Random Thought

So, if you were in serious debt, would you go to your financial advisors and hear them say 'Oh, to get out of debt, you just have to increase your spending'?



I didn't think so.

Iggy

I really enjoyed this post by Rob so CHECK IT OUT

(re: Michael Ignatieff's multiple personality disorder)

And THIS ONE by Andrew Keyes

(re: libs boohooing over 'Con attack ads' that they give themselves excuses to use when it suits them)



Yes I am being a lazy blogger lately. My brain can only take so much information at once these days. I am starting back to work Monday after spending some cherished time at home with my littlest one and have had to de-zone myself for awhile. I'm also feeling very at odds with what is happening in my city and province lately and I can't decide if I should thumb my nose at them all and go move to an acreage and live off the land as much as possible so they can't get as much of my hard earned money, or what. At least some house prices are finally coming down, the one down the street has dropped 30 grand since February. But that's the only plus I've seen around here in ages.

THINGS LIKE THIS make me go totally brain dead, malfunction alarms sound, and then I just want to stand in the corner and scream. Maybe my next home will need to have a sound-proof room with velcro walls so I can throw myself at them while wearing my straight-jacket. That sounds like a plan!

Harper on CNN again

I just watched PM Harper on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS. It's been interesting watching him on more US programs lately.

And while trolling around other blogs, I found another Harper US TV tour vid lol. (thanks Climbing Out Of The Dark for posting it)....



Harper on Fox and CNBC
:)

Exasperation

UGH. I get so frustrated with people who do not understand that the concept of 'free' government help is NOT actually free. I listened to an excellent segment on Andrew Wilkow's Sirius Patriot show today and for the first time ever, I was even brave enough to call in lol. Was I a nervous fool? Yes lol. But anyway he had been talking about how when the govt gives money to someone, such as raising taxes to put into programs for others, the people end up footing the bill (yes, even those who accept the program funds). So many do not seem to understand that. Some of Wilkow's examples were if taxes on a business are raised, the business may cut staffing (so someone loses their job), or raise product/services costs (for all consumers including those receiving the benefit money), etc. So I called in to agree and give my example:

Backtrack - about 10 years ago my daycare centre was providing a hot lunch for children every day (our choice), but it was quickly becoming a money drain (higher food cost, minimum wage rose, etc) as well as having to throw out about half of everything made because so many kids did not eat it, no matter what it was. We asked the parents to vote on whether they wanted us to continue hot lunch and they paid a higher fee, or axe hot lunches and they could provide a bag lunch for their children instead. The majority of parents chose BAG lunch - so to further balance with the few who wanted hot lunch, we decided to do hot lunch for everyone on Fridays. It was a diplomatic process where EVERYONE had a say, and EVERYONE benefitted.

Fast forward to today, and the Alberta govt wants to force all centres to provide a hot lunch every day. The only way the daycare can afford that is to charge the parents a higher fee - something they voted against years ago. I called Wilkow to speak on that point, to say that the program is forcing us to do this but it is going to come back on the very people it's supposedly helping - parents.

Someone suggested to me months ago that if a parent wants to pack a bag lunch, that is their choice and maybe the daycare could waive the fee-rise. Problem - we are not allowed to have a two-tier system. We are supposed to charge one price across the board and not have different fees for different services (unless it's simply part time and full time care diferences). So the govt already stopped us there years ago. We cannot have one fee for those who want hot lunch, and one for those who send bagged.

The other choices for the business - cut staff pay (when already only just above minimum wage) or cut into their own profits (which is no more than 20% and more like 5-10% of intake). Staff at my center cannot be let go because we already work at the minimum so at least no one will be fired to help pay for the govt-forced program. But that's about the only thing that is safe.

And just a point to note - which I have mentioned before - the reason the govt is going to dictate this is because some parents do not feed their children properly (do not put enough food groups in their bag lunch or send junk food), so the centers have to pick up the slack. So not only is the govt telling parents they can't be trusted to provide nutrition for their children, it's also telling them that they have to pay the centers more so we can decide what's best for them to eat.

This exact same thing happens in program after program. When I lived in community housing as a single parent, they inspected my home more often than a landlord would. But they didn't just check for any damage, they would look at the general upkeep of my home to make sure I wasn't letting my kids live in squandor. If you sign up for these programs, you can be at their mercy for all sorts of intrusive inquiries which are actually AGAINST YOUR RIGHTS!!! It took me 4 years to find out from a lawyer friend that information the housing agency asked me for was NOT within their rights to ask for. How do govt programs get away with this stuff anyway?

