Building cabinets

Well, recently sworn-in Premier Wall (that does have a nice ring to it) has built his cabinet. I thought I would try and make an analogy of this new cabinet by comparing it to a kitchen cabinet. Clever, I know.

*moments of brainstorming*

Okay, wait. I thought about it and realized that it probably wasn't going to be very coherent or relevent whatsoever. So lets just do things the good ole fashioned way.

The first difference which Wall talked about is the size of the cabinet. It seems to be in vogue for conservative parties to build a small cabinet, which apparently is used to create an image of accountability and efficiency. (The Happy Harper did this in his early days, stressing the accountability factor, yet all the while appointing a never-been-elected senator to a portfolio. You didn't fool anyone, Stevie.) He told C.P. that his cabinet would be smaller than the 19-member NDP executive at dissolution. However, when push came to shove, he appointed 18 MLAs to the cabinet. As far as I am concerned, that is no smaller. So legislature hasn't reconvened yet and he is already bullshitting to the press. At this rate, he will have lied more times than I can count on both hands and both feet (and I am not missing any digits, either).

Moving onto the cabinet positions. My home-riding victor, Dan D'autremont got the post as Minster of SLGA and the Information Technology Office. I don't know about you, but who wants to look after the liquor and gaming authority? I guess one advantage is a free 26-ouncer of choice at various intervals. And "Information Technology Office?!?" Does anyone know what the hell that is? Sounds like an office with a couple computers, a dozen binders, and a photocopier. Okay, not a photocopier but one of those new-fangled 3-in-1 machines. Regardless, is a ministrial position necessary for an office? Sounds like another bullshit job to me.

As long as Dan is the Minister of the SLGA and the I.T. Office, he will only ever be in the shadows of his southeastern predecessor, Mr. Eric Berntson, former deputy premier under Devine. Dan will have to do something crazy (crazier than be ordered to jail for fraud like Bernie) if he wants to make a name for himself.

Well, I strayed a bit but I hope I didn't leave you in the bushes.

Mmm Mmm Good?

Our too-sexy new Premier, Brad "balls to the" Wall.

He's got the image down, now we just have to worry about the whole leadership business.

P.S. I was debating between "Mmm Mmm Good?" and some sort of ginger baby comment for a title. Thoughts?

Election results

Well the election is over and all I can say is that I am not pleased with the election results.

Not so much am I disappointed with Sask. Party win, because it was more or less a guarentee that there would be a change of command. What makes me most crestfallen (a fairly weak adjective, I know) is the lack of 3rd-party representation in the legislature once again. I feel that the Canadian political structure requires a minimal 3-way split of powers to ensure accountability in the legislature. In a system with such strong party whipping, the election of only 2 parties (a.k.a. always a majority government) allows the government to run away with legislation.

A perfect situation in my mind would have been for the Liberals to win 4 seats, 26 NDP seats, and 30 Sask. Party MLAs. That way, the unexperienced Saskatchewan Party could not run away with crazy privatization (sorry for swearing) and this mystery of "Enterprise Saskatchewan."

Oh well, the coming weeks will shape the next 4 years of Brad Wall's reign. If he gets his idea of predetermined election dates passed, maybe all future provincial elections will be the first Wednesday in November.

Crazy like Hamlet

A humourous quote I found somewhere:

"The conservative party by any other name still smells like a bunch of swindling pricks"

I love a good Shakespearean ripoff.

Flack with Property Tax

I wrote this in the summer, so I thought it was relevent to the current election, as property taxes are becoming a bit of a campaign issue.

Many statistics suggest Saskatchewan has the worst education system in Canada. Numbers indicate our province has the lowest funding from the provincial government than any other province - that is to say a large majority of the education coffers are filled with property taxes, as opposed to income and sales tax.

Property taxes: Tax which is paid on privately owned property, with the amount based on local tax rates and the assessed property value. In lay man's terms, a farmer who owns several sections of land pays much more property tax than the professional who owns a home in the neighbouring town. This uneven process of funding something so fundamental as education is beyond the point of rationality.

Using property taxes to any degree is nothing less than an unbalanced collection of revenue for the education system. What's more is the fact that Saskatchewan has the highest education property taxes in the nation, both on a per capita basis as well as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Property assessment revenues in Saskatchewan account for 60% of the total K - 12 education cost in the province. In a brief comparison to other provinces, the next highest figure in this category is 32.1%. Seven provinces and territories sit at 0%; they simply do not use property assessment as a means of funding the education system. Although the provincial average of property tax to government funding (P to G) is 60:40, in our Southeast Cornerstone School Division (SECSD), this ratio is a staggering 90:10! Most other rural school divisions use well over the provincial property tax average of 60% as well.

