Posts
On of the PC Party of Ontario's 10 proposals is to "Bring Public Sector Agreements in Line with Reality." They include the unionized workers in a commitment to cutting back to bring Ontario out of deficits. The importance of taking on the Public Sector Unions should not be understated. It is these unions that will hurt recovery, not just in Canada but in the United States as well:
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Fraser Institute takes on Harpernomics
I posted last Saturday a criticism of the Harper government’s attack on the findings of the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute released a study that showed that the government’s stimulus plan has had little effect on the economy. The government responded by attacking the motives of the Fraser Institute and accusing them of being ‘sloppy.’ Yesterday the Fraser Institute responded:
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which Prime Minister Harper has cited as an authority, recently surveyed fiscal stimulus initiatives in advanced and emerging economies and concluded that the average effect of discretionary fiscal policy “does not provide strong evidence of countercyclical effects.” Simply put, the IMF concluded that fiscal stimulus is generally not an effective way to combat recessions.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s Office and Department of Finance are not aware, or worse still, chose to ignore these and dozens of other reputable studies that contradict their rhetoric.
Instead, the Conservative government continues to highlight its internally generated estimates of the impact of its Economic Action Plan. These “estimates” assume that an extra dollar of government spending increases economic output (GDP) by $1.50. In econ-speak, the government uses a “multiplier” of 1.5.
Put differently, the folks that called our study “ideologically” motivated assume that if the government takes a dollar out of your pocket or borrows it and then spends it on somebody else, it generates an extra $1.50 in economic activity (GDP).
How did Minister Flaherty and the Department of Finance derive its 1.5 spending multiplier estimate?
Well, it certainly does not come from “reputable” studies, as the Prime Minister has suggested. The estimate is actually from a political document co-authored by Christina Romer, chair of U.S. President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. That political document dubiously assumes a government spending multiplier of 1.57.
Many internationally renowned economists have directly criticized Romer’s spending multiplier, including Stanford University professor John Cogan and his colleagues, who in a 2010 study, accused Romer of making “highly questionable” assumptions to arrive at a multiplier of 1.57.
Under more realistic assumptions, professor Cogan and his co-authors found that the spending multiplier is substantially smaller and that it likely lies between 0.5 and 0.6. In other words, if government spending increases by one dollar, GDP increases by only 50 to 60 cents.
Read the rest of it here.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which Prime Minister Harper has cited as an authority, recently surveyed fiscal stimulus initiatives in advanced and emerging economies and concluded that the average effect of discretionary fiscal policy “does not provide strong evidence of countercyclical effects.” Simply put, the IMF concluded that fiscal stimulus is generally not an effective way to combat recessions.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s Office and Department of Finance are not aware, or worse still, chose to ignore these and dozens of other reputable studies that contradict their rhetoric.
Instead, the Conservative government continues to highlight its internally generated estimates of the impact of its Economic Action Plan. These “estimates” assume that an extra dollar of government spending increases economic output (GDP) by $1.50. In econ-speak, the government uses a “multiplier” of 1.5.
Put differently, the folks that called our study “ideologically” motivated assume that if the government takes a dollar out of your pocket or borrows it and then spends it on somebody else, it generates an extra $1.50 in economic activity (GDP).
How did Minister Flaherty and the Department of Finance derive its 1.5 spending multiplier estimate?
Well, it certainly does not come from “reputable” studies, as the Prime Minister has suggested. The estimate is actually from a political document co-authored by Christina Romer, chair of U.S. President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. That political document dubiously assumes a government spending multiplier of 1.57.
Many internationally renowned economists have directly criticized Romer’s spending multiplier, including Stanford University professor John Cogan and his colleagues, who in a 2010 study, accused Romer of making “highly questionable” assumptions to arrive at a multiplier of 1.57.
Under more realistic assumptions, professor Cogan and his co-authors found that the spending multiplier is substantially smaller and that it likely lies between 0.5 and 0.6. In other words, if government spending increases by one dollar, GDP increases by only 50 to 60 cents.
Read the rest of it here.
Guy Earle's lawyer walks out of kangaroo court
Yesterday Guy Earle’s lawyer walked out on the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Guy Earle is being brought to the tribunal because he insulted a couple of women who were heckling his open mike comedy show. I explained the full details of the incident in this post.
"This is high-handed and I cannot stay here," lawyer James Millar told B.C. Human Rights tribunal member Murray Geiger-Adams. "I would be consenting to an illegal process. It's too bad you wouldn't listen. With your leave, I'll leave."
Mr. Millar justified this position because of recent decision by the BC Supreme Court:
In September, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered the tribunal to "reconsider" five specific outstanding issues; one matter that needs to be settled is how freedom of expression rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "impact the tribunal's jurisdiction" in the Pardy discrimination case.
But Mr. Geiger-Adams refused yesterday to reconsider the five issues until the end of the hearing, after every witness is heard and all the evidence is presented. "Talk about an abuse of process," Mr. Millar said, before packing up his things and leaving the hearing room. "I've practised [law] for 30 years and have never been in a situation like this."
The accuser, Ms. Pardy, took the opportunity to turn the proceedings into a soap box:
The verbal abuse continued and got even worse. Ms. Pardy reached the point where she felt threatened, she said yesterday. That's why she twice threw water in Mr. Earle's face, she added. It was "to snap him out of whatever rage he was in." She claims to have suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome since the May 2007 incident.
Yes because throwing water into someone’s face is always a good way to calm them down. Besides if she really felt threatened than why wouldn’t she try to get him charged in a criminal court or sue him? Why go through the HRT? Could it be that her suite would be thrown out in a real court?
Plus I find her assertion that she is suffering post-traumatic stress from being called bad names a little over the top. Does she wake up screaming every night because some comedian insulted her? I somehow doubt it.
"This is high-handed and I cannot stay here," lawyer James Millar told B.C. Human Rights tribunal member Murray Geiger-Adams. "I would be consenting to an illegal process. It's too bad you wouldn't listen. With your leave, I'll leave."
Mr. Millar justified this position because of recent decision by the BC Supreme Court:
In September, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered the tribunal to "reconsider" five specific outstanding issues; one matter that needs to be settled is how freedom of expression rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "impact the tribunal's jurisdiction" in the Pardy discrimination case.
But Mr. Geiger-Adams refused yesterday to reconsider the five issues until the end of the hearing, after every witness is heard and all the evidence is presented. "Talk about an abuse of process," Mr. Millar said, before packing up his things and leaving the hearing room. "I've practised [law] for 30 years and have never been in a situation like this."
The accuser, Ms. Pardy, took the opportunity to turn the proceedings into a soap box:
The verbal abuse continued and got even worse. Ms. Pardy reached the point where she felt threatened, she said yesterday. That's why she twice threw water in Mr. Earle's face, she added. It was "to snap him out of whatever rage he was in." She claims to have suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome since the May 2007 incident.
Yes because throwing water into someone’s face is always a good way to calm them down. Besides if she really felt threatened than why wouldn’t she try to get him charged in a criminal court or sue him? Why go through the HRT? Could it be that her suite would be thrown out in a real court?
Plus I find her assertion that she is suffering post-traumatic stress from being called bad names a little over the top. Does she wake up screaming every night because some comedian insulted her? I somehow doubt it.
Anti-legalization pot growers
David Boaz over at Cato@Liberty comments on a group of marijuana growers in California that fear legalization will mean a drop in prices and a corresponding drop in their own income. This seems to reinforce the argument that the one thing that criminal organizations fear the most is legalization (though to be fair these old hippies are pretty benign criminals). It just goes to show you that economic interests aren’t always what you would assume them to be.
Mr. Boaz also posted this old Reason video:
Mr. Boaz also posted this old Reason video:
PC's 10 proposals for 2010
The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has decided to release 10 proposals that they hope will give their opposition to the Liberal government focus and form the foundation of the platform in the 2011 election. I’m glad that the PCs are putting out ideas rather than just rhetoric. Political parties should be more than just about opposing each other; they should be vehicles of policy debate. So, in that spirit, I’m going to take a moment and share my opinion on each of these 10 proposals.
1. Suspend tax on new jobs: To encourage businesses to hire new employees, we are calling for a one-year payroll tax holiday – from the burdensome Health Tax and WSIB premiums — on all new hires.
I like the assumption here that lower taxes will mean more jobs; this would be especially true for the sort of taxes they would like to suspend. But I’m not a big fan of tax holidays. A good tax system should be predictable so that people can plan their actions around it. Making tax holidays takes away the predictability and your level of taxation will be in constant flux. Besides if you are willing to concede that these taxes kill jobs than why not get rid of them all together?
2. Eliminate Job Killing Red Tape and Regulations: The growing creep of red tape costs money and kills jobs. A Red Tape Commission should be created to lower the overall regulatory burden and free up entrepreneurs and business leaders to do what they do best: – create jobs.
It is a bit amusing to say that we should create a bureaucracy to get rid of bureaucracy, but that would be an unfair characterization. If the idea is to target the worst most fruitless regulations then this isn’t a bad way to go about it. It is great to see that regulation cutting is still on the political agenda.
3. Make Home Ownership More Affordable: A one year suspension of the land-transfer tax will save Ontario families $3,000, helping them achieve the dream of home ownership and create jobs.
I have the same problem with this as the 1st policy with a bit more added on. This amounts to a subsidy for a particular industry. Changing the tax code to give advantage to one group in society is wrong. Government should not be picking winners or directing the activity of the citizenry. Granted it is not the worst or most heavy handed interference but it still holds the assumption that government knows what is best. If they want to cut everybody’s taxes by $3000 then that would be fantastic, but no they are only cutting the taxes of people who are doing something that the government thinks is good. So this would be the first policy discussed so far that I would actively oppose.
4. Restore Balance to the WSIB System: Increasing costs and red tape from the Workplace Safety are killing jobs in construction and driving up costs to families. Bill 119 makes things even tougher and kills jobs by forcing independent operators and sole proprietors into the WSIB system at a cost of $11,000 per year, requiring coverage for office and secretarial staff that will never set foot on a construction site. Bill should be repealed and small businesses should have permanent representation on the WSIB.
I confess I don’t know enough about the WSIB to comment on if this is a good plan or not. I can say that in principle the idea of cutting regulation is good.
5. Expand Job Opportunities for Young Workers: We can make it more affordable for small businesses to hire new workers and help more talented young men and women enter the trades by modernizing Ontario’s antiquated apprenticeship system including turning Ontario’s outdated 3:1 journeyman-to-apprentice ratio into a 1:1 ratio.
This was one of Randy Hillier’s proposals during the leadership race, and basically I think it is a good idea.
6. Create Jobs in Northern Ontario: Ensure Northern residents have the freedom to pursue resource based job creation by opposing Bill 191, which bars development of half the territory north of the 51st parallel, and empower municipalities and First Nations by providing leaders with a real say on where revenues should be directed.
I don’t know much about Bill 191, the Far North Act, so I won’t comment on if it will bar development or not. I will say that decentralizing decision making is generally a good thing. It could have some odd hick ups if the town council is corrupt or incompetent, but generally speaking local people have the best knowledge of what is good for the local community. I also like the attitude inherent in this policy. It is not about subsidizing life in the north, but empowering them to do it themselves.
7. Cut Wasteful Government: Introduce a mandatory Sunset Review process that forces all ministries, agencies, boards, and commissions to justify their existence and continued value to the public.
This is a great idea. Part of the problem with new spending is that once it is in place it is hard to get rid of. It is what academics refer to as ‘path dependency.’ Once something is institutionalized it is generally self perpetuating, even past the point that it is useful (if it ever was useful). By forcing government organizations to justify their existence, every 5 years or so, you have a built in way that those agencies can be eliminated. Granted the likelihood is that many useless government organs will survive this process, but it gives an opportunity that would not otherwise exist to cut back on government spending.
8. Stop Corporate Welfare: Politicians and bureaucrats should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Billions of dollars in corporate handouts – including sweetheart deals for Korea based Samsung and a French videogame company – reward companies who hire the best lobbyists. Instead, government should lower the overall tax and regulatory burdens to allow all businesses to succeed on a level playing field.
All music to my ears, though I point out that this is contradicted by the 3rd proposal. But hey if they get rid of most subsidies but then introduce some of their own, there may at least by a net loss in subsidization.
