Posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The bad loans to Chrysler and GM
Imagine going to the bank and saying, “I have only paid back 59% of my loan and I don’t plan on paying any of the rest back.” Then you stick a pin on your lapel that says “paid.”
The bank responds, “Wow you were a great investment, thank you for paying that much back. This has been a real victory for the bank! Can I get one of those pins? They look super cool!”
Find that hard to imagine and think that this situation is unrealistic? Well that is pretty much what is happening with the Government of Canada’s loan to Chrysler.
At the time the government insisted that it was a loan and not a bailout. If it was a loan then it was a bad loan from the perspective of the government. If I lent someone $100 and they only repaid me $59 I would certainly consider it a bad loan.
The same thing can be said to the loan to GM. The government “lent” GM $10.8 billion and it has paid back only 14%. The government then exchanged some of the debt for a stake in GM, of which $1.1 billion was sold. The remaining stake is estimated to be worth $4.4 billion. So we can say that GM has paid back 65% in cash and assets. Again not exactly a victory for the Treasury Board.
So why is the government so triumphant? John Ivison of the National Post tries to claim that “the government cut a good deal” because it wasn’t the total disaster many expected it to be. This is rather like being happy because you were punched in the stomach rather than kicked in the balls with a steel toe boot. It could have been worse but it still is not good.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty offers his own reasoning:
This makes blatant the farce that is the government’s claim that this is a loan and not a bailout. Furthermore the value of preserving companies that has proven to be economically inefficient is negative. The capital and resources that has been eaten up by these companies could have gone to other sectors that would have generated more wealth. Or it could have gone to the companies that did not require bailouts to survive, thus rewarding those that made cars that people actually want to buy.
The Government of Canada is claiming victory, but the reality is that it has leant out our money and it is not able to get all of it back. Does that sound like a victory to you?
The bank responds, “Wow you were a great investment, thank you for paying that much back. This has been a real victory for the bank! Can I get one of those pins? They look super cool!”
Find that hard to imagine and think that this situation is unrealistic? Well that is pretty much what is happening with the Government of Canada’s loan to Chrysler.
At the time the government insisted that it was a loan and not a bailout. If it was a loan then it was a bad loan from the perspective of the government. If I lent someone $100 and they only repaid me $59 I would certainly consider it a bad loan.
The same thing can be said to the loan to GM. The government “lent” GM $10.8 billion and it has paid back only 14%. The government then exchanged some of the debt for a stake in GM, of which $1.1 billion was sold. The remaining stake is estimated to be worth $4.4 billion. So we can say that GM has paid back 65% in cash and assets. Again not exactly a victory for the Treasury Board.
So why is the government so triumphant? John Ivison of the National Post tries to claim that “the government cut a good deal” because it wasn’t the total disaster many expected it to be. This is rather like being happy because you were punched in the stomach rather than kicked in the balls with a steel toe boot. It could have been worse but it still is not good.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty offers his own reasoning:
“At the end of the day, there’s not going to be full recovery of the taxpayers’ investments that were made back in 2008-2009 – in the sense of cash recovery,” Mr. Flaherty said Monday.
“But what is the value of preserving an industry? What is the value of preserving 52,000 jobs in our country? You have to put a value on those, which are pretty substantial values in my view.”
This makes blatant the farce that is the government’s claim that this is a loan and not a bailout. Furthermore the value of preserving companies that has proven to be economically inefficient is negative. The capital and resources that has been eaten up by these companies could have gone to other sectors that would have generated more wealth. Or it could have gone to the companies that did not require bailouts to survive, thus rewarding those that made cars that people actually want to buy.
The Government of Canada is claiming victory, but the reality is that it has leant out our money and it is not able to get all of it back. Does that sound like a victory to you?
Monday, May 30, 2011
On the arguments against cutting the political party subsidy
The debate surrounding the Conservative’s plan to cut the per-vote subsidy for political parties has transitioned from frustrating to out right comical. I have yet to hear a truly valid argument from opponents of the cut. All they can offer up is a vague appeal to “democracy” and an ad hominem accusation that Mr. Harper is just doing it because he is a mean bully.
The Star Phoenix, in an editorial, managed to combine all the worst arguments made by the opponents. The main point of the article is that the Conservatives may ultimately suffer because of the cut, but the article also makes many of the same points that other pundits have been making in opposing the cut. This gives me the opportunity to respond to all these arguments succinctly. Let us begin with the very first paragraph:
As mentioned above, this is a worthless ad hominem. We are not in a position to judge the motivation of Mr. Harper, but even if we were it wouldn’t really matter. Mr. Harper could be introducing the new policy just to annoy his wife’s Aunt May, who for some reason as always been at odds with him. If he was it wouldn’t make it any worse or any better of a policy. We should restrain ourselves to looking at the actual worth of the proposal.
This is another irrelevancy and ad hominem. The argument is basically that the Conservatives benefit the most and so we should question their motivation. Of course when considering any policy we should keep in mind who may benefit and who may lose but that is not the most important consideration in deciding the worth of a new policy. Just because the Conservatives are better at competing for political donations does not mean that the subsidy is a good thing.
This is similar to the previous point, but with a different twist. It is not just that the Conservatives are better at raising money, it is that “right-wing party” supporters inherently have more money. This isn’t just a stereotype, it is flatly untrue. I have never seen evidence that income is a strong predictor of what party an individual will vote for, and yet it is simply taken for granted. This is despite of the fact that historically the Liberal Party has been far more reliant on high end donations than the PCs or Reform/CA Parties. If Conservative supporters were all so wealthy then why do they individually give less money?
That money should be cut too, but I will accept a step in the right direction. Next argument please.
Ah yes, here is one of the vague appeals to democracy that I mentioned earlier. I am not sure how the subsidy is meant to “reflect the will of the electorate.” Just because someone voted for a party doesn’t mean that they want to give that party money. In fact a lot more people vote than donate to political parties voluntarily, which indicates that most voters would be unwilling to donate money to the party they are voting for. It is not democratic to force someone to support a political party in a way that they would not do voluntarily.
The article goes on to say that ending the subsidy will destroy the Liberal Party and as a result will ultimately make the NDP stronger. That this would be bad for the Conservatives is the article’s main claim. It is a variant of an argument that many pundits have used and that argument is: in the name of democracy the Liberal Party should be kept alive and without the subsidy the Liberals could not possibly survive.
I can rephrase this argument in another way: the Liberal Party can’t compete therefore we should force the taxpayer to give it money.
This is both a common and dangerous argument made to favour many government policies. It assumes that the thing that would be subsidized is inherently good and that the public that has shown itself to be unwilling to support it is wrong for not doing so. The real question we should be asking is if the Liberals can’t compete then why is it a useful institution?
Now allow me to tackle the argument from a slightly different angle: why would you assume that the Liberals won’t find a way to compete? Without the safety net of the subsidy the Liberal Party of Canada will be forced to finally get over its organizational inertia and adopt a structure that is more modern and competitive. It may not happen like that but we don’t know that it won’t. The Liberal Party could very well survive as a viable political force.
Ultimately the Liberal Party will either survive or it won’t but it is not the job of the taxpayers to ensure that it does. If saving the Liberal Party is the best that opponents can come up with, then I remain convinced that we should get rid of the subsidy (and hopefully eventually all party subsidies).
The Star Phoenix, in an editorial, managed to combine all the worst arguments made by the opponents. The main point of the article is that the Conservatives may ultimately suffer because of the cut, but the article also makes many of the same points that other pundits have been making in opposing the cut. This gives me the opportunity to respond to all these arguments succinctly. Let us begin with the very first paragraph:
The Harper government's move to axe political party subsidies represents a partisan bully tactic that could backfire on the governing Conservatives.
