If EI is one of the reasons the majority of Canada's population is able to stay clothed and fed and off the streets, then it's worth every penny. Our social support systems are the only things that keep us from turning into a third-world nation.

Ron Irwin.
Why the hell are you here if you don't like the values? Go home yanky!

In the past few decades we've had the savings and loan fiasco, the largest fraud up to that date, where millions of American folks were robbed of billions of dollars by guys just like this.

Then there's the Enron scam, where millions of folks from many countries were robbed of billions of dollars by guys like this.

Now we have guys like this eying public pension funds like EI here and Social Security in the states that can't be stolen unless they can be taken away from the responsible and accountable officials we hire to look after them, and put into the hands of folks.

This is a scam, I'm offering ten to one. And all these guys who are promoting it are just drooling over the opportunity to steal billions of dollars from these inexpert and unaccountable folks.

I find it pretty funny that a writer is complaining about right-wing people funding studies on EI while not disclosing that he is writing for a website funded by the BC Federation of Labour.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Uh, Ron Erwin, the fact that there is a huge surplus might just possibly mean that the plan is working pretty good, eh. The concept with CPP and EI and stuff like that is that we kinda pool our resources to help out those who have fallen upon hard times. Why do you think that stinks? Seeing as how I just got my first CPP payment last week I might have a conflict of interest here, but...what was I saying?...Oh yeah--Lotsa people die before they get benefits. What's your point? Have you ever heard of survivor benefits, eh?

Did you read the whole second paragraph Ron? You seem to have read only half of it. Gutstein mentions the same problem you do but you seem to believe you're putting forward something he didn't say.

dillon, re-read the aricle. He's not complaining at all about right-wing people funding studies on EI. He's complaining that Mihlar doesn't say where his stuff comes from.

Well, nothing really surprising here, Just more of the same from Fazil and the Vancouver Scum. Didn’t you just love it when CKNW had Mike Campbell filling in for Jennifer Mather we got subjected to weekly, hour long corporate back patting and high fives from guests such as Fazil Mihlar all the while Mike’s a$$oholic brother was busy (and still is) pilfering this Province. This all happening while CKNW claiming to be holding Victoria’s feet to the fire. LOL!!! Who does Corus entertainment think there foolin? Same applies to the A$$per strangle hold on our province.

What’s the bottom line here? The relentless corporate push for DEEP integration with the United States (preferably a G W Bush Ermerica) while seeing that our social programs get the axe. The corporate media running interference with biased right wing editorial boards, cram their papers with fluffy headlines while corporate poster boys like Campbell and Stephen Harper implement the corporate agenda. Just like the last federal election we had the A$$per papers with headlines that proclaimed “Harper set to sweep British Columbia”

Gee….I wonder why the other day Harper and Gordo appeared together at the new Kamloops university all the while Paul Martin who was also in BC at the same time stayed away?

i don't understand people complaining about the cost of social programs in Canada.If you are so adverse to coughing up the dough,then pack up your SUV and move to Beverly,Hills that is.Why are you still here?Something to do with our medical benefits perhaps?Hopefully there are enough people who pay attention,and care to oppose this American right wing insidious creeping propaganda.

Ha, ha! Mr. Mihlar fancies himself the Carl Rove of Canada, perhaps?

The irony is that his friends wouldn't dream of doing business in a free market where they couldn't manage risks(insurance is the classic example) in ways that link directly to corporate bottom lines. Yet front men like Mihlar constantly gripe about using the same risk sharing principles in the larger social context--welfare, medicare, EI, ICBC, public education--i.e. most of what governments do.

Why? First, in their teensy little minds, there's no immediate benefit to corporate bottom lines. (Anyone who's watched "The Corporation" understands that in the frenzy of market competition, there simply isn't capacity to value larger societal benefits.)

