Opinion
OPINION: I think the Mayor and city councillors will lead by example and vote against pay raises for themselves of 18% and 14% respectively, on Monday.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer and should not be interpreted as reflecting the editorial policy of Todayville, Inc.
Will the Mayor and our 8 city Councillors lead by example, have the discipline to stand by their principles and convictions of fiscal conservatism, and say no to a pay increase to offset a tax increase? I hope so. All us little people have to accept tax increases.
We have all suffered and we feel their pain. We all know of someone who has lost a job, shown up at their workplace to find it padlocked, had hours cut, pay roll backed, gone bankrupt, had medical expenses go skyrocketing, seniors boarding up rooms to save on extreme heating costs, had their vehicles repossessed, homes foreclosed, forced to go to food banks, forced to take on a second or third job to feed children, forced into early retirement, or just lost their life savings.
City council has talked about declining resources and rising costs for increasing taxes, franchise fees, bus fares, recreational fees, and other services even if you lost your job, seen hours cut, your rent increased, and had your car repossessed.
The Mayor and Councillors have all seen or heard these tales and have used them to cut spending and services for the good people of Red Deer.
On Monday November 26, 2018 they will be given the chance to prove their mettle, show their disciplined convictions to fiscal conservatism and not vote them selves a raise to cover the end of a tax subsidy, only they and not the average citizen enjoyed for years.
Unlike many of us who lose jobs, income, or bonuses suddenly and unexpectedly, they saw it coming.
Will the Mayor and our 8 city councillors suffer a perceived salary cut? Every business owner, tradesman and even the Alberta Government employees saw roll backs, cuts and decreased profits. Didn’t former Conservative Premier Ralph Klein roll back all government employees pay by 5% and kept frozen for years afterwards?
I say perceived because they are not actually seeing a salary cut but an equalization of taxes, compared to non-politicians. They had the benefit of a 1/3 tax free earnings subsidy which ceases to exist on January 1 2019.
The subsidy was granted to offset personal expenses peculiar to the role of being a politician. Politicians were also given expense accounts to cover the costs of these same personal expenses so the benefit was rather redundant. Some would call this unintentional double-dipping.
Being human they became accustomed to having the extra funds, forgetting the reason for them.
Now they are like the rest of society and facing a possible net pay decrease. So the question is; “If they do not vote themselves a raise, who will stay and who will go?”
October 2017 there were 2 candidates for mayor and 29 candidates for city council, how many of them ran for the pay cheque and how many would have withdrawn their nomination papers if they knew that the 1/3 exemption would end in 2019?
I do not believe any one would have withdrawn from the campaign and I do not think our mayor or any of our councillors will resign due to this hardship. Do you?
On November 26, 2018 will the Mayor and Councillors have the discipline and convictions to stand by their fiscal conservative oratories or will they just stick hands back in the public trough for more money to sustain their rather nice life style?
From the Fraser Institute
This year’s COP wants to fast-track the world’s transition to “clean” energy, help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, work on “mobilizing inclusivity” (whatever that means) and “delivering on climate finance,” which is shorthand for having wealthier developed countries such as Canada transfer massive amounts of wealth to developing countries.
Every year, the United Nations convenes a Conferences of Parties to set the world’s agenda to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It’s the biggest event of the year for the climate industry. This year’s conference (COP29), which ends on Sunday, drew an army of government officials, NGOs, celebrities and journalists (many flying on GHG-emitting jet aircraft) to Baku, Azerbaijan.
The COP follows a similar narrative every year. It opens with a set of ambitious goals for climate policies, followed by days of negotiating as countries jockey to carve out agreements that most favour their goals. In the last two days, they invariably reach a sticking point when it appears the countries might fail to reach agreement. But they burn some midnight oil, some charismatic actors intervene (in the past, this included people such as Al Gore), and with great drama, an agreement is struck in time for the most important event of the year, flying off to their protracted winter holidays.
This year’s COP wants to fast-track the world’s transition to “clean” energy, help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, work on “mobilizing inclusivity” (whatever that means) and “delivering on climate finance,” which is shorthand for having wealthier developed countries such as Canada transfer massive amounts of wealth to developing countries.