So just think about these 'free' programs or govt involvement and decide how much of it you think is actually good. Even if 85% of parents feed their kids properly every day, everyone is going to pay real cash for the 15% that don't. Why is that fair? What if I don't want my child to have a big hot lunch every day and then not eat supper when they come home later? I still have to pay the higher fee because the GOVT forced it, not the center. It takes away choices people, it really does, and you have to open your eyes to that before it's too late.

***UPDATE to my long winded rant: I attended a meeting at the school today to discuss nutritional needs. The School Board has passed some new rules taking all junk foods out of the schools. That includes not doing any more chocolate bar fundraisers, etc. That's $10,000 a year gone from our school's funds right off the top, let alone other fundraisers like Cookie Dough, or schools that do Nutter's Trays, etc. Anyway, it also includes any classroom parties, special events etc that parents donate food to - no junk allowed. So if my kid is having a birthday, I can't bring in cupcakes to share with the class. I don't normally do that anyway because my kids have summer holiday bdays (woohoo!), but still - the board said they can't dictate what parents are sending their children in their lunches, but it really is dictating some parental choices by axeing anything not on the canada food guide for all class parties, etc. Teachers are also not allowed to eat anything not in the Guide for their own lunches because they have to set an example for the kids.

Okay, I get that - but come on seriously? Teacher can't even eat a choco chip cookie on her BREAK in the school? I forsee a lot of teachers and support staff hiding in the bathroom stalls to get a chocolate fix lol. Anyway, I'm not retarded - I 'get' nutrition and eating healthy but there are other consequences to this as well. The high schools operate cafeterias (along with one elementary). These are fundraisers in themselves but they can no longer serve a heap of stuff on their menu. If high school kids can't get what they want, they will just head over to the stores instead. The cafeterias (one for sure that I know of) are actually staffed by an outside service, so if they do not wish to conform to the board's new policy, they will just pull out. What happens for funds now? We got given a big list of Fundraising Ideas but it looked like something you pull off the net - Game Show Nights, etc. Those are all a lot of work to set up, and very little in return for funds. Since schools have had programs cut left and right, some of these chocolate bar fundraisers, etc, are their bread and butter. We can send the whole Grade 6 class to camp for less than what we make in those 'non-nutritional' fundraisers. And many teachers have been at this for 30 years and have already 'been there done that' several times with other types of fundraisers and know what works and what doesn't. Almost every idea in the big Healthy Eating Fundraiser Ideas falls into the 'doesn't' category.

My thoughts are, the choco bars are not sold to students to eat in the school, they take them home and sell to friends and family who wish to buy them for eating at home or work. Very few of the bars come back in kids' lunches because for one thing, the bars are big and cost $3 each. My point is, they are not being injested on school property very often, and if parents are supposed to have the right to decide what their children eat, why is the school board forcing the end to these fund raisers? We were also given a huge list of approved items to include for things like hot dog day (which is run by Grade 6 volunteer parents -me included), because we aren't allowed to do bags of chips anymore. We also have to change to whole wheat buns - get ready to see the garbage cans over-flowing.

Again, I understand about nutrition and the school's role in being a good example and setting kids on their way to eating right, but I remember the principal's words today when he told me the board can't tell parents what to put in lunches, so they will tell us what to serve at school. I told him what is happening at the daycare and that for years already we have been told we CANNOT let the kids eat candies, chips, chocolate, etc from their own lunch bags. We have to leave the item in there with a note to parents explaining we cannot serve them and to please not send unhealthy items anymore. He looked very surprised, to know that the govt actually IS dictating what goes in a packed lunch in other sectors of childrens' services. I thought it was best to give him a head's up in case it comes in the future. Because a few people don't feed their children 'properly', everyone has to conform.

PM Harper on CNN

Thank you to Sort of Political for posting this vid because I was having trouble finding a good copy of it lol.

Harper on the Stimulus, NAFTA, World Trade, Protectionism....