Second, as market competition intensifies, desperate corporations see these services as juicy new frontiers for profit-taking. Add the further plums of reducing government power AND taxes, and the idea is utterly tantalizing, which is why, since the Neo-Cons put 2 & 2 together, we've had ever-growing zombie hordes of salivating, glazed-eyed Mihlars greeting us at every turn with the privatization chant.

But how to wrest these plums from the protective arms of civil servants, unions and lefties? First, convince the public that government is the enemy and can't do the job, which is where Milhar & co are so useful. Play up any problems as an excuse to privatize (imagine someone suggesting the reverse--i.e. nationalize all corporations that face problems!).

If there aren't any obvious problems, simply create them. Cut taxes, thereby starving resources, thereby degrading the quality of services (think public schools and hospitals). Or, simply get Mihlar and the boys to invent something, as he's doing with EI (and like Bush with Social Security)!

So, what's wrong with that? If you're the supply side, or a tool of the supply side, nothing at all. It makes deliciously perfect sense.

But as citizens, we're on the other side--the customers of these risk-sharing mechanisms. Of course it sucks to pay monthly premiums that cover other people's misfortunes (until you're in the same fix), and the ones who complain loudest are the cocksure twits who think they're invincible--immune to the risks spelled out in the actuarial tables. But for us mere mortals, premiums and big pools are the price of security. So is universaility, if we agee that those at highest risk also deserve protection, and private providers obviously don't want to take that on, which inevitably leads to a government role in managing or regulating. As ICBC shows, a publicly-managed system offers other advantages--profits are shared among all, not just those who can afford to invest spare cash in corporate stocks.

So it comes down to whether you trust government or the free market to better serve consumer interests. Mihlar and the Neo-Cons argue ad nauseum that competition means better services, so we should throw our vital programs to the sharks whose sole driving urge is feeding their stockholders, and to the vagaries of the market.

So let's follow that through. Sure, those earning six figures will find hordes of suppliers competing to happily cover all their needs. But the poor sucker who crashed won't find affordable auto insurance and the single mom will spend what would have been her EI premiums on groceries. Meanwhile, health and education will have been privatized, so all the best doctors are working in high-end private clinics in a two-tier system while our infant mortality rates climb to meet those in the U.S.And no self-respecting parent would put kids in government schools, where literacy rates are now almost as low at the U.S.

Not too hard to see who benefits and who pays, though Mihlar and the boys will be working harder than ever to convince "the losers" that government is the enemy. Meanwhile, they'll be frantically spinning or covering up to "manage" the damaging fallout from the latest corruption scandal in which private providers were found to be bilking consumers or government by the billions, while paying millions in kickbacks to the compliant regulators and politicians who approved their contracts.

Big deal! They were just trying to make a buck--aren't we all? Only now the public is clamouring for government to nationalize the services and clamp down on greedy corrupt corporations as the pendulum swings back to where we started...

Let's just save ourselves the effort and tell Mr Mihlar in the politest terms to go get stuffed.

(Whoa -- that was way too long, though nowhere near what Mr. Mihlar inflicts on the public every month!... and yes, Mr Gutstein, we all know that it's simply propaganda, but in a propaganda war, you do have to keep pointing that out.)

Ron Erwin wants to get rid of CPP? The Americans constantly drool over this program. Unlike the US Social Security benefits, CPP is solvent for atleast the next 75 years. I for one don't want to see our senior citizens eat dog food and live on the street, but perhaps I am a bit different from Mr. Erwin; he has diferent "values" remember.

I don't agree with most of Mihlar's opinions, but I do agree that the public transit system is horribly inefficient. I often see massive articulated diesel buses rumbling-by, spewing clouds of noxious diesel fumes and carrying one passenger in the back. Does anyone know how much those buses weigh? Must be at least 20 tons. You can feel the ground shaking a couple of blocks away when a megabus rolls down the road. How can a huge articulated diesel bus with one passenger in the back be more efficient than a hybrid car, let alone a person riding a 20 lb bicycle?