9. Cap Spending: Spending should be capped at the 2010-11 estimate provided in the 2009 budget.
Reasonable enough, governments should at least pretend they are going to stick to their long term plans.
10. Bring Public Sector Agreements in Line with Reality: Public sector collective agreements must reflect the ability of the private sector to pay. A wage freeze should be imposed on senior government administrators, non-unionized employees and MPPs. The Premier should immediately enter into negotiations with the public sector union leadership with the goal of working towards a wage freeze or similar savings through more efficient service delivery until the economy and provincial finances recover.
This is good and reasonable. In a time of bursting deficits the public sector employees shouldn’t be expecting a pay raise. It is the same principle as unions in the private sector that work for a company that is losing money. If the government does not have any more money than how can the workers demand that they be given more money? The government can’t magically make money out of nowhere, which is what public sector unions seem to think.
There is nothing in here that makes me jump up in joy (like a flat tax), and there are a few things that I actively dislike. But the overall direction that these policies want to take Ontario in is a good one.
1. Suspend tax on new jobs: To encourage businesses to hire new employees, we are calling for a one-year payroll tax holiday – from the burdensome Health Tax and WSIB premiums — on all new hires.
I like the assumption here that lower taxes will mean more jobs; this would be especially true for the sort of taxes they would like to suspend. But I’m not a big fan of tax holidays. A good tax system should be predictable so that people can plan their actions around it. Making tax holidays takes away the predictability and your level of taxation will be in constant flux. Besides if you are willing to concede that these taxes kill jobs than why not get rid of them all together?
2. Eliminate Job Killing Red Tape and Regulations: The growing creep of red tape costs money and kills jobs. A Red Tape Commission should be created to lower the overall regulatory burden and free up entrepreneurs and business leaders to do what they do best: – create jobs.
It is a bit amusing to say that we should create a bureaucracy to get rid of bureaucracy, but that would be an unfair characterization. If the idea is to target the worst most fruitless regulations then this isn’t a bad way to go about it. It is great to see that regulation cutting is still on the political agenda.
3. Make Home Ownership More Affordable: A one year suspension of the land-transfer tax will save Ontario families $3,000, helping them achieve the dream of home ownership and create jobs.
I have the same problem with this as the 1st policy with a bit more added on. This amounts to a subsidy for a particular industry. Changing the tax code to give advantage to one group in society is wrong. Government should not be picking winners or directing the activity of the citizenry. Granted it is not the worst or most heavy handed interference but it still holds the assumption that government knows what is best. If they want to cut everybody’s taxes by $3000 then that would be fantastic, but no they are only cutting the taxes of people who are doing something that the government thinks is good. So this would be the first policy discussed so far that I would actively oppose.
4. Restore Balance to the WSIB System: Increasing costs and red tape from the Workplace Safety are killing jobs in construction and driving up costs to families. Bill 119 makes things even tougher and kills jobs by forcing independent operators and sole proprietors into the WSIB system at a cost of $11,000 per year, requiring coverage for office and secretarial staff that will never set foot on a construction site. Bill should be repealed and small businesses should have permanent representation on the WSIB.
I confess I don’t know enough about the WSIB to comment on if this is a good plan or not. I can say that in principle the idea of cutting regulation is good.
5. Expand Job Opportunities for Young Workers: We can make it more affordable for small businesses to hire new workers and help more talented young men and women enter the trades by modernizing Ontario’s antiquated apprenticeship system including turning Ontario’s outdated 3:1 journeyman-to-apprentice ratio into a 1:1 ratio.
This was one of Randy Hillier’s proposals during the leadership race, and basically I think it is a good idea.
6. Create Jobs in Northern Ontario: Ensure Northern residents have the freedom to pursue resource based job creation by opposing Bill 191, which bars development of half the territory north of the 51st parallel, and empower municipalities and First Nations by providing leaders with a real say on where revenues should be directed.
I don’t know much about Bill 191, the Far North Act, so I won’t comment on if it will bar development or not. I will say that decentralizing decision making is generally a good thing. It could have some odd hick ups if the town council is corrupt or incompetent, but generally speaking local people have the best knowledge of what is good for the local community. I also like the attitude inherent in this policy. It is not about subsidizing life in the north, but empowering them to do it themselves.
7. Cut Wasteful Government: Introduce a mandatory Sunset Review process that forces all ministries, agencies, boards, and commissions to justify their existence and continued value to the public.
This is a great idea. Part of the problem with new spending is that once it is in place it is hard to get rid of. It is what academics refer to as ‘path dependency.’ Once something is institutionalized it is generally self perpetuating, even past the point that it is useful (if it ever was useful). By forcing government organizations to justify their existence, every 5 years or so, you have a built in way that those agencies can be eliminated. Granted the likelihood is that many useless government organs will survive this process, but it gives an opportunity that would not otherwise exist to cut back on government spending.
8. Stop Corporate Welfare: Politicians and bureaucrats should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Billions of dollars in corporate handouts – including sweetheart deals for Korea based Samsung and a French videogame company – reward companies who hire the best lobbyists. Instead, government should lower the overall tax and regulatory burdens to allow all businesses to succeed on a level playing field.
All music to my ears, though I point out that this is contradicted by the 3rd proposal. But hey if they get rid of most subsidies but then introduce some of their own, there may at least by a net loss in subsidization.
9. Cap Spending: Spending should be capped at the 2010-11 estimate provided in the 2009 budget.
Reasonable enough, governments should at least pretend they are going to stick to their long term plans.
10. Bring Public Sector Agreements in Line with Reality: Public sector collective agreements must reflect the ability of the private sector to pay. A wage freeze should be imposed on senior government administrators, non-unionized employees and MPPs. The Premier should immediately enter into negotiations with the public sector union leadership with the goal of working towards a wage freeze or similar savings through more efficient service delivery until the economy and provincial finances recover.
This is good and reasonable. In a time of bursting deficits the public sector employees shouldn’t be expecting a pay raise. It is the same principle as unions in the private sector that work for a company that is losing money. If the government does not have any more money than how can the workers demand that they be given more money? The government can’t magically make money out of nowhere, which is what public sector unions seem to think.
There is nothing in here that makes me jump up in joy (like a flat tax), and there are a few things that I actively dislike. But the overall direction that these policies want to take Ontario in is a good one.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
David Cameron pulls a Dion
In an interview with Gay Times, David Cameron messes up his own talking points:
This reminds me of the rather bedevilled interview that former Liberal leader Stephane Dion gave during the 2008 election.
I doubt that Mr. Cameron's interview will be as disastrous as Stephane Dion's was, but it indicates a potential problem for the Conservative Party. The Labour government is weak and ripe for the picking but the Conservatives don't have a leader that can deliver. Mr. Cameron is pissing off his own base and screwing up his lines.
Labour hung Parliament here we come.
This reminds me of the rather bedevilled interview that former Liberal leader Stephane Dion gave during the 2008 election.
I doubt that Mr. Cameron's interview will be as disastrous as Stephane Dion's was, but it indicates a potential problem for the Conservative Party. The Labour government is weak and ripe for the picking but the Conservatives don't have a leader that can deliver. Mr. Cameron is pissing off his own base and screwing up his lines.
Labour hung Parliament here we come.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Freedom for all and privileges for none
These are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in a debate in the House of Commons regarding recipocity with the USA:
I do not admit that there should be any antagonism between class and class. I do not admit that there should be any antagonism between the manufacturer and the farmer. The manufacturer is the best friend of the farmer, and the farmer is the best friend of the manufacturer. Let them walk hand in hand, let each profit by the trade of the other; but so far as we are concerned, for 14 years we have administered the government of this country on these lines, trying to do away with collisions between class and class trying to keep all abreast of one another keeping always in mind the motto: Freedom for all and privileges for none.
Freedom for all and privileges for none. A powerful motto that I wish we had not forgotten. Today the concept of privilege has become more powerful than the concept of freedom. Political organizations cry out that they have a right to this and a right to that, but really they are demanding more privileges not more freedom. All that they want is a piece of the pie, to be provided by someone else.
The government gives out corporate welfare and subsidies life styles. And instead of walking hand in hand our society is divided by who can get what from the government. A tax credit here and a regulation there, and our country moves farther and farther from the principle of freedom. We will soon no longer be a land of freedom but a land of privileges.
If there was a way to bring Sir Laurier back and make him our leader, I would.
I do not admit that there should be any antagonism between class and class. I do not admit that there should be any antagonism between the manufacturer and the farmer. The manufacturer is the best friend of the farmer, and the farmer is the best friend of the manufacturer. Let them walk hand in hand, let each profit by the trade of the other; but so far as we are concerned, for 14 years we have administered the government of this country on these lines, trying to do away with collisions between class and class trying to keep all abreast of one another keeping always in mind the motto: Freedom for all and privileges for none.
Freedom for all and privileges for none. A powerful motto that I wish we had not forgotten. Today the concept of privilege has become more powerful than the concept of freedom. Political organizations cry out that they have a right to this and a right to that, but really they are demanding more privileges not more freedom. All that they want is a piece of the pie, to be provided by someone else.
The government gives out corporate welfare and subsidies life styles. And instead of walking hand in hand our society is divided by who can get what from the government. A tax credit here and a regulation there, and our country moves farther and farther from the principle of freedom. We will soon no longer be a land of freedom but a land of privileges.
If there was a way to bring Sir Laurier back and make him our leader, I would.
Concordia to leave the CFS
The Canadian Federation of Students would be called a farce except anyone who would call them that would be too afraid of being sued. Never have I ever heard of an organization that would threaten law suites as readily as the CFS.
If I was to call them a farce I would call them that because they are suppose to represent the views and interests of students, they don’t. What they do instead is represent their own views and interests. They are a radical socialist promoting organization. I know the word communist is thrown around a lot, but for some of the CFS it does apply. They don’t care so much about doing what is good for students; they care more about radicalizing the student body to help bring about the revolution.
Concordia University has wizened up and has overwhelmingly voted to leave CFS. In response CFS is already saying the referendum is illegal and they are prepping themselves for a legal battle to keep Concordia in the CFS.
Do you scan that?
They are trying to use the court to keep Concordia in the CFS against the wishes of 72% of the students (or at least the ones that cared enough about student government to vote). The enemies of the CFS are using democracy and the CFS is using force. This is a pretty standard operational procedure for them. Democracy is an inconvenience to these thuggish activists.
So congrats to Concordia and good luck in what I am sure will be a long standing legal battle.
If I was to call them a farce I would call them that because they are suppose to represent the views and interests of students, they don’t. What they do instead is represent their own views and interests. They are a radical socialist promoting organization. I know the word communist is thrown around a lot, but for some of the CFS it does apply. They don’t care so much about doing what is good for students; they care more about radicalizing the student body to help bring about the revolution.
Concordia University has wizened up and has overwhelmingly voted to leave CFS. In response CFS is already saying the referendum is illegal and they are prepping themselves for a legal battle to keep Concordia in the CFS.
Do you scan that?
They are trying to use the court to keep Concordia in the CFS against the wishes of 72% of the students (or at least the ones that cared enough about student government to vote). The enemies of the CFS are using democracy and the CFS is using force. This is a pretty standard operational procedure for them. Democracy is an inconvenience to these thuggish activists.
So congrats to Concordia and good luck in what I am sure will be a long standing legal battle.
Stephen Harper vs the Fraser Institute
Thursday Stephen Harper attacked a report released on Tuesday by the Fraser Institute that demonstrated that the ‘stimulus package’ has achieved nothing. All that the massive increase in government spending has achieved is that the country is now burdened with more debt. Mr. Harper’s and Mr. Flaherty’s attempt to defend their non-stimulus was pathetic.
"First of all, that’s completely wrong and quite frankly contradicted by very serious work that’s been done [elsewhere]" Harper told reporters. "Economic theory and history is clear, governments must … make sure [funds] are put to productive use in the economy to create jobs."
Actually economic history says nothing of the sort. Economic history shows that such government spending only leads to inflation and ultimately harms the economy. When Mr. Harper studied economics at the University of Calgary did they just skip over the 1970s?