As mentioned above, this is a worthless ad hominem. We are not in a position to judge the motivation of Mr. Harper, but even if we were it wouldn’t really matter. Mr. Harper could be introducing the new policy just to annoy his wife’s Aunt May, who for some reason as always been at odds with him. If he was it wouldn’t make it any worse or any better of a policy. We should restrain ourselves to looking at the actual worth of the proposal.
However, it is impossible to ignore that this is a measure by a party so flush with cash from its successful grassroots fundraising that it can run political attack ads outside the window of federal elections.
This is another irrelevancy and ad hominem. The argument is basically that the Conservatives benefit the most and so we should question their motivation. Of course when considering any policy we should keep in mind who may benefit and who may lose but that is not the most important consideration in deciding the worth of a new policy. Just because the Conservatives are better at competing for political donations does not mean that the subsidy is a good thing.
It may seem like a stereotype, but it's easy to imagine the average Conservative supporter as someone with enough money to afford political donations, as opposed to those struggling to pay the bills who may be less likely to support a right-wing party.
This is similar to the previous point, but with a different twist. It is not just that the Conservatives are better at raising money, it is that “right-wing party” supporters inherently have more money. This isn’t just a stereotype, it is flatly untrue. I have never seen evidence that income is a strong predictor of what party an individual will vote for, and yet it is simply taken for granted. This is despite of the fact that historically the Liberal Party has been far more reliant on high end donations than the PCs or Reform/CA Parties. If Conservative supporters were all so wealthy then why do they individually give less money?
By comparison, the annual cost of operating the unelected Senate that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper has packed with his partisans is almost $107 million.Yes the actual dollar amount being cut is less than a lot of other stuff. Most of that stuff should be cut too. Next argument please.
Plus, the subsidies are hardly the only way in which the public purse funnels money to parties.
That money should be cut too, but I will accept a step in the right direction. Next argument please.
While one can attack the per-vote subsidies on principle, providing this value to each vote - including ones for losing candidates - is arguably more democratic than Canada's electoral system because it truly reflects the will of the electorate.
Ah yes, here is one of the vague appeals to democracy that I mentioned earlier. I am not sure how the subsidy is meant to “reflect the will of the electorate.” Just because someone voted for a party doesn’t mean that they want to give that party money. In fact a lot more people vote than donate to political parties voluntarily, which indicates that most voters would be unwilling to donate money to the party they are voting for. It is not democratic to force someone to support a political party in a way that they would not do voluntarily.
The article goes on to say that ending the subsidy will destroy the Liberal Party and as a result will ultimately make the NDP stronger. That this would be bad for the Conservatives is the article’s main claim. It is a variant of an argument that many pundits have used and that argument is: in the name of democracy the Liberal Party should be kept alive and without the subsidy the Liberals could not possibly survive.
I can rephrase this argument in another way: the Liberal Party can’t compete therefore we should force the taxpayer to give it money.
This is both a common and dangerous argument made to favour many government policies. It assumes that the thing that would be subsidized is inherently good and that the public that has shown itself to be unwilling to support it is wrong for not doing so. The real question we should be asking is if the Liberals can’t compete then why is it a useful institution?
Now allow me to tackle the argument from a slightly different angle: why would you assume that the Liberals won’t find a way to compete? Without the safety net of the subsidy the Liberal Party of Canada will be forced to finally get over its organizational inertia and adopt a structure that is more modern and competitive. It may not happen like that but we don’t know that it won’t. The Liberal Party could very well survive as a viable political force.
Ultimately the Liberal Party will either survive or it won’t but it is not the job of the taxpayers to ensure that it does. If saving the Liberal Party is the best that opponents can come up with, then I remain convinced that we should get rid of the subsidy (and hopefully eventually all party subsidies).
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Danielle Smith on libertarians vs. social conservatives
Lately the fusionism between libertarians and social conservatives/traditionalists has become greatly strained. It has reached a point that some libertarians are looking for a new kind of fusionism between statist liberals and libertarians. Mixing into this debate is Alberta’s Wildrose Alliance Party, which in many ways is the last attempt to create a successful political party fusing libertarians and social conservatives in Canada.
At first Canadian libertarians were heartened by the ascension of Danielle Smith to the leadership of the WA Party. She is an avowed libertarian and has the background to back up the assertion.
As time passed many libertarians have become uneasy that their voice is being shouted down by social conservatives within the party. I know of at least one libertarian WA Party organizer that has abandoned the party in disgust. Personally I have been withholding judgment until I saw how the party behaved in a general election and in government.
Ms. Smith took the time to discuss, with the C2C Journal, some of the concerns that libertarians have been voicing:
At first Canadian libertarians were heartened by the ascension of Danielle Smith to the leadership of the WA Party. She is an avowed libertarian and has the background to back up the assertion.
As time passed many libertarians have become uneasy that their voice is being shouted down by social conservatives within the party. I know of at least one libertarian WA Party organizer that has abandoned the party in disgust. Personally I have been withholding judgment until I saw how the party behaved in a general election and in government.
Ms. Smith took the time to discuss, with the C2C Journal, some of the concerns that libertarians have been voicing:
Jack Layton's opposition style
Jack Layton is suggesting that changing the name of the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is hiding a secret agenda of the Harper government. Umm…what?
What possible agenda could this be conceivably hiding? I have heard a lot of crazy paranoid theories in my life, but I cannot fathom what possible hidden agenda could go along with this change. Honestly this reform could have come from any political party of any ideological stripe. It is something that has been muttered about for years but no one had until now bothered to get around to changing.
I agree with Mr. Layton that it is a largely symbolic move, but it is relatively important symbolism. All it does is bring into line the name of the Ministry with the current “scope of responsibilities” and with the modern polite term for the various aboriginal peoples. This is exactly the type of symbolism that I would have expected the NDP to support.
Mr. Layton’s reaction to the name change bodes badly for what may become his style as in opposition leader. Instead of engaging in honest debate and criticizing policy portfolios where the opposition differs, Jack Layton may act as the voice piece of the most hostilely paranoid faction of the NDP’s socialist base.
Socialism in all its nuanced forms has a strong tendency towards conspiracy theories. This is a tendency that Mr. Layton should be resisting not encouraging. The baseless accusations of hidden agenda is not conducive to a respectable Parliamentary debate, nor will it convince the skeptical public that Jack Layton and his collection of paranoid loons are ready to hold power.
What possible agenda could this be conceivably hiding? I have heard a lot of crazy paranoid theories in my life, but I cannot fathom what possible hidden agenda could go along with this change. Honestly this reform could have come from any political party of any ideological stripe. It is something that has been muttered about for years but no one had until now bothered to get around to changing.
I agree with Mr. Layton that it is a largely symbolic move, but it is relatively important symbolism. All it does is bring into line the name of the Ministry with the current “scope of responsibilities” and with the modern polite term for the various aboriginal peoples. This is exactly the type of symbolism that I would have expected the NDP to support.
Mr. Layton’s reaction to the name change bodes badly for what may become his style as in opposition leader. Instead of engaging in honest debate and criticizing policy portfolios where the opposition differs, Jack Layton may act as the voice piece of the most hostilely paranoid faction of the NDP’s socialist base.
Socialism in all its nuanced forms has a strong tendency towards conspiracy theories. This is a tendency that Mr. Layton should be resisting not encouraging. The baseless accusations of hidden agenda is not conducive to a respectable Parliamentary debate, nor will it convince the skeptical public that Jack Layton and his collection of paranoid loons are ready to hold power.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Note to Tim Hudak: Prisoners are not slaves
Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak announced that he wants to make prisoners do slave labour by forcing them to do cleaning work. When we put people in prison, we take away the mobility rights, but we still do not force them to perform work. It should be the right - and yes, criminals still have rights - to choose to work or not. If that choice isn't given, it is slavery.
