CityThinkToronto

RATM – continued

2010-01-26T14:09:00.001-08:00

Or maybe I should just get on with my life and get a job that I can do to pay bills and get some more enjoyment out of life while working on small local political projects on the side and stop worrying about telling everyone my ideas about ‘the truth?’ I’ve seen a job posting in London that excites me – as a Client Relations type at a small web development firm that has a strong Corporate Social Responsibility angle. This would enable me to use my various communications and relationship building skills while also allowing me to work to build a better community here in London.

A job outside politics perhaps? Please. ☺

Rage Against the Machine

2010-01-26T13:50:00.000-08:00

If you read previous posts, and better yet, if you follow me on Facebook, you’ll know that I suffer from a never-ending internal conflict of ideas. One reason I could never run for offices is that I am a flip-flopper. I do not do so easily though and one of my resentments of politicians comes from the fact that so many of them seem to be stuck in one mindset. If you’ve decided exactly where you stand – either far right or far left, I think there’s something highly flawed with your thinking.

I’m a political atheist – true social scientists know that theories can never be tested in a lab and therefore theory can’t be proven prior to implementation. Convictions are for criminals and maybe those politicians who have them are criminals.

I do tend to side with the little guy, the individual against the state but those freedoms must also have a natural limit to protect the state as a whole. To sum up my feelings, if you build walls around your community to keep out the poor, you limit your own freedoms and you can never really build walls high enough to keep everyone out anyone. It is the same paradox that we see in International Security.

However, I have my reservations due to constant thought and reflection. I think one way is right but as a believer in democracy I also feel that people have the right to disagree with me. I suppose I truly hope that through education and enlightenment people can come to the understanding that the benevolent state is the desirable state. I’ve rarely met truly deep thinkers on the right. Most often those I’ve met on the right aren’t very deep thinkers at all and bare some resentment of other people for some reason or another.

However, I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t say I didn’t hold some resentment myself. I resent people who place things and money above experience and the prosperity of others. I loathe hoarders of wealth. Sorry. I just do.

But I also feel that it’s true that wealth motivates people to a large degree. Whether that’s a result of our culture, advertising, society’s expectations, religious tradition, etc., is a deeper question. The fact is, in our Western culture people are generally motivated by self-interest rather than altruism. Perhaps that’s changing but I see as many young people who don’t seem to get it as I do old, at least on a sliding scale based on the general truism that people seem to become more conservative as they get older. Maybe that just goes with the cynicism of age?

Recently I seem to have gone back to the feelings and thoughts I had in my 20’s when I dropped out of University. I’m raging. I’m fighting. I’m reading Noam Chomsky and I’m not sure what lies ahead and whether I want to be part of the system that continues to ignore so many of our social ills. I know one thing for sure: I am angered by those who seem to not care about those less able to care for themselves. I don’t see eye-to-eye with those that believe less government or lower taxes is necessarily better. Perhaps that’s a result of some self-doubt that has crept into my thinking of late due to months of single-hood and unemployment.

Having worked in politics I also know that politics is the art of the possible. In our democratic society, government works on a consensus model. In Canada we have consensus on a seesaw whereas in Germany, Israel, Italy and so many other nations it works on an ongoing consensus model. Big business in North America though often seems unwilling to give up the reigns of power. I think that’s what so enrages conservatives about local government, which often is more in-touch with the day-to-day desires of citizens. The lack of party structure at City Halls means that Councillors are a bit more beholden to the desires of the people, rather than big lobby.

This is a bit of a rambling post I admit. I felt it necessary to put down some thoughts though in light of a conversation I’ve had on Twitter with a blogger who seems to have some similar leanings and thoughts – if less anger.

I guess what intrigues me most is that so many political scientists are ignored. I rarely met a hard-right professor at University and I attended one of the most right wing Universities in Canada. Economic professors are another question generally. However, that may simply be a result of their constant use of the phrase “all things being equal” which excludes any factor that doesn’t fit within a model. Political Science is somewhat more encompassing than economics since it factors in those things that are rarely equal – like people who can’t pay the ‘equilibrium’ price.

I am fairly academic it seems though my University marks, at least in the early years, probably would not reflect that. I often wonder though if that wasn’t a result of both my immaturity in the early years or the fact that I have too many of my own opinions or that I’m simply poor at writing essays and exams to a professors expectations. I imagine I’d do much better if I went back to University now simply due to a better understanding of myself, the system and my own abilities and interests. And maybe that’s where my future lies – with more big fat loans and debts and an uncertain future.

I guess what this blog post is about is my ongoing search for a sense of belonging, meaning and purpose. I’m Raging Against the Machine right now. I’ve seen too many good ideas passed up by political posturing. I’ve met too many people who don’t fit into the box that our society needs people to fit into. I’ve seen suffering. I’ve also seen too many stupid comments by people borne of ignorance, fear and hatred. I’ve lived in a time where the gap between rich and poor has grown to a size not seen since the Gilded Age of robber barons and corporate collusion.

Our country is at war and has been 8 years – my entire 30’s to date. We see lots of peace and prosperity around the world but we’ve also witnessed natural disasters that are being increasingly caused by global warming and/or enhanced in severity due to the poverty endured by those who are hit.

How do I make a difference? What is my purpose? Why am I here?

Tweeting Your Campaign

2010-01-13T01:58:00.000-08:00

I've had a few thoughts as we get into Municipal silly season. David Plouffe’s book about Obama’s campaign has recently hit the shelves (I must get it as soon as possible as any campaign addict must.) President Obama’s campaign famously used social media, e-mails and text messages to motivate volunteers and ultimately to win the Presidency. However, from most of the news I recall seeing right after the 2008 Presidential election, one might not want to believe all the hype.

It’s certain that the Obama campaign used social media to energize volunteers and to coordinate the message. However polls appear to reveal when it came to Election Day many of the same voters came out as in previous elections. There was no mass movement of youth to the polls. Swing voters, tired of 8 years of Republican complacency, a drawn-out War on Terror and the lies that motivated it, apathy about John McCain and rejection of Sarah Palin by mainstream America are what in the end, gave Obama the victory. Many have said that a turnip could have won the election as the Democratic Candidate.

However, this is not to dismiss the role of social media in spreading the message of hope that accompanied President Obama’s campaign. Youth were clearly motivated to knock on doors. A cynical American public, disenfranchised from a government whose approval ratings are awful, often refuse to listen to those with the hope of youth in their eyes. However Obama may have over-reached in many of his concrete proposals for reform, of health care, of the tax-code, of the military’s don’t ask don’t tell policy, of the kind of capitalism that has created the largest economic divide since the Gilded Age, the campaign certainly used new media to get their message out.

Texts and e-mails sent from the campaign, many of which I received having signed up for them, constantly encouraged young Americans to take their country back. But there was also an important distinction that candidates and their campaign managers are wise to regard.

A tweet is a 140-character message broadcast to those that are following you. The Tweeting public, while large and growing, is clearly not the majority of people, nor the majority of motivated voters. That’s important to remember. It’s also important to note that most of the tweets from the Obama campaign, as well as the e-mails, led the recipient to a website with concrete policy positions spelled out in a fair degree of detail.

Looking at Toronto’s early municipal election campaign we can note a couple of divergent uses. While it’s early on, there are a number of early favoured candidates. Each have their own style and it’s interesting to note the differences.

Rocco Rossi appears to get it. George Smitherman is taking some time to eek out his positions but is certainly keeping us in the loop as to his daily activities. That’s good too. I feel for Sarah Thomson, who so far is the sole female candidate to have declared to run for Mayor. However, I have some criticism of her early tweeting. I’d include Stephen Feek but he appears unprepared; earlier this week he posted a link to his Twitter account where he announced that his campaign would start on February 1st. In Tweetspeak; Fail. Not a FTW (For the Win) move for someone with no name recognition. Candidates should be prepared to come out of the gate running the minute they announce they are running for Mayor, particularly those candidates that will not get mainstream coverage easily.

Giorgio Mammoliti has gotten some good press so far but that comes easily to a sitting City Councillor with a record of having lots to say, good or bad. His online profile is non-existent.

There are likely to be others. Other would-be candidates are either continuing a well-run and deep understanding of Twitter and Facebook – Adam Giambrone comes to mind here as a Councillor that has been using both mediums to his advantage for some time. I’d love to go on but to date that’s the limit of candidates using Twitter.

Speculation has it that Joe Pantalone and perhaps Shelley Carroll. Carroll is a sporadic Twitter user at best and while I love her as a person, she faces a tough challenge as Mayor Miller’s Budget Chief.

We have lots of talk so far about who will run and who won’t and only 11 declared candidates. That number will surely swell to 30-odd by September.

In such a wide-open race, which the media almost always narrows down to 2 front-runners, plus 3 second-tier candidates and 30-odd also-rans, the use of social media can be a powerful tool. But it also has its downfalls and shortcomings.

First, the 140-character message is much too short for anything other than bluster and rhetoric. If voters, even savvy online followers can’t dig deeper, the use of social media, in my opinion, can turn voters and potential advocates (Re-Tweeters) off.

Let’s first take the example of Sarah Thomson. Something tells me I may be discussing her campaign to a fairly high degree over the next few months. So let’s get one thing out of the way. I support more female representation in politics. However, just as no ‘gay’ candidate should be considered only on that basis, a woman candidate ought not to be considered simply because she is a female candidate. I think that’s playing a gender card that’s undeserved.

Today, one of her Tweets infuriated me to a degree. It said: “Reading city budget reports, blood boiling over the waste and audacity of our bureaucrats.” For a number of reasons I take issue with this Tweet.

First, there was no link to anything beyond that simple message. There was no link to the Budget report she was reading (they’re all available online.) Without any kind of context, the reader is supposed to just take at face value that there are reasons to be angry, that bureaucrats are audacious and waste taxpayer money. That’s easy enough to believe but is it true? No one likes taxes and everyone hates government waste and many assume that most tax dollars are wasted because there have been stories in the past about cases of waste. However, there have also been studies that show the City of Toronto is actually very efficiently run and simply faces a structural deficit.

So, this message is in essence an attempt to say – I’m angry as hell and I’m not going to take it any more. Why we’re supposed to be angry is not important, we just should be. Had there been some explanation of why Mrs. Thomson is angry, the rational reader might say, yes, you’ve uncovered some waste and audacity and I damn well agree with you. Instead, we’re left with populist rhetoric.

Mrs. Thomson doesn’t yet have a website – outside of her Woman’s Post blog (I’ll get to that in a minute) so there is no deeper explanation available. Is it waste because of unnecessary spending? Overstaffing? Inappropriate programming? Why? What is the waste? Is this a provincially mandated program or is it a discretionary program (the vast majority of City programs are provincially mandated.) If I don’t understand the underlying reasons why Ms. Thomson believes its waste or what in fact she believes at all. Where do you want to take our City? (I say our because other than the last 4 months, Toronto has been my home since 1998.)

I have not decided yet whom I will vote for but this kind of rhetoric turns me off. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Rob Ford constantly complains about City waste but rarely identifies any of it at Budget time.

If I look at Rocco Rossi’s use of Twitter and Facebook, I at least get a sense of where he’s heading. Rocco includes links to larger articles, asks readers to give feedback on his positions and has already put forward some concrete proposals.

Smitherman hasn’t said much of a concrete nature but I also know that he worked for Barbara Hall when she was Mayor of Toronto. I know he was frustrated during last year’s Municipal workers strike and organized litter clean-up events. He’s held office in Dalton McGuinty’s government and yes, he must dig out from under the eHealth scandal and shed the image of ‘Furious George.’ I’ve met George and he’s a nice guy. But he also gets stuff done and is the kind of personality needed for a Mayoral office in Toronto.