And yes economic theory is clearly on the side of the government, unless we are talking about Monetary Theory or the Austrian School of Economics. I hate it when governments say “economists agree.” Economists, the good and the bad, agree on basically nothing. It is a very factious discipline. Anyone who simply says, “Economists say this so it is what we must do,” is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
As for contradicting “every serious work,” there isn’t any other serious work that is based on data and not models. The data is too new for there to be an established academic opinion on the success of the stimulus. With assumptions we can make models of how the stimulus might have worked, but hey what if those assumptions are wrong? This is why academics check their conclusions with empirical data as soon as it becomes available. Sort of like what the Fraser Institute did.
Flaherty said the report fails to take into account the effects of the home renovation tax credit, the automotive stimulus program and the work-sharing program, which he said have saved more than 200,000 jobs.
"We added two points of GDP last year through the economic action plan," Flaherty said. "Consumer confidence is back at historically normal levels —so is business confidence in the first quarter of this year.
It may be true that 200 000 jobs have been “saved” but I am curious where that number comes from. Is that number the result of a study of the empirical data or a projection based on assumptions? Anyway, even if it was true it doesn’t really matter. The government “saved” those jobs by taking money from other people and paying companies to not fire anyone, this is zero economic gain. It is purely redistribution of wealth.
Furthermore I would like to know how exactly the government added “two points of GDP” or where the government got that data. The Fraser Institute is citing their sources and the government is just throwing numbers out in the air. And hey, call me crazy, but when there is a political motivation involved I tend to be suspicious of government assertions.
Business and consumer confidence may be back up, but why is this an accomplishment of the government? The economy tends to go in cycles, which suggests that confidence would have gone up by itself anyway. In fact there isn’t any evidence that the confidence didn’t go up by itself. The government argument seems to be: we did something, something good happened, therefore we did something good. I think that we don’t need Plato to rip apart that logic.
In conclusion watch this video explaining the theories of Hayek and Keynes. It clears up some issues that Mr. Harper seems to have forgotten since his University days.
"First of all, that’s completely wrong and quite frankly contradicted by very serious work that’s been done [elsewhere]" Harper told reporters. "Economic theory and history is clear, governments must … make sure [funds] are put to productive use in the economy to create jobs."
Actually economic history says nothing of the sort. Economic history shows that such government spending only leads to inflation and ultimately harms the economy. When Mr. Harper studied economics at the University of Calgary did they just skip over the 1970s?
And yes economic theory is clearly on the side of the government, unless we are talking about Monetary Theory or the Austrian School of Economics. I hate it when governments say “economists agree.” Economists, the good and the bad, agree on basically nothing. It is a very factious discipline. Anyone who simply says, “Economists say this so it is what we must do,” is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
As for contradicting “every serious work,” there isn’t any other serious work that is based on data and not models. The data is too new for there to be an established academic opinion on the success of the stimulus. With assumptions we can make models of how the stimulus might have worked, but hey what if those assumptions are wrong? This is why academics check their conclusions with empirical data as soon as it becomes available. Sort of like what the Fraser Institute did.
Flaherty said the report fails to take into account the effects of the home renovation tax credit, the automotive stimulus program and the work-sharing program, which he said have saved more than 200,000 jobs.
"We added two points of GDP last year through the economic action plan," Flaherty said. "Consumer confidence is back at historically normal levels —so is business confidence in the first quarter of this year.
It may be true that 200 000 jobs have been “saved” but I am curious where that number comes from. Is that number the result of a study of the empirical data or a projection based on assumptions? Anyway, even if it was true it doesn’t really matter. The government “saved” those jobs by taking money from other people and paying companies to not fire anyone, this is zero economic gain. It is purely redistribution of wealth.
Furthermore I would like to know how exactly the government added “two points of GDP” or where the government got that data. The Fraser Institute is citing their sources and the government is just throwing numbers out in the air. And hey, call me crazy, but when there is a political motivation involved I tend to be suspicious of government assertions.
Business and consumer confidence may be back up, but why is this an accomplishment of the government? The economy tends to go in cycles, which suggests that confidence would have gone up by itself anyway. In fact there isn’t any evidence that the confidence didn’t go up by itself. The government argument seems to be: we did something, something good happened, therefore we did something good. I think that we don’t need Plato to rip apart that logic.
In conclusion watch this video explaining the theories of Hayek and Keynes. It clears up some issues that Mr. Harper seems to have forgotten since his University days.
That's not what Goldwater meant
Yesterday when I was working out I saw a news clip on Sky News talking about threats being given to Democrats that voted for the Health Care bill. One of those people wrote on a Democrat’s office wall, “Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice.” They got that quote from the greatest President that never was, Barry Goldwater. I am pissed that his words are being used to justify something that I feel certain Mr. Goldwater would never have endorsed.
Mr. Goldwater was not talking about this sort of extremisms, the sort of extremism that damages property and assaults peaceful human beings. The sort of extremism that Mr. Goldwater meant is a non-faltering dedication to principles. It was a response to his critics that called him too extreme. He was saying that liberty was his goal and he will not give in to pressure to abandon that goal.
He was not saying that we should threaten the children of people we don’t like.
Mr. Goldwater was not talking about this sort of extremisms, the sort of extremism that damages property and assaults peaceful human beings. The sort of extremism that Mr. Goldwater meant is a non-faltering dedication to principles. It was a response to his critics that called him too extreme. He was saying that liberty was his goal and he will not give in to pressure to abandon that goal.
He was not saying that we should threaten the children of people we don’t like.
Poking fun at libertarians
Just to prove that I don’t lack a sense of humour, I giggled when I saw this:
But because I am a libertarian (or classical liberal or Hobbesian Liberal depending on my mood), I should explain why this characterization is wrong.
In the description of that video the makers say that the only difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that a libertarian has a bachelor degree. Which is stupid for a couple of reasons, for one thing I’ve met plenty of anarchists with doctorate degrees. For another thing a libertarian does think that government has a role to play in society, an anarchist thinks that the government has no role.
The role that government has to play is enforcement of contracts and keeping the peace. I’ve heard it argued that this can be done without the state but I am doubtful. Though it should be noted that Somalia isn’t really demonstrative of how a true anarchical society would appropriate, because in a true anarchy there would be no rulers.
The problem with Somalia is not lack of government but competing governments. The warlords form their own leviathans and compete with the other mini-leviathans for domination. You can hardly claim that there are no rulers in Somalia.
I would argue that this sort of situation is always bound to happen in a vacuum. People will always try and dominate or rule each other. Which is why I am willing to hand things over to a relatively benevolent ruler and avoid the whole war and death business, though I reserve the right to struggle to make my rulers more benevolent than they already are.
So no, Somalia is not a paradise and it certainly is not libertarian. The makers of this video do what most critics of libertarians do, instead of asking themselves, “are they right? Is this an appropriate or plausible role for the government?” they immediately leap to an extreme idea that most libertarians wouldn’t even agree with.
But the video is funny...
But because I am a libertarian (or classical liberal or Hobbesian Liberal depending on my mood), I should explain why this characterization is wrong.
In the description of that video the makers say that the only difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that a libertarian has a bachelor degree. Which is stupid for a couple of reasons, for one thing I’ve met plenty of anarchists with doctorate degrees. For another thing a libertarian does think that government has a role to play in society, an anarchist thinks that the government has no role.
The role that government has to play is enforcement of contracts and keeping the peace. I’ve heard it argued that this can be done without the state but I am doubtful. Though it should be noted that Somalia isn’t really demonstrative of how a true anarchical society would appropriate, because in a true anarchy there would be no rulers.
The problem with Somalia is not lack of government but competing governments. The warlords form their own leviathans and compete with the other mini-leviathans for domination. You can hardly claim that there are no rulers in Somalia.
I would argue that this sort of situation is always bound to happen in a vacuum. People will always try and dominate or rule each other. Which is why I am willing to hand things over to a relatively benevolent ruler and avoid the whole war and death business, though I reserve the right to struggle to make my rulers more benevolent than they already are.
So no, Somalia is not a paradise and it certainly is not libertarian. The makers of this video do what most critics of libertarians do, instead of asking themselves, “are they right? Is this an appropriate or plausible role for the government?” they immediately leap to an extreme idea that most libertarians wouldn’t even agree with.
But the video is funny...
Friday, March 26, 2010
Senate to inquire into the state of free speech in Canada
Thanks to the debate around the Human Rights Commission, the limits of free speech has been a hot button topic in Canada over the last few years. Now Stephen Taylor of Blogging Tories is reporting that Senator Finley is sponsoring a Senatorial inquiry into the state of free speech in Canada.
The Senate is often characterized as an anachronistic institution, and really it is. But such an inquiry is likely to get noticed and could serve as the centre of the debate for the next little while.
I look forward to following the progress of this inquiry as much as I can.
The Senate is often characterized as an anachronistic institution, and really it is. But such an inquiry is likely to get noticed and could serve as the centre of the debate for the next little while.
I look forward to following the progress of this inquiry as much as I can.
The Institute for Liberal Studies
The Institute for Liberal Studies is an organization that puts on seminars for students and non-students so that they can learn about classical liberal ideas. That's classical liberal, as in concepts such as individual liberty and personal responsibility. I owe a lot to this organization, if it wasn't for them I would have gone through my entire undergraduate education without knowing who Hayek was.
They do good work. Which is why I contributed $10 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of their most popular seminar, the Liberty Summer Seminar (kind of like the Woodstock of liberty).
You can also donate $10 (or more) here.
Believe me there would be no better use of the money for the purpose of spreading the ideas of liberty.
They do good work. Which is why I contributed $10 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of their most popular seminar, the Liberty Summer Seminar (kind of like the Woodstock of liberty).
You can also donate $10 (or more) here.
Believe me there would be no better use of the money for the purpose of spreading the ideas of liberty.
Jeff Flake on the US Health Bill
It is just too bad that such a bad reform was passed. Let's hope that some of the worst bits can be reversed after the mid-term elections.
Russian Newspaper on Canada and the Arctic Circle
Canada and Russia are experiencing a great deal of tension over exactly who controls what parts of the Arctic Ocean. This is Pavda's take on the situation:
What does Prime Minister Stephen Harper have in common with the Canadian Minister of Defence? He shares a sinister, hypocritical and belligerent discourse bordering on the lunatic fringe of the international community. Yet Canada’s new-found megalomania is the least of Russia’s worries: How can climate change in the Arctic threaten her national security?
From Canada, Russia has become used to seeing and hearing positions of sheer arrogance, unadulterated insolence and provocative intrusion. Take for example Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s declaration that Canada is “an Arctic Superpower” (what all thirteen of them?) and the idiotic reference by the Canadian Minister of Defence, Peter McKay, about Russian “overflights” outside Canadian airspace. How can you “overfly” outside?
What these statements hide is Canada´s nervousness at the fact that international law backs up Russia’s claim to a hefty slice of the Arctic and that international law will favour Russia in delineating the new Arctic boundaries. Inside Russia’s continental shelf lie huge deposits of gold, diamonds, nickel, cobalt and copper.
And to finish up with a nice threatening bit:
In the event of a showdown between Russia and Canada, it is obvious that Russia would win. Yet Canada is becoming more and more arrogant, feeling its back covered perhaps by Big Brother to the south. Maybe it is time for Canada to stick its nose into its own affairs and forget adventures which might bring it dire consequences.
I’m not so much scared by the implied threat as I am amused. Canada and Russia are highly unlikely to go to war (which would ultimately risk nuclear war via NATO). So what is the point of this article? Demonize foreign leaders and get Russians to forget about their own oppression?
As Boney M. once said:
Oh those Russians
What does Prime Minister Stephen Harper have in common with the Canadian Minister of Defence? He shares a sinister, hypocritical and belligerent discourse bordering on the lunatic fringe of the international community. Yet Canada’s new-found megalomania is the least of Russia’s worries: How can climate change in the Arctic threaten her national security?
From Canada, Russia has become used to seeing and hearing positions of sheer arrogance, unadulterated insolence and provocative intrusion. Take for example Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s declaration that Canada is “an Arctic Superpower” (what all thirteen of them?) and the idiotic reference by the Canadian Minister of Defence, Peter McKay, about Russian “overflights” outside Canadian airspace. How can you “overfly” outside?
What these statements hide is Canada´s nervousness at the fact that international law backs up Russia’s claim to a hefty slice of the Arctic and that international law will favour Russia in delineating the new Arctic boundaries. Inside Russia’s continental shelf lie huge deposits of gold, diamonds, nickel, cobalt and copper.