I am completely in favour of giving criminals the option of doing work (I don't care if it is manual labour or white collar jobs) and cutting a lot of government workers if possible. It does sound like a great way to cut costs and it seems to be a good rehabilitation method if they develop employable skills for when they end up leaving prison. Alberta has a voluntary prisoner labour plan and I've heard it seems to work well.
I hope when this plan is in our 2011 election platform, it is a voluntary plan that gives prisoners incentives to take part of the work program rather than being hugely punitive to prisoners that choose not to.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Note to Tim hudak: take action on health care
Tim Hudak has come out and announced that he plans to do absolutely nothing on the health care portfolio. The only reform he is proposing is getting rid of the obscure “Local Health Integration Networks” which Mr. Hudak claims amounts to just another level of bureaucracy. I have no idea if the LHINs should be gotten rid of or not. Even if they should, this amounts to a very minor reform.
At the same time lack of sustainability in health care spending is one of the toughest (if not toughest) public policy issue that all Canadian provinces are going to have to face in the next decade. Passively allowing the system to eat up ever more of the government’s revenue is simply not an option. The reality of the spreadsheet will eventually force the government to reform.
Reform is going to happen. The status quo will not survive the next ten years. The only question is the nature and value of the reformed system that will replace the current system. It is either disingenuous or dangerously ignorant for a man who wants to be Premier of Canada’s largest province to claim that there will be no major change to Ontario’s healthcare system.
It is understandable for a PC leader to fear the issue. The Liberals have been using the health care system as a political club for decades. It was the go to move of the desperate federal Liberals during the last election. I doubt that the provincial Liberals would be anymore enlightened or reasonable than this idiotic attack. As a result the health care debate has become poisonous.
Still, a hypothetical Hudak Government will have to deal with Ontario’s unsustainable health care system. It will be impossible to tackle Ontario’s financial woes without touching health care, which makes up approximately half of Ontario’s expenditure.
The Progressive Conservatives and Liberals both need to come clean with Ontarians and have an honest debate about the direction of Ontario’s health care system.
At the same time lack of sustainability in health care spending is one of the toughest (if not toughest) public policy issue that all Canadian provinces are going to have to face in the next decade. Passively allowing the system to eat up ever more of the government’s revenue is simply not an option. The reality of the spreadsheet will eventually force the government to reform.
Reform is going to happen. The status quo will not survive the next ten years. The only question is the nature and value of the reformed system that will replace the current system. It is either disingenuous or dangerously ignorant for a man who wants to be Premier of Canada’s largest province to claim that there will be no major change to Ontario’s healthcare system.
It is understandable for a PC leader to fear the issue. The Liberals have been using the health care system as a political club for decades. It was the go to move of the desperate federal Liberals during the last election. I doubt that the provincial Liberals would be anymore enlightened or reasonable than this idiotic attack. As a result the health care debate has become poisonous.
Still, a hypothetical Hudak Government will have to deal with Ontario’s unsustainable health care system. It will be impossible to tackle Ontario’s financial woes without touching health care, which makes up approximately half of Ontario’s expenditure.
The Progressive Conservatives and Liberals both need to come clean with Ontarians and have an honest debate about the direction of Ontario’s health care system.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Wheat and light bulb freedom
The Conservative government has recently announced two policy positions that deserve a pat on the back. One is the decision to push ahead and break up the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly, and the other is the decision to push back the deadline for banning incandescent light bulbs.
It doesn’t take a brilliant economist or insightful policy maker to realize monopolies are bad. There is agreement on this across the political spectrum, although many differ on the root causes of monopolies (hint: I think it is government’s fault). It is long pass time that Canada ends “the world’s last major agricultural monopoly.” The only reason that it has survived this long is a combination of institutional inertia and heavy campaigning by certain special interests. Soon wheat producers will finally have the freedom to trade with whomever they choose.
Delaying the ban on incandescent light bulbs is more of a mixed bag. It was the Conservatives that proposed the ban in the first place, while under heavy pressure by the media and opposition to do something on the environment portfolio. Now that this pressure has died away the Conservatives aren’t so interested in actually carrying through on the promised ban. It would be awkward for the government to kill its own initiative in the face of no opposition, so instead they are putting it off to another day.
There is still a sword hanging over the head of light bulb producers, but at least they are allowed to continue business in the short run. Also it offers a hope that they can retain their freedom to do business in the long run. It is not much, but at least it is not a step away from greater liberty.
I still await evidence that a Conservative majority is going to govern better than the Conservative minority did. But the Conservative Party deserves at least some credit for these two policies.
It doesn’t take a brilliant economist or insightful policy maker to realize monopolies are bad. There is agreement on this across the political spectrum, although many differ on the root causes of monopolies (hint: I think it is government’s fault). It is long pass time that Canada ends “the world’s last major agricultural monopoly.” The only reason that it has survived this long is a combination of institutional inertia and heavy campaigning by certain special interests. Soon wheat producers will finally have the freedom to trade with whomever they choose.
Delaying the ban on incandescent light bulbs is more of a mixed bag. It was the Conservatives that proposed the ban in the first place, while under heavy pressure by the media and opposition to do something on the environment portfolio. Now that this pressure has died away the Conservatives aren’t so interested in actually carrying through on the promised ban. It would be awkward for the government to kill its own initiative in the face of no opposition, so instead they are putting it off to another day.
There is still a sword hanging over the head of light bulb producers, but at least they are allowed to continue business in the short run. Also it offers a hope that they can retain their freedom to do business in the long run. It is not much, but at least it is not a step away from greater liberty.
I still await evidence that a Conservative majority is going to govern better than the Conservative minority did. But the Conservative Party deserves at least some credit for these two policies.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The death of the Fourth Amendment
It is now easier for police to simply charge into American homes without a warrant.
The police are supposed to defend us against hostile invaders. What happens if the police become the hostile invaders?
The police are supposed to defend us against hostile invaders. What happens if the police become the hostile invaders?
Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism
My first reaction when I saw that half the Conservative Quebec caucus was defeated on election night was that Maxime Bernier is going back to cabinet. The thought of Mr. Bernier acting as an influence on policy in a Conservative majority government gave me reason to be optimistic. I should know by now that anytime I am feeling optimistic about politics I will soon either be disappointed or confused. With the appointment of Mr. Bernier to the position of Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism I am both disappointed and confused.
My confusion stems from the question: what does the Minister of State for Small Business do? What policy can such a minister enact? What area of government activity does this Minister have responsibility for? Creating policy to enhance small business? That seems at odds with Mr. Bernier’s libertarian leanings if not exactly at odds with Mr. Harper’s big government conservatism.
My disappointment is that Prime Minister gave Mr. Bernier such a pointless position. It is as if Mr. Harper realized that he had to appoint him (he appointed four out of five of the remaining Conservative Quebec MPs) but really didn’t want to. Actually considering the norms and traditions around membership to cabinet, this is an excellent way for Stephen Harper to shut Maxime Bernier up without giving him any power (even the limited power of a Minister in a real position).
There is, however, a more optimistic way to look at this. Appointment to this non-position could be a test run to see if Mr. Bernier is ready to be back in cabinet. Mr. Bernier’s supporters (including myself) may say that he never should have been kicked out of cabinet in the first place, but the Prime Minister and others obviously disagree. Being back at the table could be an opportunity for Mr. Bernier to prove to his doubters that he is capable and ultimately worthy to be at that table. This could be the next step in rehabilitating Mr. Bernier’s career.