Some of these agenda items are actually improvements over previous COPs. For example, they’re actually talking about “climate adaptation”—the unwanted stepchild of climate policies—more this year. But as usual, money remains a number one priority. As reported in the Associated Press, “negotiators are working on a new amount of cash for developing nations to transition to clean energy, adapt to climate change and deal with weather disasters. It’ll replace the current goal of $100 billion (USD) annually—a goal set in 2009.” Moreover, “experts” claim the world needs between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion (yes, trillion) in “climate finance” annually. Not to be outdone, according to an article in the Euro News, other experts want $9 trillion per year by 2030. Clearly, the global edifice that is climate change activism is all about the money.
Reportedly, COP29 is in its final section of the meta-narrative, with much shouting over getting to a final agreement. One headline in Voice of America reads “Slow progress on climate finance fuels anger as COP29 winds down.” And Argus News says “climate finance talks to halt, parties fail to cut options.” We only await the flying in of this year’s crop of climate megafauna to seal the deal.
This year’s conference in Baku shows more clearly than ever before that the real goal of the global climate cognoscenti is a giant wealth transfer from developed to developing countries. Previous climate conferences, whatever their faults, focused more on setting emission reduction targets and timelines and less about how the UN can extract more money from developed countries. The final conflict of COP29 isn’t about advancing clean energy targets or helping vulnerable countries adapt to climate change technologically, it’s all about show me the money.
Author:
Daily Caller
Canada Pivots From ‘Diversity Is Our Strength,’ Locks Down Border Fearing Migrant Influx
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Canadian officials are bracing for a possible migrant influx into their country because of President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory in the U.S., marking a major pivot in policy compared to Trump’s first White House term.
Canada’s Liberal Party-led government appears to be taking a much more hawkish approach to illegal immigration and the possibility of a surge in asylum seekers, according to the New York Times. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — the country’s law enforcement arm that patrols the border — is preparing to beef up its immigration enforcement capabilities by hiring more staff, adding more vehicles and creating more processing facilities.
RCMP would use the extra vehicles to help patrol the U.S.-Canada border and utilize newly-established facilities to detain and process arriving migrants, according to the New York Times.
The preparations up north come as Trump — who just won election to a second, non-consecutive term to the White House — has vowed to conduct the largest deportation operation in the country’s history. He is set to re-occupy the Oval Office in January, where he will get to work on his hardline immigration enforcement agenda.
Canadian officials have spoken about the possibility of a migrant surge into their country early on since Trump’s victory.
“We started planning because we knew that there were a lot of people in the United States who will fear to be deported, and if that happens, they won’t wait for the Trump administration to seize power, it’s more likely that they will attempt to cross into Canada from now in the next few weeks until he takes on power,” RCMP spokesperson Sgt. Charles Poirier said on CTV News earlier in November.
Trudeau’s government did not have the same response to Trump’s first-term crackdown on illegal migrants.
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,” the Canadian prime minister posted on social media on Jan. 28, 2017, just days after Trump was sworn into office.
However, in the years since Trudeau made these public overtures, the Canadian government has recognized the need to change course. The change in policy is largely reflective of less tolerance in the country for mass migration, public opinion surveys have shown.
“To be clear: all newcomers are valued in Canada,” Marc Miller, Canada’s immigration minister, said during a September speech in Ottawa before announcing the rollout of immigration enforcement measures. “But we also need to recognize that this can impact communities, such as the increases in unemployment amongst youth and newcomers.”
“We are introducing changes to further recalibrate international student, foreign worker and permanent resident volumes. That work has already started,” Miller continued.
In addition to beefing up its border infrastructure, Canadian officials also plan to make use out of an international agreement that will allow them to send asylum seekers back into the U.S., according to the New York Times. The “safe third country” agreement — which the Trump administration heavily enforced onto Mexico at that time — designates both the U.S. and Canada as safe countries for asylum requestors, meaning a migrant that arrived in the U.S. must first seek asylum there before attempting to do so in Canada.
“We expect that agreement to continue to be fully enforced,” Miller told reporters earlier.
The RCMP did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Health Care Update: Province will deliver health services regionally in seven “health corridors”
The Most Devastating Report So Far
What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?
Another Mass Grave?
-
Business1 day agoCBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place
-
armed forces2 days agoJudge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
International2 days agoElon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing
-
conflict2 days agoUS and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime
-
Energy2 days agoWhat does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoCongressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies
-
Alberta24 hours agoAlberta fiscal update: second quarter is outstanding, challenges ahead