Who is Scott Reid Anyway?I don`t remember him trying to be elected.

Is this political correctness or just lousy strategy? I think it's the latter. I think political correctness requires at the very least that there be some kind of consensus about not offending a particular group. Personally, I hate the poor and so believe that there is no consensus.
Okay, I was just having you on there. I don't really hate the poor, but I don't expect anyone will get up in arms about what I said and because of that, I must assume that there is no dominant, doctrinaire, zero- tolerance against poor bashing thingy out there that would stop people from saying what I said.

It isn't about the poor as the poor will always spend 100% on what gets them through the day. It is about the middle class who need 800 bucks a month for care per child and are offered $100 a month by the Conservative Party. It is not enough. It will get swallowed up in general budget and allocated generally including for beer and (horrors of all horrors) popcorn. <p>What is so odd is that it is predicated on "families will make the best decisions" idealism. This is patently wrong as the dockets of family law courts across the nation testify. Further, for the happier families, as it does not provide anything like the money required for the job, it is clear it will not do the job. So the best decision with the available budget will still be made by most in the middle class: rely upon their own funds still for planning child care and pick up a bit more popcorn for the kids and a bit of beer for the parents.<p>Someone ought to call the Tories on their "families do best" economics and suggest we apply that logic to medicine, education, sewers, water supply and road construction.

Um. Isn't that the Tory platform these days? In the new libertarian utopia families will provide health care, sewers, education, and road construction. You'll see! It'll be great.

Well exactly. So - while I no more trust the Liberal plan for child care as it has been a 12 year roll out as far as I can tell - a brave opponent to the Conservatives would point that out, that this is bad economics based on a moral ideal about family values.

Your're absolutely right Al!!(he said facetiously)
- And by the way, how can we trust those working dullards to spend ANY of their paychecks on their families and children - the Government should be the repository of all of their income and dole it out to them on an "as needed" basis. Ya, that's the answer.

Was it Ford who said "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" And Regan: "We are a people that has a government, not the other way round"

I can't believe you support this inane, insulting remark by Reid. "Don't trust the 'little people' to do what's right for their slovenly brood - are there no workhouses?" How elitist, and anti-democratic - you are a marvel at contradictions.

If I was one of Harper's crew I'd be firing up the T Shirt press with "The Liberals say I'm a Beer and Popcorn Parent - Well my Baby says "NUTS" to them" or some variation- it's akin to the "Yvettes" remark.

Please - think. <p>There is a massive difference between saying some will spend it elsewhere (like the well-off folk who pay for childcare in any event out of their salary and do not need this torrified entitlement) and you "<i>they said every family will waste it all</i>" hysteria which is what you appear to have latched on to. But, you know, just because it is illogical and untenable the supporter of the Tories who plans to relocate to Alberta after the election to ensure ideological hygiene levels are protected could well buy into it.<p>So, a test. Tell us why the child tax credit is superior to the "Tory 1200" and why is the Grit plan problematic. And think as you type. You might enjoy it.

I will give the Tories one thing on their ability to control the day with this non-issue. They have been able to achieve that useful non-issue hysteria while this photo from Saturday is floating around from Canadian Press:<p><center><img src="images/2005g/harpergoolies.JPG" vspace="20"></center>

Let me see, mmmh:

I suppose Al, if you see HRDC, EI, the Sponsorship Program, our Health Care system, the Gun Registry, the Residential School ADR program etc. as models of our Federal Government's ability to run cost effect, results oriented, value-for-money programs, then there's no point debating the issue with you. Let's just add the Federal National Daycare Program to the list. Just saying that should make any sane person sh*it his or her pants.

Here's the Auditor General Shelia Fraser's take on the Federal Departments ability to track expenses and outcomes (in a speech to the Senior Financial Officers of the Federal Gov't): "You and I both know that the government has spent an enormous amount of money—perhaps at least a billion dollars—to set up state-of-the-art financial systems. And yet, after this huge expenditure of taxpayer's money, public service managers still cannot easily find out the true cost of their programs. Deputy Ministers are unable to find out with just a few clicks of the mouse what each of their main business lines costs. And Treasury Board can't say with any certainty how much it costs to implement any of the major initiatives that it advocates..."

Inspires confidence, eh?