Similarly, Adam Giambrone is using Twitter and Facebook very well. We’ve always known where he is/was and he constantly posts about policy issues. While it tends to be light, his use of both mediums has always been democratic and open – lots of debate and even insults which are rarely removed. If you’re asking for openness and transparency, Adam pretty much puts it out there with his online presence.

I said I’d get back to Thomson’s use of her Woman’s Post page. My concern is that this corporate site is financially supported by Woman’s Post that Thomson (of that Thompson, the rich family) owns. As such, its use to promote her campaign amounts to a contravention of City Council’s ban on corporate donations to candidates. I believe this is a pretty clear, cut-and-dry case. There’s no mistaking it really – she has already suggested that people visit her site from her ThomsonforMayor Twitter account.

To be clear, I’d have the same issue if John Tory were running and using his radio talk show to promote his campaign. It’s wrong.

As a media outlet, I also worry that it serves as a sort of clearinghouse for information about her campaign. Another Twitter user has been promoting Thompson’s campaign during office hours. While the Account holder states she is independent, her website/office/media company is located in the offices of Woman’s Post. All of this gives one the feeling that corporate entities are having an influence on Mrs. Thompson’s campaign.

Epilogue

Since I wrote the above piece I’ve had a few thoughts and there have been a few developments. I also had an extended argument – I won’t call it debate or discussion since it wasn’t really – on Twitter.

First, the argument; I made the mistake of Tweeting that having met George Smitherman and finding him very pleasant, I didn’t understand the furious moniker but ‘isn’t it appropriate to be angry with bureaucrats.’ Perhaps I missed a story along the way but I think the Furious George is a result of great political messaging and branding by the Ontario Tories and that’s unfortunate – both for George and for the public debate about Toronto’s future. Rather than discussing the merits of his potential Mayoralty (and so far, there’s been scant detail from George) people are discussing a personality trait. We’re told its Mr. Happy versus Mr. Angry (Rossi.)

The argument consisted of the person I was arguing with setting up straw dogs. Rage isn’t appropriate – I never actually said anything about rage. I said he was a nice guy. I asked whether anger wasn’t appropriate. Some Torontonians are quite angry about how the City is being run. And remember I said bureaucrats. The person then introduced working with others. Bureaucrats must take direction from politicians – that’s fundamental to democracy. So while I agree that it’s important to be civil, anger can appropriately be expressed at bureaucrats, particularly when an elderly Toronto Community Housing resident is evicted then dies of an infection, for instance.

When people normally cite that it’s important to work with others and build consensus, they are generally referring to relations with other politicians. Having worked at City Hall and having seen many City Councillors in various situations, there are some instances that would make any rational person angry – stupid things said, mischaracterizations, abuse of City Staff, suggestions of impossible policy etc. I’m thinking of Francis Nunziata as an example. Politics creates winners and losers and it is naïve to suggest that a non-partisan approach can always be successful. The US Health Care debacle is an example. Sometimes you have to play hardball just to get a middle-of-the-road compromise achieved.

The Mega-City has created such a dysfunctional City that often compromise on friendly terms is simply unachievable. Policies favouring a dense urban core that allows for sustainable active transportation for instance, including bike lanes is heresy for some suburban Councillors whose residents are largely car dependent. Tax policies favouring efficient use of properties over ones that favour location will enrage some citizens and as a result, their representatives. That’s politics. By definition it is the struggle for power and hence, it involves a lot of passion.

The Straw Dog here was that the Mega-City should be separated. That’s not something I’d necessarily argue for but it comes with intrinsic political problems, just as Canadian federalism does with huge differences in interest between the Oil Patch and downtown Toronto. You must therefore accept that there will be some dysfunction on Council. I’d suggest that those who do not understand this either tour the Mega-City or spend a day speaking with people from different parts of the City. I asked the arguer what experience he had at City Hall – not as a put-down (which he took it to be) but to assess his level of understanding of the level and cause of the dysfunction.

For the record, City Hall has a Code of Conduct for the Mayor and Members of City Council. Staff must be treated professionally and cannot be threatened with job loss. However, there is no shortage (I believe the number was 19) of former high-ranking bureaucrats who have been fired or driven out due to philosophical differences with Mayor Miller. It is not appropriate to ‘rage’ but the expression of anger is totally appropriate in some circumstances.

He insulted me – saying that any ‘management trainee’ knows this. I said it was City Hall and not The Gap. I guess I touched a sensitive nerve there as he took that personally but my point was simply that we are dealing in some cases with lives, in all cases with Taxpayer money (which is limited) and not simply how a shirt has been folded. I don’t know the individual or where he works but insulting him was not my intention. You cannot tell me that people don’t get ‘called on the carpet’ at the highest level of a multi-billion dollar private sector corporation.

Enough with that argument.

Now. Back to Twitter. A new group has formed called @voteTO based on the discussions on Twitter. A question was posed as to whether or not such a group can change an election. I do not believe so. I posted on Facebook that it takes offline political action to reach the vast majority of people not on Twitter and that those people on Social Media generally share a point of view. In the end, people will vote based on their beliefs as to how the City of Toronto should be run. Given the way my argument unfolded above, I further doubt that this group will have much success, unless it gets actively involved in campaigns and in spreading its messages to the broader community. But I love being proven wrong.

There seems to me to be a growing number of people don't believe that people are fully entitled to their own views and opinions about how a City or government should be run. I find it generally to be left-minded people that are in this group though those on the extreme right can be equally dismissive. However, this group is young, urban, hip and socially conscious. They may very well be right. However, unless they actually get out and knock on doors, employ traditional campaign methods, they are unlikely to achieve widespread success - but that's just my opinion (validated by former Trudeau Staffer Patrick Gossage.)

Change is constant

2010-01-07T15:14:00.000-08:00

So....Last time I posted (It's Alive) I believed I was heading back to Toronto to work for Mayoral Candidate Glen Murray. How a few months can change things.

I'm now most likely heading back to Toronto to work for Toronto Centre Liberal Candidate Glen Murray. Glen's a personal friend and mentor and also a big fan of mine (they're out there here and there, lol.) I'm very excited for the opportunity. Most likely there will be a job to follow at Queen's Park but of course that's also reliant on the voters in Toronto Centre electing Glen to the office of MPP. I'm confident that will be the case but politics is a crazy business. The NDP appointed candidate is a worthy opponent and a long-time Street-nurse and homeless advocate. That said, Glen's record of creating affordable housing in Winnipeg should reduce some of that impact.

In the meantime, I continue to blog, to enjoy my time with my mother and father as mom undergoes treatment for Colon Cancer, including surgery that is scheduled for January 19th. We're all praying for her and I thank everyone for their encouragement and friendship during this trying time.

As I prepare to go back to work in politics a number of thoughts occur to me. First, I'm less convinced of any policy position than ever before. I've never been one to cling to dogma, other than a belief that reason should come before passion but that one should have a passion for reason - hence why I've always thought of myself as a Trudeau Liberal. I believe in a strong public sector and a social safety net. However I also know that small business creates the bulk of jobs in our economy. Lastly, I know full well that work in politics is not about my views but about the views of those I work for.

I also prepare to return with a better understanding of the challenges that people in our society face. When I had lots of money, when I was married to a wealthy family, I became less in-touch with the part of me that believes in giving people a hand up in hard times. Sometimes that also means giving a hand-out. It was easy to not consider those who had less when I had everything. Now that I have to build everything back up from scratch and get out of serious debt, I hope to maintain a perspective that not everyone has it as easy as I do. If I can be unemployed for 10 months, then logically there are many, many people in our society who face difficulty finding meaningful work.

Having lost many of my possessions (or at least living with them in boxes) I also know that I need much less to be happy and that I must find happiness in life, rather than in things. And I also know that I have to be better with my money and get out of debt as quickly as possible. Clothes don't make the man, they just make him look better!

That's all for now. I look forward to getting back into the swing of things. I look forward to having a drive to get up earlier and go to work rather than sleeping far too late and staying up far too late. I look forward to getting together with so many of the people I've met online over the last few months, to getting off the couch more often than I did before moving back and basically, to rebuilding a life of excitement, culture, friends and family.

OK. That's it for now. Peace out!

It's Alive!!!

2009-10-14T19:41:00.000-07:00

Okay.

So this blog died for a bit while I've been living in London, my hometown. I wrote a few blog posts there which you might want to check out to see my thoughts about London's Planning and Works Departments.

Now it appears that I will be moving back to Toronto to work on the Mayoral Campaign of Glen R Murray, should he decide to run. Glen's a fantastic and dynamic individual who I got to know during my work with Skymeter Corporation. He is a big believer in getting the consent of those who are active in the community as he sees community partnerships as a big part of making a successful City. Glen's the former Mayor of Winnipeg and current CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute, a do-tank that works on Urban Issues in Canada and in developing nations.

Glen and I have hit it off quite well. He has seen me as someone who requires a big challenge and if you read previous blogs you may see what he has seen (without having read my blog which at times gets way too introspective.)

I'm happy to say that I have recovered from my momentary loss of self. I have been doing a ton of reading and self-improvement work - you can also check my 3rd blog (actually 4th) www.jppersonalwellness.blogspot.com .

Glen has very interesting ideas about what Toronto needs in order to grow out of the financial mess it finds itself in. He does not have any illusions about the difficult job that lays ahead of him and will challenge Torontonians to think bigger about their place in a growing Global City that must continue to attract and enable the Creative Class in order to thrive at the heart of Canada's economic success.

I am back. With a whole new lease on life, a sense of purpose that comes from within, not based on any outside expectations and a true sense of happiness!

NAMASTE!!!

Dead

2009-09-09T21:02:00.000-07:00

This blog is now dead. Follow me at citythinkLondon if you are interested in similar City-focused issues but in a slightly more suburban context.

A crisis or an awakening?

2009-07-14T22:19:00.000-07:00

So...most (all 3) of my followers, lol, will have seen me go through some interesting things of late. I'm not sure what it all means at the moment and I'm not exactly sure what is on the other end of it. I am, at a bit of a loss at the moment as to where my life is headed and what it all means, what I should be doing with my life and whether or not I'm truly happy with my life.

Let's back up. Waaaay back. Waaaay back. 15 years ago, (holy crap) in 1992/3, I started a 5-year stint at CHRW, Radio Western. I started volunteering around the station, as most new volunteers do but quickly found myself thrown into a show on Friday mornings from 7am to 10am. 3 Hours of morning drive-time and I had a pretty cool co-host for a while. The show was called the Break-a-Dawn show, owing to both the early start and to the then fairly recently released song by De La Soul, which became the theme.

I quickly grabbed the reigns from the original host and as I recall, within a few months the show was mine as he left for summer vacation. Can't even remember his name, damn. I wasn't totally on my own, new hosts would come in, trainees and it became a bit of an interesting rotating lineup of cohosts, some of whom would go on to host their own shows. James Rocci was Program Director under long-time Station Director Mario Circelli (still one of my best friends and mentors.) Eventually, I was given a prized Wednesday afternoon 3-6 slot and that started Mullethead's Revenge!

