The tradition of negative politics

Every election in the United States we hear that it is “the nastiest election ever.” I always wonder what method people are using to measure nastiness. The truth is that elections have always been emotional and there have always been negative attacks. Karl Rove is not as much of an innovator as people seem to think. He is actually following in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton.

The true source of unemployment

This from Publius of the Western Standard:

CAW on free trade with the EU

I was not shocked yesterday to read that CAW is opposing a trade agreement with the European Union. CAW claims that the agreement will mean 28 000 fewer manufacturing jobs. Even if I accept that number, it completely ignores the jobs that will be created by more open trade. The history of the 20th century is the history of how open trade makes jobs and restricted trade kills jobs.

I guess I can forgive CAW for its willful economic ignorance. The trade pact that is being negotiated will likely work against the union’s interests. It will increase competition and the whole goal of unions like CAW is to eliminate as much competition as possible.

Yet if CAW wants to claim that it cares about the poorer members of society it should be supporting this trade agreement. It means cheaper goods for consumers and new customers for business. It means that, though some may lose, we will all benefit from greater freedom in trade.

Democracy in action for the Jaworski family

Peter Jaworski of the Volunteer is reporting that the recent municipal election has been a hopeful outcome for the Liberty Summer Seminar and the Jaworski family. As many of you know the Jaworski family are being fined $50 000 for hosting the liberty loving event.

The fine is threatening to bankrupt the Jaworski family and all that the local mayor, Jim Abernethy, would say about is that they should beg municipal officials for forgiveness. Well now that is outgoing Mayor Jim Abernethy and it appears that several new members of the council are as outraged about this as I am.

Sometimes democracy really works.

A Liberal strategy for victory

For the first time I found myself nodding in agreement with something that Scott Reid wrote (the Liberal insider not the Conservative MP). Usually I roll my eyes at his inane partisanship, but he has taken what I think is an accurate view of the current political situation on the federal level (once you take out the petty anti-Harper sniping).

I can sum up his points like this:

1. Despite four years of trying the Conservatives have not been able to get their poll numbers to go significantly above one third of voters.
2. The BQ taking 40 to 50 seats guarantees that there will be a minority Parliament.
3. Despite the Tories being stuck in the mid-30s the Liberals have not been able to provide an attractive alternative.

Scott Reid suggests that the Liberal’s lack of success is due to weak leadership (in the case of Dion) and a lack of overall strategy/vision (in the case of Ignatieff). He proposes that:

For Ignatieff, upping his game begins by acknowledging that issues, values and ideas should be the backbone of the Liberal contrast with the Conservatives — not personality.

I think that this is exactly right that the Liberals can do far better by putting a cap on their contempt for Stephen Harper and actually present a ‘contrast.’ And with that in mind I will now provide free political advice on how Michael Ignatieff can win the next election.

Make the contrast about the economy.

Right now Stephen Harper is trusted more on economic issues, but a recent poll shows that this confidence is slipping. Now is the moment for the Liberal Party to reveal an economic plan that will steal the march on the Conservative Party.

Now here is the trick, out flank them on the right.

Present an economic platform that makes the Conservative’s plan for getting rid of the deficit something dreamt up by Bob Rae (oh and note: keep Bob Rae out of the policy process as much as possible). Tell the Canadian people that it took only four years of irresponsible Conservative government to reverse all the gains of the 1990s. Ask the Canadian people why they should ask the doctor that caused the decease to come up with the cure.

Despite Canada’s reputation as a ‘left-wing’ country we have an inbred appreciation for someone that wants to balance the books. I assert that if Michael Ignatieff presents himself as a fiscally responsible Liberal he will be able to ride himself to a minority government.

If the Liberals do take my advice, then they should be warned. The Canadian people are not stupid. It will not be enough to claim the title of fiscal responsibility. It has to be earned by presenting policy that is actually responsible.