Shelia (God love her), goes on: "Canadian taxpayers expect more for their money. They expect federal program managers to be basing their decisions on accurate and complete financial information, which reflect the true costs of their programs... they certainly expect the people running government departments to know if the public money they are spending is actually doing what they intend it to."
(Like, duh!? - like, whose spending whose money on beer and popcorn?)

If you need more, then read the comment of "Mark", a daycare daddy,at: http://www.electionblog.ctv.ca/default.asp?item=117004

Caption to photo above: "Note to self: new policy - tax breaks for athletic supporters".

I'm saying you, I'm staying out of this election mania!

Classic. In response to issue "X", respond with "Y". So please explain how your Ms. Fraser and this wish for us all...<blockquote class="smalltext">They expect federal program managers to be basing their decisions on accurate and complete financial information, which reflect the true costs of their programs...</blockquote>...would be served by a cash give-away of $1200.00 per child with no plan at all to ensure accountability or even that the money applied toward the cause at all? I know...Father knows best. 1953 was a wonderful year.<p>Nice to see the NDP has a plan that has actually been tested.

Gee, the Tories actually trust the people to act in the best interests of themselves and their children, with their own money. What a concept.

It's sad to see that you do not place the same trust in others - and presumably, not even in yourself - perhaps, you've had a bad experience with yourself before, ne c'est pas? Just hand your kids over the state, Al. On your logic, the government should meet all their needs for them -surely not you're not capable of acting in their best interests.

No, let a bloated bureaucracy be the "unaccountable" party here, delivering 10-20% "end results", with 80- 90% of the funding being "eaten up" in administrative costs, we think, because, as Shelia says, no one can actually tell how effective/ineffective the program is. Surely, you would have to be blind to think that this boondoggle could be somehow remotely effective in providing universal, consistent, affordable daycare. It a short time (like, year two) it will be completely unsustainable - and we'll all be wondering what the hell went wrong, looking back in anger - or at least, looking at Quebec, wondering why no one held up the Quebec day care experience seriously as the poster garçon for a bad program gone badder.

The Liberals point to Quebec as a "shining example" of the type of daycare plan they wish to impose on Canadians. Quebec's daycare program, even after province hiked the fee from $5 to $7/day, cost provincial taxpayers $1.43 billion dollars in 2004 (that's "billion", Dr. Evil - ) for 186,000 spaces - that's a deficit of over $7,600 per space. Still with all that cash, only about one in five children in the province of childcare age has access to the $7/day spaces. There no strict income or employment-based criteria for eligibility for the discount daycare - drop the kids off, and head off to the spa, or the "club", faire le shopping etc. Others, fed up with Green Bay Packer season ticket-like waiting lists(kinda sounds like health care, doesn't it), pay handsomely for private services, or (what for it) do it (could it be!!) the "traditional way", with one parent at home!

StatsCan report that in 2004, 2,446,970 children under the age of 7 in low and middle income families in Canada received the CCTB Supplement (that's a stipend of $232 per year). Now, using that figure of 2.44 million children (even round it down to 2 million), and applying the Quebec deficit figure of $7,600.00 - well the annual deficit (just the deficit) is over an astronomical $15.2 billion/year (kinda sounds like health care, again, doesn't it)- if one is suggesting universal access ie. that every child under the age of 6 should have.

Now the Liberals state that their plan will create 625,000 daycare spaces over the next five years across the country. That's close to Quebec's "one in five", maybe "one if four" - it's still not "full access" or "universal" daycare. Based on the Quebec experience, these spaces will generate, at a minimum, a deficit of $4.75 billion dollars annually. The Liberals announced that they would spend only $1 billion/year for the next five years, and only $1.2 billion/year thereafter. Do you really think the Provinces are stupid enough sign on to a program that will force them to "eat" the deficit of $3.75+ billion/year. Quebec did, but it is already "riding the tiger" - and they got $1.1 billion compared to Ontario's $272 million over the next five year. The Provinces will sign on, make no commitments ("just give me the cash -trust me"), just like health care, and the Federal money will do a Houdini into Provincial General Revenues, with few spaces actually being created (try maybe 130,000 spaces total, period, fini, no more, ever - that's what, 1 for every what 15 children who need daycare?)