For almost 3 years, Sean Mayville and I would have a blast, play countless 2 and 3 minute songs, rarely interrupting sets to give out the names of what we'd played. I am pretty sure we developed a pretty loyal following of listeners and were able to present a couple of shows along the way - Trigger Happy/Lagwagon being a pretty cool one. We did some pretty wicked interviews too; New Bomb Turks, Judah Bauer from Jon Spencer Blues Explosion (and 20 Miles), Face to Face, Ten Foot Pole and countless Canadian bands among others. Unfortunately because, I suppose I was a good interviewer and host, we would get some of the major label bands - I still remember making fun of Zuckerbaby! lol

It all culiminated with Warped Tour '98. CHRW was able to co-present the show or at least have a presence under the lame local Modern Rock station that had recently discovered Pop-punk (Blink 182 was in the line-up.) I was able to finagle a Press pass for me and a photographer's pass for my then fiance, now ex-wife Gillian who was just learning to take good photo's with a new SLR. I still have the best photos on my wall - Mike Ness of Social D, Fletcher from Pennywise, Joey Cape of Lagwagon, Dicky Barrett of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones...awesome black and whites.

At any rate and not to digress to far, it was my goal to enter the Music Industry using the connections I had developed at CHRW as Music and Promotions Director. Unfortunately it quickly became apparent that the Music industry was going through some pretty major changes and my lack of retail experience definitely didn't help my chances.

I took my time with University. I took 2 years off in the middle, just to live and experience life away from home, even if it was in my own hometown. Getting out of the house was a big step for me but also meant that I would be taking time off as I had no money (a common theme it appears.) I had a blast in those two years, prior to returning and completing my degree and taking the job at CHRW. I cooked in restaurants in the tri-bar area, for some reason never able to get a serving gig. I was a good cook though and restaurant managers are loathe to give up good cooks to the floor. Plus I had attitude (another common them.)

So...once I got the gig at RW, I quit the cooking gig and lived with Gillian who'd eventually become my fiance during our last year in London in '98. Prior to that though, I had lived a pretty meek existence. I have never been a saver, always a spender, something I come to quite naturally from my own family history. Gillian was from a wealthy family though and so..things got much better for me financially. I was also sucked-in. My ex Father-in-law was a highly successful Lawyer, negotiating Mining deals in Venezuela among other things. The hair-dying stopped, I studied hard, got better grades and decided it was time (at 26) to grow up! Oh what a mistake. I don't regret it, other than to say that I wonder if Gillian and I had taken more time whether we'd still be together or whether we would have avoided the marriage thing altogether. Bygones.

So we moved to Toronto in the fall of 98. In fact, we moved to Toronto the weekend before we got married. That was a pretty crazy summer but Jill was never one to wait for what she wanted. We had been sweethearts in High School, broken up, gone out during University, broken up again and then reunited when she moved back from McGill. It seemed the logical thing when getting back together to go ahead and get married. So on New Year's Eve, 1998, Gillian said "Let's get married this year." An hour later, in the square behind Centennial Hall, I got down on one knee and asked her. There was no ring because we didn't really feel we needed one. I hadn't asked her father for permission as I was a punk and didn't think I needed to. Nowadays I wonder about all these things. I do so without regret but I still wonder if things could have been different.

Once in Toronto, I worked at Sam The Record Man on Yonge Street until I got some work at Canuck Creations doing camera-work for classic animation line tests. It was very cool and I worked with friends who I'd met through their band, the Mercurymen. I screwed some stuff up along the way though and without going into details (I was working on computers though, hint, hint) I got into a bit of an embarrassing situation that I do regret to this day. I was immature, little town boy in the big City and things just started to get away from me. I wasn't a great husband.

I then got a gig at Toronto City Hall with a City Councillor through my friend Neil who remains a very good friend and someone I can always count on for support and friendship. Neil is salt-of-the-earth. I did very well at City Hall, finally finding a challenging job that rewarded me well and allowed me to grow as a political scientist and as an employable individual, or so I thought. I lasted 7 years in City politics before the attitudes of the public finally pushed me out. There really are far too many whiney Nimby's in this City and not enough who stand-up for the poor and/or tenants and for those who someday wish to own property.

After that and a struggle to find work, I eventually landed at Skymeter Corporation where I also enjoyed some pretty major growth, gaining new skills and learning under several mentors, Bern Grush and JD Hassan chief among those. I was sent all over North America to sell the concept of GPS-tolling as developed by Skymeter. The job was incredible, I met amazing and brilliant people, made new contacts and friends and learned a great deal about transportation. Unfortunately, in August 2008, at my own advice, I was laid-off due to slow market development and lack of funding for Skymeter's work elsewhere.

Since then I've bounced around and been in discussions with 3 different employers that just recently came crashing to a halt. I've pursued all 3, none have worked. I was offered a position in Maryland leading Sales and Marketing for another new technology firm but was precluded from taking the position by the arduous US Visa system. The third potential employer just went weird and I'm still lost as to why.

After months of talking, the CEO asked me "Why are you alive? What are you here to do?" This made it pretty clear that he didn't feel, after 3 separate invitations to apply/join his organization, that I was a good fit...or something? The disturbing part is that I would be very happy doing the work that we had discussed as it involved Skymeter - which matched my skills with my passions. Fuckin' 'Ell!

So...left with that...I said Fuck it and started to look for other work but at the same time, his question stung me. What am I here to do? Am I really happy? For a week and a half I have struggled with this question. I wonder if its too esoteric. I wonder if I shouldn't just ignore it and continue to search for a paying gig that will, well, pay the bills regardless of my happiness with the job. I can't afford this either - I'm about 2 weeks from personal bankruptcy and I'm living on borrowed time and borrowed money. So much that my personal debt is now higher than it's ever been - around 30 Grand in total.

So...I am lost. That's why I bleached my head again I think. I wanted to just give up for a week on the job hunt. I came home to London to sort things out. I'm behind an eight ball though, damned if I don't get a job and not sure how I'll ever move my stuff anywhere if I can't even pay my rent.

The question I now face is....Do I pursue gigs that my skills apply to and that can earn me some coin while I get sorted. Is it Toronto or should I move to London to be closer to family and perhaps to get back into some of the activities that made me happy and healthy in the past? Or do I just plug away? On a personal note, I am incredibly lonely in Toronto. I often cry. I love Toronto but wonder if like many relationships, it's just not meant to be? I also met a fabulous woman recently and was ready to dive head first into love. I was totally smitten. Then she called it off.

So now...what do I do? Do I keep the bleached head, which seems to make me very happy. Do I return to Toronto, shave the head, put my suit on and charge downtown looking for work. Do I go after any work? Do I hold-out for 'the right job' in the face of personal bankruptcy? I know only I can answer these questions but I really have no clue. Am I a regular joe who has over-achieved or a brilliant person who has under-achieved? Where do I find a partner? lol

I need help, advice, a mentor or 16 perhaps. Comments more than welcome! More on this whole process to follow but this is already a lengthy post and I'm fading fast.

City of Toronto Strike Strategy

2009-07-07T03:51:00.000-07:00

Wait it out. In due time, enough money will be saved to pay for the benefits.

It may sound cynical but there really is no other logical explanation for what is happening in Toronto with the municipal workers' strike. Don't think for a minute that Mayor David Miller is standing on principle against a benefit that has become the target of widespread public derision. While those on the left would quickly argue that this is a symbol of 'a race to the bottom', I'd argue the City's position reflects a new global paradigm that has caught North American Unions stuck in their own concrete boots.

There really is no logical explanation for a 3-week strike against a left-wing led City Hall or for the City to take such a principled, centrist stand against the continuance of a policy that enables workers to collect up to 130 sick days for cash out upon retirement, the equivalent of a half-year's salary. Mayor David Miller is a Union boy. The Mayor has repeatedly said outrageous things like 'open shops kill workers.' So there is no real concerted effort to break the Union's will on this issue but merely a game being played to portray a Mayor hell-bent on doing the right, or 'right' thing, damned be the political consequence!

The City imposed a 4 percent tax increase on Toronto homeowners this year, around 2 percent higher than last year's rate of inflation and one percent higher than the Mayor's promise of 3 percent increases. This is at a time when the City is getting some long overdue uploading from the Province of Ontario for social programs and ancillary Health Care costs such as land ambulance services. When one adds the cost of an increased Welfare caseload due to the economic downturn, on top of the other impacts (less growth in assessments, less building permits) of a slowdown, the City must be hurting. Why is City Hall keeping so quiet in the face of what appears to be damaging negative reaction to this strike?

What is Mayor Miller hiding? An old colleague from the City of Toronto and I had a discussion earlier this year that there was something missing from the Budget puzzle this last year. The numbers simply didn't make sense to this former top bureaucrat. Given the upcoming cost, she speculated that we might be headed for high single-digit property tax increases in 2010, the year of the next election. Imagine a double-digit increase?

Another former colleague is baffled. The blood is in the water and the sharks are circling. To their credit, the Mayor's right-center opposition has allowed this strike to just be; nothing they could say would top the ugly drama of mounting, smelly garbage. The Mayor has been graced by luck that the hot summer that meteorologists were predicting has yet to arrive! There really is nothing that can be said either as the Mayor seems to have cooked his own goose, or had it cooked for him by Collective Agreements of the past and with other Unions.

David Miller and his team have learned the lessons of the 1991 recession and the way Unions repaid Bob Rae for his rational, sensible approach he took to reducing government spending in a downturn. The Unions deserted Bob Rae, stayed home in the next election and we got Mike Harris' big blue machine. So Miller is not about to drastically slash City work-forces or to take away benefits to avoid massive tax increases. It's much less painful to endure a strike, even a long one, than to face such a massive tax increase in an election year!

There can be no other explanation than that the Mayor is truly struggling to avoid what most certainly could be his undoing. The public demonstration that the Mayor is truly a tax-and-spender with former Mayoral Candidate, conservative business uber-god and all-around nice guy John Tory waiting in the wings could be Mayor Miller's fatal error.

But strike or settlement, it's a bleak time for the Mayor. The choice is to hold out today and by election time, people will have largely forgotten and perhaps a tax increase can be minimized to 6 percent or allow the benefit and keep business as usual and face a double-digit tax increase in 2010, where Miller will already most certainly face some tough opposition? If you were Don Wanagas, what would you do?

Bored of waiting

2009-05-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

I'm over-tweeting. Replying to 3rd party comments on Facebook offering free advice on how to navigate City Hall and get information. I'm commenting on Twitter on nearly everything I see, whether invited or not...though figure if you're following me, you want to know?

I'm listening to the new NoFX and once again feeling like as hard as it is, speaking out, poking fun of society, even going as far as to suggest that I'd eat babies (that's really just to say something to a certain overly-sappy friend that I seem to have lost though not really just figuratively to adulthood) Fuck it. lol...I like swimming against the grain. I like challenging people's assumptions. Running uphill seems more natural.

I'm an intellectual snob but I'd never pretend to know everything and most often its simply fun to stir it up with those who pretend they do know everything. People who's perspective is contained to their own anal orifice...yep, you got your head up your ass! (not you if you're reading this since you clearly have an appreciation for the finer things in life!)

I poke fun of things so much though I'm not even sure where I stand. Ha. In fact, I'm not even sure of that last statement. Maybe I know exactly what I'm doing. Maybe I'm just a contrarian? Why doesn't spell check approve contrarian? I hate that - it's a word and I'm pretty damn sure I've spelled it right and used it correctly.

I am pretty confident that I am poised to get a new job with a specific employer at a place I'd really enjoy doing work that I'm passionate about. It's been on the table and in discussion for months and I took other offers since they were, well, offered. This job would be like playing in a sandbox I think. Remember...two significant 100 percent marks in my elementary school record...Australia and Transportation. I won't say which this is related to but throw a shrimp on the barbie (cause I'll be able to afford a Foster's!)