Richmond has done a fantastic job providing beautiful, safe, practical and fun commuting bike paths completely separate from dangerous bus and car traffic, along the waterfront, through parks etc. Statistics Canada says Richmond residents have the longest lifespan anywhere in Canada. Safe commuting bike paths are part of the reason. In Amsterdam, they have great commuting bike paths too. As a result, almost half of all trips in the city are on bikes, and they have one of the world's lowest obesity rates.

Here in Delta, it's pathetic. A ton of money has been spent building recreational bike trails that go nowhere and are lightly used. Yet more money is wasted on the annual elitist "Tour de Delta" bike race. But there is no practical commuting bike path structure separate from motorized traffic that can be used to safely ride to work, drop off kids at school, pick up groceries, etc. In the meantime, cyclists who risk their necks dodging maniac bus and car drivers are forced to pay huge amounts of money through property taxes and hydro levies to finance environmentally unfriendly diesel buses.

Since only about 12% of the population in the Vancouver area uses buses, but almost 50% of trips in Amsterdam are made on bikes now that they have proper and safe bike commuting paths in place, it would be logical to spend at least four times as much on commuting bike paths as on buses. And that's not taking into account that with proper safe commuting bike path infrastructure in place, bus useage would likely drop below 12% as some of those who currently use buses start using bikes instead.

Property tax forms and Hydro bills should include an option of directing transit taxes toward commuting bike paths instead of huge, expensive, polluting, inconvenient diesel buses.

It would take me 5x as long to cycle to work than take my car. It would take me 4x as long to take the bus than take my car. I have done both, and in the end, my car wins. Dedicated bike paths would make little if any difference in the time it would take me on my bike. Don't forget the rain and bad weather that Vancouver (where I work) and Deep Cove (where I live) are known for.

Although our transit system is not the best, I don't mind paying for it. I know I am subsidizing a lot of riders, but it doesn't bother me like it does Mihlar. It is the cost I pay for the selfishness of driving over the bridge by myself in my little Honda.

When I worked in Gastown I rode to work for 2.5 yrs, rain or shine. By the end of those 2.5 yrs I could do it (both to work downhill and home uphill- I live at 13th and Fraser) in about 15-20 minutes. On the way to work I zipped past rush-hour traffic. The distance shrinks, the limits of how far you can ride expand in your mind until they cover dozens of kilometres, and the body gets really strong. We do need more bike paths and less drivers. Now I work 3x week in Burnaby at Lougheed and Beta and I drive. For my other job I ride. I can't wait until that first really warm sunny day. I'll let you know how long it takes me to get to Burnaby by bike :)

Faz, Mike and all the other fine, righteous neo-cons know what's good for us, they do. All we need to do is pull up our sox, buckle down and in no time we can all be be driving Lexi and writing modest cheques to the Fraser Institute (tax deductible, of course).
Trouble is, most of us would agree that a market driven society is repellant. Frightening, really. Bhopal, Love Canal, Minimata, the Broughton Archipelago --- all scenes of destruction and sickness courtesy of a concept that corporations are the acme of human achievement. The acme of human achievement has yet to be realized but I'll guarantee that when it is, the driving force won't be shareholder value. And please don't nobody drag out any lame rebuke that includes "socialists" or "freedom" because the Libertarian worldview espoused by these neaderthals will foster a bleak dystopia ruled by a precious few who'll have the wherewithall to ignore the misery they've wrought.

p.s. -- If you aren't talking to your friends about STV and urging them to vote in favour of reforming our wretched voting system, well then, stop whining about them... you are them.

I usually find myself in agreement with Donald Gutstein, and I am happy to see him skewering the pompous Mihlar, a man I have found to be a royal pain for years.

However, I am a bit shocked to see Gutstein lumping in the National Bureau of Economic Research along with small-bore, right wing think tanks. As far as I know, the NBER is home to many US economic scholars, not all of them conservatives by any means. Like a huge university, its economists include some liberals, some conservatives, though in the US context I would doubt there are any socialists.

