption or "rent- seeking" as it is called. To see this, imagine the waste if there had been a hundred companies using resources (professional time, airplanes, meals, secretaries, paper, et cetera) to legally lobby for the feds' gun control advertising contract, instead of a couple of neat cash transfers from some Groupaction executives to some politicians.

The argument in favour of cash corruption is not without problems (on these issues, see Graf Lambsdorff, "Corruption and Rent-Seeking," Public Choice, 2002). Legal political corruption may be more accessible than cash corruption. In other words, politics provides a more level corruption playing field. Cash corruption may be even more contagious and addictive than politics, may spread into voluntary relations, and may lead to an Eastern-Europeanization of our society. Finally, in certain circumstances, cash corruption may feed the growth of the state more than ordinary politics.

In other cases, though, cash corruption may check state power and become a second best. If, for example, an individual could just buy off Canada Firearms Centre bureaucrats and their supporting praetorians instead of being humiliated by having to beg for permission to keep his guns, everybody would be better off, compared to a pure, self-righteous, well-enforced tyranny. If Groupaction had not paid a $100,000 bribe for the firearm-control advertising contract, perhaps the company that would have won the competition would have run a more efficient campaign against our traditional liberties. Government inefficiency slows down Leviathan.

This being said, I have little tolerance for those who have participated in Adscam. They used the state against others. They passed election-financing laws that protected them against political competition, and they violated their own laws. They increased the power of the Surveillance State with so-called "anti-money-laundering" laws, and they violated their own laws again. Now, let them get a taste of what it is to be on the side of the oppressed. Let them go to jail.

 

[langeweile]

One more article on the subject of miss use of power

Tax racket

Monday, 16 May 2005
Andrea Mrozek


We deal with each individual client on a case-by-case basis," says Dawna Lynn Labonté, media relations officer for the Canada Revenue Agency in Ottawa. The tax department's official policy may sound good on paper, but if you're someone with enemies in high places, personalized attention from the CRA isn't always a good thing.

That's what Stephen LeDrew is finding out. The former Liberal party president has found himself being treated in a particularly unique manner by the tax office, and probably can't help wondering if it has something to do with the fact that he just happened to tick off the man who once oversaw the CRA--and every other federal agency--former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Though a high-profile party figure, LeDrew himself is no Ottawa power player. As chief of the party grassroots, he spent more time with ridings and voters than he ever did with cabinet ministers. Near the end of Chrétien's tenure, LeDrew even became a vocal critic of the prime minister's leadership, suggesting he hurry his resignation. And he openly battled Chrétien's campaign finance bill, C-24, which led to the banning of corporate donations to political parties and changed the way parties are funded, so that they get money from taxpayers based on the votes they earn. Before it was passed in June 2003, LeDrew called the idea "dumb as a bag of hammers."

Until then, LeDrew's working relationship with the CRA had gone relatively smoothly--under the circumstances. Following a divorce and some bad business deals, the Toronto lawyer found himself behind on his taxes to the tune of roughly $400,000. In 2002, he worked out an arrangement to repay the money on a payment plan of $9,500 a month, for the next three-and-a-half years. But right around the time that LeDrew began criticizing Chrétien, the CRA notified him that they were increasing his monthly contribution. When LeDrew said he couldn't afford it, they froze his bank accounts and ordered a 100 per cent garnishee on his pay. Unable to pay any bills, he was forced to declare bankruptcy.

LeDrew won't be standing in any soup lines (he'll be keeping his house in Toronto's tony Rosedale district). But some people are wondering if he wasn't singled out for especially harsh treatment because he messed with the wrong people. After all, LeDrew's former business associates, who also faced large tax bills, have worked out amenable deals with the Revenue Department. One settled with the CRA for only 25 per cent of $785,000 he owed in back taxes. Another will pay 43 per cent of his $262,000 debt. Department of Justice spokesperson Seumas Gordon says that most cases like this one can be worked in a single day. Meanwhile, on April 14, LeDrew appeared in court for the third time, seeking a discharge from bankruptcy. "Nothing was normal on this case," says LeDrew. "One of [my partners] owed $785,000 in taxes. They gave him a great deal as they usually do. Me, I want to pay every penny. I said I don't want a deal, I'll pay. And they are dancing all over me." LeDrew declined to comment further until after the verdict.

Officials at the CRA and even former employees interviewed for this story insist that there is never political interference in the agency. But in 2000, evidence surfaced that former privacy commissioner George Radwanski, right after he was appointed by Chrétien, had his $540,000 debt to the CRA suddenly forgiven.

Monte Solberg, Opposition finance critic, says it is entirely possible that Liberal party politics may have once again infiltrated the CRA. "I could see someone saying we're going to take [LeDrew's] tax problem and make it a little worse," he says. "People can be petty."

Duff Conacher, co-ordinator for the Ottawa-based government ethics watchdog Democracy Watch, says the most worrisome part is that we may never know whether someone pulled strings at the CRA to make LeDrew's life miserable because the inner workings of the tax department are largely beyond public scrutiny. "There is no assessment possible of whether it is fair or unfair treatment," he says. "They [the CRA] are allowed to operate too much in secret." Of course it's always possible somebody allowed that to happen for a reason.

 

[Donald]

As far as waiting for the Gomery report. I can perhaps understand those who want to wait for the first report (the finding of facts).

Martin went on nation wide radio and said that he would not call an election until the whole truth was know, and that he was appointing Gomery to find this truth.

Then he called an election 18 months before he had to, in which he lost his majority.