With that optimism in mind, I wonder if I will be disappointed or confused.
My confusion stems from the question: what does the Minister of State for Small Business do? What policy can such a minister enact? What area of government activity does this Minister have responsibility for? Creating policy to enhance small business? That seems at odds with Mr. Bernier’s libertarian leanings if not exactly at odds with Mr. Harper’s big government conservatism.
My disappointment is that Prime Minister gave Mr. Bernier such a pointless position. It is as if Mr. Harper realized that he had to appoint him (he appointed four out of five of the remaining Conservative Quebec MPs) but really didn’t want to. Actually considering the norms and traditions around membership to cabinet, this is an excellent way for Stephen Harper to shut Maxime Bernier up without giving him any power (even the limited power of a Minister in a real position).
There is, however, a more optimistic way to look at this. Appointment to this non-position could be a test run to see if Mr. Bernier is ready to be back in cabinet. Mr. Bernier’s supporters (including myself) may say that he never should have been kicked out of cabinet in the first place, but the Prime Minister and others obviously disagree. Being back at the table could be an opportunity for Mr. Bernier to prove to his doubters that he is capable and ultimately worthy to be at that table. This could be the next step in rehabilitating Mr. Bernier’s career.
With that optimism in mind, I wonder if I will be disappointed or confused.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Beer Freedom
I lived in Scotland for a year and it is amazing how quickly I got use to the convenience of buying my groceries and beer at the same place. The selection at even the humblest of establishments was far superior to my local beer store and LCBO. Ontarians need to wake up to the fact that government regulation is ripping them off.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
No knock warrants
A no knock warrant is basically when members of a SWAT team charge into your home without even bothering to ask for compliance. A no knock warrant is often treated like an attack upon a foreign enemy, in the same way that Navy Seals attacked Osama Bin Ladin. The difference of course is that these are citizens of the United States and no knock warrants often result in stories like this:
The Toronto musician Lindy of Major Maker explains the full cost of no knock warrants.
This is from Arizona Daily Star reporter Fernanda Echavarri's effort to piece together the death of Jose Guerena, 26, at the hands of a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team. Guerena, who joined the Marines in 2002 and served two tours in Iraq, was killed just after 9 a.m. May 5. Guerera had just gone to bed after working a 12-hour shift at a local mine when his home was invaded as part of a multi-house crackdown by sheriff's deputies.
The Toronto musician Lindy of Major Maker explains the full cost of no knock warrants.
Fighting for wine freedom
Terry David Mulligan has challenged an archaic law that prohibits the transportation and sale of alcohol across provincial borders. He loaded up his car with wine in BC and walked across the border to Alberta. He informed officials on both sides what he planned, and in response officials promised not to enforce the law:
I find this attitude both amusing and annoying at the same time. Ms. Hutchings-Mah seems oblivious to the reality that a business is made up of individuals. When a business sells or transports wine ultimately it is an individual that is responsible or at least a group of individuals who are collectively responsible. So to say that you are not concerned about individuals doing something but business is absurd.
The real meaning is that Ms. Hutchings-Mah is only concerned with individuals who intend to compete against the established retailers of wine in Alberta. This is confirmed by her statement that wineries should “register” or hire someone who is already “registered.” Basically this means that you have to join the club of approved individuals before you can sell your wine to Albertans.
This is protectionism plain and simple. It allows provinces to create monopolies or oligopolies that then go on to fleece consumers. How can we possibly talk about free trade with the world when free trade within Canada doesn’t even exist?
The RCMP opted not to charge Mr. Mulligan for the crime that he clearly and openly committed, thus making a mockery of this law the legal system in general. Mr. Mulligan should be praised for bringing attention to this archaic protectionist law. It is far past time for these artificial barriers to trade within Canada to be torn down.
Lynn Hutchings-Mah of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission says it's not paying much attention to what Mulligan's doing.
"Our focus at the AGLC is not on an individual bringing wine into Alberta. Our focus is on the businesses in B.C. wanting to do business here," she said.
Hutchings-Mah says those wineries should either register as an agent in Alberta or hire an agent to sell their product.
I find this attitude both amusing and annoying at the same time. Ms. Hutchings-Mah seems oblivious to the reality that a business is made up of individuals. When a business sells or transports wine ultimately it is an individual that is responsible or at least a group of individuals who are collectively responsible. So to say that you are not concerned about individuals doing something but business is absurd.
The real meaning is that Ms. Hutchings-Mah is only concerned with individuals who intend to compete against the established retailers of wine in Alberta. This is confirmed by her statement that wineries should “register” or hire someone who is already “registered.” Basically this means that you have to join the club of approved individuals before you can sell your wine to Albertans.
This is protectionism plain and simple. It allows provinces to create monopolies or oligopolies that then go on to fleece consumers. How can we possibly talk about free trade with the world when free trade within Canada doesn’t even exist?
The RCMP opted not to charge Mr. Mulligan for the crime that he clearly and openly committed, thus making a mockery of this law the legal system in general. Mr. Mulligan should be praised for bringing attention to this archaic protectionist law. It is far past time for these artificial barriers to trade within Canada to be torn down.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Ron Paul running for President
Congressman Ron Paul has finally announced his intention to run for President. From Fox News:
Citing unnamed polling, Paul said he's joining the race at a time when more and more people are looking at his ideas for running the country.
"I believe right now we're coming in No. 1 and the Republican primary is an absolute possibility," Paul said. "Many, many times better than it was four years ago. Our troops, our supporters, the grassroots, are enthusiastic, moreso than ever, where I was impressed before, I'm super impressed now with the enthusiasm that we're getting," he said.
According to a recent CNN poll, Paul was ranking somewhere in the middle of a vast GOP field that had former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in first place. However, the same poll, released May 6 but taken before the president's announcement that U.S. Navy SEALs had killed al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, showed Paul with the best chance of beating Obama, though he was still seven points behind the president in a head-to-head matchup.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Just wait until we get a majority! (Part 2)
Thanks to commenter Ted Betts for this post:
I am sick of this minority parliament. I'm sure it is the opposition coalition of the Liberals, socialists and separatists are forcing Harper to make decisions like this: Tories back off campaign pledge to show a surplus by 2014-15. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for fiscal sanity.
Just wait until we get a majority!
I am sick of this minority parliament. I'm sure it is the opposition coalition of the Liberals, socialists and separatists are forcing Harper to make decisions like this: Ottawa withstands U.S. pressure to lower border duties. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for free trade.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Note to Jack Layton: doubling the CPP is a bad idea
Jack Layton has announced that he is going to push hard for the government to double CPP contributions. Mr. Layton is going to find out pretty fast that he had more power and influence in the last Parliament despite having more MPs in his caucus this Parliament. That being said, opposition leaders are not without influence and he will find provincial allies (although not the “overwhelming consensus” that he thinks he has), so we have to take this doubling of CPP idea seriously.
It is a bad idea.
The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board currently manages one of the largest funds in the world. Increasing the size of that fund will not magically generate higher returns. In fact it is likely to have the reverse affect. The more money that the CPPIB has to handle the more diverse will be the portfolio. This may sound like a good thing but the fund is so large that they will have to look at more speculative investment prospects and the marginal rate of return on investment will likely drop.
Proponents claim that CPP is low risk and low cost, but they imagine that his is true simply because it is ran by the government. Neil Mohindra of the Fraser Institute points out the falsehood of this idea:
All of this without even mentioning the objectionableness of forcing people to invest in a fund that they may not want to invest in.
Blind faith in the CPP is not going to solve Canada’s “retirement security crisis.” Someone should explain to Mr. Layton that just because it is a government program, simply making it bigger will not fix the world’s problems.
It is a bad idea.