And once you create the "monster", it needs constant care and feeding of its voracious appetite - it will have its special interest lobbies, its proponents and protectors, all acting in their self-interest, protecting their six figure salaries and funding. "The stab it with their steely knives, But they just can’t kill the beast".

At least with the Tory plan, among other things, there's a way out.

No, there is no way out even with a bad quote from The Eagles. There is 12.3 billion of expenditure over five years out of the Federal budget along with the 28.6 or so I can see in their promises so far. Is that going to have to be paid back when in fact it becomes apparent that child care use will not expand based on a 1/8th cost plan any more than I can buy a car with you giving me 1/8th of the cost. No the money is gone. For those under or not interested in child care the money will be spent elsewhere, if not frittered then just drifted.<p>But answer the question I posed. Why not just add to the Child Tax Credit? I don't need this money at my wage and how we have arranged our lives. What is wrong with putting money where it needs to go? To lower wage earners and to the day-cares directly? They could use existing programs like Ontario's Best Start and fund existing non-profits which are locally administered. Why not? Bad economics but good ideological politics, that is why it won't go where it needs to go. Family-first Torinomics. A "Little House on the Prairies" morality play with my money. Daddy is wise and always right. The Tories are up to 28.6 billion in such give-aways about with 3/4s of the campaign to go. Wait until they start buying aircraft carriers for us after New Year. Classic conservative debt planning.

Remember the answer to the question what people what from the Canadian right: fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The CPC is the star trek evil universe conservatives!

The more I think about this tax break the more I think you are right, David. It is two dimensional star trekky dumb but I have to make sure I understand it rightly. If it is an entirely discretional (no receipts needed), no claw back (rich keep it, too) 1200 bucks a kid I cannot see it but a subsidy from my family (whose kids are now too old) to yours (who next generation is still pre-school. And as I understand you have taken care of child care in one way or another, you will be able to spend this money as you deem fit and not on child care. <p>What part of the population is already taking care of its child care needs, would not be able to improve their cild care needs on 100 bucks a month or would not use a child care service due to their values or choices? Whatever that part is I do not understand this to be anything but a slush fund except for the most needy for whom it will be sort of a baby bonus minimum wage for food and other necessities. This last thing is a good goal but not the goal of the program.<p>But I need to learn more to be dissuaded and no part of that learning more includes "evil" or "libranoes" or someone being called a liar.

Ah, Al, what you are missing of course is your support for the government as the ulitimate "big daddy".

I must say I'm impressed in the faith of others in their government to run another multibillion dollar program with anything approaching (even 50%) efficiency - despite all of the available evidence. This is the ultimate "daddy knows best" scenario - "daddy" being, of course, the paternalistic big daddy government these people crave: tell me what my needs and priorities are, and promise to give it to me tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after, or whenever...

I have to say, I am a litte disturbed by your "anti-family" stance (the stuff of "wispey dreams" I think was the term used by you some time ago to describe the approach to family traditions and such - even though you seem intent on creating your own "traditions" with your family in the road trips to the States etc.), and your attempt to portray the CPCs support of families as socially reprehensible. You would use $1,200 wisely, would you not? Your lack of faith in your fellow man is most telling, and reflects the type of liberal elitist philosophy (there, there, my good man, let your 'betters' take care of you) that force so many of us to the right.

Enhancement of the CTB for low and middle income families, will require an arbitrary cut-off, lacks "universality", and continues to support the Liberal view that anyone who earns over $60K a year is "wealthy". Building more daycares? Why should the government be in the business of building (ie. directly funding) more daycares? Give money to families, and let the market decide how many new spaces will be created.
Admittedly, there is a philosphical differences here. I deal with a lot of what you would describe as low and middle income families, and they have no trouble finding daycare, and their kids are in JK at age 4, anyway. Its poverty and substance abuse, that causes future problems, not the lack of daycare spaces between the ages of 1 and 3. Their toddlers are not out wandering the streets: its their teenagers and twentysomethings they are worried about. These problems are not linked to a lack of daycare.