Urban school divisions, on the other hand, receive much more provincial funding than their rural counterparts. This is simply because the property tax income in those school divisions is not enough to fund their school system. If urban school divisions sat at the P to G level of 60:40, every single one of their schools would be 50% underfunded.

Although it may seem like the obvious choice, you cannot lay all the blame on the school divisions. It is the provincial government which sets its level of funding to each school division, and then the school divisions adjust their budget accordingly. This spring, the provincial government allotted the SECSD $4.2 million in funding, which is much less than the previous allotted amount of approximately $9.6 million dollars. In fact, that is 56% cut to funding. In response, the SECDS Board of Education raised the mill rate by 1.6 mills, which equates to an influx of approximately $4.7 million dollars of property tax income. This action was in an effort to maintain a similar level of revenue as the previous year.

Everyone may not agree on the financial effectiveness of the our school division, and perhaps the thinking of our school division is along the lines of "spend the money as rationally as we obtain it." This, however, is an entirely different argument. The conclusion being drawn is the outright unprincipled funding of the primary and secondary education system in Saskatchewan through property taxation.

Maybe someday, in a perfect world, the provincial government will take the lead of 7 other provinces and territories and abolish the use of property taxes to fund the education system. It is everybody's EQUAL responsibility to make sure the youth of tomorrow have a satisfactory education. Just like every other socially funded program, the most equitable avenue of funding is through the use of income and sales taxes.

Oh, where to vote...

Right when the election was called, I had full intentions of heading back to my home riding of Cannington in the southeast and placing my vote there. I felt that by going home, I could go home and select between candidates I know somewhat personally, like my old high-school teacher for the NDP, or a friend of a friend's dad for the Sask. Party.

Mainly because there platform kinda scares the shit out of me, to be honest, I don't really want to vote for the Saskatchewan Party. In 2003, Cannington voted 71% in favour of the Sask. Party -- the biggest landslide in the province that year. Even if I was a SP supporter, what do they need an extra vote at home for? Obviously, they are going to win. For that reason, I felt like going home was going to be a waste of a three-hour drive and perhaps even a vote.

So I made up my mind. I am going stay here and vote in Regina Douglas Park. I figured here the vote I cast here would have a heavier impact than if I went home. The potential swing of this constituency is greater. Moreover, I have at least one more option at the polls here than back home.

BUT...

I have always had the mindset that I would vote not for a party, but for a candidate who speaks to me. Here, I don't even know the candidates and I am scared I may walk into the polls and not recognise a single name on the ballot. Have I re-opened my question once again of "Oh, where to vote?"

SKMP Part II: Ethics vs. Rights

Lying in bed a few days ago, I mentally boiled down the two viewpoints from the "Saskatchewan Marijuana Party at Parkland School in Wawota, SK" video that I posted a while back. I realized that it's a case of rights versus ethics.

Now, I can't say I am a hardcore dope smoker by any means, but I certainly did agree with some of the things the Sask. Marijuana Party had to say. However, the only 2 items in their arsenal was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a Stats Canada report. Of course, a well-spoken guy with facts and a thorough knowledge of my rights can be extremely convincing.

The lady who comes up to the gaggle of protesters at the school is trying to play the ethics card. Although she has trouble getting it out, her mind is in the right place and her feelings, I am sure, are the feelings of many other concerned folks in the community.

In my opinion, ethics and rights are both an extremely important part of political life, and most certainly are necessary. However, there is a lot of grey area on the fringes of what is and is not ethical; trying to define one's rights is not exactly clear-cut either. It is this cloudy area that allows controversies such as this one in Wawota to explode like it did.

What can be learned from this video and used in the upcoming election? Well, it shows that you have to sift through the rhetoric and beating-around-bushes to get to the the REAL motives of a political party. Ask yourself: Am I being fed a line of bullshit? Does this really concern me and/or the greater good? Does this issue need to be fixed with money or with innovation? Will this answer fix the problem? COULD THE IDEA ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED?

I plan to take this with me to the polls, and I hope you dig a little deeper before making a decision.

P.S. The Saskatchewan Marijuana Party instantly lost 90% of their credibility when the user named "SaskMarijuanaParty" posted the video under the title "Frumpy Nurse vs. SKMP." Like really, was the "frumpy" necessary?