The 55 billion dollar man

This just in from Agent 26 down in the banana belt...

I had to share this, because what has riled me to no end is the persistent Conservative claim to be "fiscal conservatives"! Is anyone paying attention to the amount of overspending that has happened with these so-called "fiscally conservative" people? How can they continue to make this claim in light of the overwhelming statistical evidence?

What is particularly galling is that as a country, we have nothing to show for this kind of spending. If we had a national day care program, or some real fixes made to our health care system, or some kind of environmental plan to combat climate change, maybe I could stomach this kind of spending. But we have had NOTHING that improves our quality of life as a nation.

Forgive my rant, but this data (see below, ed.) on spending excess was just too much.

When pigs fly: More huffing and puffing from Harper’s $55 billion man

Last October, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty predicted no deficit and no recession.

In January, he predicted a $34 billion deficit. In May, that prediction ballooned to a record $50 billion deficit.

Today, Mr. Flaherty huffed and puffed his way out of his 2013-14 surplus projection and revised the deficit - yet again - to $55 billion. He expects Canadians to believe him this time when he says he can control growth in government spending by 2015.

But the Harper government can’t hold themselves back from the trough. Here are just a few examples of how successful the Harper government has been when it comes to exercising fiscal restraint:

1. Government expenditures. Since Harper came into office, government expenditures have ballooned by over 30 per cent. They increased spending by three times the rate of inflation in the three budgets before the recession hit, and now spend $40 billion more annually than the last Liberal government.

2. Prime Minister’s Office. Last week it was revealed that spending in Prime Minister Harper’s own office soared by 14 per cent in a single year – the tune of a whopping $20 million. (Canwest News Service, September 4, 2009).

3. Senate Appointments. In less than one year, Senate patronage king Stephen Harper has made 27 partisan appointments to the Senate—more in a single year than any other Prime Minister in history – costing Canadians $3.46 million annually. (The most egregious example being the appointment of that fatuous toady, Mike Puffy. Walt.)

4. Advertising. In 2007-2008, the Harper government spent $84.1 million on its various advertising activities. This was more than double the amount spent under the previous Liberal government, which was $41.3 million in 2005-2006. For the first quarter of 2009-10 alone, the Harper government put aside $65 million for advertising campaigns, $40 million specifically for partisan promotion of the Conservative budget.

5. Ministerial expenses. Despite promising to tighten their belts, a Toronto Star analysis found that Conservative ministers are spending more than Liberals ever did in government (The Toronto Star, November 22, 2008), while Harper’s expansion of the federal cabinet last fall will cost taxpayers an additional $3.9 million in salaries alone for the extra ministers and their staff.

6. Consultants. Harper government spent nearly a billion dollars on consultants in its first two years in office: a 42-per-cent increase over the amount the previous Liberal government spent between 2004 and 2006 on consultants (Toronto Star, December 8, 2008).

7. Polling. In 2007, the Harper government commissioned more than two polls per business day which totalled $31 million in the government’s first year of government.

The foregoing is a press release from the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, 10/9/09.

The game of chicken climaxes Friday

Friday (18/9) looks like being put-up-or-shut-up day for Canada's "New" Democratic Party. A ways and means motion that afternoon could be the straw that breaks "Call me Steve" Harper's back, but only if the NDP votes with the Bloc Québecois and the Liberals to bring down Harpoon's misgovernment.

The Iggster has already announced that his Liberals won't back down this time, and his smug phiz is already appearing on your TV screen. The Blocheads also seem ready to hit the election trail.

That leaves the Few Democrats to ride to the rescue of the Tories, if they want to avoid the election of which they are scared shipless. See my post of 2/9.

"Hit the road Jack" Layton has been making conciliatory (conciliaTory? ed) noises about how everyone should try to work together, but his troops sound increasingly doubtful. Having chided the Liberals for their previous support of the government, they'll be hard-pressed now to vote with the same capitalist-roaders.

Of course Harper's minions could find a way to duck the vote. A spokesman for Government House Leader Jay Hill said "the final timing decision has not yet been definitely made."

But check my post of 2/9 (or 9/2, for American readers -- OK, September 2nd). Here's what Layton's saying now: "I really think that most people across the country are saying to themselves, can't these people talk and get something done on the important issues? ... I say to the Prime Minister again, that it's incumbent upon a prime minister in this country in a minority parliament to work with other parties."

Sounds to Walt like he's the one who's going to blink. Stay tuned...

When your number's up, it's up! *

The Daily Telegraph (UK) reports that a Vienna man who prayed for deliverance when he was trapped in an elevator had his prayers answered, and was extricated safe and sound. Naturally, he went to a nearby church to thank God. Not so naturally, he was killed instantly when a stone altar fell on him. “He seems to have embraced a stone pillar on which the stone altar was perched and it fell on him,” a police spokesman said.

* Walt is aware that "When your number's up, it's up" is not good Catholic thinking, but ya gotta wonder about this one...

The fallen stars

St. Peter Damian (see article below) was not the first to warn of homosexuality and other sins and disorders in the priesthood of the Church.

