Rescuing the American federal state

Federalism is at the very heart of the American constitution and a properly decentralized federal system is important to ensuring liberty as well as offering greater choice to citizens. Yet throughout the 20th century the US Federal Government has been slowly (and in some cases not so slowly) centralizing governance and policy making in the American Republic. The first decade of the 21st century has so far seen this trend continue, much to the detriment of the American people.

The Goldwater Institute has pointed out 10 ways in which States can fight back:

1. Legislation plus litigation: States can enact laws that protect individual liberty and take the federal government to court to defend those laws.
2. Taxpayers Court: Taxpayers can't sue the federal government for abuse of their tax dollars, but states can authorize taxpayers to bring lawsuits in state court to stop state and federal governments from using tax dollars in ways that violate the Constitution.
3. Expand Civil Rights Laws: Because state sovereignty is a protection the U.S. Constitution guarantees to all Americans, states can enact civil rights laws to protect that right and enable individuals to sue state and federal governments when they disregard state sovereignty.
4. Constitutional Defense Councils: States can create independent Constitutional Defense Councils that have the authority and funding to defend state sovereignty in court.
5. Coordination: Many federal agencies are governed by laws that contain "coordination" provisions. State and local governments can limit the impact of new federal regulations by requiring federal agencies to coordinate with existing local laws, regulations, plans, and policies.
6. Reinvigorate the Reserved Powers of the States: The U.S. Constitution belongs to the states. States can pass laws that invoke their reserved powers and force the federal government into a position where it has no lawful or practical way to enforce federal laws that upset the balance of power between the states and Washington.
7. Empower the People: Sometimes we don't need new laws in order to protect individual rights. Sometimes we need to repeal laws that are already on the books. Many state laws actually invite the federal government to get involved in the minutia of local affairs. One way to stop that is to replace those laws with opportunities for citizens to protect their own rights.
8. Refuse Conditional Grants: States can limit or eliminate the power of state and local officials to accept federal grants that require the state or local government to give more control over local decision-making to Washington.
9. Amend the U.S. Constitution to Limit the Federal Government: State legislatures were given the same power as Congress to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. States can initiate the process by proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would limit the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government.
10. Interstate Compacts: Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states. Compacts can be used to protect individual rights and state sovereignty, and they don't always need congressional approval. Interstate compacts could be used to prevent the federal government from enforcing key provisions of the federal health care bill, or from infringing on Second Amendment rights, for example.

Santa Claus becomes an Objectivist

Decentralizing Medicaid

This video is dead on.



I will only also add that allowing States to take the lead will end the political deadlock in Washington that currently characterizes the Medicaid debate.

Native lawyers demand that the Prime Minister be racist

The Indigenous Bar Association is pressuring the Prime Minister to appoint a Native judge to the Supreme Court. They claim that a Native would be better able to understand "native traditions" and the role that it plays in Canada's legal system. Which is bizarre because as far as I know "native traditions" play no role in our legal system, except perhaps on the reserves. Even then considering the diverse group that actually makes up Canada's Native population, you have to wonder which native tradition they are talking about.

The real argument of the IBA is that you need a Native's "perspective" on the Supreme Court, and this is a fundamentally racist concept. And so what the IBA is really doing is demanding that our government behaves like a racist.

Gary Johnson interviewed by Reason

Federalism and Education in America

Most of what Neal McCluskey says at the beginning of this video can be applied to health care in Canada.

All The President's Wars: How Foreign Policy Became One Man's Prerogative (slight disagreement)

Interestingly Canada has always held war making power in the executive branch. The difference is that Canada does not have much of a reason to go to war, except for the dubious goal of supporting American Imperialism. The root to the problem isn't the rise of executive power (although such a rise is bad), the main source of America's tendency to go to war is the American Imperial reflex supported by the "Military Industrial Complex."

In short, withdraw American troops from the overseas bases and the President will be a lot less likely to arbitrarily go to war.

Pemitting lemonade stands

Sameer Vasta of Sympatico News sees the shutting down of children’s charity lemonade stands as a problem. But instead of reconsidering the faith that people put into the need for government regulations, Mr. Vasta thinks that we need to simply streamline lemonade stand permits.