And to finish up with a nice threatening bit:
In the event of a showdown between Russia and Canada, it is obvious that Russia would win. Yet Canada is becoming more and more arrogant, feeling its back covered perhaps by Big Brother to the south. Maybe it is time for Canada to stick its nose into its own affairs and forget adventures which might bring it dire consequences.
I’m not so much scared by the implied threat as I am amused. Canada and Russia are highly unlikely to go to war (which would ultimately risk nuclear war via NATO). So what is the point of this article? Demonize foreign leaders and get Russians to forget about their own oppression?
As Boney M. once said:
Oh those Russians
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Libertarians vs Neo-Conservatives
This is an interesting video and has a different take on the issue than the one I posted last year. It also has a very different perspective than the one pronounced by Stephen Harper last year. Check out those two links then watch the video:
The irresponsible tax
Yesterday Gordon Brown’s Labour government released the last budget before the May election. Instead of making tough choices and trying to get the budget under control, the Labour Party has opted for raising taxes.
Perhaps the most annoying tax increase is a 10% adjusted for inflation rise on the levy for Cider in the UK. What makes this tax annoying is that it is not just about raising revenue. The government of the once free Great Britain has decided that individuals in their society are not behaving responsibly. They are going after high alcohol ciders in an effort to sternly tell their citizens what is appropriate.
In the process they are hurting the same small businesses that politicians always rave about. But that isn’t really the crux of my annoyance. The true finger in the eye is this:
The same government that is acquiring billions of pounds of debt with no clear plan for balancing the budget, never mind paying down that debt, is telling people how to act responsible. When easy credit and living beyond our means got everyone in this mess to begin with, the government of Great Britain is refusing to acknowledge their role in it.
Instead of taking responsibility for the deficit and the ever looming debt crisis, Mr. Brown is interfering with the choices that other responsible adults make for themselves. I often wonder why politicians feel they can run our lives when they can’t even run the government.
But before you say “throw the scum out,” you should note that this isn’t originally a Labour policy. They stole this idea from the Conservative Party. So if you are a free thinking individual that wants government off your back, your best bet would be to not bother voting at all.
Instead, you should spend your time stocking up on Cider.
Perhaps the most annoying tax increase is a 10% adjusted for inflation rise on the levy for Cider in the UK. What makes this tax annoying is that it is not just about raising revenue. The government of the once free Great Britain has decided that individuals in their society are not behaving responsibly. They are going after high alcohol ciders in an effort to sternly tell their citizens what is appropriate.
In the process they are hurting the same small businesses that politicians always rave about. But that isn’t really the crux of my annoyance. The true finger in the eye is this:
The same government that is acquiring billions of pounds of debt with no clear plan for balancing the budget, never mind paying down that debt, is telling people how to act responsible. When easy credit and living beyond our means got everyone in this mess to begin with, the government of Great Britain is refusing to acknowledge their role in it.
Instead of taking responsibility for the deficit and the ever looming debt crisis, Mr. Brown is interfering with the choices that other responsible adults make for themselves. I often wonder why politicians feel they can run our lives when they can’t even run the government.
But before you say “throw the scum out,” you should note that this isn’t originally a Labour policy. They stole this idea from the Conservative Party. So if you are a free thinking individual that wants government off your back, your best bet would be to not bother voting at all.
Instead, you should spend your time stocking up on Cider.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Brian Lee Crowley on Canada's forgotten political tradition
I linked this video in my previous post, but after re-watching it I decided it deserved its own post:
The 21st Century will belong to Canada
Authors Jason Clemens, Brian Lee Crowley, and Niels Veldhuis take inspiration from Wilfred Laurier and claim that the 21st century will be Canada’s century in their new book, The Canadian Century: Moving out of America's Shadow.
I’m looking forward to reading this book, if nothing else, because the authors seem to grasp something about Canadian history that most people miss:
Clemens said Laurier was a classical liberal who believed in small government and low taxes, and Canada followed his core beliefs for about 50 years.
"He was not only interested in policy, he was interested in an aspiration for this country," said Clemens.
"He was interested in lifting this country up into a leadership position, not only in North America but in the world. Laurier had great plans and great hopes for our country at the turn of the century. For a very long time, even right into the 1950s, we were essentially following Laurier's principles, in terms of government, in terms of policy, in terms of the role of government in our country. Then we go off course in the mid-1960s."
Did you know that the United States had a bigger government and larger welfare program than Canada before the 1960s? Did you know that every government expansion in Canada, excepting health care, has been inspired by American programs? All of you out there that are proud of Canada because we have a more ‘generous’ collectivist spirit should take note:
Nothing has made us more American than big government programs.
The core of the Canadian polity was once upon a time the ideals of liberty and individual responsibility. That core still exists deep down in our collective memory. We simply have to find it again.
I’m looking forward to reading this book, if nothing else, because the authors seem to grasp something about Canadian history that most people miss:
Clemens said Laurier was a classical liberal who believed in small government and low taxes, and Canada followed his core beliefs for about 50 years.
"He was not only interested in policy, he was interested in an aspiration for this country," said Clemens.
"He was interested in lifting this country up into a leadership position, not only in North America but in the world. Laurier had great plans and great hopes for our country at the turn of the century. For a very long time, even right into the 1950s, we were essentially following Laurier's principles, in terms of government, in terms of policy, in terms of the role of government in our country. Then we go off course in the mid-1960s."
Did you know that the United States had a bigger government and larger welfare program than Canada before the 1960s? Did you know that every government expansion in Canada, excepting health care, has been inspired by American programs? All of you out there that are proud of Canada because we have a more ‘generous’ collectivist spirit should take note:
Nothing has made us more American than big government programs.
The core of the Canadian polity was once upon a time the ideals of liberty and individual responsibility. That core still exists deep down in our collective memory. We simply have to find it again.
UFC should be brought to Ontario
UFC President, Dana White is confident that Mixed Martial Arts will one day be legal in Ontario, and he has good reason to be confident. As noted in the article I just linked, Canada is one of the best markets for the UFC. Also Ontario is one of the few remaining jurisdictions in Canada or the USA that have a ban on MMA. Premier McGuinty has not said no to allowing MMA, but he has said that it isn’t a priority.
Frankly I don’t understand this whole ‘priority’ claim. Considering the Liberal’s majority and the opposition’s already stated support, I would think that a bill to end the ban on MMA would pass pretty quickly through the House. When you consider how this would be an easy way to get popularity from young voters, I can’t conceive of why Premier McGuinty wouldn’t give some debate time to this issue.
Besides it isn’t like the House doesn’t spend time on matters of no consequence:
Bill 2 : An Act to proclaim April 24 in each year as Meningitis Awareness Day.
Bill 4, Ombudsman Amendment Act: Increasing the term of an Ombudsman from 5 years to 10 years.
Bill 6: April 21 in each year is hereby named Climate Change Awareness Day.
There are other bills of debatable value, but these three are clearly not pressing issues. Making Awareness days and changing how long an Ombudsman serves will affect the people’s lives a lot less than allowing MMA.
I think Opposition Leader Tim Hudak has it right when he says:
Dalton McGuinty has shown a peculiar obsession with regulating the pesticides we can use on our lawn, what snacks your kids can take to school, what kind of breed of dog you can own in the province of Ontario.
He's increasingly turned into a bit of a premier-dad.
With this in mind the true reason for why Mr. McGuinty won’t let the UFC perform in Ontario.
Premier-Dad wants to make sure we’ve finished our homework first.
Frankly I don’t understand this whole ‘priority’ claim. Considering the Liberal’s majority and the opposition’s already stated support, I would think that a bill to end the ban on MMA would pass pretty quickly through the House. When you consider how this would be an easy way to get popularity from young voters, I can’t conceive of why Premier McGuinty wouldn’t give some debate time to this issue.
Besides it isn’t like the House doesn’t spend time on matters of no consequence:
Bill 2 : An Act to proclaim April 24 in each year as Meningitis Awareness Day.
Bill 4, Ombudsman Amendment Act: Increasing the term of an Ombudsman from 5 years to 10 years.
Bill 6: April 21 in each year is hereby named Climate Change Awareness Day.
There are other bills of debatable value, but these three are clearly not pressing issues. Making Awareness days and changing how long an Ombudsman serves will affect the people’s lives a lot less than allowing MMA.
I think Opposition Leader Tim Hudak has it right when he says:
Dalton McGuinty has shown a peculiar obsession with regulating the pesticides we can use on our lawn, what snacks your kids can take to school, what kind of breed of dog you can own in the province of Ontario.
He's increasingly turned into a bit of a premier-dad.
With this in mind the true reason for why Mr. McGuinty won’t let the UFC perform in Ontario.
Premier-Dad wants to make sure we’ve finished our homework first.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Rocco Rossi is not 'right-wing,' he is right
I always hate this ‘left-wing’ ‘right-wing’ crap. It is the stuff of lazy journalists and stupid political scientists. It is completely subjective and constantly changing across time and space. For example, in Canada you would be considered far ‘right-wing’ if you want to introduce a private system of health care along with the public system. In the UK such a proposal would be considered...normal.
It seems that Rocco Rossi, a candidate for Mayor of Toronto, has my back on this. He rejects the label ‘right-wing’ for himself but does not call himself ‘centre’ or ‘left.’ He rejects the whole concept of the political spectrum.
"I think that there's a reflex to try and make things easier by categorizing each of us into buckets: Rocco Rossi is right, Joe Pantalone is left, George Smitherman is centre."
And when this happens, he continued, policies and ideas that don't fit that narrative get ignored.
This is absolutely true.
"I don't see myself as right or left. I see myself as pragmatic. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal," he said.
He could have taken the words right out of my mouth.
The amusing part of this article is that the writer insists on labelling all his policies as being ‘right’ or ‘left.’ Even as someone is telling her that labelling like that oversimplifies politics, she insists on using it. Why can’t journalists just put aside the labelling and simply report the policies?
Oh wait I already gave the answer to that question: laziness.
Mr. Rossi you may not be ‘right-wing’ but you are right.
It seems that Rocco Rossi, a candidate for Mayor of Toronto, has my back on this. He rejects the label ‘right-wing’ for himself but does not call himself ‘centre’ or ‘left.’ He rejects the whole concept of the political spectrum.
"I think that there's a reflex to try and make things easier by categorizing each of us into buckets: Rocco Rossi is right, Joe Pantalone is left, George Smitherman is centre."
And when this happens, he continued, policies and ideas that don't fit that narrative get ignored.
This is absolutely true.
"I don't see myself as right or left. I see myself as pragmatic. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal," he said.
He could have taken the words right out of my mouth.
The amusing part of this article is that the writer insists on labelling all his policies as being ‘right’ or ‘left.’ Even as someone is telling her that labelling like that oversimplifies politics, she insists on using it. Why can’t journalists just put aside the labelling and simply report the policies?
Oh wait I already gave the answer to that question: laziness.
Mr. Rossi you may not be ‘right-wing’ but you are right.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Petition against the extradition of Marc Emery
The petition that I blogged about a few days ago has been introduced in Parliament. Peter Jaworski of the Western Standard has written an excellent post on the matter.
Here is the video:
Here is the video:
Harper on Marijuana
Lots of to do was made about there being a marijuana question on the list of questions Stephen Harper would answer in his “YouTube interview.” Personally I don’t find that shocking at all, and I am a little bit amused by the moderator’s apologetic tone. Really this is an issue that affects more Canadians than the seal hunt. So it is not surprising that Canadians care about it.
Here is the question:
A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults, just like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals?
Here is the 600 word answer with my comments placed in brackets (I also added paragraphs to improve readability):
Well, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I’ve seen this particular poll. There are different polls on this subject that show different things (but they consistently show high support of legalization), but you know, I have to say young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with drug use (so wouldn’t it be nice if marijuana stores would refuse to sell it to them because they fear losing their license?), and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the last thing I want to see for my kids or anyone else’s children (how about adults, what gives you the right to make the choice for them?).
You know, I understand that people defend the use of drugs, but that said, I don’t think…I think I’ve been very fortunate to live a drug-free life (good for you but who really cares?), and I don’t meet many people who’ve led a drug-free life who regret it. Met a lot of people who haven’t, who’ve regretted it (I’ve met a lot of people who have and don’t. This is all really irrelevant). So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children, for everybody’s children (You can encourage children not to take drugs and still have it legal. Such as the way that many families encourage their children not to smoke cigarettes).
Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the drug trade. You know, when people say focus on violent crime instead of drugs, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of crimes a lot worse than, you know, casual use of marijuana. But when people are buying from the drug trade, they are not buying from their neighbour (depends on your neighbourhood really). They are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world (Kind of reminds me of alcohol prohibition, how did that turn out when it was ended?). All across the world. You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on drugs. Even when people buy, you know, an illegal carton of cigarettes and they avoid tax, that they really understand the kind of criminal networks that they are supporting, and the damage they do (so by legalizing you take it out of the hands of violent criminals).
Now, you know, I know some people say if you just legalized it, you know, you’d get the money and all would be well (huh?). But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they’re illegal. The reason drugs…it’s not that. The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad (so is cheating on your wife, should we make that illegal too?). And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people (Yes because once booze was made legal no respectable business would touch it. There are absolutely no bases to make this claim). Because the very nature of the dependency they create (like booze), the damage they create (like booze), the social upheaval and catastrophe they create (like booze), particularly in third world countries (huh?)…I mean, you look now, you look at Latin America, some of the countries to the south of us, and the damage the drug trade is doing (wait did we just change topics here? I thought that we were talking about marijuana. Since when does Canada import marijuana from Latin America?), not just to people’s lives as drug users. Look at the violence it’s creating in neighbourhoods (just like booze when it was illegal. Are you starting to see a pattern here?), the destruction of social systems (like booze), of families (like booze), of governmental institutions (Huh?), the corruption of police forces (does he mean criminals corrupt the police? Sort of like how the mafia corrupted the police during alcohol prohibition?).
I mean, these are terrible, terrible organizations (I agree, see above for solution), and while I know people, you know, have different views, I must admit myself sometimes I’m frustrated by how little impact governments have been able to have on the drug trade internationally (you mean government is powerless, wow I’m shocked). But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stopped trying to deal with it, it would suddenly turn into a nice, wholesome industry (the way that booze did). It will never be that (the way that booze isn’t?). And I think we all need to understand that, and we all need to make sure our kids understand, not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the damage drugs can do to them (like booze), but they understand as well the wider social disaster they are contributing to if they, through use of their money, fund organizations that produce and deliver elicit narcotics (which would stop happening if it was made legal).
Here is the question:
A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults, just like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals?
Here is the 600 word answer with my comments placed in brackets (I also added paragraphs to improve readability):
Well, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I’ve seen this particular poll. There are different polls on this subject that show different things (but they consistently show high support of legalization), but you know, I have to say young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with drug use (so wouldn’t it be nice if marijuana stores would refuse to sell it to them because they fear losing their license?), and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the last thing I want to see for my kids or anyone else’s children (how about adults, what gives you the right to make the choice for them?).
You know, I understand that people defend the use of drugs, but that said, I don’t think…I think I’ve been very fortunate to live a drug-free life (good for you but who really cares?), and I don’t meet many people who’ve led a drug-free life who regret it. Met a lot of people who haven’t, who’ve regretted it (I’ve met a lot of people who have and don’t. This is all really irrelevant). So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children, for everybody’s children (You can encourage children not to take drugs and still have it legal. Such as the way that many families encourage their children not to smoke cigarettes).
Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the drug trade. You know, when people say focus on violent crime instead of drugs, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of crimes a lot worse than, you know, casual use of marijuana. But when people are buying from the drug trade, they are not buying from their neighbour (depends on your neighbourhood really). They are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world (Kind of reminds me of alcohol prohibition, how did that turn out when it was ended?). All across the world. You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on drugs. Even when people buy, you know, an illegal carton of cigarettes and they avoid tax, that they really understand the kind of criminal networks that they are supporting, and the damage they do (so by legalizing you take it out of the hands of violent criminals).
Now, you know, I know some people say if you just legalized it, you know, you’d get the money and all would be well (huh?). But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they’re illegal. The reason drugs…it’s not that. The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad (so is cheating on your wife, should we make that illegal too?). And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people (Yes because once booze was made legal no respectable business would touch it. There are absolutely no bases to make this claim). Because the very nature of the dependency they create (like booze), the damage they create (like booze), the social upheaval and catastrophe they create (like booze), particularly in third world countries (huh?)…I mean, you look now, you look at Latin America, some of the countries to the south of us, and the damage the drug trade is doing (wait did we just change topics here? I thought that we were talking about marijuana. Since when does Canada import marijuana from Latin America?), not just to people’s lives as drug users. Look at the violence it’s creating in neighbourhoods (just like booze when it was illegal. Are you starting to see a pattern here?), the destruction of social systems (like booze), of families (like booze), of governmental institutions (Huh?), the corruption of police forces (does he mean criminals corrupt the police? Sort of like how the mafia corrupted the police during alcohol prohibition?).
I mean, these are terrible, terrible organizations (I agree, see above for solution), and while I know people, you know, have different views, I must admit myself sometimes I’m frustrated by how little impact governments have been able to have on the drug trade internationally (you mean government is powerless, wow I’m shocked). But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stopped trying to deal with it, it would suddenly turn into a nice, wholesome industry (the way that booze did). It will never be that (the way that booze isn’t?). And I think we all need to understand that, and we all need to make sure our kids understand, not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the damage drugs can do to them (like booze), but they understand as well the wider social disaster they are contributing to if they, through use of their money, fund organizations that produce and deliver elicit narcotics (which would stop happening if it was made legal).
Harper on Mandatory Minimums
A few days ago a CP article reported that the government of Canada is ignoring taxpayer research that shows that mandatory minimums do not work. This issue was brought up in Prime Minister Harper’s recent “YouTube interview.”
This question is from Chris in Waterloo, and he writes, “Since research has shown that mandatory minimum sentencing does not deter future crime, what makes you as the Prime Minister believe this is still an effective way of persecuting criminals?”
Harper responds that a majority of Canadians support mandatory minimums, which really has little to do with the question. If a majority of Canadians think that gravity is a myth, we still won’t be able to fly. He then goes on to say that the current system is broken. This still does not answer the question. Even if the current system is broken, why replace a broken system with something that is likely to be also broken?
He then says this:
But we do think it’s very important that the criminal justice system send a strong message that such behaviour is not acceptable, and that it be appropriately punished, and that those who engage in such behaviour understand what the likelihood of punishment actually is.
This does not so much ignore the question as it ignores the premise of the question. The point is that evidence from across the world has shown that mandatory minimums do not work to deter criminals. To then say that it represents a ‘strong message’ is foolish; if it was a ‘strong message’ then criminals would be deterred.
The Prime Minister ends his answer with this statement:
I think…I’m not an expert in this area, but I think the evidence suggests it isn’t the length of the punishment that matters; it’s the certainty of the punishment. And if there’s no certainty you’ll be punished, then no possible penalty will matter. So that’s why we think it’s important to actually have a minimum penalty for serious crimes.
I agree that certainty of punishment is a good theoretical goal. The problem is that this goal is impossible. Criminals do not always get caught. If they are caught there is not always sufficient evidence to convict. This means that every criminal knows he has a chance to get away with it. Mandatory minimums do nothing to change the perception and the reality that often crime does in fact pay.
Mr. Harper did not really address the question of why policy is not being evidence driven. He had an opportunity to refute the evidence or even reject the premise of the question (as he did in an earlier question regarding the seal hunt). He did neither of these things. I leave you to speculate why.
*Update*
Here's a video clip of this portion of the interview:
This question is from Chris in Waterloo, and he writes, “Since research has shown that mandatory minimum sentencing does not deter future crime, what makes you as the Prime Minister believe this is still an effective way of persecuting criminals?”
Harper responds that a majority of Canadians support mandatory minimums, which really has little to do with the question. If a majority of Canadians think that gravity is a myth, we still won’t be able to fly. He then goes on to say that the current system is broken. This still does not answer the question. Even if the current system is broken, why replace a broken system with something that is likely to be also broken?
He then says this:
But we do think it’s very important that the criminal justice system send a strong message that such behaviour is not acceptable, and that it be appropriately punished, and that those who engage in such behaviour understand what the likelihood of punishment actually is.
This does not so much ignore the question as it ignores the premise of the question. The point is that evidence from across the world has shown that mandatory minimums do not work to deter criminals. To then say that it represents a ‘strong message’ is foolish; if it was a ‘strong message’ then criminals would be deterred.
The Prime Minister ends his answer with this statement:
I think…I’m not an expert in this area, but I think the evidence suggests it isn’t the length of the punishment that matters; it’s the certainty of the punishment. And if there’s no certainty you’ll be punished, then no possible penalty will matter. So that’s why we think it’s important to actually have a minimum penalty for serious crimes.
I agree that certainty of punishment is a good theoretical goal. The problem is that this goal is impossible. Criminals do not always get caught. If they are caught there is not always sufficient evidence to convict. This means that every criminal knows he has a chance to get away with it. Mandatory minimums do nothing to change the perception and the reality that often crime does in fact pay.
Mr. Harper did not really address the question of why policy is not being evidence driven. He had an opportunity to refute the evidence or even reject the premise of the question (as he did in an earlier question regarding the seal hunt). He did neither of these things. I leave you to speculate why.
*Update*
Here's a video clip of this portion of the interview:
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
CTF supports Liberal proposal to end 10 per centers
The sign of a truly nonpartisan organization is the willingness to support good ideas regardless of what party they come from. The Canadian Taxpayer Federation has demonstrated that they are nonpartisan by supporting the Liberal proposal to end the 10 per centers.
This should be a no brainer for anyone who supports smaller government, or even for those that don’t. It is difficult to argue that the Canadian people benefit from spending $30 million on party political propaganda. All parties have abused this system that was originally designed for constituency communication. All parties would look good if they come together and cleanse themselves of this program.
So I join with the CTF and call upon MPs of all political parties to support the end of the 10 per centers.
In a blog post a couple of days ago I said that small-c conservative activists should spend their energy in nonpartisan organizations. Thanks to the CTF for demonstrating why I wrote this. It is in organizations like the CTF that good ideas can be promoted regardless of whose idea it is.
This should be a no brainer for anyone who supports smaller government, or even for those that don’t. It is difficult to argue that the Canadian people benefit from spending $30 million on party political propaganda. All parties have abused this system that was originally designed for constituency communication. All parties would look good if they come together and cleanse themselves of this program.
So I join with the CTF and call upon MPs of all political parties to support the end of the 10 per centers.
In a blog post a couple of days ago I said that small-c conservative activists should spend their energy in nonpartisan organizations. Thanks to the CTF for demonstrating why I wrote this. It is in organizations like the CTF that good ideas can be promoted regardless of whose idea it is.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Firewall Letter
Just because it is fun to reprint things that Mr. Harper has said in the past:
Dear Premier Klein:
During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans discussing the future of our province. We are not dismayed by the outcome of the election so much as by the strategy employed by the current federal government to secure its re-election. In our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system.
One well-documented incident was the attack against Alberta’s health care system. To your credit, you vehemently protested the unprecedented attack ads that the federal government launched against Alberta’s policies – policies the Prime Minister had previously found no fault with.
However, while your protest was necessary and appreciated by Albertans, we believe that it is not enough to respond only with protests. If the government in Ottawa concludes that Alberta is a soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads. The Prime Minister has already signalled as much by announcing his so called “tough love” campaign for the West. We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that we have allowed the federal government to exercise. Intelligent use of these powers will help Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in Ottawa.
Under the heading of the “Alberta Agenda,” we propose that our province move forward on the following fronts:
• Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?
• Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown.
• Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force. Alberta is a major province. Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force. We have no doubt that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can – one that will not be misused as a laboratory for experiments in social engineering.
• Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to ensure they have adequate revenues.
• Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum. You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is the time to drive the issue further.
All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. The most recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal politicians who accuse us of not sharing their “Canadian values” have no compunction about appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Premier, we acknowledge the constructive reforms that your government made in the 1990s balancing the budget, paying down the provincial debt, privatizing government services, getting Albertans off welfare and into jobs, introducing a single-rate tax, pulling government out of the business of subsidizing business, and many other beneficial changes. But no government can rest on its laurels. An economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power. It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.
Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples, lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector, easing conditions for Charter Schools will help individual freedom and improve public education, and greater use of the referendum and initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government.