God Himself warned us, in Holy Scripture and the Message of Fatima, about the sins of the priests for which we are now paying. St. Paul said: After my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)

An even more chilling prophecy is given in the Apocalypse: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of Heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the Woman Who was ready to be delivered; that, when She should be delivered, he might devour Her Son. (Apocalypse 12:4)

This is the vision – too long ignored by the Church – of the Woman clothed with the sun, and of Her persecutor, the great dragon (meaning Satan). In scriptural language, "the stars of heaven" mean the Catholic priests, bishops and Cardinals. We can find this explained in The Book of Destiny by Father Bernard Kramer.

Some think that the prediction that "the third part" (one third) of them will be cast down refers to those who have left the priesthood. But the number of bishops and priests has not yet fallen by that much. Of 450,000 priests who were in the Church in 1965, 50,000 left by l975. That is not one-third. Tragically, some of the "fallen stars" are still inside the Church – a cancer in the Mystical Body of Christ.

It is plain to see that some priests are working not for Our Lord, but for their own sinful purposes, just as St. Paul warned. Even worse, some are working for the devil! As Pope Paul VI told us, "The smoke of Satan has entered the Church."

In the words of St. John Eudes, instead of leading their people to God, these bad priests drag Christian souls with them into hell.

What is to be done? More on this soon!

Homosexual priests -- a warning 1000 years old

The problem of homosexuality in the priesthood, with its attendant evils of pædophilia and sexual abuse, is well known. It causes pain and suffering not only to those who have been molested by rogue priests, but to all Catholics who have to endure the scandals, not to mention the literal bankrupting of entire dioceses to settle court claims.

Pope Benedict XVI is well aware of the problem, as was his predecessor, and has spoken out against it. But somehow the idea has taken hold that this is a modern scandal. While it's true that homosexuality in the clergy has erupted and been exposed dramatically since the "reforms" of Vatican II, it is something that bedvilled the Church (pun intended) for centuries.

Speaking at his public audience on September 9, the Holy Father urged Christians "to create silence within ourselves in order to listen to the voice of God." He preached a reflection on the life and influence of St. Peter Damian (1007-1072), a champion of monastic life and of reform within the Church.

His Holiness pointed out that St. Peter Damian "was not afraid to denounce the state of corruption that existed in the monasteries and among the clergy." Although he didn't say so, Benedict appears to have been referring to the Book of Gomorrah, a savage attack on homosexuality in the priesthood.

Writing in Inside the Vatican, its editor, Robert Moynihan, pornounces himself "perplexed" by Pope Benedict's talk. Moynihan calls attention to the Holy Father's failure to specify the particular type of corruption St. Peter Damian denounced.

Moynihan wonders if the Pope deliberately skirted the issue. The Holy Father is extremely subtle and guarded in disclosing his intentions, so it seems more likely that he was dropping a hint, confident that knowledgeable Catholics will make the obvious connection.

The big question is, what is to be done? How are the homosexuals and pædophiles to be rooted out? How is this cancer to be excised from the Mystical Body of Christ? What does the Pope plan to do?

What's wrong with our "plan" for Aghanistan?

Here's an answer to that question from Patrick Brown, a foreign correspondent since 1980, now living in Beijing.
This is an excerpt from his new(ish) book Butterfly Mind, Anansi, 2008.

Afghanistan is essentially a federation of mutually antagonistic ethnic groups who have fought each other vigorously and often, but are, in one sense, curiously united. Afghans of all groups are unanimous in their view that Afghanistan is one country, they belong to it, and it belongs to them. Conflict is never about separation from Afghanistan; it is about how to divide up power and wealth in a state with national borders everyone agrees on.

This power-sharing is one of the factors that makes outside intervention so perilous. Foreigners, however well-meaning, cannot possibly acquire the intimate understanding they would need to avoid antagonizing some or all of the groups. Eventually, all outsiders have worn out their welcome.

Intervention almost never works out as predicted, and it is almost never executed with sufficient thoroughness and commitment. The decision to intervene, either for humanitarian reasons or because a regime has become intolerable, are often made haphazardly, and the results almost always are disappointing. Those decisions deserve care and attention proportional to the blood and treasure lost when bad decisions are made.

I have been in Afghanistan many times since the Taliban left. I have watched a growing number of foreign nation-builders and peacekeepers lose their lives in the dusty hills of a country that once again produces 90 percent of the world's heroin.

After 9/11, there really was no choice except to intervene in Afghanistan [in Mr. Brown's opinion, ed.], but the estimates of what it would take to create a stable democracy there were optimistic to the point of foolishness.

'Nuff said...

The Canada-Afghanistan connection

We're not talking opium or heroin here, although we might well be... No, we're talking about the political connection.

Reports coming out of Afghanistan indicate that Hamid Karzai -- the puppet of NATO -- is leading in the presidential election results, with about 54% of the "vote". I put "vote" in quotation marks because of the massive fraud, which is currently "under investigation" but will likely be confirmed by "independent" observers after a decent interval which will allow for the rug to be lifted high enough to have all the evidence swept under it.

Still, Karzai is clearly the creature and the front for western interests. Keeping him in office is costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. (The Dutch had a bad weekend, losing more soldiers than the Canadians. Meanwhile the Americans are smart and just drop tons of bombs on all and sundry.)

"Hamid Karzai's woes are Stephen Harper's woes." So says John Ibbitson in today's Globe and Mail. Click here to read his excellent analysis. His conclusion: "If Canadians go to the polls often enough, they may start to ask themselves just what our country has achieved in this quagmire, and why." Indeed.