I haven't thought through the specifics of the permit just yet, but the concept is simple: children looking to open up a lemonade stand or other small business that lasts for a day or a weekend go online to apply for the permit. The permit is limited to children under the age of 13, and the form asks them some basic questions: what are you selling, where are you getting the goods, where will your stand be set up, and where will the money be going? They answer four or five quick questions, enter their parent or guardian's contact information, and get a page that they print out and put on their stand with all the details and disclaimers necessary. The whole process shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

Where does this compulsion come from? The need to have some government agency okaying every aspect of life appears pervasive. It is as if people like Mr. Vasta are standing on a mountain top screaming “who the hell is in charge here?” then deciding that some stranger with a government salary should be in charge.

Well Mr. Vesta you are actually the one in charge of your own life. If you think that little girl behind the lemonade stand looks a little shady, don’t drink the damn lemonade.

I hope that "Working Families Ontario" is right about Tim Hudak

A while back I commented that socialists have an inherent tendency towards paranoia and conspiracy theories. When I wrote that I had not yet seen the videos released by “Working Families Ontario” but these videos demonstrate my point. The WFO (I can’t write out the full name of the organization again without vomiting) was founded by the “labour movement” to attack the policies of the Ernie Eves and Mike Harris governments. The prospect of another PC government after the election in the fall has re-energized this group and they launched a series of attack ads in March.

The premise of these attack ads is a classic socialist conspiracy theory. Anyone who disagrees with socialist ideas of government control and high taxes is automatically in the pocket of the capitalist class. It couldn’t possibly be that someone can have an honest disagreement based on legitimate values and empirical facts, no there has to be some slimy relationship with “big business.”

The most amusing thing about these videos, however, is that I agree with every word that comes out of the mouths of these characterizations of businessmen. I am left kind of wishing that the scene in these videos actually took place.

First video:



“The government is making it harder to make profits.”

“Profits” is not a dirty word. Profit is what you gain by exchanging something you value less for something that you value more. The man is right in saying that government is making it harder to make profit and thus hampering personal and social gain.

“Do we really need the Human Rights Commission?”

No we do not!

“Tim, it is our human right to make as much money as possible.”

Yes it is! It is everyone’s right to endeavor to whatever end they desire as long as they do no harm to others. Making money is only done in the capitalist system by producing things that others want, which is hardly hurting people.

Second video:



“We need to keep our money where it belongs Tim, in our pockets.”

My money certainly belongs in my pocket.

“So we have identified some areas for you to cut.” “That is what I’m talking about…phew.”

I think this part of the conversation actually took place except that someone was wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt.

“Safety inspectors, why? Cut.”

There is a solid argument to be made here. There is a lack of evidence that the growing number of safety inspectors actually increase safety. Even if we allow that we need safety inspectors (a question I often struggle with), there is almost certainly a declining marginal benefit to more safety inspectors. Furthermore the people that suffer from stringent overzealous safety requirements are not the large corporations that can afford the costs, but the small businesses that seek to compete.

“Human Rights Commission? Cut.”

Too easy.

“Full day kindergarten? Cut.”

Since when has this become a sacred cow?

“Cut…cut…cut”

Couldn’t agree more.

“Environmental regulations? Ha, cut!”

A lot of environmental regulations are well meaning but do far more harm than good. Just because you put the word “environmental” before a program doesn’t mean that it is beneficial to society.

“Now Tim, don’t you think that our tax cuts are more important than these luxuries?”

Luxuries like the Human Rights Commission? I certainly hope he does!

Third video:



This video is the most fundamentally libertarian of the three. The idea that government doesn’t have a plan for governance except for getting out of the way through deregulation and tax cuts is very libertarian. The “we will go on from there” is exactly what I hope will happen. Instead of government in its fatally conceited way trying to direct the economy, individuals who are much more able to know what they want and how to get it will direct their own lives.

I can only dream that this video represents an accurate portrayal of Tim Hudak’s policy ideas. If it does, well then all I can say is:

“Oughta boy Tim.”