The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the future for all Albertans.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen HARPER, President, National Citizens’ Coalition;
Tom FLANAGAN, professor of political science and former Director of Research, Reform
Party of Canada;
Ted MORTON, professor of political science and Alberta Senator-elect;
Rainer KNOPFF, professor of political science;
Andrew CROOKS, chairman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation;
Ken BOESSENKOOL, former policy adviser to Stockwell Day, Treasurer of Alberta.
Dear Premier Klein:
During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans discussing the future of our province. We are not dismayed by the outcome of the election so much as by the strategy employed by the current federal government to secure its re-election. In our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system.
One well-documented incident was the attack against Alberta’s health care system. To your credit, you vehemently protested the unprecedented attack ads that the federal government launched against Alberta’s policies – policies the Prime Minister had previously found no fault with.
However, while your protest was necessary and appreciated by Albertans, we believe that it is not enough to respond only with protests. If the government in Ottawa concludes that Alberta is a soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads. The Prime Minister has already signalled as much by announcing his so called “tough love” campaign for the West. We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that we have allowed the federal government to exercise. Intelligent use of these powers will help Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in Ottawa.
Under the heading of the “Alberta Agenda,” we propose that our province move forward on the following fronts:
• Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?
• Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown.
• Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force. Alberta is a major province. Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force. We have no doubt that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can – one that will not be misused as a laboratory for experiments in social engineering.
• Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to ensure they have adequate revenues.
• Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum. You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is the time to drive the issue further.
All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. The most recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal politicians who accuse us of not sharing their “Canadian values” have no compunction about appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Premier, we acknowledge the constructive reforms that your government made in the 1990s balancing the budget, paying down the provincial debt, privatizing government services, getting Albertans off welfare and into jobs, introducing a single-rate tax, pulling government out of the business of subsidizing business, and many other beneficial changes. But no government can rest on its laurels. An economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power. It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.
Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples, lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector, easing conditions for Charter Schools will help individual freedom and improve public education, and greater use of the referendum and initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government.
The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the future for all Albertans.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen HARPER, President, National Citizens’ Coalition;
Tom FLANAGAN, professor of political science and former Director of Research, Reform
Party of Canada;
Ted MORTON, professor of political science and Alberta Senator-elect;
Rainer KNOPFF, professor of political science;
Andrew CROOKS, chairman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation;
Ken BOESSENKOOL, former policy adviser to Stockwell Day, Treasurer of Alberta.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Harper and the conservative movement
John Ibbitson writes an interesting column about the Conservative Party base. He points out that most Canadians are more ‘right wing’ than we would traditionally consider ourselves. This country has a long proud history of supporting personal responsibility and individual liberty. That tradition has not been wiped out and forms the back bone of the conservative movement.
But this is not really what caught my eye about the column. It was what was said at the very end the perked my interest:
Mr. Gafuik doubts the anthem flap is likely to estrange the Prime Minister from his base. After all, he says, Stephen Harper “came up on the movement side of conservative politics,” as an early adopter of the Reform Party and the onetime head of the National Citizens Coalition. Stephen Harper “is one of our own.”
But the Prime Minister needs to remember where he came from. The Stephen Harper of old would never have tried to change the wording of O Canada . And if someone else had tried, he'd have got on the phone.
This underlines two features of Stephen Harper’s leadership of the Conservative Party. The first is the bank of trust and credibility that he has built up over the years. There are many people who will, despite the ongoing evidence, give Mr. Harper the benefit of the doubt. I think the “one of our own” line truly demonstrates how many in the conservative movement (note small c) views Mr. Harper.
The second feature is the dedicated manner in which Mr. Harper has endeavoured to burn away that trust and credibility. Between the largest budgets in history and banning certain kinds of light bulbs, he has become the very thing that he once attacked. Mr. Ibbitson is right; ten years ago the most committed critic of Mr. Harper’s policies would have been Mr. Harper. The man has basically turned his back on everything that he stood for when he was President of the NCC.
The best hope for any conservative activist is to ignore the Conservative Party. They should put their energy and time into organizations like the Manning Centre or the Canadian Constitution Foundation. It is in those organizations that the ideas of the conservative movement are still alive; the same ideas that are now dead in the Harper government.
But this is not really what caught my eye about the column. It was what was said at the very end the perked my interest:
Mr. Gafuik doubts the anthem flap is likely to estrange the Prime Minister from his base. After all, he says, Stephen Harper “came up on the movement side of conservative politics,” as an early adopter of the Reform Party and the onetime head of the National Citizens Coalition. Stephen Harper “is one of our own.”
But the Prime Minister needs to remember where he came from. The Stephen Harper of old would never have tried to change the wording of O Canada . And if someone else had tried, he'd have got on the phone.
This underlines two features of Stephen Harper’s leadership of the Conservative Party. The first is the bank of trust and credibility that he has built up over the years. There are many people who will, despite the ongoing evidence, give Mr. Harper the benefit of the doubt. I think the “one of our own” line truly demonstrates how many in the conservative movement (note small c) views Mr. Harper.
The second feature is the dedicated manner in which Mr. Harper has endeavoured to burn away that trust and credibility. Between the largest budgets in history and banning certain kinds of light bulbs, he has become the very thing that he once attacked. Mr. Ibbitson is right; ten years ago the most committed critic of Mr. Harper’s policies would have been Mr. Harper. The man has basically turned his back on everything that he stood for when he was President of the NCC.
The best hope for any conservative activist is to ignore the Conservative Party. They should put their energy and time into organizations like the Manning Centre or the Canadian Constitution Foundation. It is in those organizations that the ideas of the conservative movement are still alive; the same ideas that are now dead in the Harper government.
Gerry Nicholls and the NCC
Gerry Nicholls feels slighted by the Manning Centre. On Friday the Manning Centre gave the National Citizens Coalition an award for being leaders in the conservative movement. Mr. Nicholls had spent 20 years of his life building that organization. He was at one point the Vice-President and public face of the NCC. Yet he was not informed, included, or acknowledged along side the award.
Mr. Nicholls' story is famous among conservatives. If you haven't heard it you can buy the book "Loyal to the Core." But I'll give you the one line synopsis: He was fired for criticizing Stephen Harper for not acting like a conservative, which was sort of the stated mission of the NCC.
Personally I don't think Mr. Nicholls should feel slighted. Personally I wouldn't want to be publicly connected to an organization that produces videos as crappy as this one:
Really the NCC is no longer a force to be reckoned with. They are a club for cheerleaders with no principles or direction. In it's heyday politicians may have groaned at the name NCC. But now they would smile and shake their heads. Rarely has an organization lost its way as thoroughly as the NCC.
Frankly, Gerry Nicholls should be happy he got out before he was contaminated by association.
Mr. Nicholls' story is famous among conservatives. If you haven't heard it you can buy the book "Loyal to the Core." But I'll give you the one line synopsis: He was fired for criticizing Stephen Harper for not acting like a conservative, which was sort of the stated mission of the NCC.
Personally I don't think Mr. Nicholls should feel slighted. Personally I wouldn't want to be publicly connected to an organization that produces videos as crappy as this one:
Really the NCC is no longer a force to be reckoned with. They are a club for cheerleaders with no principles or direction. In it's heyday politicians may have groaned at the name NCC. But now they would smile and shake their heads. Rarely has an organization lost its way as thoroughly as the NCC.
Frankly, Gerry Nicholls should be happy he got out before he was contaminated by association.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Cross party support for Prince of Pot
MPs from the 3 national parties are going to submit petitions that are calling for marijuana activist Marc Emery not to be extradited to the United States.
Conservative Party: Scott Reid
Liberal Party: Ujjal Dosanjh
New Democratic Party: Libby Davies
In an interview Mr. Dosanjh said that this was a non-partisan issue, and he’s right. But it is also an issue that goes beyond the Emery case. It goes to the heart of the sort of society that we want to live in. Do we want to live in a society where people can make their own choices as long as they do not hurt others? Or do we want to live in a society where those choices are taken away from us?
Marc Emery is not perfect, but he is a man that has always opted for the first option. More than that, he has fought his whole life for that option. I hope that the government of Canada listens to Canadians and refuse to send Mr. Emery to a dangerous high security prison for a crime with no victims.
Conservative Party: Scott Reid
Liberal Party: Ujjal Dosanjh
New Democratic Party: Libby Davies
In an interview Mr. Dosanjh said that this was a non-partisan issue, and he’s right. But it is also an issue that goes beyond the Emery case. It goes to the heart of the sort of society that we want to live in. Do we want to live in a society where people can make their own choices as long as they do not hurt others? Or do we want to live in a society where those choices are taken away from us?
Marc Emery is not perfect, but he is a man that has always opted for the first option. More than that, he has fought his whole life for that option. I hope that the government of Canada listens to Canadians and refuse to send Mr. Emery to a dangerous high security prison for a crime with no victims.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Nunavut wimpers back against the EU seal skin ban
Nunavut is set to try and ban alcohol products that originate from an EU country. This is in retaliation of the EU ban on seal products. I have a few questions about this:
1. Do they expect this to hurt European producers?
One of the key leverages required to start a proper trade war is that your market has to be desirable for some product of your opponents. I sincerely doubt that the makers of Guinness will miss their Nunavut customers so much that they will pressure the EU Commission to back down on the seal hunt (or is it the Council of Minister’s say? EU policy making is pretty muddled). This retaliation is the equivalent of a mouse spitting into the giant’s mouth right before the giant eats the mouse.
2. What benefits will this bring to the people of Nunavut?
So now along with losing jobs they are going to lose their ability to choice what beer they want to drink. This hardly seems like something that would be good for people. I would imagine they already lack much in product choice.
3. Do they think this will help them with the WTO?
The federal government is already complaining about the seal skin ban. All that Nunavut is doing is giving Canada a weaker negotiation position.
4. Is Nunavut MLA Fred Schell stupid?
This is what he said, “It may not mean a heck of a lot in the end, but I think it will get the message across.”
No Fred, it won’t.
1. Do they expect this to hurt European producers?
One of the key leverages required to start a proper trade war is that your market has to be desirable for some product of your opponents. I sincerely doubt that the makers of Guinness will miss their Nunavut customers so much that they will pressure the EU Commission to back down on the seal hunt (or is it the Council of Minister’s say? EU policy making is pretty muddled). This retaliation is the equivalent of a mouse spitting into the giant’s mouth right before the giant eats the mouse.
2. What benefits will this bring to the people of Nunavut?
So now along with losing jobs they are going to lose their ability to choice what beer they want to drink. This hardly seems like something that would be good for people. I would imagine they already lack much in product choice.
3. Do they think this will help them with the WTO?
The federal government is already complaining about the seal skin ban. All that Nunavut is doing is giving Canada a weaker negotiation position.
4. Is Nunavut MLA Fred Schell stupid?
This is what he said, “It may not mean a heck of a lot in the end, but I think it will get the message across.”
No Fred, it won’t.
Ron Paul on NAFTA
Ron Paul is an openly libertarian politician who supports the concept of free trade. Yet he has been on the record as being against NAFTA. In today’s National Post they are reporting that Ron Paul is part of a movement in Congress to take the United States out of NAFTA.
Congressman Paul is allied with protectionists but he is not a protectionist. He explains his position in this old interview with Lou Dobbs:
There are two issues here.
1. NAFTA is not free trade. And in this I agree completely with Ron Paul. True free trade would require a single sentence “we remove all restrictions and regulation on trade.” It would not require the back breaking document that is the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is, as Congressman Paul says, managed trade not free trade.
I disagree that it would be a good move to get rid of NAFTA at the moment. It is certainly not perfect but it is better in many ways than what existed before and it is better than what is likely to replace it. If Congress would pass a bill with the words I wrote above, then NAFTA can be safely gotten rid of. This, however, seems unlikely.
2. Ron Paul has this idea that NAFTA will lead to a North American Union that is similar to the European Union. This is a gross misconception of what the EU is and what NAFTA is. There is nothing with the sort of power or role of the Commission, the Council of Ministers, or the European Parliament in NAFTA. There is not even a similarity in the range of policy areas that the two organizations handle.
Furthermore the underpinnings of both are completely different. NAFTA came out of the neo-conservatism of the 1980s. The EEC (later EU) came out of the neo-functionalism of the 1950s. These two concepts couldn’t possibly have less to do with each other. It was never a hidden goal of EEC supporters that they wanted to make a united Europe. It was the stated goal to bind together and avoid the horrors of another world war. The idea that there is a legitimate political movement pushing for a united North America is simply unsubstantiated. NAFTA was meant to increase trade and nothing more.