The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board currently manages one of the largest funds in the world. Increasing the size of that fund will not magically generate higher returns. In fact it is likely to have the reverse affect. The more money that the CPPIB has to handle the more diverse will be the portfolio. This may sound like a good thing but the fund is so large that they will have to look at more speculative investment prospects and the marginal rate of return on investment will likely drop.
Proponents claim that CPP is low risk and low cost, but they imagine that his is true simply because it is ran by the government. Neil Mohindra of the Fraser Institute points out the falsehood of this idea:
The reality is that the CPP is not risk free or as low cost, as advocates of expansion pretend. The Canada Pension Plan Act, governing the CPP, includes an automatic mechanism to adjust benefits and contributions to bring the plan back on track if at any point it is no longer considered sustainable in meeting its obligations. Every three years, federal and provincial finance ministers must review the financial state of the CPP and provide recommendations to the ministers as to whether benefits or contribution rates or both should be changed. Hence, there is risk. There is no guarantee that the CPP will deliver what is expected.
The Liberals argue that their Secure Retirement Option will benefit the millions of Canadians who “can’t afford the risk of the stock market or RRSPs.” This is simply not true. Close to 40% of the CPP’s current assets are in public equities that trade on stock markets; over a quarter of its assets are in alternative asset classes considered riskier than equities, including private equity, real estate and infrastructure. Hence, the Secure Retirement Option is an option is for those who want more of the exact same risk associated with their mandatory CPP pension unless the CPP creates a separate portfolio, in which case who knows what the portfolio will
consist of.
Advocates of CPP expansion describe the fund as low cost. For example, the Canadian Labour Congress notes on its website that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has a “low” fee of 0.5% in comparison to other investment options. However, the CPP Investment Board is strictly the investment manager for the CPP so its costs do not include all the administrative costs of the CPP such as the costs involved in collecting premiums and paying benefits. Those costs are charged to the CPP from various government departments such as Human Resources Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency.
All of this without even mentioning the objectionableness of forcing people to invest in a fund that they may not want to invest in.
Blind faith in the CPP is not going to solve Canada’s “retirement security crisis.” Someone should explain to Mr. Layton that just because it is a government program, simply making it bigger will not fix the world’s problems.
John Locke in 3 minutes
I don't think that this interpretation of Hobbes is fair (Hobbes wasn't this normative), but otherwise a humorous and educational video.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
the Fatal Conceit of the Census
Like most Canadians I have recently received the census form in the mail. Also like many Canadians I have noticed adverts and members of the media encouraging me to fill out the census because it “benefits me and my community,” or “it is good for children and seniors.” The logic is basically this: governments have programs to help people, government needs to know where the neediest people are so that they can assign the right amount of resources, and thus filling out the census helps people.
I will put aside my skepticism that the government actually allocates resources on any rational basis and focus instead on this concept that the census informs the government of where the most need is. I will give you a hint, it doesn’t.
The census may tell you how many old people live in a certain area, but that doesn’t tell you how much demand for health care there is in that area. Governments may assume that X number of elderly require Y amount of health care services, but that is necessarily based on an average and a specific elderly community may need more or less than Y. The government simply lacks the knowledge to allocate resources properly, even with the census.
As an alternative we have the price system.
The price system knows exactly how much resources any elderly community needs because the price adjusts depending on the demand.
An article from the Freeman explains the difference between the census and the price system very well:
At the end of the day you can fill in the census or not fill in the census, it will not make a bit of difference to any child or senior. (although there may be another good reason for the census)
I will put aside my skepticism that the government actually allocates resources on any rational basis and focus instead on this concept that the census informs the government of where the most need is. I will give you a hint, it doesn’t.
The census may tell you how many old people live in a certain area, but that doesn’t tell you how much demand for health care there is in that area. Governments may assume that X number of elderly require Y amount of health care services, but that is necessarily based on an average and a specific elderly community may need more or less than Y. The government simply lacks the knowledge to allocate resources properly, even with the census.
As an alternative we have the price system.
The price system knows exactly how much resources any elderly community needs because the price adjusts depending on the demand.
An article from the Freeman explains the difference between the census and the price system very well:
Unlike the census, the price system in a free market is not the product of human design, but of millions of human actions, spontaneously coordinating to signal producers, consumers, investors, shippers, shelf-stockers, and all the other players in the market what decisions they should make to best achieve their objectives. The free play of millions of individuals, each seeking to better their situation, results in awe-inspiring cooperation and organization.
Of course, inasmuch as things like mass transit and hospitals are run by government rather than by individuals in the market, the census ads have a point. They cannot know how many hospital beds or buses to provide without population data. The dirty little secret is that they cannot know how many hospital beds or buses to provide with population data either.
If it were possible to figure out what type and quantity of goods were demanded by a population by surveying them, businesses would never fail — entrepreneurs could simply ask their target market what it wanted and produce just the right amount.
In reality, even if you are able to count how many people live in a region, that information alone does not determine how many hospital beds or buses they will demand. In fact, chances are those people don’t even know how much of those goods and services they themselves want. If you merely ask, it is costless to answer. If you allow entrepreneurs to offer those goods and services on the market, they will quickly discover customers’ revealed preferences and how much they want compared to other goods. A head count is almost useless at discovering a community’s needs.
At the end of the day you can fill in the census or not fill in the census, it will not make a bit of difference to any child or senior. (although there may be another good reason for the census)
Monday, May 9, 2011
Immigration and jobs
Do immigrant workers create unemployment by taking away native jobs?
Not really, no.
Not really, no.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Scottish National Party in majority government
Canada isn’t the only English speaking country that has witnessed a historic election this week. The Scottish National Party has won a majority government in the Scottish Parliament. This is remarkable when you consider that the Scottish electoral system was specifically designed to make majority governments unlikely.
Since 2007 the SNP has been in a minority government, which has been very difficult for them. As an independence party the SNP’s primary goal is to bring forth a referendum for Scottish independence and to win that referendum. This was impossible in the previous Parliament because no other political party would agree to vote for the bill that is required for the referendum to take place.
The SNP tried to get around this by redefining the terms of referendum. Instead of a straight choice between sovereignty and continued union with England, the SNP proposed offering a third option: more autonomy but not independence. This was meant to appeal to the Liberal Democrats, who have often supported greater decentralization in the United Kingdom.
Now with a majority government the SNP can act unilaterally and push a referendum through Parliament. They do not need to soft peddle the sovereignty option and they have made it clear that there will be a referendum in the next five years.
Even if the SNP eventually win that referendum, it is not totally clear what the constitutional root for independence will be. The United Kingdom doe not have a written constitution and there is no precedent that can give any guidance.
Then there is the added complication of the European Union. Currently it is SNP policy to propose “Independence within Europe” (which to my mind would kind of defeat the point). It is not certain at all how the EU would react to an independent Scotland demanding entry in its own right. Many other member countries have ethnic-nationalist regions with independence movements. Countries such as Spain would not want Scotland to set a precedent that would make it easier for these regions to break away.
As they say, we live in interesting times.
Since 2007 the SNP has been in a minority government, which has been very difficult for them. As an independence party the SNP’s primary goal is to bring forth a referendum for Scottish independence and to win that referendum. This was impossible in the previous Parliament because no other political party would agree to vote for the bill that is required for the referendum to take place.
The SNP tried to get around this by redefining the terms of referendum. Instead of a straight choice between sovereignty and continued union with England, the SNP proposed offering a third option: more autonomy but not independence. This was meant to appeal to the Liberal Democrats, who have often supported greater decentralization in the United Kingdom.
Now with a majority government the SNP can act unilaterally and push a referendum through Parliament. They do not need to soft peddle the sovereignty option and they have made it clear that there will be a referendum in the next five years.