Regulations hand in hand with $$$

cI was going to write about this a couple of months ago, but don't think I did. In light of the promises of bailout money for people experiencing mortgage problems, etc in the US I wanted to talk about what has happened in various sectors in Canada when receiving 'promised' funds. I work in childcare and have since 1993 (Germany). I have seen all sorts of govt programs come and go. For instance, when I first started in Canada, the govt gave centers $200 per child space to help cover costs of food, new equipment, or even to enhance staff wages, etc. It was just automatically given after proving your licensing (which was one piece of paper stating the number of spaces). That money gradually decreased,,, well not really all that gradually. By 1998 the money was completely cut off. Zero govt funding to centers. Fast forward to about 2005, the Liberal govt set aside funds for each province to use for registered and approved child care centers. However, it was not as easy as in the past. Welcome the birth of the Alberta Accreditation program (which actually has a much longer name I cannot be bothered to type). In order to receive these wonderful govt funds, centers and dayhome agencies had to go through a new Accreditation process over and above the licensing process.

In order to be licensed each year, an inspector visits at least twice and sits in to watch center activity. A report is written and submitted and these are collected at the end of the year for licensing purposes. As well, the Health Inspector and Fire Inspector must visit and submit reports. So, all registered centers and dayhomes already have these hoops to jump through in order to keep their businesses running. Now - Accrediation. Every three years this needs to be done (my center did it in 2005 and just finished 99% of it last month again) in order to still receive funds such as staff wage enhancement, technical grants, new equipment grants, and professional development grants for staff. I can see the reasons, making sure the center 'deserves' the money however, if they are already licensed and already go through inspections each and every year, several times a year, why do NEW inspections have to happen by these newly appointed inspectors who are completely separate from the licensing officers? It is unreal!

In order to start up a center, reams of paperwork must be submitted, which of course is normal. Philosophy, Discipline, Food, etc plans. This has already been done by every center. But for Accreditation it has to be done again, and every so often a new policy pops up from accreditation that must be added to the policies, and adhered to, in order to receive the funding. These policies are over and above the govt minimums listed for licensing purposes. In order to get the staff an extra $1-3 per hour, new policies have to be adhered to. In order to receive $1000 a year for professional development, new hoops have to be jumped through. Apparently the goal of Accreditation is to have centers operating above the minimum standards set by the govt. But it seems more and more that these new standards will become the new licensing policies.

There is now talk of requiring all center staff to hold a Level 2 or higher. Level 2 means a year of college costing $8000 to $12000. Level ones are most often used as casuals, support staff, break coverage, etc but in small centers like mine, they are also used to work directly with the children full time because they have over 20 years experience between those 2 staff members (I am one of them!). Within a few short years (or less) we could lose our jobs because in order to receive Accreditation funding, the center must only hire Level 2 or Level 3 staff (Lev 3 is a 2 year college diploma program). Fired in order to adhere to policies for receiving this wonderful nice govt funding? WHAT? Level 1 is a 60 hour course at the college that you can get for free if you are going to work with children. I have taken half of the Level 2 course but the cost was not worth the small raise I would receive afterwards so I stopped. I received 80-98% marks in each course but could lose my job after over 15 years of direct child care experience, in favor of someone who has 1 month experience but holds the coveted Level 2. All because of govt funding promises??

THIS is what can easily happen when the govt sets aside money to hand out to those who are struggling. Don't be fooled into thinking you will get a cheque in the mailbox and all your troubles will be solved.

Another policy that will be coming into effect in the next couple of years is that all centers must provide all meals for the children. Currently, my center uses a bag lunch (from parents) 4 days a week and provides a hot lunch every Friday, plus all snacks. If we are forced to provide a daily hot lunch, who is going to feel the hit? THE PARENTS. Our monthly fees will have to increase sustantially in order to comply with the new policy of providing hot lunch. And other centers across the province will be forced to do the same. Some already provide a hot lunch but their monthly fees are up to $100 a month more than our's. Yet another policy sneaking in under the guise of receiving friendly govt cash.

This happens, it is already happening around the world and already happens in the US, but it is going to become more widespread with the passing of this bill. Do you think they will just flap the money around without picking and choosing who it goes to? Do you think it will really be that simple? NO of course not. I just spent 3 MONTHS collecting the documents needed for our 3-year 're accreditation', but we also have to send in a pile of forms on a yearly basis to show what we have accomplished in that year, and why we should continue receiving funding. We are just now waiting for a date for the inspection (which comes a month after the Licensing inspection which we passed with flying colors), and then if approved we will be done that particular dance for 3 years (but not done the monthly and yearly paperwork involved). I feel really bad for bigger centers which have a hell of a lot more paperwork than we do, in order to get a couple bucks extra per hour for their staff.

govt money = hoop to jump through = you might get lucky and be approved, but it comes at a price

Another point to note: Parents get talked into the program, being assured all their children's carers have top grades, but parents don't want to or cannot afford to pay for this higher level of car, so what's going to happen then? Perhaps the govt will get involved in private carers like it does in Britain? Even a neighbor looking after your child has to be a Registered Child Minder there. I know because I lived there and my friendly neighbor offered to watch my infant son while I was at work but we had to stop because she was not Registered. Would you like that kind of involvement? Even your great nanny Margie not being able to care for your child unless she was registered? THIS is what happens with too much govt involvement!!! But people are allowing it to happen and will complain about it later, you just watch!