Congressman Paul is allied with protectionists but he is not a protectionist. He explains his position in this old interview with Lou Dobbs:
There are two issues here.
1. NAFTA is not free trade. And in this I agree completely with Ron Paul. True free trade would require a single sentence “we remove all restrictions and regulation on trade.” It would not require the back breaking document that is the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is, as Congressman Paul says, managed trade not free trade.
I disagree that it would be a good move to get rid of NAFTA at the moment. It is certainly not perfect but it is better in many ways than what existed before and it is better than what is likely to replace it. If Congress would pass a bill with the words I wrote above, then NAFTA can be safely gotten rid of. This, however, seems unlikely.
2. Ron Paul has this idea that NAFTA will lead to a North American Union that is similar to the European Union. This is a gross misconception of what the EU is and what NAFTA is. There is nothing with the sort of power or role of the Commission, the Council of Ministers, or the European Parliament in NAFTA. There is not even a similarity in the range of policy areas that the two organizations handle.
Furthermore the underpinnings of both are completely different. NAFTA came out of the neo-conservatism of the 1980s. The EEC (later EU) came out of the neo-functionalism of the 1950s. These two concepts couldn’t possibly have less to do with each other. It was never a hidden goal of EEC supporters that they wanted to make a united Europe. It was the stated goal to bind together and avoid the horrors of another world war. The idea that there is a legitimate political movement pushing for a united North America is simply unsubstantiated. NAFTA was meant to increase trade and nothing more.
Pessimistic that the deficit will go away
I had been encouraged by the news that the government would take steps to stop the growth of the civil service, at least until the deficit was resolved. Yet it seems that my more natural pessimism would have been more appropriate.
Minister Stockwell Day announced earlier this week that they were cutting jobs that mostly did not belong to anyone. 245 salaries that amount to a savings of $1 million wouldn’t even pay for 10% of the increase in the Olympic athlete funding. This is not the sort of cut that is going to save this country from an ever growing burden of debt.
In today’s newspaper it is being reported that the budget for the Privy Council is going to increase by more than $13 million. With a supposed freeze on Ministerial budgets, the Prime Minister’s own civil servants are getting a 21.9% increase.
If the Prime Minister is unable to control spending than how can he expect the same from his Ministers?
At what point does pessimism turn into realism?
Minister Stockwell Day announced earlier this week that they were cutting jobs that mostly did not belong to anyone. 245 salaries that amount to a savings of $1 million wouldn’t even pay for 10% of the increase in the Olympic athlete funding. This is not the sort of cut that is going to save this country from an ever growing burden of debt.
In today’s newspaper it is being reported that the budget for the Privy Council is going to increase by more than $13 million. With a supposed freeze on Ministerial budgets, the Prime Minister’s own civil servants are getting a 21.9% increase.
If the Prime Minister is unable to control spending than how can he expect the same from his Ministers?
At what point does pessimism turn into realism?
Friday, March 5, 2010
This is why I love Albertans
You wouldn't get this reaction in Ontario. In fact many Ontarians would be shocked to learn that not everyone loves Trudeau and his legacies. Frankly I think Albertans have the right attitude.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
UK Election prediction 2010: Labour hung Parliament
There will be an election in the United Kingdom in a couple months, and though I usually do not like doing this, I am going to predict the outcome: it will be a Labour hung Parliament (Canadians would call it a minority government).
This prediction may be surprising considering that the Conservative Party has been ahead of the Labour Party since October 2007. The Conservatives enjoyed heights of 49% but have been consistently around the 40% mark since the beginning of 2008. The Labour Party meanwhile has been lurching up and down from complete despair to narrowly catching up to the Conservatives.
This suggests to me that the Conservative Party are not likely to win much more than 40%. A few percentages could mean the difference between a hung Parliament and a majority government, but they are unlikely to win the huge victories of Margaret Thatcher. This is despite the endless attempt of the Conservative Party to reach out to “middle Britain” and distance themselves from the “radical” neo-liberalism of the past.
The Labour Party on the other hand has practically retreated from New Labour. We have been hearing from Gordon Brown the sort of class rhetoric that we had not heard since the days before Tony Blair. To a lot of commentators it looks like desperation and an anachronistic way of campaigning.
The reality is that the Labour Party is doing what every party in trouble should do. They are trying to strengthen their base and motivate them to get out and vote. The Conservative Party on the other hand is practically ignoring their base. David Cameron has come close to insulting Margaret Thatcher, who is still a hero to many Tory voters.
As the polls stand now, the Conservatives are at 38% and the Labour Party is at 32%. As the election comes closer the Labour Party seems to be doing more and more to encourage their traditional voters and the Conservatives seem to be doing more and more to discourage their own base. With the election so close it will come down to who can get their supporters out to vote.
As it stands now, the Labour Party is in better shape to win that fight. The only hope that Conservatives have is if the Labour Party goes too far and motivate the Tory voters for them.
This prediction may be surprising considering that the Conservative Party has been ahead of the Labour Party since October 2007. The Conservatives enjoyed heights of 49% but have been consistently around the 40% mark since the beginning of 2008. The Labour Party meanwhile has been lurching up and down from complete despair to narrowly catching up to the Conservatives.
This suggests to me that the Conservative Party are not likely to win much more than 40%. A few percentages could mean the difference between a hung Parliament and a majority government, but they are unlikely to win the huge victories of Margaret Thatcher. This is despite the endless attempt of the Conservative Party to reach out to “middle Britain” and distance themselves from the “radical” neo-liberalism of the past.
The Labour Party on the other hand has practically retreated from New Labour. We have been hearing from Gordon Brown the sort of class rhetoric that we had not heard since the days before Tony Blair. To a lot of commentators it looks like desperation and an anachronistic way of campaigning.
The reality is that the Labour Party is doing what every party in trouble should do. They are trying to strengthen their base and motivate them to get out and vote. The Conservative Party on the other hand is practically ignoring their base. David Cameron has come close to insulting Margaret Thatcher, who is still a hero to many Tory voters.
As the polls stand now, the Conservatives are at 38% and the Labour Party is at 32%. As the election comes closer the Labour Party seems to be doing more and more to encourage their traditional voters and the Conservatives seem to be doing more and more to discourage their own base. With the election so close it will come down to who can get their supporters out to vote.
As it stands now, the Labour Party is in better shape to win that fight. The only hope that Conservatives have is if the Labour Party goes too far and motivate the Tory voters for them.
The Throne Speech
I couldn’t find a good approach to discussing the Throne Speech as a whole. So I looked around for one that I could steal. So with thanks and apologies to the Phantom Observer, here are some of my “random thoughts” on the Throne Speech:
• From coast to coast to coast, almost 16,000 projects are putting Canadians to work while laying the foundation for future prosperity. These projects range from roads and bridges to colleges and universities, from social housing to our cultural and heritage institutions.
When will we give up on this whole Keynesian idea? It just doesn’t make sense.
• Our Government’s top priority is therefore to complete the second year of Canada’s Economic Action Plan and to continue creating jobs and growth.
Government cannot create private sector jobs nor can it create growth. Only the private sector can do that. All that government can do is get out of the way of the private individuals who make the economy prosper. Somehow I doubt that is what they are proposing here.
• At the same time, Canadians live within their means and expect their governments to do the same. Spending designed for a rainy day should not become an all-weather practice.
This is a hopeful statement, but as I said before I find it doubtful. Long before the economic crisis was apparent the government was sending spending into record highs. All-weather practice indeed.
• Balancing the nation’s books will not come at the expense of pensioners. It will not come by cutting transfer payments for health care and education or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians.
So the government is committing to making no tough choices. Healthcare costs are out of control, does the government really think that there is no way to cut them? Or are they just afraid of a political backlash? There is a word for that...
• It will launch a review of administrative services to improve their efficiency and eliminate duplication.
I’m hoping that this is code for cutting back on the public sector employment.
• Our Government will also eliminate unnecessary appointments to federal agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations.
This is also possible code for getting rid of public sector workers. I can live in hope can’t I?
• Low taxes are already helping Canada attract the investment needed to turn ideas into products and services. Our Government will keep tax rates competitive and low, while taking aggressive steps to close unfair tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to take advantage of hard-working Canadians who pay their fair share.
So the government wants to increase revenue not by raising taxes but by increasing the tax base. I don’t really object to this. If it means that we will have a simpler tax code then I’ll be happy. It would be nice though if they could cut taxes along the way.
• Our Government will continue to invest in clean energy technologies.
Our government will continue to prop up an industry that has proven to lack economic viability. This does not sound like good policy.
• To assure parents that their children’s food, medicine and toys are safe, our Government will reintroduce legislation to protect Canadian families from unsafe food, drug and consumer products.
Yay! Nanny state is going to come and protect us!
• To prevent accidents that harm our children and youth, our Government will also work in partnership with non-governmental organizations to launch a national strategy on childhood injury prevention.
Wow...I can joke around about a nanny state but really...I mean come on.
• To recognize the enormous contribution volunteers make to Canada, our Government will also establish a prime ministerial award for volunteerism.
Oh golly gee gosh, really!? If I volunteer for something the Prime Minister is going to give me a nice shiny medal. Well golly Beaver let’s go out and volunteer for something right away!
• It will introduce a new biometric passport that will significantly improve security.
I use to think that every politician should have to read George Orwell before allowed into government. Now I think that they get most of their ideas from 1984.
• From coast to coast to coast, almost 16,000 projects are putting Canadians to work while laying the foundation for future prosperity. These projects range from roads and bridges to colleges and universities, from social housing to our cultural and heritage institutions.
When will we give up on this whole Keynesian idea? It just doesn’t make sense.
• Our Government’s top priority is therefore to complete the second year of Canada’s Economic Action Plan and to continue creating jobs and growth.
Government cannot create private sector jobs nor can it create growth. Only the private sector can do that. All that government can do is get out of the way of the private individuals who make the economy prosper. Somehow I doubt that is what they are proposing here.
• At the same time, Canadians live within their means and expect their governments to do the same. Spending designed for a rainy day should not become an all-weather practice.
This is a hopeful statement, but as I said before I find it doubtful. Long before the economic crisis was apparent the government was sending spending into record highs. All-weather practice indeed.
• Balancing the nation’s books will not come at the expense of pensioners. It will not come by cutting transfer payments for health care and education or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians.
So the government is committing to making no tough choices. Healthcare costs are out of control, does the government really think that there is no way to cut them? Or are they just afraid of a political backlash? There is a word for that...
• It will launch a review of administrative services to improve their efficiency and eliminate duplication.
I’m hoping that this is code for cutting back on the public sector employment.
• Our Government will also eliminate unnecessary appointments to federal agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations.
This is also possible code for getting rid of public sector workers. I can live in hope can’t I?
• Low taxes are already helping Canada attract the investment needed to turn ideas into products and services. Our Government will keep tax rates competitive and low, while taking aggressive steps to close unfair tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to take advantage of hard-working Canadians who pay their fair share.
So the government wants to increase revenue not by raising taxes but by increasing the tax base. I don’t really object to this. If it means that we will have a simpler tax code then I’ll be happy. It would be nice though if they could cut taxes along the way.
• Our Government will continue to invest in clean energy technologies.
Our government will continue to prop up an industry that has proven to lack economic viability. This does not sound like good policy.
• To assure parents that their children’s food, medicine and toys are safe, our Government will reintroduce legislation to protect Canadian families from unsafe food, drug and consumer products.
Yay! Nanny state is going to come and protect us!
• To prevent accidents that harm our children and youth, our Government will also work in partnership with non-governmental organizations to launch a national strategy on childhood injury prevention.
Wow...I can joke around about a nanny state but really...I mean come on.
• To recognize the enormous contribution volunteers make to Canada, our Government will also establish a prime ministerial award for volunteerism.
Oh golly gee gosh, really!? If I volunteer for something the Prime Minister is going to give me a nice shiny medal. Well golly Beaver let’s go out and volunteer for something right away!
• It will introduce a new biometric passport that will significantly improve security.
I use to think that every politician should have to read George Orwell before allowed into government. Now I think that they get most of their ideas from 1984.
Are the Conservatives going to act conservative?