Even if the SNP eventually win that referendum, it is not totally clear what the constitutional root for independence will be. The United Kingdom doe not have a written constitution and there is no precedent that can give any guidance.
Then there is the added complication of the European Union. Currently it is SNP policy to propose “Independence within Europe” (which to my mind would kind of defeat the point). It is not certain at all how the EU would react to an independent Scotland demanding entry in its own right. Many other member countries have ethnic-nationalist regions with independence movements. Countries such as Spain would not want Scotland to set a precedent that would make it easier for these regions to break away.
As they say, we live in interesting times.
Tim Hudak's flip flop on HRC
I am extremely disappointed in Tim Hudak’s flip flop on the HRC. This isn’t just something that he vaguely supported in the distant past. Getting rid of the HRC was a key plank in his leadership campaign. It was partly his opposition to HRC that excited Mr. Hudak’s supporters in that campaign.
Some in the media have speculated that this reversal is due to a fear that opposition towards the HRC will be used to define the campaign as the religious schools issue did in 2007. If this is so I still find it puzzling. Considering that this argument was made regularly during the leadership race, I have to wonder, what has changed? Has Tim Hudak just lost his nerve?
If fear of a repeat of the last campaign is the reason why Mr. Hudak abandoned his position on HRC, then it is obvious that the PCs have learned the wrong lesson from the 2007 election. Let me just quickly point out some elements that make John Tory’s disastrous religious schools policy different from Tim Hudak’s HRC policy in terms of a political campaign.
To sum up: the PC Party would have lost the 2007 election anyway. The issue of religious schools didn’t help, but to assume that that alone is what lost the election is to miss the true lesson. An opposition party cannot defeat a relatively young government without offering the electorate a clear reason why they should govern instead. The John Tory PC Party did not present a good case.
Besides, the damage is already done. If the Liberals want to make an issue of Mr. Hudak’s support of the HRC they can still do it. There are lots of quotes out there of him saying bad things about the HRC. The fact that he changed his mind just makes him look cowardly.
Some in the media have speculated that this reversal is due to a fear that opposition towards the HRC will be used to define the campaign as the religious schools issue did in 2007. If this is so I still find it puzzling. Considering that this argument was made regularly during the leadership race, I have to wonder, what has changed? Has Tim Hudak just lost his nerve?
If fear of a repeat of the last campaign is the reason why Mr. Hudak abandoned his position on HRC, then it is obvious that the PCs have learned the wrong lesson from the 2007 election. Let me just quickly point out some elements that make John Tory’s disastrous religious schools policy different from Tim Hudak’s HRC policy in terms of a political campaign.
- The base absolutely hated the religious schools idea. In fact it went a long way towards suppressing the Tory turnout. In contrast the PC base loves the idea of getting rid of the HRC. If sold the right way it could encourage many conservatives to actually vote this time.
- John Tory didn’t offer a lot of distinctions between himself and Dalton McGuinty. The reason the schools issue kept being brought up is because there wasn’t much else to talk about. Tim Hudak, I assume, will be making more proposals that will differentiate himself from Mr. McGuinty than this one issue.
- The Liberals were not in a position to lose. They had served only one term and it is rare for governments to be defeated after only one term. People were not yet fatigued by the Liberal government and most of the unpopular moves of the government’s early days were forgiven by 2007. The mood in Ontario in 2011 is much different. People are in general sick and tired of the McGuinty Liberals.
To sum up: the PC Party would have lost the 2007 election anyway. The issue of religious schools didn’t help, but to assume that that alone is what lost the election is to miss the true lesson. An opposition party cannot defeat a relatively young government without offering the electorate a clear reason why they should govern instead. The John Tory PC Party did not present a good case.
Besides, the damage is already done. If the Liberals want to make an issue of Mr. Hudak’s support of the HRC they can still do it. There are lots of quotes out there of him saying bad things about the HRC. The fact that he changed his mind just makes him look cowardly.
The fall of the Liberal Party
In 1896 the charismatic Wilfrid Laurier won a majority government for the Liberal Party. He was not the first Liberal Prime Minister, but there is a reason that his name is revered while the name of Alexander Mackenzie is largely forgotten. It was Laurier that built the Liberals into a united and focused party. It was Laurier who began the century of Liberal dominance of Canadian federal politics.
Laurier has been much praised for being a pragmatic politician whose success was founded on his ability to compromise. This is fair praise, but he has not been given enough credit for his ability to compromise while holding on to his principles. In the 1892 election he was soundly defeated largely due to his stance on free trade. In 1896 he did not reverse his position but moderated it by promising to only reform the tariff system. This was a compromise but it was a compromise that did not sacrifice his principles.
Is it any wonder that he remained in power for 15 years?
It may surprise some to learn that Laurier was a firm believer in the “watchman state.” He believed that there was much that could only be accomplished by private enterprise and little that could be done by the state. He resisted the urge to have government attempt to manage the lives of individuals even as such urges were gaining popularity in the United States.
Laurier’s immediate successor William Lyon Mackenzie King for the most part agreed with his views. The grandson of the famous rebel William Lyon Mackenzie, he was brought up in the same liberalism as Laurier.
It is difficult to tell if Mackenzie King’s personality was less firm or if it was because the times were different, but either way he showed himself far more willing to bend principle than Laurier. Still government under the Liberal Party remained smaller and closer to the “watchman” ideal than the United States or any European country. By the time Louis St. Laurent came to the Liberal helm, expenditures and imprudent entitlements in the United States had far outpaced Canada’s.
At the same time the Liberal Party was drifting away from Laurier’s solid principles. Leader after leader took the Liberals a step further away. The party drifted so far that it is doubtful that Wilfrid Laurier would have been able to recognize Pierre Trudeau as a Liberal. You can argue that there was a slight drift back in the 90s if you like, but this was only temporary at best. The modern Liberal Party looks nothing like the party of Wilfrid Laurier.
It is laughable when men such as Dalton McGuinty and Micheal Ignatieff claim the mantle and heritage of Wilfrid Laurier. If Laurier was alive today he would be accused by both men of being a radical and scary conservative. Terms like “hard right” and “ideologue” would roll off their tongues. The Liberals are ignorant of their own history. They look at their past and all they see are victories and they don’t understand from what these victories came.
The truest sign of the fall of the Liberal Party is the movement to merge with the NDP. The mere suggestion that the Liberal Party could merge with a socialist party would have given Mackenzie King a conniption fit and would have left Laurier puzzled. Socialism is the antipathy of liberalism. How could liberals and socialists possibly exist in the same political party?
I don’t mean to say that the Liberals have become socialists. That would be giving them too much credit. The drift away from Laurier did not lead them into some other ideological harbour. Instead the Liberal Party has moved in whatever direction the wind blew. Some have praised this as being politically astute but eventually the clear lack of any mission or ideals has crippled the Liberal Party. Ask a Liberal what the Liberal Party stands for and you will get an answer that is the Canadian equivalent of an apple pie.
The 2011 election was a disaster for the Liberal Party and some have wisely said that the Liberals need to completely rebuild, a project that could take a decade to complete. It would be a mistake, however, to think that it is only the organization that needs to be rebuilt and reorganized. The Liberal Party needs to reconstruct and define its mission; its core ideals; its reason for existing.
I will not be so bold as to predict that the Liberal Party is done for good. When I say that it has fallen I mean that the Liberals have lost their ideals. A political party is a vehicle for power but it also needs a core mission statement to drive it forward. For too long the mission statement of the Liberal Party has been power for the sake of power. It is time for the Liberals to decide who they are.
