[Winnipegger]

I could go on a political show, like the CBC's "Power and Politics", and lay out this plan. Ask Justin Trudeau to scrap his economic plan in favour of mine. Since he already announced a Liberal plan, that wouldn't go over too well. But when I talked to Stéphane Dion in 2006, he said he never heard of it. When I talked to Michael Ignatieff just days before the the writ was dropped in 2011, he said he never heard it either. ("Writ dropped" means Parliament dissolved, election campaign begun.) In 2011 I was president of the riding association, and a member of the executive for the provincial association of Manitoba. The executive received a request from caucus for policy ideas for the platform. I had submitted this policy to the caucus member who was the liaison to the committee writing the platform. So I was highly disappointed when Iggy said he hadn't even heard of my plan. It wasn't that he rejected it, he hadn't even heard it. But one point I made was that we would have been 5 years and an odd number of months into a 15 year debt repayment schedule if Liberals were re-elected in 2006. So I consider Harper years, wasted years. He didn't accept anything from my plan, just used that one point of rhetoric: he called Harper years, wasted years. But haven't met Justin yet, so I expect he hasn't heard my plan either. Frustrated!

I wanted to be the candidate in the riding where I live. I was born in Winnipeg, since my mother brought me home from the hospital as a newborn baby I grew up in Transcona. I've owned a house in Elmwood since November 1st, 1990. So I wanted to run in Elmwood--Transcona. But I already explained how that was manipulated. When I was in grade 8 and 9, my parents bought a house in a small town just outside city limits. Birds Hill was part of the riding of Winnipeg--Birds Hill, later shrunk to become Elmwood--Transcona when East St. Paul and Birds Hill were carved off together with chunks from other ridings to form Kildonan--St. Paul. When I was in high school and university I lived in a part of East Kildonan that is today still part of Elmwood--Transcona. But my first apartment was in a northern part of East Kildonan that is now part of Kildonan--St. Paul. So I could run there. But a Liberal candidate was nominated there before my riding, so that isn't an option. So I looked at Toronto. I lived in Toronto from July 1987 through July 1990. I had contacted the president of the riding association there, who said they didn't have a Liberal candidate. Incumbent there is Joe Oliver, the current Conservative Finance Minister. Can you say "jumping in the deep end"? But then Eve Adams said she's running there. Great! So that isn't an option. The only places left where I lived were Calgary. For 8 months in 1995/96 I lived in Calgary Centre. There's a nominated Liberal candidate there. So there's only one left: for only 3 months in 1997 I lived in Calgary Midnapore. No current Liberal candidate, and this is one of the new ridings (electoral district) so there isn't an incumbent. Should I even try? If you look up the exact address where I used to live, the current riding is Calgary Southeast, incumbent Jason Kenney. Another Conservative cabinet minister. But for this year's election, it will be a new riding with no incumbent.

When I lived in Toronto, I thought it would be permanent. Found a woman, we rented a house together, and I asked her to marry me. But she left me; that's why I moved back to Winnipeg. In 1995/96 I had rented out my house in Winnipeg. But in 1997 I just closed it up for the few months I was away. I'm sure someone would criticize me for running where I don't live. But those are the only locations in Canada I have ever lived. Would I be stupid to even consider it?

[Zipperfish]

I'd never call anyone stepping up to participate in our political system stupid. If you know anyone who works political campaigns, I'd talk to him or her. You should go in with eyes open. You need a team, you need signatures, you need money. You will be vetted so 'fess up to those skeletons in your closet up front. If you're running for a party like the Liberals, you have to understand that you can't go off message. The Liberals like to say how Harper controls everything--and he does--but all parties do. Chretien was famous for cracking the whip as well.

You could always run as an independent to get a feel for things, or run for a municpal position to warm up, if this doesn't pan out!

[Winnipegger]

Jon Gerrard did ask me to run as a provincial candidate for 2011, but I wanted to run federally so I said no. Perhaps I should have. Now the provincial Liberals changed leader, and I don't like what she's doing. I did run for the local community organization. Was elected president for 2001/02. Ran again a few years ago, sat on the board for a 2 year term. Decided not to stand for re-election. My city councillor was someone I knew. She moved next door when I was in high school. She was not councillor right away, but was while I owned this house. Tried to form a connection with her, but she never did what I asked. She retired a few years ago. I could have run to replace her, but didn't. Then a retired hockey player was elected councillor; he had a lot of fans looking for autographs. He didn't do much. Then the son of our former MP ran for city council, and won. The NDP strongly support their municipal candidates; while the Liberals and PCs keep trying to pretend municipal politics is party free.