The Onion deserves a Pulitzer

No knock raid: music video

An excellent song on the Drug War and the militarization of the police:

Michael Moore vs Milton Friedman

A young Michael Moore is taken to school. To bad he didn't learn the lesson in critical thinking:

Ask a libertarian

This should be an interesting video series.



And yes it is an interesting series. Check it out here.

Freedom in the 50 States 2011

The failure of the nanny state

I write a lot about how the government shouldn’t try and control the choices of individuals, but often a better argument to make is that the government actually can’t control the choices of individuals.

A recent study by Centre for Addiction and Mental Health shows that Ontarians are drinking more alcohol and smoking more marijuana. This is despite the multitude of regulations and laws that are meant to discourage people from drinking and smoking.

The report talks about different factors that could have led to increased consumption (although it misses the obvious factor that being intoxicated is fun). These are social factors that are beyond the control of the government. Even if you think that government should be able to control society, it is evident that it is beyond the leviathan’s power.

Oh Hi Mark

If you get why this is funny you are automatically awesome:

Canadian Taxpayer's Federation vs Public Sector Union

Ontario's puritanical liquor laws

A friend of mine traveling in the United States violated what would have been four liquor laws in 15 seconds if he had been in Ontario.

All he did was buy a $2 can of beer at a corner store then opened it and brought it into a restaurant.

Does that seem like an unreasonable thing to allow an adult to do?

Why does Ontario need such puritanical laws?

A flatter tax in Canada?

Jim Flaherty is musing that once the budget is balanced the Federal government could move to a flatter income tax. I find such public musings encouraging because it shows that Jim Flaherty, despite being the largest spending Finance Minister in Canadian history, still hasn’t given up on all of his fiscal conservative ideas.

A flatter tax would indeed be beneficial.

The currently tax system discourages productivity and limits the awards that individuals can receive by doing more work. Productivity and work are pretty universally acknowledged to be good things. And so any tax system that discourages it less would be a step in the right direction.

Note to Peter Mackay regarding leadership selection changes

Controversy has arisen at a Conservative Party convention for the first time in 6 years. Scott Reid, a Conservative MP, has put forward a proposal to change the current system for selecting a leader. This is a good time to do it, considering that the next leadership race is likely more than 5 years away.

The new system would make the leader selection more representative of the popular vote. Currently every riding is given 100 points and the points are distributed according to the vote outcome in that riding. Mr. Reid’s proposal is to have every riding with more than 100 members an extra point for every additional member up to 400 points. This is a good compromise. It maintains a certain regional balance while making the system more proportional.

Peter Mackay (properly pronounced as McKai) objects, and his main argument for objecting is that when the Conservative Party was formed by the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party they agreed on the current system. Peter Mackay seems to not remember that the Conservative Party adopted a constitution at a delegated convention in 2005 and as part of that constitution there is an amendment process that allows that constitution to be changed.

That is to say, the Conservative Party is its own political institution. It is not a coalition between CA and PCPC members. The membership of the Conservative Party should and do have the right to change the leadership process. The deal you signed way back in 2003 (not the one with David Orchard, the other one) does not tie the hands of the membership for all eternity.

If you think that Mr. Reid’s proposal is bad, fine. Argue it on its merits or lack of merits. Stop pretending that you are the voice of a now defunct political organization and stop acting like Mr. Reid’s proposal will destroy the unity of the Conservative Party.

Just wait until we get a majority! (Part 4)

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: Federal departments to seek additional $2 billion in spending. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for fiscal sanity.

Libertarianism is good for the poor

Often in political debates I get accused of being cold hearted and uncaring for the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. I care very deeply about individuals and the people who have to live together in society. The assumption that I don't care and the assumption that all libertarians don't care is based on three errors, at least according to this excellent article by Matt Zwolinski:

The first mistake is to believe the government when it claims that its policies are intended to help the poor. They almost never are. The great bulk of redistributive taxation and subsidization goes to benefit interest groups that are politically powerful, not economically vulnerable. Think Medicare, agricultural subsidies, and the mortgage interest deduction. And most existing regulation of business is, paradoxically enough, for the benefit of business itself. Regulation raises the cost of doing business, and so establishes a barrier to entry that benefits large existing firms at the expense of their smaller competitors. Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition. And politicians are all-too-willing to cater to the interests of the economically powerful. Libertarians, in contrast, believe in free markets, and truly free markets are the enemy of big business.