Laurier has been much praised for being a pragmatic politician whose success was founded on his ability to compromise. This is fair praise, but he has not been given enough credit for his ability to compromise while holding on to his principles. In the 1892 election he was soundly defeated largely due to his stance on free trade. In 1896 he did not reverse his position but moderated it by promising to only reform the tariff system. This was a compromise but it was a compromise that did not sacrifice his principles.
Is it any wonder that he remained in power for 15 years?
It may surprise some to learn that Laurier was a firm believer in the “watchman state.” He believed that there was much that could only be accomplished by private enterprise and little that could be done by the state. He resisted the urge to have government attempt to manage the lives of individuals even as such urges were gaining popularity in the United States.
Laurier’s immediate successor William Lyon Mackenzie King for the most part agreed with his views. The grandson of the famous rebel William Lyon Mackenzie, he was brought up in the same liberalism as Laurier.
It is difficult to tell if Mackenzie King’s personality was less firm or if it was because the times were different, but either way he showed himself far more willing to bend principle than Laurier. Still government under the Liberal Party remained smaller and closer to the “watchman” ideal than the United States or any European country. By the time Louis St. Laurent came to the Liberal helm, expenditures and imprudent entitlements in the United States had far outpaced Canada’s.
At the same time the Liberal Party was drifting away from Laurier’s solid principles. Leader after leader took the Liberals a step further away. The party drifted so far that it is doubtful that Wilfrid Laurier would have been able to recognize Pierre Trudeau as a Liberal. You can argue that there was a slight drift back in the 90s if you like, but this was only temporary at best. The modern Liberal Party looks nothing like the party of Wilfrid Laurier.
It is laughable when men such as Dalton McGuinty and Micheal Ignatieff claim the mantle and heritage of Wilfrid Laurier. If Laurier was alive today he would be accused by both men of being a radical and scary conservative. Terms like “hard right” and “ideologue” would roll off their tongues. The Liberals are ignorant of their own history. They look at their past and all they see are victories and they don’t understand from what these victories came.
The truest sign of the fall of the Liberal Party is the movement to merge with the NDP. The mere suggestion that the Liberal Party could merge with a socialist party would have given Mackenzie King a conniption fit and would have left Laurier puzzled. Socialism is the antipathy of liberalism. How could liberals and socialists possibly exist in the same political party?
I don’t mean to say that the Liberals have become socialists. That would be giving them too much credit. The drift away from Laurier did not lead them into some other ideological harbour. Instead the Liberal Party has moved in whatever direction the wind blew. Some have praised this as being politically astute but eventually the clear lack of any mission or ideals has crippled the Liberal Party. Ask a Liberal what the Liberal Party stands for and you will get an answer that is the Canadian equivalent of an apple pie.
The 2011 election was a disaster for the Liberal Party and some have wisely said that the Liberals need to completely rebuild, a project that could take a decade to complete. It would be a mistake, however, to think that it is only the organization that needs to be rebuilt and reorganized. The Liberal Party needs to reconstruct and define its mission; its core ideals; its reason for existing.
I will not be so bold as to predict that the Liberal Party is done for good. When I say that it has fallen I mean that the Liberals have lost their ideals. A political party is a vehicle for power but it also needs a core mission statement to drive it forward. For too long the mission statement of the Liberal Party has been power for the sake of power. It is time for the Liberals to decide who they are.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Death of Osama bin Laden does not settle foreign policy debate
What exactly has the death of bin Laden proven? Does it demonstrate that the Hawkes were right all along? Or is there evidence that the wars after 9/11 were unnecessary to his capture?
Benjamin Friedman of the Cato Institute makes a strong case that it does neither:
Read the rest of the article here.
Benjamin Friedman of the Cato Institute makes a strong case that it does neither:
There are many reasons we should draw down in Afghanistan, but the bin Laden raid offers little intellectual ammunition for either side of the war debate. The intelligence that led to Abbottabad came years ago, from prisoners outside Afghanistan and operations in Pakistan. The helicopters flew from a base in Afghanistan, but it didn’t take a decade of war and a massive ground force to get that. The fact that bin Laden was living in an area of Pakistan where the state was relatively strong does nothing to support the idea that we should fight wars trying to build authority in ungoverned regions lest terrorists gain haven there.
But the fact that Sunday’s events do not serve pro-war arguments does not show logically, the correctness of the anti-war position, which is mine. The pro-war argument, flawed as it, depends on other claims (i.e. terrorists will gain haven in Afghanistan if we draw down) that bin Laden’s death does not affect. That something is not an orange does little to tell you whether it’s a pear. Hopefully, however, bin Laden’s death may make it easier, politically to get out of Afghanistan.
Read the rest of the article here.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Conservative motives not all bad for cutting party subsidies
Kelly McParland misses the point of removing the $2-per vote political party subsidy. He seems to assume that the main reason that the Tories want to get rid of the subsidy is to screw over political opponents. He also appears to think that the main nonpartisan argument for getting is to end the subsidy to the separatist BQ, which is now irrelevant due to the near collapse of that party.
I am pretty cynical when it comes to the motivation of politicians and public policy, but I am realistic in my cynicism and I do not simply assume that their motivations are all bad. Mr. McParland should consider that although the other political parties will be hurt disproportionately because they rely on it more, the Conservative’s bank account will still be damaged by removing the subsidy. In fact the Conservatives stand to lose the most amount of money because they have received the most votes.
Don’t get me wrong, I am sure that there is a certain delight that Conservatives have that this will stick it to their enemies. But that isn’t the sole reason for ending the subsidy and it may not even be the most important motivation for the Tories. There is also an issue of principle.
Using tax payer’s money to fund political parties is not an appropriate use of that money. There is something unseemly about political parties voting to force taxpayers to fund their activities. Parties should compete for donor dollars like every other non-profit. This is a position that has long been held by the Conservatives at both the grassroots and leadership levels.
The Conservatives should be commended for their position on this issue, even if there are other less pure motives.
I am pretty cynical when it comes to the motivation of politicians and public policy, but I am realistic in my cynicism and I do not simply assume that their motivations are all bad. Mr. McParland should consider that although the other political parties will be hurt disproportionately because they rely on it more, the Conservative’s bank account will still be damaged by removing the subsidy. In fact the Conservatives stand to lose the most amount of money because they have received the most votes.
Don’t get me wrong, I am sure that there is a certain delight that Conservatives have that this will stick it to their enemies. But that isn’t the sole reason for ending the subsidy and it may not even be the most important motivation for the Tories. There is also an issue of principle.
Using tax payer’s money to fund political parties is not an appropriate use of that money. There is something unseemly about political parties voting to force taxpayers to fund their activities. Parties should compete for donor dollars like every other non-profit. This is a position that has long been held by the Conservatives at both the grassroots and leadership levels.
The Conservatives should be commended for their position on this issue, even if there are other less pure motives.
So now the Conservatives have a majority
Some said that it was impossible but here we are with a majority Conservative government. As many of you may be aware I have been historically hostile to the minority Conservative government. Many Conservatives have argues with me that the faults that I have pointed out are due to the necessity of surviving a minority Parliament. I have always said that this argument is at best an exaggeration and at worst a pretty thin excuse for the Conservatives to be actively abandoning all of their principles (as opposed to passively allowing the opposition to erode their principles).
Well now that theoretical debate is over. We may now put it to the empirical test. How exactly will the Harper led Conservatives behave now that they have a majority?
I promise to keep an open mind and watch how things unfold.
A good start would be if the Conservative government took on this wish list posted by Terrance Watson, my colleague at the Volunteer.
Well now that theoretical debate is over. We may now put it to the empirical test. How exactly will the Harper led Conservatives behave now that they have a majority?
I promise to keep an open mind and watch how things unfold.