I don’t actually believe that the Conservative Party are going to make the sort of cuts that are needed to get rid of the deficit. This is partly due to my lack of faith that the government will behave as the fiscal conservatives that they claim to be. Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper have brought forth Canada’s largest budgets and largest deficits. At this moment Paul “Dithers” Martin has more credibility as a fiscal conservative.
Yet sometimes I find that there is hope:
The government also promised to “open Canada’s doors” to foreign investment in the satellite and telephone industries, removing restrictions that have long limited foreign companies to minority stakes.
Too long have consumers been strangled by a government enforced oligarchy in the satellite and telephone sectors. Opening up competition in this area may be the single best accomplishment of this government. If they are pledging to do more, then maybe they can begin to make up for the vast disappointment felt by their former and current conservative supporters.
Yet sometimes I find that there is hope:
The government also promised to “open Canada’s doors” to foreign investment in the satellite and telephone industries, removing restrictions that have long limited foreign companies to minority stakes.
Too long have consumers been strangled by a government enforced oligarchy in the satellite and telephone sectors. Opening up competition in this area may be the single best accomplishment of this government. If they are pledging to do more, then maybe they can begin to make up for the vast disappointment felt by their former and current conservative supporters.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Olympic program does not deserve increased funding
A week ago the Minister for Sports, Gary Lunn, said this in regards to public funding of athletes: “You shouldn't just always reach to government and say ‘Oh, it's your problem.'”
I applauded this argument and went on to say that I highly disapprove of the state giving my money to athletes and sports I couldn’t care less about (the only sport I watched was Hockey and I think most Canadians would agree that they are willing to pay for that out of their own pockets.) I was greatly encouraged by Minister Lunn’s attitude that the private sector should take up the $11 million slack in “Own the Podium” funding.
Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty and Prime Minister Harper either did not consult Minister Lunn or they didn’t care what he had to say, because the Federal budget of “Own the Podium” has increased by...can you guess it? That’s right $11 million.
Putting aside that Ministers of the Crown only seem to be around so that the PMO has someone to blame when things go wrong, this is a demonstration of some of what is wrong with public financing.
By an objective measure the “Own the Podium” program failed. Their goal was to ensure that Canadian athletes win the most number of medals. They didn’t. Yes Team Canada won the most gold medals, but that was not the stated goal. To say that the program was a success is to change the measurement of success after the fact, which is silly and dishonest.
So why is the government giving more money to a failed program? Well it is because the Canadian hockey team won gold and as a result the Olympics are really popular this week. So the government doesn’t want to look like they are cutting Olympic funding. In fact they want to be seen doing more (how many other $22 million spending programs will make it into the newspaper?).
This ignores the fact that in a month or two no one will really care about the Olympics. Mr. Crosby’s goal will be turned into another one of those annoying Heritage Moments and people will move on with their lives. Meanwhile more money than I will make in my life time is being spent on a worthless, pointless, and ultimately failing government program.
I applauded this argument and went on to say that I highly disapprove of the state giving my money to athletes and sports I couldn’t care less about (the only sport I watched was Hockey and I think most Canadians would agree that they are willing to pay for that out of their own pockets.) I was greatly encouraged by Minister Lunn’s attitude that the private sector should take up the $11 million slack in “Own the Podium” funding.
Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty and Prime Minister Harper either did not consult Minister Lunn or they didn’t care what he had to say, because the Federal budget of “Own the Podium” has increased by...can you guess it? That’s right $11 million.
Putting aside that Ministers of the Crown only seem to be around so that the PMO has someone to blame when things go wrong, this is a demonstration of some of what is wrong with public financing.
By an objective measure the “Own the Podium” program failed. Their goal was to ensure that Canadian athletes win the most number of medals. They didn’t. Yes Team Canada won the most gold medals, but that was not the stated goal. To say that the program was a success is to change the measurement of success after the fact, which is silly and dishonest.
So why is the government giving more money to a failed program? Well it is because the Canadian hockey team won gold and as a result the Olympics are really popular this week. So the government doesn’t want to look like they are cutting Olympic funding. In fact they want to be seen doing more (how many other $22 million spending programs will make it into the newspaper?).
This ignores the fact that in a month or two no one will really care about the Olympics. Mr. Crosby’s goal will be turned into another one of those annoying Heritage Moments and people will move on with their lives. Meanwhile more money than I will make in my life time is being spent on a worthless, pointless, and ultimately failing government program.
EU reaction to Greek crisis is good
In previous posts I said that Greece should be removed from the Eurozone and perhaps ultimately removed from the EU. I have to say that though this is not likely to happen immediately, I am happy with the way that Germany and the Commission are responding to the crisis in Greece so far.
The Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs on Monday pressured the Greek government to cut back their deficit. At the same time the German Chancellor quashed the idea that the other Member States would bailout Greece:
However, German chancellor Angela Merkel said again on Sunday that Greece had to sort out its own problems.
"We have a contract which rules out the possibility of bailing out other nations," said Ms Merkel.
Ms. Merkel didn’t address the rumour that German banks would start buying Greek government bonds, but perhaps this option is being left open as a carrot for the Greeks.
In many ways this is a key moment for the European Union. It is here that the standard will be set for future years and generations. That standard should be that the fiscal condition of any country is the responsibility of that country’s government. The EU is not in the business of rescuing Member States from their own inaptness.
The Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs on Monday pressured the Greek government to cut back their deficit. At the same time the German Chancellor quashed the idea that the other Member States would bailout Greece:
However, German chancellor Angela Merkel said again on Sunday that Greece had to sort out its own problems.
"We have a contract which rules out the possibility of bailing out other nations," said Ms Merkel.
Ms. Merkel didn’t address the rumour that German banks would start buying Greek government bonds, but perhaps this option is being left open as a carrot for the Greeks.
In many ways this is a key moment for the European Union. It is here that the standard will be set for future years and generations. That standard should be that the fiscal condition of any country is the responsibility of that country’s government. The EU is not in the business of rescuing Member States from their own inaptness.
The EU restricts free trade
In case anyone doubted that the EU is over burdened with regulation, the Commission has come out with a brand new directive:
Customers can now require their phone firm to cut them off when their bill reaches a certain level after accessing the internet in other European nations.
And if customers don't stipulate that they want to be cut off then the cut of number will automatically be 50 Euros.
The idea is to prevent “roaming bill shock,” yet I have to wonder why this is needed. People travelling in other countries will have to pay more for roaming costs. I don’t think anyone does not know this or if they don’t they will only need to find out once. All that the EU Commission is doing is restricting the sort of contracts that phone companies can make with customers.
Restricting the deals and products that a company can offer is the same as restricting trade. This leads me to conclude that the EU may be economically integrated, but it certainly is not economically free.
Customers can now require their phone firm to cut them off when their bill reaches a certain level after accessing the internet in other European nations.
And if customers don't stipulate that they want to be cut off then the cut of number will automatically be 50 Euros.
The idea is to prevent “roaming bill shock,” yet I have to wonder why this is needed. People travelling in other countries will have to pay more for roaming costs. I don’t think anyone does not know this or if they don’t they will only need to find out once. All that the EU Commission is doing is restricting the sort of contracts that phone companies can make with customers.
Restricting the deals and products that a company can offer is the same as restricting trade. This leads me to conclude that the EU may be economically integrated, but it certainly is not economically free.
Politics and Society Seminar in Montreal
All you freedom lovers (or people who are curious) out there, the Institute for Liberal Studies is hosting one of their world famous seminars in Montreal. Come check out one of the seminars that has made my post grad education in a top 20 globally ranked University redundant:
March 6, 2010 | 9am - 2:30pm
McGill University (SSMU University Centre, Room 302) Join us on Saturday, March 6 at McGill University to hear from leading thinkers about the ideas that shape our society.
Students and faculty from all disciplines are encouraged to attend. Click here to register.
The seminar will begin at 9:00am and conclude at 2:30pm. Each talk will be followed by time for questions and discussion by the participants. The seminar is free for students and faculty, general admission is $20. Lunch will be provided.
The agenda for this seminar is as follows:
9:00am - Registration
9:20am - Welcome
9:30am - Tom Palmer (Atlas Economic Research Foundation) - A Brief, 4,500 Year History of Liberty
10:45pm - Jacob Levy (McGill University) - Freedom, Culture and Multiculturalism
12:00pm - Lunch
1:00pm - Jason Brennan (Brown University) - Civic Virtue Without Politics
2:15pm - Wrap-up and adjournment
March 6, 2010 | 9am - 2:30pm
McGill University (SSMU University Centre, Room 302) Join us on Saturday, March 6 at McGill University to hear from leading thinkers about the ideas that shape our society.
Students and faculty from all disciplines are encouraged to attend. Click here to register.
The seminar will begin at 9:00am and conclude at 2:30pm. Each talk will be followed by time for questions and discussion by the participants. The seminar is free for students and faculty, general admission is $20. Lunch will be provided.
The agenda for this seminar is as follows:
9:00am - Registration
9:20am - Welcome
9:30am - Tom Palmer (Atlas Economic Research Foundation) - A Brief, 4,500 Year History of Liberty
10:45pm - Jacob Levy (McGill University) - Freedom, Culture and Multiculturalism
12:00pm - Lunch
1:00pm - Jason Brennan (Brown University) - Civic Virtue Without Politics
2:15pm - Wrap-up and adjournment
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Conservatives appointing Conservatives is not a problem
I don’t think that anyone would be shocked to learn that the Conservative government is appointing Conservative supporters to become judges. Every political party since the time of John A. Macdonald has put like minded people on the bench. It is practically a Canadian tradition. And truth be known, it is not a particularly bad tradition either.
There is a distinction that has to be made between appointing someone that agrees with your position and patronage. No government in their right mind would give a key position to someone that they disagree with. It would be like Stephen Harper making Jack Layton the Minister of Finance. Governments are there to carry out their political agenda and they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot.
This is fine as long as the person that they do appoint is capable of doing the job. This is the difference in regards to patronage. A patronage appointment has no qualifications or experience that would justify the appointment. For example, what qualifies someone to sit on the Senate? How can Senate appointments be justified by qualifications? They can't and that is what makes it patronage.
Another key point to remember is that just because the government appoints a supporter to the bench does not mean that the new judge is controlled by that government:
MacInnes, president of the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, added that the political persuasion of lawyers makes no difference once they become judges, who are bound by ethics, and motivated by peer pressure, to be impartial.
"There is a considerable internal pressure," said MacInnes. "You don't want to be a rogue and you don't want to look like an idiot to your colleagues."
The reality is that even as the Conservative Government appoints supporters they are appointing the supporters of other political parties. According to the same Ottawa Citizen article quoted above:
Of the 66 judges who donated before their appointments, 41 gave to the Conservatives, 14 contributed to the Liberals, another 10 gave to both parties and one contributed to the NDP.
Yes overwhelmingly Conservative but it does not appear that potential judges are being rejected because of their political affiliation. Thus it seems the outcry against the judicial appointment process is exaggerated.
There is a distinction that has to be made between appointing someone that agrees with your position and patronage. No government in their right mind would give a key position to someone that they disagree with. It would be like Stephen Harper making Jack Layton the Minister of Finance. Governments are there to carry out their political agenda and they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot.
This is fine as long as the person that they do appoint is capable of doing the job. This is the difference in regards to patronage. A patronage appointment has no qualifications or experience that would justify the appointment. For example, what qualifies someone to sit on the Senate? How can Senate appointments be justified by qualifications? They can't and that is what makes it patronage.
Another key point to remember is that just because the government appoints a supporter to the bench does not mean that the new judge is controlled by that government:
MacInnes, president of the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, added that the political persuasion of lawyers makes no difference once they become judges, who are bound by ethics, and motivated by peer pressure, to be impartial.
"There is a considerable internal pressure," said MacInnes. "You don't want to be a rogue and you don't want to look like an idiot to your colleagues."
The reality is that even as the Conservative Government appoints supporters they are appointing the supporters of other political parties. According to the same Ottawa Citizen article quoted above:
Of the 66 judges who donated before their appointments, 41 gave to the Conservatives, 14 contributed to the Liberals, another 10 gave to both parties and one contributed to the NDP.
Yes overwhelmingly Conservative but it does not appear that potential judges are being rejected because of their political affiliation. Thus it seems the outcry against the judicial appointment process is exaggerated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)