The second mistake is to confuse intentions with results. Even if government policies were intended to benefit the poor, we would have good reason to expect them to fail. Good intentions often produce unintended consequences. Increased safety regulations at airports lead more families to travel by the much more dangerous method of driving and so lead to a larger number of deaths. Laws that limit price increases on essential goods in the wake of natural disasters lead to fewer of those goods being brought to market and more people having to suffer without them. Government bailouts of failed firms encourage more failed firms. Perverse consequences like this sometimes surprise us, but they shouldn’t. Society is a complex and dynamic system. Politicians lack both the knowledge and the incentive to cope with it effectively. Libertarians propose to deal with it by decentralizing decision-making to individuals who are free to make choices based on their expert knowledge of their particular circumstances. Individuals and corporations should reap the benefits of good decisions, and pay the costs themselves when their choices turn out poorly.

The last mistake is to think that a concern with regulation and taxation is the sole defining feature of libertarianism. Libertarianism is about individual liberty, and while economic liberty is a part of that, it is not the whole. True, libertarians believe that greater economic freedom would benefit the poor, but many of their non-economic reforms would arguably have an even greater impact. Ending the war on drugs, for instance, would disproportionately benefit poor families who live in neighborhoods destroyed by the gang violence created by criminalization, or those who lack the financial and social resources to keep their children out of prison for crimes of mere possession. Reining in American military adventures overseas would not only save taxpayers money (fiscal conservatives should compare the cost of PBS subsides to the cost of a Trident missile), but would benefit especially the working-class families whose children bear the lion’s share of the human costs of war. Finally, libertarians are virtually unique in the political landscape in consistently calling for free trade not just in stuff, but in people. Concern for the poor should not stop at a nation’s borders. And while we might reasonably decide that foreign aid to the world’s poor is ineffective, one of the least painful (and most effective) things we can do to help them is stop preventing them from seeking work and a better life in our country.

Read more.

Brigette DePape the archetype of the child-activist

I have thus far largely declined to write about Brigette DePape’s actions during last week’s Throne Speech. But an article written by Ms. DePage in the Toronto Star has prompted me to comment on what is the archetype of the child-activist.

I am moved by the excitement and energy with which people from all walks of life across this country greeted my action in the Senate.

One person alone cannot accomplish much, but they must at least do what they can. So I held out my “Stop Harper” sign during the throne speech because I felt I had a responsibility to use my position to oppose a government whose values go against the majority of Canadians.

Within the first two paragraphs the arrogance and immaturity of this girl is clear. By saying immaturity I do not attack her age (I am not actually much older). I attack her lack of judgment and her lack of understanding of what the word “responsibility” truly means.

She had a responsibility. She had a responsibility as a legal adult to her employer and to those that had put trust in her. She agreed to the conditions of employment for a Senatorial Page and she broke these conditions with an air of self righteous knobbery. Adults do not behave in such a manner. Adults fulfill their obligations. If she no longer wanted to work for the Senate she should have resigned in the manner that, I am sure, her contract established.

The thousands of positive comments shared online, the printing of “Stop Harper” buttons and stickers and lawn signs, and the many calls for further action convinced me that this is not merely a country of people dissatisfied with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s vision for Canada.

It is a country of people burning with desire for change.

A few thousand comments and some stickers convinced her that the country is “burning with desire for change.” In what reality does she exist? The vast majority of Canadians skimmed pass the news article about her little protest while searching for articles about the Stanley Cup.
There are of course those who are burning for change (I would count myself among them) but in a democracy there will always be people burning for change. They are usually the people who lost in the last election. Little Ms. DePape should learn that in a democratic system you don’t always win.