I'm thinking of pursuing creative writing. It's been said too often by too many people that everyone has a book in them. I'm not sure that's true of many people but I'm pretty sure I could pen something quite interesting, given the twists and turns of my own life. I'm also sure that penning some not-so-fictitious fiction would be quite therapeutic. Who knows...I might produce the equivalent of 10 monkeys typing for 10 days but on the other hand, it could simply be a fun process. At any rate, I do enjoy writing (when I have the patience and inspiration) so yeah, glad I worked that out.

Well there you go. The rest of my thoughts, as always, are scattered through Twitter and Facebook. Time for coffee I think.

Back on the unemployment line

2009-03-10T03:24:00.000-07:00

Hey folks,

Just a quick update to my (3) loyal followers. I think I may now have the shortest career in multi-media history! My gig with H3B Media has not worked out. Chalk it up to tough times in the economy. Businesses looking to expand right now absolutely need a plan, something we lacked on both sides of the Atlantic.

Publishing a Trade Magazine isn't a science and so Thinking Highways found it easy, if hard work, to survive in the thriving, pre-meltdown economy. With shrinking advertising budgets and government funding now being directed to 'shovel-ready' projects, many transportation firms have not seen traditional advertising as a necessary expenditure. I'm sure, well, I know having talked to a number of them, that they are also nervous about the length of time that it may take for us to recover from the current economic crisis. Who can blame them either.

President Obama is being quite bleak about the future right now and to be sure, there are significant fundamental problems in the American economy that cannot be fixed overnight. With a health-care cost driven bankruptcy every 30 seconds in the US, these are not easy problems, nor is there consensus on how to best operate on the patient. Economists like Paul Krugman are urging more action while Republicans seem to want only to further deplete government resources with Tax Cuts and to allow natural market corrections by letting banks fail.

I do have two great opportunities right now and will hopefully have my pick of them by week's end.

So keep posted. I will not promise to blog more but will say that since I'm not being paid to work for anyone right now and have two good possibilities, I'm going to be spending quite a bit of time in front of my computer in the short-term.

Now the Pressure is on!

2009-02-25T10:27:00.000-08:00

Well, another fine mess I've gotten myself into. With all my work, facebook, LinkedIn and now Twittering it seems I'm creating a very short leash for myself between my MacBook, my Crackerbarrelberry and well, me.

Lots of exciting news on the work front. I continue to reach out to new potential contributors and of course advertisers for Thinking Highways and Thinking Transit but seriously, who wants to sell advertising in this economy? That being said, that's how we pay the bills in the world of publishing and media.

While this is not a corporate blog, it seems my life is becoming one - little separation of work and personal. That's not entirely a bad thing since I would love to develop a fine reputation for myself in the world of Transportation. The more I learn about the Flattening of the World through technology, the more confident I feel in my ability to become part of the new middle. My skills have always been in communications (even if I'm a bit short with people sometimes) and in translating complex ideas and concepts into everyday language that the rest of us can understand! I've had a great few years learning more about technology, US politics and government and of course, Transportation.

Just wanted to do some jotting. That's all for now - aren't I being so much more diplomatic these days?

Now on Twitter!

2009-02-15T06:26:00.000-08:00

For what it's worth, you can now follow my daily and sometimes minute-to-minute activities through my tweets on Twitter.com...For those of you (Mom) who may not be up to speed, Twitter is the newest, latest, greatest social networking tool (though Google has a new Twitter-style app with GPS-based location updates) that allow people to keep in touch in a brand new way.

Imagine you're out for a walk in a neighbourhood you aren't familiar with and you post a tweet or update to your page that you're out and about. What do you know but your best friend was there two weeks ago and knows a great restaurant. Perhaps through your network someone also knows a great art gallery and since you've also updated your Facebook page recently someone also lets you know that they are heading to the same hood if you'd like to grab a coffee.

That's just one of the potential ways that Twitter and other programs will change our world. Put all in the place of your hand too through a great share-ware program for your Blackberry that can be found at orangatame.com - check it out!

So...go to Twitter.com and you can view me at justincpeters .

Cheers Yo!

New Job, New Blog

2009-01-30T10:23:00.000-08:00

Okay. Many of my loyal (3) followers maybe disappointed to hear this but I am going to be changing the tone of this blog significantly. The past has been filled with fun but snarky, cheeky, professionally unwise blogs. One information interview I had in November revealed this - that I needed to watch my tone.

SO....Thinking Highways North America~

The last work day of January, if you only work weekdays. It’s taken some time to get to my feet as the newly minted President of H3B Media. I’m having a bout with sleeplessness and learning the ropes and pitfalls of working from home – gosh the cat is cute and needs a pet and a cuddle just now.

The month has not been without significant progress on a number of fronts for H3B. While Luis recovers from a procedure (I don’t care what anyone says, size doesn’t matter THAT much) we wage on in our battle for world transportation media domination. The new website has launched www.thinkinghighways.com and looks fantastic though I’ve also heard it be described as very European. Actually that is both what attracts me to H3B and gives me rise to think that I can help North American-ize the magazine and online versions. I welcome thoughts in this regard from friends on this side of the Atlantic.

I’ve had a quick re-visit of my English-to-English translations, remembering that tyre is spelled as such, that a boot is a trunk, a bonnet a hood rather than a hat and that tea is now known better as splosh – and only includes those beverages that actually contain tea – sorry chamomile, you’re not tea, er, splosh.

TRB was extremely exciting this year. This was my third edition, which pales in comparison with those who were attending their 33rd or even 53rd! It was exciting first to be working the floor for a new company, one with a much easier business model that while pushing for change does not require change to be viable (if you know my last job, you know what I’m talking about.) It was exciting to be able to give away free schwag – a mark of the world of media. And it was exciting to discuss and ‘vision’ new ideas and partnerships to advance the world of intelligent transportation from thought through technology to public policy and implementation.

Work still needs to be done to get us running smoothly and that may take some time – bare with us as we grow. These are exciting times at H3B Media North America. Thinking Transit is occupying much of my time and attention though spreading the gospel of Thinking Highways is also of high importance.

Well, enough of this slacking. Back to work.

The new Cadillac "Barack" or the Ford Harper...a nerdy looking gas guzzler?

2008-12-22T05:31:00.000-08:00

So...I have to comment - I've been rather silent, on the bailout of the North American Auto industry.

First, I need to place a number of qualifiers on what I am about to write.

Let me start by saying that I'm clearly confused about what it means to pro-rogue the House of Commons. Apparently, the Prime Minister can make whatever spending decisions he wants now without any agreement from the people elected to Parliament. This weekend the Tory government-in-hiding announced that it would match 20 percent of the amount given to the US parent companies of Chrysler and General Motors. Ford apparently doesn't need the money as badly.

Secondly, I definitely agree that something needed to be done given the importance of the industry to the North American economy. However I also think we need to build a bridge between slow auto sales caused by the current credit crunch and the mobility market of the future while trying to create new jobs in a new economy. Unfortunately we appear to be squandering what might be huge opportunities to turn crises into catalysts of change.

I am actually a bit baffled and mildly amused by the irony of the 'bail-out'. Chrysler is owned by a Private Equity firm Serberus (sp?) They have been unwilling to pump their own money into their own investment. I become very worried when politicians are making investments that the company's owners won't make! As I wrote in a previous blog about my hopes of a Belinda Stronach Liberal leadership campaign, I believe that the right thing to do is to ensure that GM and Ford survive while forcing Chrysler to be split up.

I'm not talking about the money either. Tony Clement was on CBC this morning talking about the need to reduce wages while also boasting of the Canadian auto assembler and parts maker's efficiency as the most productive in North America. Part of productivity of course is quality where Clement was critical of the Big 3s record. Unfortunately, these are not your father's Fords or GMs. North American manufacturers are now winning initial quality awards from JD Power and are building top-selling vehicles. They're even responding to market demand for fuel efficiency even if they are a bit late to join the party.

Here is my main concern. Our Highways, public transit systems, sidewalks and borders are crumbling due to mismanagement by public authorities and dis-investment in assets. Now government is going to loan money to an industry that constantly fights regulation while ensuring that money is loaned with regulation and oversight. Hmmm. Am I the only one wondering why the Tories, who supposedly believe in the free market now believe in market intervention.

At any rate, it is interesting to say the least that we seem to efficiently produce automobiles and the 'best parts in the world' while also having a bloated market in terms of wages. I don't think that auto workers should necessarily be paid as well as they are but I also don't agree with the roll-back of collectively bargained agreements. As partners in the industry the unions have a vested interest in ensuring that the North American industry survives. A rational individual must conclude that they will act in the long-term best interests of their members.

I am curious to see what happens in the coming weeks. Aside from being directly involved in the intersection of transportation and politics, pardon the pun, we are perhaps in the most precarious economic times since industrialization. There are so many questions to be answered.

Will extending new credit on top of bad credit make things better? Can government do the heavy work of both over-seeing the operation of private companies while ensuring the health of their own bank accounts? Can government invest in the private sector while not crowding-out private investment? Can government create new green jobs in a new green economy while propping-up the old order?

The US economy is already in the deep red, over-exposed to foreign debt and most likely still boasting of an over-capacity of low-to-mid wage and skilled labour. Right now we have an opportunity to create jobs building public transit systems. There are thousands of cars sitting on the docks in Long Beach California depreciating by the minute. How will putting money into the Big 2/3 change the fact that people on Main Street USA have over-extended their credit already and are losing jobs and real wages?

Infrastructure jobs take time to create. One doesn't just approve and build a nuclear power plant in a week. That takes at least 5 years. In fact, it would take at minimum 6 months for any infrastructure money to hit the ground so to speak and that money would likely go to backlogs and 'easy' repairs which most likely would create few new jobs.

We could get to work creating new jobs to address long-standing problems. For instance if we we know that there is a shortage of solar-panels, education/training programs could be started to fill the new jobs are created by investments made - yes, to the reward of those who have taken risk previously - and we could collectively start down the path to a post-carbon economy. I think President-elect Obama gets this. It remains to be seen what, if anything, Harper (or Ignatieff) will do with the opportunity of crisis.

At any rate, these are very interesting times. How we figure our way out of the systemic challenges that we have is beyond me. I do think it's misguided to hope that our politicians will do a better job running companies than they will running government but I love the irony that this is where we're heading! In accordance with the title of this blog, I really can't wait to see the new cars designed by the Progressive Conseratives. There's no way the Harper will be as cool as the Barack!

Notes from the Crisis

2008-12-05T05:15:00.000-08:00

Well, Canadians will surely remember the last week for some time to come. If our 'Constitutional Crisis' does not inspire Canadians to think long and hard about the kind of electoral and governing system that we currently have and the kind that we desire and need, then our ability as a nation to survive the new global economy must certainly be questioned as well.

Peter Van Loan is on TV right now blabbing about their clear mandate. What a maroon! Then he keeps going back to the Liberal Party and their issues while Suhanna Marchant continues to ask her questions. Blabbermouth. I can't believe that a majority of Canadians want these bozos over a coalition of parties representing, well, a majority of Canadians. The polling that has been conducted must be flawed.

The Conservatives have injured unity in the country with their attacks on the Bloc. The Bloc is a Provincial-rights party as much if not more than they are a separatist party (hypocritically called a sovereigntist party in Quebec.)