Every time a liberal says we should wait for the Gomery report, they are pissing on every Canadian. If you listen past that statement you are just opening your mouth.

While it would be nice to alteat have the publication bans lifted before the next election (and while some have been lifted, some testimony (more damaging that Cretian's brother was one of the ones on the gravey train) is still under a publication ban, we can't afford to leave this government in power.

Don't forget. We had a budget that the liberals presented, and the conservatives said 'we approve, lets vote', but instead of putting it to a vote, THE LIBERALs stalled, until some of their guilt started bleeding out on the inquiry. To try to cling to power now, they have thrown away 10 BILLION dollars.

 

[langeweile]

Hmmmm

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/bylund/bylund3.html

 

[K Douglas]

The taint of the conservative party under Mulroney? You are kidding, right?

And in case you have not been following the news, the Conservative Party is not the "blending" of the the social conscience and stability of the PC Party, mixed with the philosophy/platform of the CRAP party.

The Alliance has gutted the former PC Party. All the PC staff were fired. All the Leader's staff are from the CRAP side. All the policy advisors are from the CRAP, all the campaign advisers are from the CRAP. Basically, MacKay gave away everything, and got nothing in return. Events at the recent convention in Montreal showed that the progressive side of the party has had a stake driven through its heart.

Many Tory nomination meetings have resulted in new candidates that are throwing around phrases like "traditional family values", "better relations with the United States" and very few have said that they stand for a single tiered health care system. John Baird and Jim Flaherty are leaving the Ontario legislature to run for Harper. Neither Baird nor Flaherty are any where close to being moderate in their views. Which is ironic given Baird's sexual preferences.

The Alliance is the party that is in control of the "Conservative" party. That is what people in Eastern Canada are afraid of.

But you are right when you say that the new Conservative Party is very different than the tradional Progressive Conservative Party under Mulroney.

No I'm not kidding. People today still talk of Mulroney with great disdain. Christ the PC party went from like 170 seats to 2. They never recuperated since. Unfortunately his legacy will be remembered as giving birth to the Bloc and giving birth to the Reform at the same time. Not entirely his fault but he must shoulder some of the blame. The conservatives under Mulroney lost voters permanently. This is hurting the party's chances tremendously in trying to get over the 35% popular support hump.

 

[K Douglas]

Thanks for the laugh! That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time!!!

Wasn't intended to be funny, dictatorship is no laughing matter

 

[K Douglas]

MORE conservative extremist bullshit. Please provide references to prove otherwise...

I can't provide references to prove otherwise or else I'd be contradicting myself wouldn't I?

Its Economics 101, something the left has yet to comprehend. You raise taxes over a certain level, companies move operations to lower tax jurisdictions, professionals move to lower tax jurisdictions. Ever heard of the brain drain? It was just expedited by Rae and Pink Floyd from 90-95, the dark ages of Ontario politics.

 

[slowpoke]

Consider the inescapable fact that the Gomery inquiry is hearing testimony from insiders who were so close to this massive corruption that they are now able to recall these many sensational and lurid details about who did what, with whom, when, why, where etc. Consider also that Gomery has probably rounded up everyone close enough to be involved. So now they're all under the microscope and some are singing like birds.

Some are innocent and some are guilty. Those who are guilty will naturally try to appear less culpable by claiming their instructions came from "up above". It is perfectly natural to try to lessen one's own guilt by sharing it with someone else - especially if this someone else can be portrayed as a shadowy but highly placed government official. This doesn't mean we shouldn't continue with Gomery. The truth will emerge once all the testimony and thousands of details are cross referenced and examined by people who have access to all the facts.

It does mean that MANY of those insiders testifying right now are guilty of one or more criminal acts and that it is natural for them to try to lessen their guilt by muddying up the waters and claiming they were only following instructions. We must be patient and not believe every morsel of sensational testimony we hear because it has a very real likelihood of being false.

 

[Keebler Elf]

You're wrong! Its the taint of the old Conservative party (Mulroney, GST) that is haunting this party more than the old Reform party elements .

I agree that the old Conservative party still haunts them, but that's starting to fade. When I talk to people about voting Conservative today, it's not Mulroney they bring up - it's Harper and the western/Reform influence...

 

[Keebler Elf]

...but the big money needed to run a National Campaign resides in eastern Canada.

BINGO!

 

[Keebler Elf]

Every time a liberal says we should wait for the Gomery report, they are pissing on every Canadian. If you listen past that statement you are just opening your mouth.

Yeah, just like no jury should wait to hear all the evidence before convicting...

 

[langeweile]

What were some of the issues that Mulroney was hated for?
1) GST(still there)
2) submarines(the one that nearly sank)
3) new helicopters for the military(the one that was ordered of a drawing)
4) not sucking up to the West(lack of support for Bush)

QUOTE]

Shit for a while I thought you were talking about Martin...I am just a stupid Yank...

 

[langeweile]

well that clarifies a lot of stupid posts on your part.


bbk

I knew I can count on you for some insults...

 

[shakenbake]

Funny, that's what we all said about Mulrooney, isn't it? or, did we forget how Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A., a Conservative, lost power?

If the Grits are bad, so are the Tories, and probably more so, historically. I still hurt about the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, under a conservative Government. After the great brain drain, Canadian Engineers who left in disgust actually put the man on the moon.

 

[langeweile]

The sad part of it is that it wasn't an insult but a statement of fact.


bbk

sniff...snifff...I love you too..man...so much love in here....