Chike, you had to ask didn't you?!

So I have to say, I consider many people on the "other side of the floor" in political youth organizations to be friends. I don't have hangups about disagreeing with good people. My friend Chike is one of such friends. Chike is somewhat of a spokesperson for the Ontario Young Liberals, and in all fairness, his "about me" rant against tomorrow's rally deserves some digesting.

MESSAG TO THE ALL THOSE PROTESTING ABOUT TUTION TODAY:

Whatever happened to...
"Hey you know what, I don't like your idea. Here's my idea."

Secondly,

We don't live in utopia. Services cost money.

Thirdly,

After we reduce tuition and then eliminate it, will you be free of debt?

Fourthly,
There are people who drive and go on vacations with OSAP

Fifthly,

For all those who actually need tuition reduced and for whom OSAP isn't actually enough...lets do them a favor and come up with some real solutions instead of holding up signs in -22 degree weather for a day.

And Lastly,

If someone asked you...

"would you like the price of gasoline to be reduced and then eliminated? you would probably say this..."

Hells Ya! (and then you would hopefully say)

HOW DO YOU PLAN ON DOING THAT?

I have yet to get an answer from all those who want tuition reduced and then eventually 0 tuition to that question.

One Love

Beyond the fact that I'm not sure Chike agrees with tuition reduction in the first place, I think he's asking a non-partisan group to make partisan recommendations. The Canadian Federation Of Students have run the Reduce Tuition Fees campaign for a specific reason: promote the idea of tuition reduction and elimination. This is as far as they can take it, it's up to political parties to manage such a demand within the context of their platform.

What people fail to recognize is the interconnectedness of government finances between municipal, provincial, and federal jurisdictions. In this case, a surge in tuition costs over the past decade can be attributed almost directly to 13 years of Paul Martin's cutbacks in post-secondary education provincial transfers. Indeed the ammendments Jack made to the Liberal budget in 2004 were the first increases in said transfers in well over a decade. Yet those cutbacks went unnoticed, silent, and steady as the Liberals uncovered "surplus budgets". What we saw simultaneously was the largest rampage of corporate tax cuts in Canada's history.

But hey, when the government is running surplus budgets, corporate tax cuts are good right? Well Chike, surpluses aren't surpluses when you are running deficits in other areas. Cutbacks and funding changes made to education, health, employment insurance, public transportation, environment, and just about everything the Liberal party (paradoxically) "stands for", created one of Canada's most camouflaged, and yet deadly deficits we have seen for some time.

Chike and I met up at the Ontario Model Parliament recently. I was representing Peter Tabuns of Toronto-Danforth (proudly), he was in a Liberal seat. Chike heckled the New Democrats for running deficits under Bob ("defunct comrade") Rae, and praising his own for ever "reaching higher" (as is the current Liberal slogan). I was subject to slight case of nausea as the Liberals were able to claim surplus budgets more or less the same way their federal counterparts had. The major difference was that the McGuinty Liberals only had to reinforce the Harris/Eves cutbacks to get the same desired effects.

Of note: the public deficit was transferred to private hands. If I were a conservative, I'd be irate; the government is rolling in people's hard earned money while people have to manage the increasing bills, and sub-standard services. I'd likely demand the government be downsized! What do you know? The neo-cons did demand, and in many cases, succeeded in further cutting back our public commons and assets. It only took roughly 15 years to see it happen, but now our social housing costs are being mainly covered through property taxes (honestly, conservatives! wake up!). Municipalities are struggling to cope with funding crises, as their money is effectively now channelled into federal bureaucracies tens of thousands in employees; bureaucracies employed in the business of analysing why the system is broken.

Chike's most recent comments have spelled out some frightening ignorances that liberals are wholly adopting. The attempt to confine the argument to "how will you finance this or that" is horrifically disingenuous; diverting all attention away from what has been effectively the cause of our social, economic, and environmental debt. The overwhelmingly staunch messaging coming from the Liberal conventions and campaigns of late has been "we're not conservatives". They've largely backed this up on issues such as healthcare and the environment. Issue by issue I can argue till I'm orange in the face why this rhetoric is completely preposterous; why Dion is not green, why McGuinty is not progressive, why Martin is not left, why this is a complete fabrication and at times an outright lie. However, we partisans know that political divides are mostly driven by more subtle and thorough ideological or pragmatic differences.

Public deficits have been downloaded onto the poorest of the private hands through tax shifts, environmental abuse, healthcare and social service cuts. These debts are inherently incurred directly by people; something realized and fought in a philosophy of "people and the environment" I feel is inherent to the values of New Democrats. Meanwhile alleged profits have consistently been forwarded into the coffers of the richest. Grossly underfunded and mismanaged services have justified a neo-con push to downsize government services, sell off public assets, and increase service costs for those of the services still not completely public, such as post-secondary education. This demand has been met gleefully by the Liberals of our age. The CCCE, didn't say "cut social services, and starve the poor" to justify another tax cut. They merely pressured where they knew they could have an affect. I can guarantee it was not in -22?C weather in the streets; they simply asked. It was the task of the Liberal and Conservative parties to meet that demand with an fiscal strategy, and rhetorical spin which didn't compromise their electability.

Whatever happened to... "Hey you know what, I don't like your idea. Here's my idea."

Here's my idea: marginally raise corporate tax rates to cover free tuition, as is done responsibly in Europe (home to some of the most efficient economies in the world).

We don't live in utopia. Services cost money.

So why cut government funding to them?

After we reduce tuition and then eliminate it, will you be free of debt?

Not immediately, no. But if you are advocating for a higher minimum wage, greater access to EI, and universal public dentalcare and childcare... I'll take you up on it. With those, you might be able to take a dent out of the private debt incurred through government cutbacks.

There are people who drive and go on vacations with OSAP

There are some. However every Corporate CEO of the CCCE with absolute certainty drives and takes vacations using money attained through corporate tax cuts; money which rightfully belongs in government services. Once you can assure me those lazy do-nothing scum are not leeching off honest working people like me, I'll start to ask debt ridden adolescents for my money back.

For all those who actually need tuition reduced and for whom OSAP isn't actually enough...lets do them a favor and come up with some real solutions instead of holding up signs in -22 degree weather for a day.

OSAP is nevertheless a debt. We all could bear to have tuition fees reduced, so we can see our money used for better purposes like starting families, investing in pensions, and even if we spend it-- it will boost the economy (wasn't that why tax cuts were supposed to work?). Tuition fee reduction/elimination is not only a real solution to inaccessible education, it is one of only a few solutions.

And Lastly, If someone asked you... "would you like the price of gasoline to be reduced and then eliminated? you would probably say this..."

...wait, wait... I think I'm the one who was arguing for the gas tax, and an end to subsidies for oil corporations-- both of which could save our public institutions billions, and generate revenues for services like post-secondary education, and healthcare.

HOW DO YOU PLAN ON DOING THAT?

I have yet to get an answer from all those who want tuition reduced and then eventually 0 tuition to that question.

So if I answer all of these, Chike, do I get to see you tomorrow, wearing a "Youth United" NDP button? Eh?