The Conservatives are arrogant. They received a third of all votes cast. They did not win a majority of votes or seats. We don't vote for a President but if Canadians want to, then we should consider changing our system though I've already blogged about it.

PREDICTIONS!

Okay...I often believe that I called things even if they are rumours I've heard already so I'm going to start putting things in writing about what will happen in the future!

The US Congress will get Harper! Belinda Stronach will come back to lead the Liberal Party of Canada!

Here's my sneaking prediction! This one is admittedly a long-shot but those are often the wise shots - especially when you're down 3 points in the championship, as the Liberals are right now.

So, what am I talking about? Here goes....The US Congress will provide a bailout for 2 of the Big 3. Ford and GM will be helped while Chrysler will be either left to its own devices or taken over by the federal government in order to manage its break-up and sale, perhaps to the other two, though don't overlook some foreign maker like Indian company Tata Motors.

At any rate, Chrysler's failure or sale over the next few months, heck the lack of a bailout package for them undoubtedly would cause its near immediate, shall we say, adjustment? This will cause at best temporary plant closures and a reduction of up to 1/3rd of the auto sector in North America, I would guess. The ripple through the economy will be huge.

If that happens, or Congress does nothing, or Congress waits for Obama, or Bush bails out 2 of 3 the Automakers, then there will be a huge pile of complaint letters waiting for Steve when he gets back to his job after his 6 week sojourn. The irony of the coalition is that they wanted to act now but due to Harper's ego and the apparent ignorance of many Canadians, their action has inadvertently created a vacuum of economic leadership in our country. But I blame Harper, not the majority of members of the House of Commons.

IF this happens as I predict and jobs are lost in the auto manufacturing and parts supply industries, then Ontario's vote-rich 905 region will have boiling blood to welcome Tory MPs out trying to garner public opinion. If nothing else, Harper has gambled these people's future as much as he has his own in a high-stakes game of political maneuvering. They will ring the collective necks of conservatives if there is any significant downturn in the economic sector in the next 6 weeks which brings me to my next big point...

I read in the Globe and Mail this morning that many Liberals are chatting about the possibility of someone running for the leadership who is very strong on economic issues and is pro-business and that no one has really been talking about. The Liberal commenting went on to refer to 'her' considerations for running and to 'her' in several other instances. Who could that possibly be?

Here it is - the Liberals absolutely need to take back the 905. Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin's emergence in the US have recently generated huge support for women in politics in North America, Hockey Moms and centrist candidates. The rivalry between Rae and Ignatieff threatens to ruin the party at a time when it needs solidarity - in a classic Liberal way I am torn one day to the next. I lean to Rae's politics and beliefs while thinking Iggy is the better candidate for a centre-right Canadian electorate, particularly in the West.

Belinda came to the Liberals during the brief Paul Martin era. Stronach has run a national leadership campaign before. Many tories, particularly democracy and institution-respecting conservatives are upset with Harper and the conservatives and the lack of an action plan. Stronach would be incredibly popular in the 905 and in the West.

I truly believe that this will happen. Our second female Prime Minister and leader of the next Canadian coalition government will be Belinda Stronach. You heard it here first!

a draft OP-Ed re Technology Incubation and the Clean Tech Sector

2008-12-04T06:24:00.000-08:00

Green Sector Needs more than Encouraging Words from Government

Economic Development officials the world-over are heavily in pursuit of the next ‘bio-tech’ sector to create new employment opportunities in their Cities. The 2008 version of bio-tech is the ‘Green’ or ‘Clean Tech’ Sector. Toronto Mayor David Miller has talked openly of his goal to brand Toronto as an ideal location for such businesses to locate.

Warning to Businesses! We talk a great game but when the rubber hits the road, expect little support beyond rhetoric and encouraging words.

How so?

First, let me state that Canadian governments have done an excellent job to lay the groundwork for technology innovation. While we can always do better, our Universities are creating dynamic, intelligent and innovative graduates in sciences, math and computer science. In Toronto, one has to look only as far as the MaRS building at College and University (its building program co-funded by all 3 levels of government and private contributions) to see that excellent facilities do exist to incubate and commercialize clean and green technologies.

So in that regard, we are well positioned for the creation of a clean tech sector. However, if incubation spaces exist only to help companies to get to a pre-revenue, pre-commercialization stage, then much of the money we invest in facilities such as MaRS will have been wasted. Not only are those public dollars wasted but further millions of dollars of private investment threaten to fail to generate returns to ‘Angel Investors’ and further reduce the effectiveness of government strategies to grow this sector. If Angel Investors and then Venture Capital begins to look elsewhere, the ‘Clean Tech’ strategy will be doomed.

So while our governments have created these great frameworks, bureaucrats are still left scratching their heads wondering how to position their jurisdiction as a leader in ‘Clean Tech’ development. So what is the problem? Why, with all the investment in education and innovation are we failing to create and attract companies with innovative technologies through incubation to implementation and commercialization? Policy alone cannot stimulate economic growth.

A colleague of mine from a small yet innovative MaRS-based company I work with recently attended a session hosted by Toronto’s Economic Development department. City officials were asking the important questions about how to help grow this sector. Responses from the private sector attendees were fairly succinct and based upon a few mutually shared experiences: “Working with the government is like banging your head against a wall.”

Similarly, I attended an Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference in Montreal where Transport Canada officials asked: “How can we help create new technology to solve our transportation problems.” My answer to the room was that the problem was not in innovation but in implementation. There are lots of great ideas but without public policy ‘labs’ to test technologies and demonstrate their potential, Canadian companies are often forced to shop the world for clients to be first-users and early adopters. In those instances, Canadian companies face protectionism and local advantage that we don’t enjoy at home.

Here is the problem as I see it. Politicians want a clean-air machine. They have, I believe, largely convinced themselves that if they just set up technology incubators and create the conditions for innovation, a magical climate-change reversing ‘pill’ will be invented that we can all take, go to sleep and wake up a week later to ask Dr. Gore if its all better. Unfortunately, such a solution may never come along and I’m a big believer in using the solutions that are at your disposal, even if they are new and untested.

The fact of the matter is, human behaviour and the systems that we have built to support our lifestyles are largely unsustainable and require significant change if we are to tackle carbon challenges such as climate change, smog and resource depletion. That means we all need to change. That we all need to change requires that government mandate those changes – volunteerism only goes so far when it involves economics.

Furthermore, great innovations come in leaps and bounds – not in baby steps or from tinkering around the edges. I’ll paraphrase two of Albert Einstein’s famous quotes that come to mind: “We cannot solve the problems of today with the same thinking that created them” and “if an idea is not absurd at the beginning it is unlikely to succeed.” I also think Steve Jobs makes a great point when he says “People don’t know what they want until you give it to them.”

So what is my point and how does this all weave itself together? Let me get back to that MaRS-based company that I work with. Toronto Star readers may recall Judy Steed’s fine work in 2007 for her ongoing ‘Business Challenge’ reports. Judy profiled Skymeter, whose innovative approach to GPS signal processing has enabled them to create a market-busting approach to road tolling. Forget traditional road tolls – Skymeter’s beauty is the ability to privately and even anonymously charge for roads when and where they are used. To simplify – it’s a smart meter that would collect Gas Taxes or Road Taxes in a similar fashion to how a Water meter determines your bill – based on actual use. Plus it’s also a parking meter that removes all the hassle of finding and paying for a parking space.

Skymeter is just one example. There are numerous other companies with fantastic new technologies, many of them developed in conjunction with our Universities and Centres of Excellence. Skymeter is receiving fantastic attention in Cities and countries where governments are seeking to marry innovation to public policy to tackle our toughest problems. For instance, the government of The Netherlands is very keen on Skymeter as a potential tool to implement a nation-wide Distance-based taxation system for vehicles and roads. However, all government buyers ask the same question: “Where is this being used?”

What then is the missing link between Innovation, incubation and the wonderland of commercialization and success? The most important ‘I’ word here is Implementation. Had Apple required government for the iPod to succeed, we’d still be having blue-ribbon panels to discuss the idea. Governments must find the courage to test, pilot, demonstrate and otherwise support the export development of technologies made in Canada. Until we do, we will create more Alexandar Graham Bells – people who have to go away to succeed only to have that success nationalized once they return. The 2.0 version of Bell’s work is RIM and Blackberry.

I am not for one minute suggesting that Premier McGuinty implement provincial road tolls or that David Miller stand-up where Metrolinx has failed to and force the issue of fair taxation of motorists. However, I am suggesting that governments need to identify ‘test beds’ and put money forward for pilots and demonstrations. For instance, how would charging Courier vehicles for every stop in the downtown core affect the issue of illegal stopping? The City has a problem and Skymeter has a possible solution where all others have failed. This is a win-win-win-win. Traffic solution for the City, pilot for a local company, exposure of innovative clean tech sector, rewards to private investors. What am I missing?

Until Government realizes that it must step up to the plate and that politicians must take some portion of the risk that private investors and entrepreneurs are taking to develop these solutions then they will be doing little more than printing documents with great stated-goals that are never ever met. Ultimately that will lead not only to the failure of our economy but to our failure as a society to deal with our most pressing problems.

If, as Mayor Miller has stated, Climate change is [his] generation’s greatest challenge, than doesn’t that require the boldest steps?

Ohhhhh Canada....or is it Cana-duh?

2008-12-03T20:30:00.000-08:00

Good friends you'll know now of my disgust with some Canadians for their furor over the 'Crisis' in Ottawa. The worst part of this whole thing is that the boarish, bizarre reaction of Canadians has drowned-out what could have been a huge galvanizing point in Canadian History that created the conditions for the solution of so many of the problems we face! It is toothless selfishness that reacts angrily to a coalition of elected officials representing over 60 percent of voters acts to take over from a government to avoid a costly election while investing in our economy.

I'm so tired of the Conservative's negative view of government. They seek not to solve problems but to disarm government of the ability to solve them, then complain that government doesn't work. It's cynical. It's old. Why can't we marry the good ideas of conservatism, particularly the fiscal approach, with those of the left, like using economic tools to curb carbon emissons. Huh? We have?

I have been thinking a lot about what the overall message is of what has happened in Ottawa and how the public has reacted in general. Canadians have fallen into two camps of course but they're odd in their composition because some partisan types are caught up in their own brands. Lefties generally support what is going on with the coalition and will believe that Harper's prorogue (hate that word) is simply stalling to avoid defeat and ultiamately it is the weakest economic package he could possibly propose - who's interest is Steve serving? If the Liberals don't use that in the next election it will prove that they haven't fired the idiots currently handling their communications.

If you don't support what is happening, even if you accept that it is constitutional, and if you're rational you must accept its constitutional since we do have rule of law in Canada and the coalition could not be doing what it is doing or proposing if it werent' constitutional, then you must conclude that our system of government is broken. If you are rational. If you are rational but are angered that the party in government could be overthrown by a majority of members of the House of Commons without an election but using instead the current composition of members and consensus to present a viable alternative to the Governor General then you must come to the conclusion that our government is broken.

Either way, you must conclude that our government is broken. Our system of government does not result in governments that reflect the desires of the majority of Canadians. I say we either go Presidential with a two-party system and a system of primaries for the selection of local candidates with candidates representing either generally right-wing and generally left-wing and running in local ridings with a multitude of candidates able to run for President. The Prime Minister would run the legislature and would be the leader of the party with the most seats. Add a reformed senate for good measure and you have Canada's own Republican form of government.