It may be, however, that Gutstein is right about who is currently contributing to the NBER's endowment and perhaps there is some increasing tilt to the right. Maybe we should all encourage Gutstein to follow up by interviewing some UBC and SFU economists about the NBER's work and its ideological leanings, if any.

Among the wonders of Capitalism, lurk many marvels.

Is anyone analyzing the economic effects of an untrackable $6 Billion a year, cash-only trade run by organized crime?

Are envelopes being stuffed with big bills and left where key persons in B.C. can find them?

Does organized crime ask for anything in return? A law repealed, a statute changed, a hiring, a firing?

As a British Columbian, I really can't quite comprehend why Upper Canada is all twisted and bent about a mere $250,000. Our scandal is bigger than their scandal, any 6 ways t'hell and back.

Sorry for the typo, that should be $250 Million, total. Compared to $6 Billion a year.

Which kitty is better able to pursue their own agenda by using envelopes stuffed full of cash?

Organized crime cash is bigger than just the BC Libs, they small time. estimated $500 Billion goes into the North American banking system from illegal cash.Whith out that money in the NYSE and TSE what do you think will happen? click this link here http://gnn.tv/videos/1/Crack_The_CIA

You will need a Quick Time Plug-in this video is just the tip of the iceberg and is factual

Sure, it's bigger than "just" the BC Liberals ... that's obvious in Organized Crime's new sophistication as global and corporate. They're everywhere. Smart, polished, competent, but still thriving on poverty, still feeding off the sidewalks of our cities.

I can shake a puny fist at global crime. But British Columbia is where we can get our hands on unraveling what it may have done to this province.

If fazil, the fraser institute and the rest of the pro-republican reptiles want Canada to adopt the "sucessful" socio-economic structure of the usa (only 30,000 murders a year, 48 million people without access to health care, ken "kenny-boy" lay, tom delay, wwf, the fear factor, the jackson trial, illegal invasions etc etc etc ...) are they saying that I will now be playing by the law of the jungle? If so what are the new rules going to be? Wait a minute...you mean to say there are no rules!?! OK. I'll see you rich folks, provincial "liberals", sweat-shop owning tyrants, mercedes driving neo-cons out on the playground!! Oh and don't forget-this was your idea. I just wanted a nice eco-friendly socialist state.

What a clear bright ring to that phrase. Ever wonder how it happened that Socialists became nervous about saying that honourable word out loud?

Nationalist: Thanks, I did check this link you mention: http://gnn.tv/videos/1/Crack_The_CIA ... with its brief overview of the CIA dealing drugs to fund their own illegal underground agenda. Mike Ruppert is impressive. Of course, all that is happening in the U.S.A. It couldn't happen in Canada.

Now I wish you'd have a look at the Canadian book, "Road to Hell" by Julian Sher & William Marsden, to get started on what organized crime is doing here.

I keep wondering what else o.c. is doing, while we're mesmerized by the Sponsorship Scandal.

Not being anywhere close to being a conservative or one who endorses the virtues of capitalism, I don't see why Mr. Gutstein has wasted such breadth of space complaining about a columnist in a right-wing paper writing what he believes in. He (Fazil) is entitled to his opinion - as Donald is to his - and in all honesty, it is actually productive to explore all options available since it is obvious we have yet to achieve the fine balance of a perfectly just and functioning society. The argument that Mr. Mihlar doesn't divulge his sources is also not entirely accurate - he simply doesn't wax exhaustive over all their intricate background funding and connections - leaving the digging to interested readers (of which I admit I am not). Would the concepts Fazil discusses at length be any more or less palatable if he thoroughly detailed the past affiliations of his sources? Such a lengthy discourse would likely divert attention away from the point he wanted to make - so it would be poor form for putting forth an argument. If there is any criticism - it would be more honest of Mr. Gutstein to just state that he doesn't agree with Fazil - and leave it at that - but that hardly makes a profound column topic I suppose.

just scrolled to the bottom here to commend 'Name' on a very powerful post.