One condition for debate on new spy agency

I am on the fence when it comes to the wisdom of Canada creating its own foreign intelligence agency. The current security force, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), is primarily focused on domestic intelligence, though it appears that foreign activities have been an increasingly important role for CSIS. It makes sense if you accept that foreign terrorism is the number one threat to Canada’s security. Something like CIA or MI6 is an important tool for combating terrorism.

So if Canada needs to send spies to foreign countries, it makes a good deal of organizational sense to create a new agency for that purpose.

On the other hand secrecy is often the enemy of democracy and intelligence agencies have occasionally become powers of their own. We may, as a country, feel that the risks are not outweighed by the potential of better security.

So I look forward to this being a serious and well thought-out public debate, where all sides of an argument are explored.

In that spirit can we all agree to a moratorium on references to James Bond or any other fictional spy hero?

Thank you.

Ultimately for Toronto, it has to be Rob Ford

I have to admit a certain hesitation towards Rob Ford as the next mayor of Toronto. Up until recently if asked I would have said that Rocco Rossi was my horse in the race, but with him stepping out I have had to take another hard look at Ford and Smitherman as my options.

One thing that I’ve noticed, if I ask someone to tell me why I should vote for Mr. Smitherman they instantly tell you why I should not vote for Rob Ford. Which makes George Smitherman the negative choice, the not Rob Ford choice. This is ironic because Mr. Smitherman has a much more in depth and comprehensive policy platform than Rob Ford. George Smitherman’s supporters really don’t do him justice by making him the negative choice.

Ultimately the real choice isn’t Rob Ford versus not Rob Ford, it is Rob Ford versus George Smitherman. In that contest the main complaint against Mr. Ford evaporates.

A year ago if someone had told me Furious George will one day be winning a character debate I would have laughed at the notion. The man is every bit the bully and embarrassment that Rob Ford is. He is merely fortunate that his worse antics were never actually caught on tape.

The character debate is lame anyway. Frankly it doesn’t matter who you would rather grab a beer with, you are electing a mayor not a bar mate. It is completely irrelevant how much of a dick a politician is, all that matters is what policies he/she will enact once in office.

As I said earlier the Smitherman plan book is considerably more complete. But I just cannot bring myself to trust George Smitherman on the most important issue: public financing.

Yes he is saying basically the same thing as Rob Ford on finances, perhaps with a less populist tinge, but I never feel that he really means is. He knows that the mood of the city is for fiscal restraint so he is going to promise fiscal restraint. His true attitude, I think, is reflected in his dumped proposal to raise taxes to fund a program for the unemployed. He sees public finances as just one issue, not the core public policy problem now facing the City of Toronto.

This actually matters because when it comes to making austerity plans it will take guts and personal commitment to push it through. If Mr. Smitherman is merely playing lip service to the popular mood he will not have the political courage to fight the special interest groups that might suffer under budget cuts. If you want to be sure (or at least surer) that the budget will be cut, it has to be Rob Ford.

The other often made point is that Rob Ford is a divisive figure. More specifically that he is not a team builder and he is likely to be isolated on the council. It is true that the Toronto’s mayor is less powerful than other mayors or a Prime Minister and the future mayor really does need allies on council. But this ignores the very real power that will be in the hands of the Toronto mayor.

Let me put it to you this way. Who would you rather appoint the next TTC Commissioner, Rob Ford or George Smitherman? Considering the sort of people that have been cozying up to Mr. Smitherman lately, again it has to be Rob Ford.

Rob Ford isn’t the perfect choice by any means, but no politician ever offers a perfect choice. There are good things that can be said about George Smitherman, but at the end of the day Rob Ford is what the city needs right now: someone who will cut spending and fix the pot holes.

The United Kingdom's Budget 2010

It isn’t just the British government is cutting spending, and it isn’t even that they are cutting so much spending; although both of those things are exciting. It is what exactly they are cutting that makes the announced British budget the most important budget in post-war UK.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s coalition government is tackling, in one budget, the two most severe long term problems of the British economy: unproductive citizens and government debt.