Or if you are not so enamored with that but think that everyone's views should be counted so that we have clear winners and losers but so that a range of views are allowed to be at the table then you must both support subsidies to parties for the amount of votes they get and you must ultimately support Proportional Representation as our form of government. Throw in a reformed senate for good measure and you have a Euro-Canadian form of government. Oh - and you could have either a run-alone Presidential Candidate or you could have the leader of the party with the highest vote share. These systems often allow people to rank the candidates or at least to vote for and against certain candidates.

So if Harper does stay in after the New Year (presumably we'll have a hiatus achieving no economic stimulus) I think the Governor General should commit him solely to the pursuit of electoral reform. Otherwise he should get out of the way gracefully and realize that Canada has once again set history with the most peaceful coup d'etat in the history of the world!

Palin go away

2008-11-12T15:07:00.000-08:00

Oh my god. It's now a week since Obama crushed McCain in the US general election (by relative terms.) I was hoping that talkin-loud-and-saying-nothing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would fade into history as a bizarre footnote.

Unfortunately, the media and Palin herself refuses to take the first step in displaying any modesty or in hinting at an ability to lose gracefully! Her basic understanding of the principles of democracy, capitalism and politics are sadly lacking. Progressive taxation sounds like socialism to her and Joe The Plumber.

Wolf Blitzer is interviewing her right now on CNN. It's pathetic. She's complaining about Obama, worrying about his association with William Ayres and using her patented keep talking without a breath until you get every talking point out style! Arrrggghhhh!

A viewer just asked via the web if, in accordance with something Palin had said prior to the election that "God's will was done on election day." She squirmed out of that one, "That's not really what I said..." I guess White Lies aren't a sin?

She's now offering advice to President-elect Obama about how and who he should form his cabinet. She's complaining that the questions are all slanted - this is a travesty if you've ever worked on politics. All she does is complain that she's constantly confronted by clarifications to her position or answers to what she believes. "Do you have any questions from anyone who voted for McCain?" Waaaaa...give me fluffy good press Wolf! No fair...

She made statements in this interview about her son being under the guidance of Obama as Commander in Chief. She may be the only person in America who thinks that Obama will put her child into harms way rather than removing him from it - something McCain surely would have done. Obama has also put forward solutions for the problems in Veterans Care and support for returning soldiers. She did express some faith in Obama but then she said something about her son "serving for all the right reasons." What? What are the wrong reasons for serving one's country?

These are the small things that indicate a person's intelligence. Examples of stupidity revealing phrases include Bush Malapropisms and the over-use of words such as like, also, too. Palin uses 'also'. And she throws out lines that bely her lack of intelligence. I'm not saying she's not a good mother or a good Governor. But the job of Governor is extremely different than that of President. There are far more menial tasks like plowing state highways and buying sand and salt for those roads. The President doesn't do such things.

McCain has shown nothing but class. He read the writing on the wall the weekend before and made fun of Palin on SNL and poked a bit at himself. McCain almost pulled it off due to his display of this strength of his character and the independence he has shown through his career - I believe his SNL appearance and his concession speech leave us with the memory of his career to date in tact.

Palin...Is going to be over-exposed and if she sticks around too long before educating herself about national economic issues, basic tenants of political theory, the system of checks and balances at the Federal level (for instance, knowing that the VP doesn't 'run' the Senate) and familiarizing herself with at least one Supreme Court decision she runs the greater risk of labeling/branding herself a dingbat. McCain has taken a nice rest, gone away from the cameras and tried to defuse the air from the election - showing a true understanding that the public wants a new body politic led by Obama.

Palin instead seems to believe she can run for 2012 starting today and mistakenly believes that this is the way to positively raise her profile. She's coming off as classless, unwilling to listen to voters, a sore loser, a complainer, a whiner and yes, an elitist - I don't agree with the electorate is never something you want to say as a losing politician. She is on her way to the electoral and historic trash heap...she needs to shut up and go back to Alaska and run her state well. If she's wise, she'd run for Senate at the next possible chance and aim to run for the Presidency in 2016, not 2012.

So..in the end, I hope she keeps it up! Keep talkin' Sarah! Stay in front of the cameras and whine away and offer Barack Obama unsolicited condescending advice. Palin is Idiocracy.

Testing of a new President

2008-10-29T07:53:00.000-07:00

McCain says that Senator and VP-candidate Joe Biden said "Obama will be tested in the first six months." In fact, Biden was only partly right. Experts believe any new President will be tested, not just Obama. McCain as a war-mongerer is actually more likely to be tested. As Kennedy was tested, so too was W. How did that work out for you?

Make no mistake about it, McCain will continue the isolationist, go-it-alone policies of George W. Bush. That will produce a much weaker America than an America with truly willing coalitions. Further terrorist attacks under McCain for instance, would result in the same approach to retribution as in Iraq, further driving the American economy to the brink of total bankruptcy. This is the irony of the boosters who chant "U.S.A" at McCain rallies. Their vitriol and hyperbole are exactly the kind of fear-driven, reactionary response that those who seek to drive America into economic ruin are hoping for.

McCain continues this line saying that he has been tested. "I've sat in the cockpit of a fighter plane on the deck .... in the cuban missile crisis...I had a target...I know how close we've been and I've been tested." How? How was McCain tested in anyway in the Cuban Missile Crisis - he got in a plane? What decision did he have to make? To follow orders? Which leg to put in his jumpsuit first? I don't know how being a pilot, on the brink of total mutual assured destruction tested him. I'm sure it tested his nerve but no one questions his will - just his readiness to go to war. He's the one who says he's a fighter.

McCain continues to misquote Obama and spread fear about meeting with the leaders of sovereign, if antagonistic countries such as Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. First, I think it's a classic example of American arrogance to put pre-conditions on meetings. I also think its ridiculous of war-mongerers like McCain to suggest that not talking to your neighbour is a better way to deal with his fence being on your property. Venezuela is more likely to cut off oil to McCain than it would be to Obama. Cuba is more likely to be pulled out of its regime with support since it's worked everywhere else. Line-ups for Levi's jeans and Big Macs brought down Soviet communism, not the appeal of American-style health care! Iran was once a strong ally of the US and its likely a majority of the people would like to have a working relationship at worst.

Since he's an angry old man who likes to fight I suggest that it's apt to think that McCain would be the type to sneak out in the middle of the night to throw garbage back on his neighbours lawn rather than talk to his neighbour about his poor put-out practices.

I love the end of McCain's speeches too. "Stand up and fight. Stand up. We never hide from History, we make History." cough, cough...I'm angry. I'm really angry. Bring it on. We're right, you're wrong - always.

America can no longer bully the world. It can't afford to bully the world. The world also can't afford another decade of an isolationist America. Everyone impacted by US foreign policy ought to be able to cast a vote in US elections. The world could help them become number one again!

Palin an Energy Expert?

2008-10-29T07:05:00.000-07:00

I'm watching Sarah Palin. I am so ready for this election to be over, for Obama to become President elect (knocking on wood) and for Sarah Palin to go away for at least 3 years.

I am a big fan of women in politics. I worked for a female City Councillor. She was not formally educated but displayed a clear ability to grasp complex issues and to understand the underlying philosophies of government. For instance, she would never call someone a 'socialist' lightly.

I love Hilary Clinton. I admire strong women conservatives like Peggy Noonan, Deborah Grey and there are others I'm sure - Belinda Stronach who is a blue Liberal or red tory, I'm not sure anyone ever really knew. I didn't agree with Kim Campbell but thought it was great that we had a woman Prime Minister and believe she got a rough ride. She at least understood the tenants of conservatism.

Sarah Palin's big credentials are that she is an Energy expert since she comes from Alaska. And yet, she continues to lie and mis-state facts about energy and Alaska's supply. Drill Baby Drill is the lamest chant - it's like saying, Magic baby Magic. T. Boone Pickens, the famous Texan Oilman has endorsed Obama's plan so it's not like Obama is just proposing conservation (which would be a great place to start.) Pickens says we cannot use Oil to get off of Oil and that we cannot wait, drilling is not an answer in and of itself.

I also think that if you are an expert in something, you should be able to at least pronounce the words that are used, such as Nuclear. I'm not a big opponent of Nuclear. I just don't think it makes a lot of economic sense, or at least it hasn't proven itself affordable anywhere in the world. Palin suggested that we teach our children about the importance of "Newk-u-lar power." Please don't give us another 4 years of that stupidity!

The McCain ticket has also made a big deal about Obama's answer to the "Manhattan Project" question - should government lead the effort to discover and implement new alternative energy supplies. McCain rightly believes (as does Obama) that the private sector is the better sector to pursue innovation. However, the R&D costs and eventual implementation costs of alternatives to Carbon-based fuels are so high that the Private Sector ought not to be solely responsible for their development. In other words, government research and resources are needed to support efforts to innovate and incubate new technologies. I believe that is Obama's intent - to financially support the development and implementation of alternatives.

Also remember that it was energy expert McCain who proposed a Gas Tax holiday. I will give credit where it is due and think it has been a mistake of the McCain/Palin team not to play on her great work at getting a pipeline approved. That is fantastic work and displays more than her rambling speeches ever could. Besides, rambling speeches expose what you don't know more than what you do also. ;-)

Americans have to accept a few truths. First, they have to accept that they are the biggest wasters of energy. Acknowledging the problem and recognizing you are powerless are the first steps to addiction recovery after-all. Secondly, they have to understand that the best way to curb mis-use is through economic incentives and dis-incentives. Prices send signals. Reducing energy costs will not discourage waste. The era of cheap energy is largely over. Actually, it was a myth anyway since we've deferred all of the environmental costs and hidden many health costs and created unsustainable systems.

Why, if the McCain ticket is so knowledgeable about government spending and energy have they made no reference to the impending crisis in Highway funding. The Highway Trust fund is nearly bankrupt, requires reauthorization and the Gas Tax has shown itself to be counter-productive and unsustainable as a revenue source. McCain knows Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters quite well since they are both from Arizona and Peters is former Arizona Secretary of Transportation. McCain has been oddly silent though so too has Obama. This is just one of the many areas where real issues aren't being discussed.

Now, Palin and McCain have been name-calling of late, using the term socialist to describe Obama's modest tax plan. Beyond being totally inaccurate, an insult to actual socialists and actually telling us more about McCain/Palin's own ignorance, it's quite hypocritical. The Obama campaign could easily call McCain a facist, since he's very militaristic, supported nationalizing banks and believes in the corporatism of 'Country First' while having a running mate who believes that Americans are Gods chosen people. But they of course are better than that and know that name calling is ultimately a sad comment on oneself more than it is on the target.

How is further subsidizing oil companies, Nuclear development companies and other energy providers not socialist or even facist? McCain, who's own party's President was charged with running the US economy, supported the bailout. Meanwhile, the Democrats, showing bi-partisan cooperation supported the President's plan since ultimately it is the President who is looked upon and appoints such luminaries as the Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and others. So McCain has supported nationalizing banks, the most socialist measure ever and has excused that as an action needed to address a crisis.

I think that most people dislike intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and inconsistency. Unfortunately, those have all been the calling cards of the McCain/Palin ticket. Now we should care that some bald, angry, overweight, biggoted, self-centered moron from Ohio is endorsing Obama? Joe the liar supports McCain? Surprise surprise. He probably bought McCain's promise to reduce gas prices and reduce food costs at the same time. Wonder if he also has 'land' in Florida?

Lastly, if McCain is an energy expert and an economic expert and a supporter of anti-Climate Change actions, why has he not proposed something like cap-and-trade and/or carbon taxes? Guess that would be 'straight talk'?

