Clinton got how much?

Here’s the kind of story that inspires a mixture of rage and bewilderment. NBC reports that while Hillary Clinton has been lambasting “for-profit schools” including Trump University, “Over five years, former president Bill Clinton earned $17.6 million from the world’s largest for-profit education company, Laureate Education, Inc. In his role as “honorary chancellor,” Clinton has traveled the world on Laureate’s behalf, extolling the virtues of the school.” And doing very well indeed. We should be so, uh, lucky.

Now look. I know a lot of people like Bill Clinton, focusing more on the charming than the rogue in his makeup. I am not among them. But a lot of people do.

I also realize that Bill Clinton is a champion schmoozer and makes good connections. He pulls in huge sums for the Clinton Foundation and by no means all of them were people hoping for favours from one H. Clinton when she was Secretary of State. But $17.6 million over five years is over $3.5 million a year. That’s over $9,600 a day, even in a leap year. And it wasn’t the only thing he was doing nor, indeed, the only thing he was doing that brought in vast sums. (For instance The Washington Post says he made $104.9 million giving 542 speeches between 2001 and 2013, an average of $193,542.44 per. And that he was paid $3.13 million in “consulting fees” in 2009 and 2010 by an investment firm whose boss’s charity has given the Clinton Foundation millions more and who did at least try to contact Hillary Clinton for a favor when she was Secretary of State.)

What can anyone do for you on a part-time basis that’s worth nearly $10,000 a day? Per customer? And what has he got to say that’s worth 200 grand a pop, 45 times a year, for over a decade? I mean, we’re out there asking people to support our documentaries and commentaries and other work like the “Ask the Professor” feature with, say, $5 a month, which is about 17 cents a day. That’s less than one fifty-six-thousandth of Clinton’s haul from Laureate Education alone. I’d need 3,226 people to answer that call to make as much in a year as Clinton does for an average speech of the sort he was giving nearly once a week.

I’m not saying I’m in the wrong business. But I am saying if this news bugs you as much as it bugs me, and if you think it’s important to keep the voices that matter to you audible, please do try to find that 17 cents a day for us, and for other groups like Ezra Levant’s The Rebel, Dave Reesor’s Let’s Do It Ourselves, Danny Hozack’s Economic Education Association of Alberta (and yes, I’m professionally involved with two of them) and other similar outfits like the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (who helped us enormously with our Fix the Constitution documentary project).

Unlike the Clintons, we’re never going to get rich doing what we do. But that’s kind of the point.

___________________________

Help me bring back true Canadian #values. Click here to contribute. (Note, subscriptions are in US dollars.)

And that’s an argument against it?

The Daily Telegraph reports a warning from Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Loefven that if Britain cuts corporate taxes it will make its discussions with the European Union over a Brexit “more difficult.” He insists that his own country will keep taxing heavily and spending (no, sorry, “investing”) because “Tax cuts are not the future.” Dude, the whole point of the Brexit is that Britain won’t have to keep implementing bad policy because European politicians condescendingly tell them to.

It’s even odd that Loefven believes the EU has leverage to dictate policy to a member whose citizens have voted to leave, let alone that threatening to will make them less determined to get away from such things.

Oh, and while I’m on the subject, the Telegraph also notes (you have to read down a bit in the story) that, as if deliberately seeking further to persuade Britons that the Brexit vote was a good idea, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker wants all EU members to open their borders entirely in a gesture of solidarity with the refugees now causing EU members to tighten border controls. Juncker went so far as to say “Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians” which is a mind-boggling fatuity given the horrors governments have inflicted on people from tax rates over 100% to concentration camps. I know, I know, you’re not meant to end every discussion by invoking Hitler. But in this case Juncker’s claim invites the retort from Bertrand de Jouvenel that, as Milton Friedman recounts it, “said he had always been an ardent advocate of world government until the day he crossed the border into Switzerland ahead of the pursuing Nazis.”

Borders exist to protect people from the excesses of big government, from the petty to the ghastly. And Britain is correct to assert within its own the right to have tax policy that favours private initiative over a smothering state.

Hence the Brexit. Obviously.

 

 

___________________________

Help me bring back true Canadian #values. Click here to contribute. (Note, subscriptions are in US dollars.)

Glavin strikes again

In today’s National Post Terry Glavin has another excellent piece on Canada’s troubling relationship with China. He’s not only very clear on the sinister nature of the government in Beijing and the aggressive style as well as content of its foreign policy. He’s also one of the few commentators I know who understands that we are cozying up to an “increasingly decrepit” as well as “belligerent Chinese police state”.

It is remarkable how wrong the conventional wisdom is about the nature and dynamism of this regime. And Terry is much to be commended for seeing through it.

___________________________

Help me bring back true Canadian #values. Click here to contribute. (Note, subscriptions are in US dollars.)

Free the trade 35 million

In my latest National Post commentary I say it’s nice that the premiers have again promised to remove the internal trade barriers they themselves put in place. But (as Brian Lee Crowley, Robert Knox and I argued six years ago) the feds have the legal and moral authority to compel them if they don’t follow through, and should make clear that they will.

___________________________

Help me bring back true Canadian #values. Click here to contribute. (Note, subscriptions are in US dollars.)

Today you actually get paid

Woot. Today is Tax Freedom Day in Canada. That’s right. June 7. That’s the day, according to the Fraser Institute, that the average family stops working for the state and starts working for itself. And that was the good news.

The bad news is that if governments paid for everything they took, that is, if you count deficits as if they were covered by taxation now instead of later, it still wouldn’t be tax freedom day until June 18. (This methodology I believe relies on mean averages for income and taxation.)

You can find the depressing details including a provincial breakdown in their study. But here’s a question to ponder as you do so. How can it be that, with Canadians so much wealthier today than they were thirty or sixty years ago, we can possibly need so much more help from government?

Remember, as we get richer, government could keep getting bigger while tax freedom day got earlier. Why isn’t it happening? If it’s too much to ask that government actually get smaller as our private means, including for charity, get larger, couldn’t it at least take a smaller share?

Instead the total tax rate (see p. 9 of the Fraser study) is higher in every province except Alberta and BC today than in 1981. So where does it all end? And why does current political debate take so little notice of the relentless expansion of the state relative to citizens, talking instead about all the wonderful things we could get if only government finally became truly big and busy?

___________________________

Help me bring back true Canadian #values. Click here to contribute. (Note, subscriptions are in US dollars.)