Unproductive citizens (in this case) come in two forms: long-term welfare recipients and many government workers.

The UK has, for decades now, an incredibly generous welfare system. Despite reforms made by New Labour, the small incentive for low income earners to work has created a large pool of people who add nothing to the economy. They exist as parasites on the productivity of their fellow citizens.

By scaling back the overly generous welfare system the British government will encourage people to end their dependency. Creating a system that acts as an actual net rather than a reservoir will do a lot of long term good for the UK’s economy.

As for government workers…

In his book, Fearful Symmetry: the rise and fall of Canadian Founding Values, Brian Lee Crowley suggests that a third of government workers are not actually productive. That is, they do nothing but push paper around and create work for each other. If those jobs did not exist the economy would not be any worse off. In fact it would be better off because those people will then be able to enter more productive work.

The government of Great Britain is bravely trying to cut back on this entrenched group of unproductive people. As many as 500 000 public jobs are being cut; though in an economy where half the workers are public this is merely a good start.

In reality the problem of debt is the same as the problem of unproductive citizens. The state finances that are supporting this unproductively are not sustainable. It has led to ever increasing debt and an eventual crash like the one we’ve seen in Greece, except worse because the UK economy is much too big to bailout.

Ignatieff needs credibility on deficit fighting

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is trying to pose as a deficit fighter; he is positioning himself as the man who will bring back the surplus. This is good news for Canada in that both major political parties agree that the deficit is now a bad thing (even though they previously agreed that it is a good thing), but there is a problem of credibility.

Dr. Ignatieff lays claim to a Liberal heritage of deficit slaying and surpluses in the Chrétien/Martin years. The problem with such a claim is that most, if not all, the leadership of that era is gone. It would be like today’s Blue Jays assuring fans that they can win the World Series because they did it back in the early 90s. The current players matter more than the institutional history.

The current Liberal Party has to show that it is serious about deficit cutting. They have said that they have to ‘reconsider’ pass Liberal campaign promises, but does that include recent commitments such as money for those who take care of the elderly? If Dr. Ignatieff really wants to prove a dedication to ending the deficit then he needs to be honest. He needs to acknowledge that until the deficit is dealt with ANY new spending is off the table.

In a way the verdict is not yet out on the Liberal Party’s credibility on deficits. So far they have been talking out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand they have been demanding an end to the deficit, on the other they have been calling for more spending. But that is pretty standard procedure for an opposition party. I am keeping an open mind for Dr. Ignatieff to demonstrate the sort of fiscal manager that he plans to be.

Now it is up to Michael Ignatieff to convince me and my fellow voters.

Ending federal transfers could save Canada's health care system

One of the great advantages of the federal system is that it allows for policy experiments. Academics can theorize about the best way for government to deliver services, but until it is actually tried we don’t really know what will happen. Provinces can learn what went wrong and what went right in other jurisdictions, and Canadians can enjoy better outcomes.

A good example of this is welfare reform in the 1990s. It started with a few provinces making minor adjustments or major changes. Quickly other provinces saw the benefit and made their own reforms, often side stepping pitfalls that the earlier provinces had fallen into. Thus we enacted, what has to be some of the most important public policy reforms in Canadian history, through learning from one and other.

The same thing can happen with health care. To some extent it already does. Provinces fiddle with governance structures and shifting priorities. Still, real reform is hampered by the federal government. The Canadian Health Act prevents any real ingenuity and experimentation.

The federal government uses its deep pockets as a club to prevent innovation in health care policy from the provinces.

This is why I agree with Maxime Bernier that federal transfers to provinces should be ended and provinces should collect more taxes directly.

This will remove the federal government’s club. Provinces will finally be able to enact the changes that they have been itching to do for years, the sort of changes that will give us a chance at making health care sustainable in the long term.

