Why would the Conservatives treat marijuana production as worst than sexually assaulting a child?

The theory of justice that the Conservatives seem to hold is that punishing criminal acts with long jail time is the best way to prevent further crimes. The idea I suppose is that it acts as a deterrent and it keeps the criminals “off the streets.” This theory of justice is balanced with the reality that you can’t lock people away forever and thus you need to decide how long the person must serve to achieve justice. If prison is the punishment then the length of time spent in prison should be proportionate to the crime. How exactly this is decided is not easy or simple at all (and may be considered one of the flaws in this theory of justice).

Most theories of justice hold to the proportionate principle. Even if you believe that the punishment should be severe you likely believe that one sort of offence should be dealt with more harshly than another. This difference in response is generally explained with a claim that the one offense is worse than the other; it is either worst in the sense of morality or damage that is done (not necessarily unrelated issues). Setting a more severe punishment for one offense over another is thus a declaration of values and which values hold precedent.

Considering this, I am truly baffled by the Conservative’s crime bill which establishes a higher mandatory minimum for marijuana production than sexual assault against a child. Could the Conservative government really be saying that they think stopping people from enjoying something they disapprove of is a higher value than protecting children against rape? I don’t believe that they do, but for some reason they are behaving as if they did.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was asked to clarify the reasoning behind the mandatory minimums by the Senate Committee that is reviewing the legislation. I think his answers clear something up for me.

As Senate hearings on Bill C-10 opened last week on Parliament Hill, the first question Nicholson faced at the committee hearing concerned the disparity between minimum sentences for pot growers and pedophiles.

"What's the underlying principle that determines the length of those mandatory minimums?" asked Liberal Sen. Joan Fraser.

Nicholson did not provide a direct response.

"It's important to point out that there's a wide range of discretion that is given to the court to have a look at this, to gauge the seriousness of the individual crime — and again, all of these are despicable," said the minister.

I would like to point out that this bill specifically takes away some of the court’s discretion, but that is a digression. The main problem with his response is that it isn’t actually an answer. If there is some sort of principle behind the setting of the mandatory minimums than why doesn’t the government explain it?

Fraser pressed him on whether there exists "a formula, a grid, a set of guidelines to establish what mandatory minimums would be appropriate in different circumstances?"

"It seems to me that any sexual offence against a child is more serious than growing six pot plants," added Fraser.

Again, rather than responding directly, Nicholson told Fraser that drug traffickers are "people who are in the business of destroying other people's lives — and I think we send a very clear message that this will not be tolerated."

I guess claiming that marijuana producers are “in the business of destroying other people’s lives” is an argument for prohibition, but it isn’t an argument for treating them more harshly than pedophiles. Sure if you don’t think they should be tolerated you should send a clear message to that effect. Why do you also have to send a message that says that sexually assaulting a child is not as bad?

I think the truth is that the reason Mr. Nicholson didn’t answer Sen. Fraser’s question is because if he did the Conservatives would look ridiculous (more so than now?). There is no formula, grid, or set of guidelines that led the Conservatives to establish these particular timeframes for the mandatory minimums. They are just making it up without study or reflection and that isn't they way good policy is made.

Old Age Security is not about poverty

The Old Age Security program is an example of pointless government spending. The debate has so far been about if it is sustainable. I don’t know if it is sustainable nor do I really care if it is sustainable. The real debate should be: what is OAS trying to achieve and is it achieving it?

The argument from the opposition parties and others has been that OAS prevents poverty among seniors. They claim that if the OAS is cut back even just a little it will lead to massive increases in elderly poverty. All you would need is for the program to be accurately described to make this claim baffling.

The OAS pays out the maximum of $540.12 every quarter. This number is adjusted upward along with inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. So that means that assuming that inflation is constant a qualifying individual of the age of 65 will receive a maximum of $2,160.48.

I don’t mind telling you that I would certainly enjoy an extra $2,000 a year. I am not sure that it would do much to raise me out of poverty. Of course I am not personally impoverished. For me $2,000 wouldn’t be the difference between eating or not, paying the rent or not, heating my home or not, and so on. So clearly if the OAS is about relieving poverty it will be targeting those for whom $2,000 will make a difference.