The Politics of Health Care - Part 1

2008-10-28T09:33:00.000-07:00

This blog is going to take a few to write I think which is why I've labeled it Part 1. Health Care is a complex subject and one that hits home for everyone at some point in their life. In fact, for most people it involves a number of interactions and health plays an intricate role in our happiness, even if some of us do take it for granted.

I am going to try to write about this topic from a variety of angles, disecting health care into its different segments and facets. I want to look at the topic of public versus private health care provision, private versus public insurance, user interaction and mis-use. I will review and discuss our perceptions and expectations of care and try to deal with the issues of right to care and whether or not Health Care ought to be a basic human right or if it is a privilege or an obligation of the state.

No discussion of Health Care can be conducted outside the context of existing systems. I will attempt to educate myself and make reference to documented proof and world-wide standards of outcomes. I, like any Canadian, have strong opinions about health care and I will try to adopt other sets of lenses than my own in order to conduct a balanced and empirical review. In other words, this blog will take some time and some re-edits and my opinions may change over time. For now, let me state my basic beliefs.

Health Care is a right, particularly the right to critical care or emergency services. Particularly within a developed nation is Health Care a right. I would like to state that in a perfect world all nations would have access to top quality health care and that no person should die due to lack of access to care. I also believe that individuals need to play a stronger and more conscious (yes, there is one finger pointing back at me) in their own preventative, holistic care. This is an area where tax incentives for physical fitness would be ideal.

I believe that we also have unrealistic expectations of care but that these are very natural. One is expected to be anxious and wanting nothing but first class, gold-plated Health Care when their or someone they love is in a health crisis. We ought not to base public policy on the hearts and minds of those under the most stress. That leads to irrational public policy that anyone not confronted with such a crisis fails to agree with. I also think that (and have heard directly from someone in the know about Ontario's Health Care System) surveys of those in the system are under-reported and are actually more positive than many other people would perceive.

I also believe that while patents need to be long enough for drug companies to recoup their research and development investments, there is also a lot of bluster when one looks at the amount that pharmaceutical makers spend on lobbyists and advertising. Generic manufacturers offer affordable opportunities, particularly to developing nations.

I believe that the Canadian system, while not ideal, is one of the best in the world particularly when one considers the presence of the for-profit American system and the lure it presents to Canadian Doctors. I support residency requirements for Canadian Doctors until health education subsidies are worked off by doctors receiving Canadian educations. I also support incentives for those who go to under-served communities.

I believe in the public provision of emergent, critical, non-elective and palliative care for all citizens but also support optional higher tier services that can be supplemented by private insurance in addition to public taxes and offered by private care providers. No one should go broke because they get sick but those who can afford better care ought not to be prevented from seeking it. The tricky part is ensuring that public sector health care is not undermined.

I believe that the US system adds at least two and even three layers of unnecessary profit and cost to the system. Private Insurance creates a profit-driven decision making system when it comes to care. Claims are often disputed, payments delayed and are often only partial (health care coupons.) Private companies are responsible to shareholders, not to doctors, hospitals or clients. Secondly, private hospitals have an incentive to charge higher costs, seek care that may be unnecessary and have their own issues that I'm not altogether familiar with. But it only makes sense that private hospitals would seek to maximize revenues and reduce costs. Doctors are exposed to significant malpractice suits and those companies that ensure them are forced to charge higher premiums. Trial lawyers also get rich from lawsuits. Tinkering will not fix their broken system.

I believe that the Canadian system conversely is in need of some tinkering to make it run smoother. We need more doctors and more community care. We need investments in community centers and fitness programs both in and out of our school systems. We need a greater emphasis on preventative care, healthy diets and active transportation. And unless we change things, we need to check unrealistic expectations at the door or prepare to pay more for high quality care for all.

I will write more but I think this is a good basis. I will expand on the thoughts above in coming blogs. I welcome comments.

Chantix Ad

2008-10-28T08:53:00.000-07:00

I just saw this ad for a pharmaceutical that can help you quit smoking. A couple of thoughts instantly caught me.

First, I was at my computer listening to but not watching the computer. What caught my attention initially was the list of possible side effects. The calm, re-assuring voice said: "If you have feelings of severe depression, thoughts of suicide or take suicidal actions, stop taking Chantix immediately and contact your doctor." I chuckled to myself as I thought in the voice, "If you kill yourself, contact your doctor immediately."

There was a continuing list of worsening conditions far worse than death. "Some users may experience nausea, sleeplessness and vivid dreams while taking Chantix." Okay so what's the difference between taking Chantix and quitting cold turkey? These are normal symptoms of quitting.

Lastly, what really made me think this is one of the most dangerous confidence scams I've ever seen is when the soothing voice said "in clinical trials, users of Chantix were 44 percent successful at quitting smoking over placebo groups who's success rate was 18 percent over a 12-week period." So while I admit I'm no statistician, what this says to me is that if it takes on average 7 times to quit smoking, the placebo did very little to improve that success rate - maybe 2 percent?

It essentially gives you a 3-fold better chance than if you simply decide to quit and engage in some cognitive behavioural thought, decide you really want to quit and don't stop trying. Now, I have not yet been successful in quitting so I will never be too critical of methods that work for some people. But the sales job of a chemical which takes just as long with very little improvement and threatens to send you into dark depression or worse, to kill yourself, is just a tad unnerving.

Pharmaceutical ads ought to be made illegal. They distort the patient-doctor relationship and give people false expectations. Companies spend far too much on advertising while complaining of too-limited lifetimes of patents. More money ought to be directed back to research and development. No more blue pills, no more ads about erections lasting longer than 4 hours thank you very much!

Development Charges are a Tax on the Poor

2008-10-27T11:48:00.001-07:00

Leave it to Toronto City Council to once again stick it to those who make the right choices about how to live in an urban area. Today's Toronto Star reports about excessive increases being proposed for the City's Development Charge Scheme. Unfortunately, a number of Councillors simply believe this is a tax on developers - not a cost that will be ultimately borne by consumers.

Here's my particular beef with development charges in the City of Toronto. Development Charges are intended to pay for increased services used by those who move into new developments, and into new neighbourhoods. These types of charges make imminent sense in the 905 and for 'greenfield' development, where new infrastructure is built to accommodate new residents. These include massive new Water pipes, Schools and community centres.

Unfortunately though a Toronto resident would have to have been living under a rock for the last 10 years if they think that with all the population growth and development Toronto has seen, that any new services or large infrastructure has been delivered. In fact, the opposite is true - services have shrunk, user fees increased and new fees introduces - such as the Vehicle Registration fee.

Now, some Councillors are advocating increasing development charges by upwards of 126 percent over the charges approved 5 years ago. Unfortunately, this is one instance where our City government finds the rules that are adequate for the suburbs are adequate for a mature City like Toronto when in most cases they argue for special treatment based on the age, density and special needs of the City of Toronto. Think of the opposite of the School Funding Formula and you have the Development Charges Act. I guess consistency doesn't really matter when all you run on is your name, not your record or your party's record. People largely vote based on name recognition so even if you make the comments of a buffoon in local media, as long as they spell your name right it's generally considered good publicity. It's too bad no one tracks voting - a far more important record than what Lobbyist you met with.

The charges would be about 25,000 for a Single Family Home (not too many of those being built, but this seems excessive for nothing in return.) A one-bedroom condo would be charged nearly 11,000 a 144 percent increase over the current charge of $4,467.

Cliff Jenkins is leading the charge with his fellow poor North Torontonian Karen Stintz. Together, these two represent some of the City's wealthiest residents and yet are the first to whine about increased property taxes on homeowners (which are very low in Toronto.) Mr. Jenkins is even making the ridiculous complaint that homeowners will subsidize developers to the tune of 40 or 50 Million dollars. Unfortunately, his flawed reasoning leads him to believe that since the Mayor has wisely signalled that there will be a base number of units built in one year before certain increases are introduced, that foregone revenue amounts to a subsidization by homeowners.

But let's look a bit deeper and with some sense of reason and ration. Who buys condos? They are predominantly bought by three segments. First time homebuyers, empty nesters and investors who plan to rent the unit out. In the first instance, Mr. Jenkins proposes to make it even harder for young families, freshly graduated students, new Canadians and those trying to make the leap from rental housing to home ownership. In the second, empty nesters are people who are selling a home in Toronto to do something good for all of us. They have, by Jenkins' logic, already paid they're fair share as homeowners - why should they be hit again? Lastly, the vast majority of new condominium units become rental units. Increased costs are a barrier to entry to the market for those seeking to offer a unit, thereby reducing supply over the long-term and ultimately driving up rents.

Here's the other problem too. Tell me what new infrastructure has been built at Yonge and Eglinton, to the exclusive benefit of new condo owners in the Minto complex that was not paid for by the developer? There are fees under Section 37 (in exchange for height and density bonuses) there are parks levies, there are public art levies, sewer impost charges and a myriad of fees, including building permits based on the value of the project - and yet the new owners will move into exactly the same neighbourhood as existed before it was built. This will only further undermine the City government's legitimacy and further increase the belief that City Hall is run by Unions who are bleeding this City dry. In fact, most Condominium projects are built with their own Community-Centre like facilities, such as work-out facilities, meeting rooms, etc. So there isn't necessarily any truth to the argument that new condo owners create needs for new facilities and services.

Point me to any massive new infrastructure that has been built to accommodate a new development in the City of Toronto. There was the Sheppard Subway Development Charge where development charges were introduced to pay for the Subway and to offset some of the increases in property values. There are also other financial tools that can be used to extract added value from developers who benefit from new public infrastructure.

Development Charges may not immediately be passed through to buyers since there is some price sensitivity in the market. But that also assumes that developers do not share information or the ultimate goal to make money. Eventually, increased costs for building lead to increased costs of housing. Why do Right wing Councillors not get this basic fact about economics? Are they Sarah Palins? Right wing but not really sure why - just that they resent other people and taxes.

If these Councillors are delusional enough to think that homeowners subsidize anything in the City of Toronto, perhaps they'd be willing to actually look at our system of property taxes. For instance, maybe Karen Stintz would support basing the Transportation portion of property taxes on how many cars are owned and how far they are driven by homeowners. Maybe we should treat condos differently than homes and tax them less since they clearly use much less resources and City services. Let's really look at this issue and who subsidizes who.

I am dead sure you will find that it is tenants who subsidize property owners, the poor that subsidize the rich and those who make wise, sustainable lifestyle choices that subsidize the self-centered homeowners of North Toronto. It makes one wonder if those from Lawrence and Bedford Park ever actually leave their neighbourhood to see how the rest of the City lives.

And it is clear why Jenkins and Stintz support development charges. It's obvious that they cannot identify places within the budget to save money (something both of them are normally quite bold about) and that they must agree that the City needs more money (even though Stintz is famous for her sorority-girl style rants about taxes) since both think charging more is a sensible plan. Clearly it is because they do not have to fear the reaction of homeowners (ie voters) since those who pay development charges don't live in the neighbourhood - yet.

My questions to Councillors Jenkins and Stintz are: Since new Condo owners pay municipal taxes that are the same as homeowners, how are homeowners subsidizing new Condo buyers to the tune of $40 to $50 Million? Are you saying that every new condo owner will get nearly 11,000 worth of new services in the neighbourhood they move into? Tell me then, with nearly 2500 units built in the Yonge/Eglinton over the last few years, what new major pieces of infrastructure (to the tune of 27.5 million) have been built in that area to accommodate new residents? Presumably if homeowners are 'subsidizing' condo buyers than at least that much
new infrastructure has been built there right? You see, to subsidize means that some have paid more for something than others.