I think those who reacted with excitement realize that politics should not be left to the politicians, and that democracy is not just about marking a ballot every few years. It is about ensuring, with daily engagement and resistance, that the vision we have for our society is reflected in the decision-making of our government.

I actually agree full hearted with this paragraph. In fact I have often said that voting is one of the least important and effective ways that you could engage in national debates. Political activism takes place outside of political parties as well as within. But that doesn’t excuse Ms. DePape’s behavior. Again, she violated the trust that was placed in her for the sake of a prank. That isn’t activism that is delinquency.

I’ve been inspired by Canadians taking action, and inspired too by my peers rising up in North Africa and the Middle East. I am honoured to have since received a message from young activists there, saying that we need not just an Arab spring but a “world spring,” using people power to combat whatever ills exists in each country.

I watched the video that she linked and I was unimpressed by it. Three Arab activists from Egypt (a large enough population for a scientific survey right?) spoke in support of Ms. DePape. For the most part they spoke about the meaning of the Arab Spring. One said that it was about fighting for rights, and another said it was about fighting for a higher standard of living. Canadians have both rights and a higher standard of living and so I don’t see how this video supports Ms. DePape’s claim that Canada needs an Arab Spring like uprising. Furthermore there is zero indication that the people that spoke in the video were cognitive of the issues in Canadian politics.

It is not enough for Ms. DePape to stomp on her responsibilities as an employee. It is not adequate, in her mind, that she must credit herself as being an inspiration to others. She must also degrade the bravery of those fighting for their rights by comparing their actions to her child like behaviour.

So why did I bother to write this? Why not allow her 15 minutes of fame to dwindle away without comment, as I originally planned to do?

I wrote this because after reading her article I realized that Ms. DePape alone is not the issue. She represents what seems to be a growing subset of political activists that appear to view activism itself as the ultimate virtue. This subset will put aside all their responsibilities as adults to take action for the sake of a vague agenda. Success is measured not by attainment of any policy outcomes but of “awareness.” That is, it doesn’t matter if you make the world a better place, all that matters is that people pay attention to you.

Such irrelevant attention seeking is not the activity of a mature adult. It is the behaviour of a child and these child-activists are degrading the meaning and importance of true activism.

The reason politicians don't cut budgets

The one state solution?

I am highly suspicious of Israel's ethnic centric foundations, but at the same time it doesn't take much to see that any Arab living in Israel is far better off then living in a so called Arab state.

Why a later Tax Freedom Day is a bad thing

The Globe & Mail published an article today arguing that it is a good thing that Tax Freedom Day is later this year than last year (as calculated by the Fraser Institute). The Globe’s argument is that the later date is due to a better economy, which is a good thing.

This conclusion is backed up by the Fraser Institute’s own press release:

The primary reason Tax Freedom Day falls on June 6 in 2011, two days later than 2010, is Canada’s improving economy. In 2010 and 2011 the economy rebounded following the recession and Canadians witnessed a later Tax Freedom Day in both years.

Although there were some tax increases for 2011:

But Veldhuis points out that several provinces increased taxes in 2011, which contributed to the later Tax Freedom Day. For example, Quebec increased its provincial sales tax, fuel and mining taxes, and health tax. British Columbia increased its Medical Services Plan premiums, while Manitoba and Prince Edward Island both increased tobacco taxes.

The bottom line is that we are paying more taxes this year because the economy is better, but it is a stretch to call this a good thing.

As individuals many of us are producing more wealth than we produced in 2010. That is indeed a good thing, but because we are producing more wealth the government is taking away a higher percentage of what we earn. Many Canadians are spending more time in servitude to the state because they are doing better.

Far from being a good thing this underlines the fundamental unfairness of the progressive tax system. The better you do the more you lose.

Picking a Supreme Court Judge because of ethnicity or gender is prejudice

Pressure is mounting on the Prime Minister to make his Supreme Court appointments at least partly on the basis of demographics. Various cultural groups such as first nations and francophone Ontario are claiming that they “deserve” a seat on the Supreme Court. At the same time certain people of a certain political ideology are saying that it is important to have a woman’s “perspective” fully represented. If Stephen Harper succumbs to this pressure it would be racist and sexist.