For Americans lol

Read This

Of course, this is a little old now, our parliament is back up and running, there is a new liberal leader who hasn't said much if anything about a coalition, and things seem to be normal (as normal as can be expected). The budget was released with some spending, but also some tax cuts/ higher base income tax level for our returns, etc etc. Obama is in now, not Bush, etc. But still worth a little read if you want to find out what the heck went on up here about a coalition and general confusion late in 2008.

MPs

Okay, so a few months ago when Canadians learned of the possibility of a Liberal-NDP coalition removing Conservative Harper from his PM position, I watched and was involved in some interesting arguments that mainly dealt with semantics. Technically in Canada, we vote for our local MP (member of parliament) and the party with the most MPs taking seats in the House of Commons gets to have their leader as the Prime Minister. Clear as mud? We do not vote individually for provincial or federal leaders for this - we vote for the local MP. Okay, so when the coalition parade started, I saw people saying things like "I did not vote for Dion (liberal), I voted for Harper and he won"... Endless times I would see Libs or NDPs correcting those people and saying "you did not vote for Harper, or the conservatives, you voted for your local MP' blah blah blah. The MP that is supposed to support his/her constituents' beliefs/concerns/ideas.

Okay got that? Well I intervened a few times and said 'yes, we voted for our local MP but we also vote with an idea and hope that the party our MP represents will get to lead all of Canada and the Province as well. When we vote for our conservative MP we are also hoping Harper will get to be PM". I had liberals arguing with me left right and center about this, going on and on about how it shouldn't matter what party the MP is a member of, you should be voting for who will represent you best in Ottawa, yadda yadda yadda.

Okay so let's move ahead to what I saw on tv on Tuesday - the Liberal leader (Ignatieff now), saying he will 'allow' 6 of the Lib MP's to vote against the party"Just this once" in regard to the budget. So if we the people are voting for MPs to represent each individual city/town/region, WHY is a party leader only allowing MPs to vote WITH the party no matter what their people's beliefs are? Ignatieff is 'allowing' them to vote against his recommendations 'once'. I wanted to go back to that old forum and throw that right in their faces. All their fancy political garble about how you vote for your local MP, not a federal or provincial leader was just chucked right at them by the leader of the very party they support so loudly. This showed me that it doesn't matter what us regular citizens think, it doesn't matter how many times we call our MP with concerns or suggestions, they will go with the Party in voting - unless their party leader 'allows' them 'just this once' to vote in another direction. Sorry there Libs but apparently us conservatives were aware of this all along eh? Not to say it is right, but don't come along and tell me what the textbook says about how this works, it has not worked like that for a long time. In the US, 11 Democrats voted against the Stimulus Bill, most likely because they decided to represent their own people instead of 'voting with the party'. The Republicans banded together and voted it out, but again because their people did not want it (the majority didn't)... So what about the rest of the Democrats - did they vote For the stimulus because their constituents were calling them hundreds of times a day in SUPPORT of it? I highly doubt that. Those people voted For the stimulus to be in sync with what their party leaders wanted, not with what the people wanted. The same thing happens up here, only the party leader has to grant PERMISSION for his MPs to vote differently. That is even worse!

Anyway I am just rambling because if it's worse up here and the US is starting to lean more in our direction, then Look Out. Already people in the US complain that their representatives are NOT representing them --- take a peek over the border and see what it's like here where you have to vote with the party, or face consequences (Ignatieff originally told these 6 that they would face serious repercussions if they did not vote WITH the party). This could be you eventually... but anyway, I just had to get that off my chest. 6 months ago I told the liberal forum-followers that you have to take into consideration the party as well when you vote and they lied through their teeth, pretending they only vote for the person, not the party (GAG ME).... and their new party leader is threatening his MPs not to vote in line with their constituents' thinking... oooooooooo lovely!