Rehabilitating ideology

Andrew Coyne has hit the nail on the head with his recent article on the use of the word ‘ideology’ as a pejorative:

There is no more serious accusation in Canadian politics than that of having an ideology. Politicians would confess to killing their own grandmother rather than own up to such a thing: what the dictionary defines as “a body of ideas.” Possession of cocaine is a charge you can probably survive. But possession of ideas is career-ending.

I have heard the accusation of ‘ideology’ used so often that I think people have lost any sense of what the word means. To have an ideology, as Mr. Coyne points out, is to have a consistent conceptual framework for understanding the world around you. This is not only a good thing, but it is required if you are to have any sanity at all.

Everyone needs some way to decide what is right and wrong, everyone needs some basis to discern what action is appropriate. Without an ideology to guide your choices you would be stuck motionless, unable to pick from an infinite variety of possible decisions. Even if your ideology is nothing but a set of normative assumptions, you still have an ideology

So what do politicians and journalists mean when they say someone is “ideological.” I think Mr. Coyne is almost right when he says that it is meant to be anyone who opposes the status quo. In actuality it is about defining the status quo as the only rational option.

If you believe that something is in need of a fundamental change then you are not practical, because only the status quo is practical. You are too ideological, because the status quo is somehow beyond ideology. You must accept the status quo because nothing else is possible.

All this has led me to a conclusion, an ideological concept, if you will: anyone who uses the word ‘ideological’ as an insult loses my respect.

Time to buckle down and fight deficits and debt

The most crucial problem facing every industrialized country is the same problem that we all faced in the 90s: deficit and debt.

Canada did well in the 90s to climb out of deficit. Credit does not just go to the federal government under Jean Chrétien. Much of the overspending was coming from the provinces and so it took a truly national effort to climb out of the abyss.

Now we are slipping back down into that black hole. Governments all around the world tried to “fix” the economy by throwing money at it, never realizing that they had to take money out of the economy in the first place. So now we are all burdened, and Canada is no exception, with a new round of crippling debt and deficit.

After a decade of struggle we spent another decade squandering the opportunity, and now we are back to square one.

Some are pushing for more spending to calm the still troubled economy. If spending increases weren’t successful before, and there is zero evidence that it were, why would we do it some more? Why would you want to charge toward the abyss?

It is time that we once again give up on these failed Keynesian ideas and resurrect the spirit of the 90s.

We need a national political consensus towards fighting debt and deficit at all levels of government. And we need it now.

Minimum wage increase will hurt more than it will help

The BC government is debating raising the minimum wage. I understand that everyone wants to help the poor, and getting them higher wages seems like a good way to do it. The problem is that it simply does not work that way.

Niels Veldhuis and Amela Karabegovic explain why not:

Next, consider the claim that the minimum wage needs to be increased to raise the income of society's low-income workers. While this claim certainly appeals to the emotions, the typical minimum wage earner is not the person depicted by advocates of minimum wage hikes.
Data from Statistics Canada reveal that 59 per cent of minimum wage workers are 15 to 24 years old, and most of them (93 per cent) live at home with family. Many of the remaining individuals earning minimum wages are adults supplementing their family income with part-time work during child-rearing years or after retirement.

Additionally, workers earning minimum wage are not the same people who earned the minimum wage a year or two ago, since minimum wage work is largely temporary. The vast majority of minimum wage earners quickly experience upward income mobility. Research shows that after two years, more than 80 per cent of minimum wage workers earn more than the minimum, with a typical wage gain of about 20 per cent.

Herein lies the main problem with minimum wage increases. Employers respond by reducing the number of workers they employ and/or the number of hours their employees work. Consequently, minimum wage increases take away opportunities for low-skilled workers and young people to enter the workforce, gain experience and move up the income ladder.

A fast food job is a great first job to have. It teaches you a lot of the basic skills that you will need in any work place (such as patience). If the BC government really wants to help it should eliminate the minimum wage and thus create more jobs.