The argument that various demographic groups should be represented in Cabinet or Parliament has at least some plausibility. In so much as these demographics can be thought of as interest groups, it is important for them to ensure that they have political representation. If nothing else to at least ensure that the government doesn’t pass a law that discriminates against that demographic (if you want to put a positive spin on such identity politics).

This sort of thinking is completely inappropriate for the Supreme Court because the decision making process of the Supreme Court is completely different. Decisions are not made on electoral or political calculations; they are made based on the logic of the arguments as they apply to the constitution. Logic and reason is what guides a Supreme Court judge, even if logic and reason is not always perfectly applied.

Now consider the implication of saying that a woman’s “perspective” is needed on the Supreme Court. Is a woman’s logic different than a man’s? For that matter is a Cree’s logic different than a European’s? No, there is no such thing as polylogism. Logic is logic and it can be applied by anyone equally according to their ability regardless of income, ethnicity, gender, or the colour of their eyes. To think otherwise is fundamentally racist or sexist.

The goal then in selecting a Supreme Court Justice is to find someone who is familiar with the Constitution and other legal matters and has a record showing an ability to apply logic to complex situations. Such a person could come from any segment of society.

Reading this you may want to say that “perspective” doesn’t imply, as I have claimed, that they have a different logic. Instead what is meant is that different backgrounds may put different emphasis on factors that the Court may consider. That is to say different ethnicities and genders produce different values, and really it is different values that we want represented. This too is prejudice.

Putting aside the point that the only values that a judge should be considering are the values that can be found within the constitution, the ethnic background or gender of a person tells you nothing of that individual’s values.

Certainly a person’s environment can influence a person but an individual is not a slave to his/her environment, nor is she/he a slave to his/her chromosomes. It is up to the individual to decide his/her own believes and values. To assume that all black people, for example, have the same values fits the definition of prejudice quite neatly.

With this in mind, I sincerely hope that when Stephen Harper is going over the list of Supreme Court candidates, race and gender are the furthest things from his mind.

Cato on the report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy

Tax Freedom Day June 6th

If you work a Monday to Friday job then today is your last day working in servitude to the state (for this year anyway).

To celebrate the Fraser Institute released this video:

The Toronto Star is wrong on health care reform

In an editorial published yesterday the Toronto Star seems to be admitting that the current health care system is unsustainable. This is very encouraging. With the sustainability debate increasingly behind us we can finally get down to a real discussion on how to fix the problem. I commend the Toronto Star for putting forth its own ideas, even though these ideas are not actually helpful.

Chances are your doctor is stuck in the buggy-whip era in terms of record keeping. More than half still rely on paper records for primary care. Patients lose out because electronic records can improve care coordination, curb errors and bolster efficiency. Sustained federal funding in 21st-century technology is the key to moving forward.

On the surface this seems to be a reasonable and good idea. It appears obvious that the health care industry should follow every other service industry and modernize the way that it interacts with the patient/customer. The problem is that this proposal doesn’t really tackle that issue. It is merely another “let’s fund some new program and completely ignore incentives” idea. If that was all that was needed to modernize record keeping then the funding provided by the provinces would have already been sufficient.

There are a few reasons why provinces haven’t been completely successful in this area on their own. For one thing central planners in provincial capitals have run into the sort of organizational problems that such organizations always run into. I do not see why distant Ottawa would be any better at it. For another thing, rural areas do not have the same access to technology as urban areas. But most importantly there is a lack of competitive incentive for doctors to change their current system.

Ask yourself why even conservative institutions such as banks have been so adept at adapting electronic record keeping and the answer is clear. Banks face a competitive pressure to modernize or be left behind. Doctors and hospitals are insolated from this kind of pressure. Until incentives change adoption of electronic record keeping will lag.

Then there’s drugs. Ottawa and the provinces agreed in 2004 to develop a national strategy to create a common list of approved drugs, to study options for catastrophic coverage and to contain costs by pooling their purchasing power. But the initiative stalled. We’re left with patchwork provincial plans. Who cares? People who can’t afford to fill a prescription, or who have had to skip a dose, for starters.