Residence of Canada can qualify for the maximum amount of OAS at $67,000 and still be receiving some OAS at $100,000 (The cut off is $110,000).

Why am I paying taxes to give a hand out to someone that is making twice what I am making simply because that person is 65?

Unlike other welfare programs there is no attempt to look at the circumstances of the recipient. It doesn’t matter if the recipient is living with family, has dependence, employed, unhealthy, in debt, or anything else. There are other programs that deal with some of those issues but not the OAS. All that matters for OAS is that you are a certain age and you have lived in Canada for a certain amount of time.

So if the OAS is handed out regardless if you actually need it or not how exactly is it an effective program for relieving poverty? Considering that the poverty rate for elderly in Canada is less than the working age population, the vast majority of this program can be cut if it only went to the elderly that actually needs it. Tens of billions can be cut from this year’s budget and not make one bit of difference to poverty.

The truth is that this isn’t really an anti-poverty program. How could it possibly be when it makes no effort to target poverty? The true purpose is a hand out to the portion of the population that is most likely to vote. I guess it is at least achieving that goal.

*UPDATE*

A few commenters pointed out that I was mistaken and that the $540 is a monthly payment and not a quarterly payment. I double checked and it turns out they were right. This however does not detract from my main point. Someone who is making $60,000 a year doesn't need an additional 10% added to their income by the government for the sake of rescuing them from poverty.

The real truth about the economy

You have to be careful about how you evaluate and understand economic statistics. Often what seems simple is actually pretty complex. It is for this reason that Robert Reich's "Truth about the Economy" is misleading to the point of being wrong.

It's a dog play with dog world out there

CATO's response to the State of the Union 2012

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and world ending budget cuts

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has released a report that claims to have calculated the impact that government cuts will have on employment. I say claims because the report itself is sloppy and lacks any attention to methodology or theory. The only explanation that we receive for how they came about their private sector job loss numbers is a footnote that says that the multiplier was provided by Informetrica Ltd. The author doesn’t bother to tell us what the multiplier is or why Informetrica Ltd. is superior to other researchers who may have come up with a different multiplier. The author tiptoes around a pretty controversial area of economics without bothering to allow the readers to judge his methodology.

Far more important is the basic assumptions of the work that is presented without even the pretense of an explanation.

The author does not take into consideration that at least some of the cuts can be achieved by creating efficiencies or by reducing compensations and employee privileges. You can easily argue that these will be a small part of the cuts compared to the layoffs but you can’t simply discount it all together. Not every dollar of the funding cuts will lead to a layoff.

There is also the suggestion made by the author through implication that the layoffs would hurt the economy due to creating higher unemployment. Although some of those who are laid off would likely be facing long term unemployment considering the state of the economy, but past experience has shown that laid off government workers tend to enter private sector employment pretty quickly.

The most fundamental assumption of the study is that these jobs are important to the wider economy as well as the health and safety of the Canadian population. This is pretty puzzling because the government is not even proposing reducing the budget to 2006 levels. Was Canada such an unhealthy and unsafe place in 2006? Has all the new funding of the last 6 years been so incredibly useful that we now simply cannot do without it? This is a pretty strange endorsement of the Conservative government coming from the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Reading this study I can’t help but fear that the poor will be thrown out on the street, natives will be left to starve, and our food will become riddled with poison. All this will happen because the government cut its budget by around 3% over four years. Really makes you realize how greatly important the government is to our lives!

The hysteria coming from groups like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives would be a little more amusing if it wasn’t so pathetic. The federal government is making pretty small cut backs and the CCPA is claiming the world is going to come to an end. This has led them to release a study that is sloppy and foolish to the point that it discredits their arguments entirely. For them, it seems, a dime of reduced government spending is a tragedy and never mind that the government can’t afford to spend that dime.

Mark Zuckerberg on SOPA

Founder and CEO of Facebook writes regarding SOPA:

The internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can’t let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the internet’s development. Facebook opposes SOPA and PIPA, and we will continue to oppose any laws that will hurt the internet.

The world today needs political leaders who are pro-internet. We have been working with many of these folks for months on better alternatives to these current proposals. I encourage you to learn more about these issues and tell your congressmen that you want them to be pro-internet.

I will only add to this that most laws are poorly thought out.