I campaigned for Reg Alcock in the federal election of 2004. I was the key volunteer for the local candidate in 2006. I was campaign manager for the provincial candidate in 2007. Was both federal and provincial riding president for a couple years, and worked with our out-going candidate to find a new candidate for the provincial by-election of 2009. I campaigned in that by-election, and another by-election for a near-by provincial riding in 2010. I was replaced as the federal candidate for 2008, but when the replacement found out, he asked me to be his campaign manager. I tried to help the local candidate in 2011, but her campaign manager blatantly said she didn't trust me because I was her rival for the nomination. So that didn't work out. One individual in the Liberal party didn't like the fact I'm fiscally responsible, so campaigned to remove me from president of the riding association. But this spring I was re-elected vice president. I could have been president if I pushed it, but let a young guy do it. Let him do the hard work. The guy who campaigned against me was present; he looked quite disgusted that I was re-elected.

So I have done something.

[Winnipegger]

I ran mortgage calculations again. The federal debt keeps growing. To completely pay off the debt starting January 2006, it would have required starting with a $17.4 billion surplus. All that would have to be applied to the principle of the debt. Then the total of interest plus that payment to principle would be fixed every year, just like the mortgage of a house. So as the balance of the debt comes down, interest charges come down. For every dollar of interest, the payment to principle increases by the same dollar, so the total mortgage payment remains the same. Just like a house mortgage. That would take 16 years to pay off the debt starting from budget March 2005. Since the "status quo" surplus for 2005/06 was $17.4 billion, if we just continued it would have taken 15 years from January 2006.

In 2011 I recalculated. Some portions of the debt have been renegotiated, reducing interest. That sounds good, but the total mortgage payment can't be too low or it'll take longer to pay off. Because the debt was larger and interest rates were lower, we would have had to start with a $24 billion surplus. Spending in 2011 was still very high, so the remainder of 2011 would have been spent cleaning up Harper's mess. Then 15 years to pay off the debt starting January 2012.

Now today. I recalculated. Based on the "Federal Debt" published in this year's budget, it would require $32.3 billion to pay it off in 15 years. That's 15 years starting this coming New Year's Day, so federal income tax would no longer be deducted from your paycheque effective January 1, 2031. But again, that requires starting with a $32.3 billion annual surplus. And starting this New Year's Day. Since this year's budget is teetering between $1.4 billion surplus and $1 billion deficit, that would require 1/4 of the annual surplus for January 1st to March 31st 2016. That would give 2015 an $8 billion surplus. That would require *HUGE* spending cuts.

If we start with a $24.7 billion surplus, again starting this coming New Year's Day, then it would take 18 years to pay off the debt. So that means no income tax from your paycheque effective January 1st 2034. You would still file an income tax return in 2034, because that would be for taxation year of 2033. But that would be the last tax return you ever file.

Every year we run a deficit, the debt gets larger. As the debt gets larger, the surplus to start a repayment plan gets larger, and the length of time to pay it off gets longer. And that's from the time we start; the sooner we start, the sooner we finish. Every year we don't pay down the debt is another year we have to pay income tax.

Now Trudeau is talking about running deficits until 2019. And Harper claims he wants to balance the budget, but he's the one who ran us into deficit. According to Jim Flaherty's first budget, the status quo surplus for 2005/06 was $17.4 billion. That budget stated his intent to reduce the surplus to $8.0 billion; not by cutting taxes, but just by increasing spending. The final actual figures for that year were in the Auditor General's report, and published in the 2007 budget. Spending for 2005/06 increased by $13.9 billion. The surplus was smaller, but not that small. The reason the surplus wasn't reduced to $3.5 billion was Canadians worked harder and paid more taxes than anyone estimated.

Now Mulcair is claiming a balanced budget the first full year he's in power. He said 2015/16 is Harper's, but the 2016 budget will be balanced. Wait, what? NDP will balance the budget? The NDP? Is this the Mirror Universe?

[Winnipegger]

Checking out the latest Liberal release. They came out with a document detailing how much their platform will cost. One question this answered is how much their childcare plan will cost. The Conservatives increase the Universal Child Care Benefit. News announcements said the total is now $18.0 billion. I pointed out the Liberal childcare plan from the November 2005 fiscal update, and elections 2006/2008/2011 had a cost of $0.5 billion the first year, rising each year until the fourth year cost $1 billion, then capped at $1 billion per year thereafter. So I said if we cancel UUCB all together and replace it with the Liberal plan, it would save $17.5 billion in the first year alone.

This Liberal document says they will replace not only UUCB. They will replace the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB), Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), and National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS), with their new Canada Child Benefit (CCB). The new one is has a means test, a fancy way of saying high income people don't get it. They say their plan will cost $17.96 billion less. Ok. That's close enough to what I said. That'll work.