I congratulate you on your last paragraph. It is like watching a child grow into adulthood.<p>I am not against the family, I only know it for what it is. If you could explain how a family based sewer infrastructure could be funded or a family funding based education system structured. It is the idea of the intermediary of a community goal that is so odd with conservatives. Something always needs trickled over to get the trickle down - you can't just pay directly despite the efficiencies of the not-for-profit sector like with the Best Start program in Ontario. Sometimes for conservatives business needs to receive the public money to achieve the community goal, nevermind the cost of profit. Sometimes the family, nevermind the lack of focus and likelihood of waste. What all the families of Canada are not is an efficient means to procure a good or service as they are dispersed and unorganized and funded with 1/8th the cost needed. The NDP plan will provide for 1/10th the children with child care placements but it is expected only 40% need child care spots and maybe half of those can pay their own way. The NDP plan is also 75% of the cost of the conservative one and actually achieves something. You may not think publically funded non-profit facilties do a job for the money but we would disagree on that.

You should apply your analytical skills to the Liberal's child care proposal, especially since we have practical experience in Quebec. Basically it will provide money to a very narrow class of people and exclude most working poor types. Like the 1 year off for having a child system, the typical person using it could be classified as a unionized person, or a person who manages a unionized person, who work for government.

My proposal is quite simple: raise your own kids; it's working for me and it will work for the vast majority of Canadians.

However, if I had to choose between the proposals, the CPC's is far better than the Liberals.

But the CPC plan means my family with two elementary has less money to pay for your child or othere expenses at your discretion? How can that be better than anything? At least the Liberal and NDP plan spends money on "X" and gets "X".<p>I do agree with the need to analyze the Liberals - which is an extension to Federal funding of the provincially administered and locally managed Best Start system which I have to admit I work with - which I shall plan to do but this one of all the proposals the CPC makes no sense in its throw-away of billions for ideological purity.

Fair enough. Modest Proposal: welfare and EI cheques should be converted to housing, food and trainer vouchers, as recipients are likely to blow their cash on "liquor and pizza".

(Inner Homer says: "mmmmm, liquor and pizza")

FYI - direct payment to landlords on consent is not unknown.

Mandatory. We can't have untrained citizens going off half-cocked being responsible for the own lives!

Sigh. The problem with libertarian conservatives these days is that they see all collective activity as authoritarian. That's a real problem. I'm surprised they don't stand up and wail when the collection plate gets passed around at the local church.

Way to chime in with that ad hominem.

It's funny how discretionary spending of a government benefit becomes an issue when families are involved. Perhaps we should start re-thinking corporate tax cuts in the same manner, i.e.: "If we give businesses better tax breaks they might spend the extra money on bigger smoke stacks and larger executive bonuses."

It's not an ad hominem to characterise your argument in a particular way. Here I will make it less abour conservatives and more about conservativism. The problem with contemporary conservativism is that it sees all collective activity as inherently authoritarian. See?

Personally, I think neo conservativism should be outed as a type of anarchism.

That was no ad hominem at all! It is a broad brush generalization, a characature as well as an illustration through absurdity. It works, though a "neo-" prefix would have made it more palatable. Adding "Randian neo-con libertar-i-whacks" would make it universally hilarious.<p>And Rebel G is exactly right. If a business gets a tax break there should be receipts involved showing the allocation of the tax break. Use of the public purse for private purposes should be accountable in the same way that public use for public purposes ought to be.

Al, who are you kidding... Anyone who knows you, knows that $100 wouldn't cover that overpriced beer you drain down you're throat, let alone some using some of :Child Care subsudies" for popcorn. If there was 100 bucks left over from the Gov't, you'd waive the pop corn, sell one or both of the kids, and take you're cash to buy some pineapple beer from the U.S.. Basically stealing from Peter to pay Paul.
Cheers,
#$%^&*&*

Paul simply has finer ales.

Personally, I think neo conservativism should be outed as a type of anarchism.

[best comment ever]

Finally. Acclaim. I will take a bow. Many thanks to all who knew me when I was struggling.

Who else loves Rick Mercer's new petition- 'Beer Not Kids,' a response to the Canadian anti-beer agenda:

"Let’s stop the hate and let the beer drinking begin. Remember: children may be our greatest resource but beer is our greatest beverage. And besides if it wasn’t for beer most of these kids wouldn’t have been born anyway."

I don't know how to post a link but here is the address: http://new.petitiononline.com/beerkids/petition.html. [Ed: I did it for you.]

If you want some additional equal opportunity lampooning see: www.derision2006.com. Some funny stuff.