Some people ask my why I'm voting Liberal and not Conservative. You'd think on the surface that would be easy enough to answer. Just like it's easy enough to answer why I'm not voting NDP with a simple "I don't trust them with my money." Unfortunately some people are stupid. By stupid, I mean more than just the regular level of people stupid and even more than the teenage level of stupid. Some people are so stupid I'm not sure how I function with them around me.
It's not that I agree with everything the Liberal party does. I feel they have the best ideals for Canada's future. I'd like to let everyone know that I completely disagree with the gun registry. It's one of the Liberal party's major downfalls. It's too bad that they can't go back on it now without looking like idiots. It just drives me mad when people who vote Conservative blindly recite the shit they're told thinking that they're smart. I don't get along with people who spew shit without backing it up thinking that it'll shut me up. My friendships or lack there of with certain people is more than enough to prove that.
So when people start saying that the Conservatives are going to scrap the gun registry, that little vein on my forehead starts to get really big and my eye starts to twitch. It's probably because I spend a lot of my free time researching things from credible sources. Why can't other people do the same.
But what about those 1,000 new RCMP officers the Conservatives say they will hire with the money saved from the gun registry? With a starting salary of $40,523, employing 1,000 new RCMP officers will cost $40.5 million a year once they are out in the field, with costs rising to $65.6 million as the officers reach a higher pay scale within three years. That's considerably more than the current cost of registering guns. The Conservative plan may well be a better strategy for reducing gun crimes, but scrapping "the $2 billion gun registry" will not produce the windfall of cash the Conservatives seem to be counting on.1
So when it comes to guns, we look just about screwed. I mean, no one running for a seat in parliament actually knows shit about gun violence or how to stop it. Well maybe the NDP, but they won't get elected where it matters anyways. It boggles my mind at how clueless some of these politicians are. Yes, members of the brainwashed Conservative voters will make snide remarks about how gangsters won't register their guns anyways. Then what makes them think that taking away the right to vote from prisoners will make it any better. Why would gangsters even bother to vote? But more than that, what makes them think that the Conservatives will actually be able to take that right away from prisoners?
I mean it's not like we've decided that as Canadians voting is a fundamental right that ever citizen has. Or wait. No – it is something we decided. That's why it's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Passing a constitutional amendment to remove voting rights for prisoners will not be easy. It will require passing resolutions in the House and Senate, and in seven provincial legislatures representing 50 per cent of the population. This has never happened before. A Parliament with a Conservative majority or strong minority would likely be able to pass a resolution in the House. The Liberal-dominated Senate might be a tougher sell, and it is unlikely that provincial governments would support a constitutional amendment without asking for something in return from the federal government. Even lawmakers who support the idea of disenfranchising prisoners might be reluctant to achieve that goal through a measure as draconian as amending the Charter. 2
This sets a deeper fear in me personally. I couldn't care less prisoners and whether or not they have the right to vote. It's not a big issue for me, and it's not like they turn out to vote anyways ("on average, there are only about forty prisoner votes per riding"). So then why does this bother me? It's the fact that the Conservatives are willing to play with something that we call the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not to add rights or freedoms either, but to remove them. People should start thinking about that.
My biggest beef with tax credits. I'm not even going to spend a lot of my time explain this, when it's done so much better already. "The harsh truth about tax credits is that they don't live up to the headlines ... promise $2,000 deductions for seniors and $500 breaks for hockey parents. That's because all tax credits are calculated by multiplying the dollar amount allowed-say $500 for sports fees-by the lowest tax rate, currently 16 per cent, for a maximum tax savings of $80 a year." This one should be fun.
To help middle-income seniors, the Conservatives promise to increase-from $1,000 to $2,000-the amount of private pension income from a registered plan or RRSP that can be earned free of tax. This is designed to help those whose Old Age Security benefits are clawed back when incomes reach $60,000.
This doesn't mean, however, that seniors receive a $2,000 reduction. This, too, is a tax credit, so the $2,000 exemption has to be multiplied by 16 per cent for a maximum tax savings of $160 a year.
Harper's $500 tax credit for parents with kids in organized sports has to appeal to anyone who spends their pre-breakfast mornings at a freezing cold rink. As noted, however, $500 in sports fees only yields a tax savings of $80 a year, enough perhaps for a pair of used skates.3
The same thing should be noted for students. A $500 text-book credit doesn't mean you get $500, as some idiots have interpreted. It means that you're given credit against taxes for $500. If my business classes taught me anything it's that tax-deductible shit really isn't as awesome as it seems. Tax credits seem to be working out just the same way. Nothing says fun like getting $80 back for all my text book spending. My text book spending in first year? Over $1000. I'm so going to be rolling the money now.
1. Reality Check - The registry under the gun
2. Reality Check - Voting no to prisoners
3. Reality Check - When it comes to tax credits, read the fine print