Mind you, any piece which contains the word, political, in any context can cause people to see red ... or blue ... depending. But I didn't mean to upset you. However, I did, and now I find myself compelled to set the world straight on ... gasp ... Nannygate.
I know that Americans and others will find this hard to believe, but Canadians everywhere are in a righteous snit (oops, must correct the typo, snot, before I press Publish) over the fact that our Prime Minister has two taxpayer-funded nannies on his staff. They are part of the general housekeeping budget that the prime minister is allotted by law.
But but but ... in his election campaign, didn't he favour people paying their own child care expenses?
No, not exactly. The opposition plan was for a universal child care benefit. However, the Liberals, led by Trudeau, were against the idea of the rich (like himself, apparently) receiving tax breaks for child care. As such, when he had previously received a $3000 tax rebate for this amount, he donated it to "a charity in his riding that supported vulnerable women during pregnancy and motherhood."
His present staff is made up of 7 full time equivalent positions. The previous PM had 6. The previous PM did not have 3 young children. Maybe Trudeau will be able to whittle his staff down to the apparently acceptable 6 FTEs, but the man has hardly had time to change his necktie in the short time that he has been in office, so I am inclined to give him a wee break. But that's just pinko me.
Of course, the hue and cry (can you folk in other countries believe it?) is all about partisan politics. We must find fault, even unreasonable fault, with the PM right away. Let's not dally over this. Let's not take ... oh let's say 30 seconds ... to think it through.
When one takes the requisite 30 seconds to think it through, one might first of all consider if Trudeau's policy was ever against helping ordinary folk with child care expenses. No, it wasn't; he favours child care support for most. The platform position was that the well-heeled amongst us didn't require assistance.
So, should the rules not be the same for the apparently rich Prime Minister of a nation? Maybe, but if so, then perhaps this rich man should pay rent on his official residence? Maybe he should also pay for the gardener and the cook? If he has Queen Elizabeth over for supper, maybe he should ask her to help with the dishes because, by golly, everyone should pinch in because we can't afford to pay for a maid. Maybe when President Obama drops in for tea, he could change the babies and rock them to sleep, perhaps while humming a lullaby.
Seriously, ladies and germs, we are talking about the head of state of a G8 nation.
But this is Canada, and such is our politics, and we get our knickers in knots over funding nannies who make between 11 and 20 dollars an hour. The funny thing is that the left-leaning party is criticizing the Trudeaus for not paying them enough. It's a good ole Canadian double gotcha I tells ya. What could be better fodder for the airwaves?
Whilst daily mass shootings are now met with shrugs in the USA (I exaggerate because I am weird and I like exaggerating to make a point), we Canadians are losing our ... stuff ... over almost-minimum-wage nannies. Hey! this here ... stuff ... is pretty freakin important doncha know.
This just in: a solution has been found. The children will be raised by wolves. It is good to keep a sense of humour when people all about us are losing there's.