A good start would be if the Conservative government took on this wish list posted by Terrance Watson, my colleague at the Volunteer.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
History in the making
This is the first majority in Canadian history that was not rooted in some way in Quebec. That is the true historic moment here. The power structure of federation is changing.
The Liberal Party
They have to fundementally redefine who they are before they will ever come back. The Liberals are no longer the party of government. What are the values of the Liberal Part?. It has drifted more and more left to the point that the NDP and the Liberals became no different.
Who are you Liberal Party?
You are not the party of Wilfrid Laurier.
Laurier was a man who believed in the individual. The modern Liberal Party believes in only the myth of the collective.
The modern Liberal Party is meaningless if they cannot receive power.
Who are you Liberal Party?
You are not the party of Wilfrid Laurier.
Laurier was a man who believed in the individual. The modern Liberal Party believes in only the myth of the collective.
The modern Liberal Party is meaningless if they cannot receive power.
A majority government
Okay now you have a majority government. There is no possible excuse Mr. Harper. Prove me wrong about everything I ever said about you.
A question on cabinet
With a Conservative government based in the West and Ontario, could Stephen Harper possibly ignore Maxime Bernier as the voice of Quebec conservatism?
Fight the deficit, don't vote
Andrew Coyne is correct; every voter has his or her own “ballot question.” Each member of the electorate must make up his or her own mind on how to pick the party that he or she will support. Sometimes people make their decisions on the basis of rational self interest, ideology, or because they prefer a certain candidate’s hair. That is the wonder and horror of democracy, every person can make a decision based on whatever they want.
That being said, I had to decide what I wanted my ballot question to be.
There are a lot of issues that I care about, but a core public policy problem facing Canada today is the structural deficit. The accumulation of more debt and the ongoing weakening of Canada’s financial status in some ways will prevent all other policy issues from being dealt with. The first step to reforming the state will be to balance the books.
My ballot question is then: who should I vote for to get rid of the deficit?
The NDP is a non-starter. Jack Layton’s platform isn’t the most extravagant of all time, but any claim that the NDP has a realistic plan to get out of deficit is pure fantasy.
I have often said that Michael Ignatieff lacks credibility when it comes to deficit fighting. Despite being leader of the party that ended deficits in the 1990s, Dr. Ignatieff has shown that it is not a priority for him. He is more interested in creating new programs that will only make the problem worse.
There is no fringe party candidate in my riding that I may have picked, such as Libertarian Party or Freedom Party.
That leaves me with the Conservative Party.
Of all the major political parties the Conservatives are the only ones that have promised to make actual cuts. Even though the proposed cuts are pretty small, it is at least a step in the right direction.
But then as memory serves the Conservatives are the ones that got us into deficit in the first place. Also they have been so vague about how much the “crime agenda” will cost that I’m not sure I totally trust them to actually bring us back into surplus. Actually I don’t trust the current Conservative leadership at all.
Having eliminated all my options I am left with a choice. I could either vote for the least of all evils (which may be the Conservatives) or I could spoil my ballot in protest.
Then it struck me.
Why rely on the political parties to eliminate the deficit? Isn’t there something I personally can do to ensure that spending is reduced?
And there is! I can simply not vote. By not voting I will prevent 2$ a year from being spent in political party subsidies. It is the best most affirmative way I can vote for a smaller deficit.
(Admittedly the Conservatives have promised to eliminate this subsidy. Considering the likelihood of a minority government, I wouldn’t bet on it.)
That being said, I had to decide what I wanted my ballot question to be.
There are a lot of issues that I care about, but a core public policy problem facing Canada today is the structural deficit. The accumulation of more debt and the ongoing weakening of Canada’s financial status in some ways will prevent all other policy issues from being dealt with. The first step to reforming the state will be to balance the books.
My ballot question is then: who should I vote for to get rid of the deficit?
The NDP is a non-starter. Jack Layton’s platform isn’t the most extravagant of all time, but any claim that the NDP has a realistic plan to get out of deficit is pure fantasy.
I have often said that Michael Ignatieff lacks credibility when it comes to deficit fighting. Despite being leader of the party that ended deficits in the 1990s, Dr. Ignatieff has shown that it is not a priority for him. He is more interested in creating new programs that will only make the problem worse.
There is no fringe party candidate in my riding that I may have picked, such as Libertarian Party or Freedom Party.
That leaves me with the Conservative Party.
Of all the major political parties the Conservatives are the only ones that have promised to make actual cuts. Even though the proposed cuts are pretty small, it is at least a step in the right direction.
But then as memory serves the Conservatives are the ones that got us into deficit in the first place. Also they have been so vague about how much the “crime agenda” will cost that I’m not sure I totally trust them to actually bring us back into surplus. Actually I don’t trust the current Conservative leadership at all.
Having eliminated all my options I am left with a choice. I could either vote for the least of all evils (which may be the Conservatives) or I could spoil my ballot in protest.
Then it struck me.
Why rely on the political parties to eliminate the deficit? Isn’t there something I personally can do to ensure that spending is reduced?
And there is! I can simply not vote. By not voting I will prevent 2$ a year from being spent in political party subsidies. It is the best most affirmative way I can vote for a smaller deficit.
(Admittedly the Conservatives have promised to eliminate this subsidy. Considering the likelihood of a minority government, I wouldn’t bet on it.)
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Federal Election 2011: time to hold your breath and wait
Articles like this one make me want to forget my antagonistic feelings towards Stephen Harper and vote Conservative. The NDP is on the rise and for the first time ever we can seriously speculate about a NDP minority government. The polls show that the NDP is just behind the Conservatives with momentum threatening to carry them forward.
Of course even in the best of times polling data is only useful as a tool of measuring the national mood. The accuracy of polls taken by even the most respectable firms should always be taken with a grain of salt. In times of fluctuating support and instability polling data becomes all but useless. Looking at the various last minute polls, the only thing that can be conclusively decided is that something different is happening.
The NDP are enjoying polling results that they have never seen before. Posed to take second place in this election the NDP and many pundits are already talking about a fundamental shift in Canada’s political landscape. I will caution anyone from leaping to such a conclusion. Like all historical events the true meaning of what is happening in the 2011 Federal Election will only be understood after the fact, and even then imperfectly.
On Friday I published my prediction that the NDP will be a distant second place but the Conservatives will be held to a minority government. I stick by this prediction because I truly think much of this new support for the NDP will evaporate outside of Quebec. Also supporters of the Conservative Party will be more motivated to come out and vote to defend against a NDP take over.
I could be wrong about my assumptions, but that is the point I am trying to make. No one knows what the hell is going on. You just have to hold your breath until Monday evening and wait to see what happens.
Of course even in the best of times polling data is only useful as a tool of measuring the national mood. The accuracy of polls taken by even the most respectable firms should always be taken with a grain of salt. In times of fluctuating support and instability polling data becomes all but useless. Looking at the various last minute polls, the only thing that can be conclusively decided is that something different is happening.
The NDP are enjoying polling results that they have never seen before. Posed to take second place in this election the NDP and many pundits are already talking about a fundamental shift in Canada’s political landscape. I will caution anyone from leaping to such a conclusion. Like all historical events the true meaning of what is happening in the 2011 Federal Election will only be understood after the fact, and even then imperfectly.
On Friday I published my prediction that the NDP will be a distant second place but the Conservatives will be held to a minority government. I stick by this prediction because I truly think much of this new support for the NDP will evaporate outside of Quebec. Also supporters of the Conservative Party will be more motivated to come out and vote to defend against a NDP take over.
I could be wrong about my assumptions, but that is the point I am trying to make. No one knows what the hell is going on. You just have to hold your breath until Monday evening and wait to see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)