I don’t understand the assumption that a national catastrophic coverage plan would somehow offer better coverage than provincial plans. You can call it a patchwork if you like but provincial governments are much better positioned to understand local needs. Furthermore a national system will curtail policy experimentation and prevent improvement. That sort of interference is at the heart of our current health care dilemma. Provinces can’t take real action because the federal government is preventing them from doing so.

Also I doubt that the so called efficiencies of scale will outweigh the inefficiencies that will arise from having a central system. This idea that government can buy in bulk and distribute to consumers has been tested, and there aren’t many if any notable successes.

Finally, smarter management can bring important dividends. The council approvingly cited a call by the premiers to pool-purchase not only drugs but also supplies and equipment. It said pharmacists can play a bigger role in containing costs. And that some people waiting for procedures such as MRI scans, for example, don’t need them. With innovative management, health dollars go further.

This brings me back to the issue of incentives, for both the providers and consumers of health care. People may over consume MRI scans (I don’t know if they do or not) but they are given no incentive not too. Similarly the managers of the health care system aren’t given strong enough incentives to innovate and improve. This is a characteristic of a government controlled system. Experimentation with different models has never come close to giving a public system the same strong incentives of a market system.

You want smarter management? Government edicts won’t do it; you need to allow market forces to work.

Again I applaud the Toronto Star for being part of the debate, but really what they are proposing is more of the same. If we want a sustainable health care system we need to come up with real reforms and allow greater service through the market.

Federal government needs to be more active in deficit fight

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page is saying that the federal government’s estimate of the size of the deficit over the next five years is off by $35 billion. He comes to this conclusion by making more conservative projections on the economy and operating budget. We will only know which projection is closer 5 years from now, but Mr. Page’s report does underline a fundamental problem with the government’s deficit fighting strategy. The government needs to be more active and less passive about ending the deficit.

The current government strategy is to count on a recovered economy to boast revenue. There are some planned cuts but no one is claiming that these cuts are nearly enough to do away with the deficit. So the entire plan hinges on the hope that the economy will improve.

But what if it doesn’t improve or what if it doesn’t improve enough?

What if Mr. Page is right and the economic recovery isn’t as strong as the Finance Ministry and some private sector economists believe? In such a case we will still be in deficit in five years and we will be racking up debt that will burden both the economy and government finances.

History has shown that governments only balance budgets if they take a more active root and make cuts. The government should learn this lesson and accept Mr. Page’s report as a cautionary note. More action is needed to bring Canada back into surplus.

USA should get out of NATO

NATO has out served its usefulness.

Would Changebook make us more free?

Having now read the PC Ontario Party’s platform, Changebook, I would have to agree with those critics that say that it doesn’t represent a huge departure from the current government. I would say that Changebook offers more actual change than John Tory did, but that is a pretty low standard. Still in the areas where the PC Party is offering a different direction I thought that I would look and see if Changebook would lead Ontario to greater or less freedom.

For that purpose I have created two lists. The first list itemizes the policies that would allow greater freedom to Ontarians. The second list will itemize policies that would make Ontarians less free. Freedom for the purpose of this post will be defined as the individual having greater control over his/her own choices. I have not included the more vague statements or policies that I do not see any real net gain or lost to freedom (although these policies may be good or bad in of themselves).

More Freedom

• 5% tax cut on first $70 000


• Reducing regulatory burden on businesses by 30%


• Reduce business tax by 10%


• Secret ballots for union certification


• "paycheque protection” to prevent unions from forcing members to pay for causes that the individual member does not support


• More municipal autonomy

Less Freedom

• Buy Ontario Food policy, government agencies such as schools and public hospitals will only buy cafeteria food from Ontario producers


• More net government spending


• Income splitting


• Registry of houses that were used for grow ops


• Crack down on tobacco smuggling


• Forced labour for provincial prisoners

If you question why I called some policies more/less free, or why I didn’t include a certain policy, please feel free to comment.

Just wait until we get a majority! (Part 3)

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 wavering on telecom restrictions. We need a stable majority government so that we can start standing up for free trade.