I am going to record the vote on development charges and circulate it to every new condo built over the last 3 years to show new residents how their new Councillors welcomed them to the neighbourhood - with a bill for an additional $6,000 (added after their mortgage!) This is another tiny (massive actually) part of the ignorance shown by Councillors about the condo market. Many of the City's fees are imposed after the purchase and are added at closing, which then drives up either the mortgage or the closing costs depending on the buyer's arrangement.

The truth here is that trying to prop-up an unsustainable Operating Budget is actually looking to Condo builders and buyers to subsidize homeowners!!!! Get your economics straight Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Stintz - you'd think with all the Richie Riches the two of you represent you could find one brain that understands the concept of subsidies and the basics of economics.

At the end of the day, what Stintz and Jenkins and those other right-wingers are saying with this and their opposition to anything progressive is 'keep those people out of my neighbourhood. My nice White neighbourhood.' If they could put walls around North Toronto, they would have quite some time ago. They'll do it through zoning and if they fail there, they can just price us all out of the market. Genius. What a Healthy City that builds!

From Facebook Note: Hybrid Buses vs Local Food?

2008-10-27T11:47:00.001-07:00

Here's another baffling story about Toronto City Hall and the environmental leadership being provided by Mayor Miller's team socialist. (I'm starting to understand Sue Ann Levy's frustration!)

So the TTC bought a whole bunch of Hybrid Electric Buses. Turns out they're not working as they should according to the agreement of Purchase and Sale. They are enjoying significantly less of a life span than they should, are breaking down and are only resulting in a 10 percent fuel savings. So the bright lights that be at the TTC are going to go back to buying dirty Diesel buses. (Guess Bombardier doesn't build the Hybrid-Electric buses?)

Meanwhile, a report coming through the process at Toronto City Hall recommends sourcing food for City programs from local producers. Aside from being just the latest in trendy green-washing (there are numerous studies that suggest that buying local produce is not always greener) this is an insult to most Torontonians who are struggling to pay bills in the face of an economic downturn. At a recent Council meeting, some genius on Council moved a motion that all food be sourced locally. They probably also wanted organic. I guess that's what you get from uneducated politicians who claim to have educational backgrounds they don't actually have. I dropped out of a University Astronomy Course once - can I please tell you how our Solar System works?

So, the report that City Staff has produced says that it will cost an additional $15,000 to provide food for Children's Services alone - that's not even one of the City's bigger food budgets but wait until this lunacy hits the Homes for The Aged and Shelter programs. I'm all for good nutrition but it starts at home - not at publicly-run charitable organizations when the City is broke!!!! Priorities people, priorities.

Now, what's really ironic is when you place these two programs against each other. Saying that the TTC's Hybrid Electric buses only reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent is an interesting piece of spin. Sure, if it was my personal vehicle, 10 percent wouldn't amount to that much. But we're actually talking about one of the biggest bus fleets in North America. Every budget year, the Mayor tells us that the City needs more money for, among other things, rising fuel costs. So to my mind, saving 10 percent is signficant, particularly when we don't get any rebate from the City when the cost of gas decreases as it is right now.

Here's Mayor Miller pushing a new package of increased user fees, increase property taxes and reduced services while trying to provide gourmet foods for people who would be happy with Campbell's Soup - produced locally but wonder if it qualifies under this program.

Any savings in energy or reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from buying local food for City programs (again, not a slam dunk) would be elapsed in about one day (total guess) when the TTC returns to dirty Diesel buses.

Seriously folks. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. And at the end of the day, are these buses not under warranty and is the City's contract not specified to ensure that these things work or that extensions will be granted, more buses delivered until they do work as promised?

What kind of investor does this? What companies switch horses mid-stream without fully knowing how that horse will perform in the long-run. And what is the cost of the 10 percent fuel savings?

I suspect they don't want the buses because Hybrid-Electric buses make a lot more sense than expensive, heavy, capital intensive, inefficient streetcars that Mayor Miller would like to buy from Bombardier for the next 100 years, leaving us either caught on a slow streetcar, with cars banished from our streets or choking in congestion behind brokendown streetcars. The TTC can also continue to provide it's brilliant short-turn services, kicking riders off prior to their last stop for 'operating efficiency."

And the TTC has the gaul to attack Metrolinx for thinking outside the box and looking at new solutions to our problems. To paraphrase Einstein; "You cannot solve the problems of today with the same thinking that created them." Come on TTC, it's not 1965 anymore.

Once again, I also have to ask what the Mayor meant when he said "Climate Change is the most serious challenge facing our generation" cause he clearly did not mean it as a call to action.

Trump's Esteem rises for Me

2008-10-15T15:20:00.001-07:00

While he has not yet taken back his McCain endorsement, something the Donald just said to Wolf Blitzer causes me to take back my recent blog about him being less than smart. (in fact, I think he's crazy like a fox!)

"I was disappointed cause I thought Pelosi was going to go after Bush and impeach him." Blitzer: So you think the President should have been impeached? For what?
Trump: "For lying to us about the war. They impeached Clinton for something far less meaningful, in fact something meaningless."
Blitzer: "but they'll say based on the intelligence at the time..."
Trump: "Come on Wolf. I don't buy that. You don't buy that. You're too young and smart a guy to buy that."

That's a paraphrase. Trump went on to talk about how Iraq is screwed up and has been by Bush and the fact that the moment they leave, Iraq will collapse and Iran will fill the vacuum. He quite rightly pointed out that in fact, Saddam had been very harsh towards terrorists.

"The United States has been stupidly managed for the last 8 years."

Quelle Surprise! Rats on Spadina

2008-10-10T04:53:00.000-07:00

So like many Toronto residents I've been entirely disgusted by the pictures and video of rats in the window at Lucky7 Chinese Restaurant on Spadina Avenue. The Public Health Department has done a sweep of Chinatown restaurants and closed a number of establishments under its licensing system and posted warnings on other establishments.

This is not a huge surprise to me. Spadina Avenue is disgusting. I love Kensington and I do understand the charm of the unkempt and true Asian feel of Spadina but for a long-time health standards have failed to meet our North American cultural requirements of cleanliness.

One only has to look in the gutters along Spadina south of College and in particular south of Baldwin, north of Dundas to see why we have the problems we do. While an erroneous CityTV report cited the location of the subway under Spadina (really?) I would imagine it has more to do with the amount of grease, blood and other viscous materials that are poured down local storm sewers. The sidewalks are permanently grease-stained as are the gutters. The gutters look like compost heaps at the worst of times. In the sweltering, humid heat of a Toronto summer the smell of rotting chicken is enough to make one gag.

So the City should feel very little compassion towards any of the businesses along Spadina. It's unfortunate too that some of the City's most impressive heritage assets line the streets of Spadina and Kensington. In bygone eras some planners might have suggested that the source of the best solution to this whole issue would be a match. Thankfully we've long since past that point and now appreciate the contribution that historic properties make to the character of our City and ourselves.

But for far too long, Politicians have struggled to solve this issue. The cleanliness issue is a symptom of a larger problem on Spadina. That problem is a general disrespect for the City and its rules. Parking laws are consistently violated to the point that unplated vehicles are used, drivers are on alert to vacate when parking enforcement comes around and the BIA has been forced to make ill-fated efforts to address this issue through private security firms. But it continues.

This issue will certainly test the mettle of City Councillor Adam Vaughan. His friends at City have so far not pinned him down on camera, preferring to go after Public Health Committee Chair John Filion. Toronto Public Health apparently failed to act after citizen complaints of rats until it was caught on video, though it is relatively difficult to prove rat infestation from visit-to-visit, at least to the point where a closure is ordered. However, this story is ill-timed as it comes on the heels of a negative story about the Lysterium outbreak.

This is where the Mayor needs to step in and reassure the public that its Health is in safe hands. Politically it would be wise for the Mayor to do a personal sweep of the businesses along Spadina. If I were his advisor, I'd get him out Guiliani-style, in full protective gear with a Task Force of Water/Wastewater, Public Health, Police, Fire, Buildings and Garbage Managers and Inspectors and private exterminators. They'd go door-to-door, inspecting kitchens, coolers, freezers, back alleys, grease and garbage bins.

And I'd get John Filion as far away from this issue as possible. We need toughness on this issue and Filion is simply ineffectual. The Mayor might also consider forming a task force, led by Councillor Vaughan with assistance from Councillor Lee (I do think a Chinese Councillor would help on this issue) and someone rather white from the rest of Toronto - a Cliff Jenkins or Mark Grimes type. This would give Vaughan a chance to shine, to introduce a new approach which he is very good at doing, it would allow Councillor Lee to establish contact and understanding (more than he may already have) with the downtown core and the issues of a downtown ward and a conservative would give the broader public the perception that this is a bi-partisan review, both culturally sensitive to the businesses but also respectful of the demands of the broader public for general cleanliness and a basic level of health standards.

As for CityTV, someone needs to tell Sue Scambati (I think that's who filed the report from Spadina yesterday) that the Spadina Subway runs up University south of Bloor, not under Spadina as she erroneously reported! While Subways can provide a breeding ground for rats, as reported by numerous residents in the neighbourhoods around Yonge Street, they are clearly not an issue in the case of Spadina. Unless there is a magic subway I've missed? Nothing like accuracy in reporting.

North York Council Madness

2008-10-08T04:53:00.000-07:00

Well, Tuesday October 7th will go down as a day that lunacy reigned at City Hall - or at least at North York Civic Centre.

A group of disgruntled City Councillors from North York voted to name a street "OMB Folly" in response to an OMB-approved development. John Filion, the NIMBYest of all Councillors, a lefty only by affiliation made the motion over a development in his own ward. Surely this is a low-point in his career, though we haven't seen yet how he will mangle any new policies for food carts! Mr. Filion constantly complains about the traffic that infiltrates North York City Centre everyday but doesn't make the connection between more compact urban development and higher transit use. I think you'll agree this is an interesting position for a New Democrat.

This vote may have been one of the single-biggest indicators of why Toronto City Council ought not to have authority over individual development approvals. Every single City Councillor, with the possible exception of Kyle Rae who is too pro-development, acts in a NIMBY-like manner when it comes to development in their Ward. Some Councillors act in a NIMBY manner about development anywhere in the City of Toronto which is at least consistent.

The worst offenders though are those who perpetrate hypocrisy and my favourite, intellectual dishonesty. These Councillors tend to support big ideas and big moves, higher transit priority and intensification - as stated in our Official Plan but then actively oppose development in their ward. The Right wing of Council is not without their own issues when it comes to the day-to-day application of private property rights, de-regulation and the interests of private capital on their constituents - they support free markets except in housing and development. There is also tremendous political pressure on bureaucrats and planners to write reports and to make recommendations that will be safe and that Council will adopt.

Don't get me wrong. I support a clear zoning by-law that regulates the size/shape and use of properties. But I also don't think Zoning is ever cast in stone and that non-conforming developments can be accepted based on other considerations such as quality of architecture and design. Part of the problem in Toronto is that the Official Plan was adopted before any attempt was made to create a new, unified Zoning By-law with numbers that were updated to reflect the realities on the ground. For instance, Forest Hill's zoning at .35 lot coverage does not reflect the fact that most homes are at .57 x lot area. This creates a almost automatic need for Committee of Adjustment and/or Zoning reviews and automatically causes the angst of neighbours.

There are too many issues about Urban Planning and its legal framework, how it fits with capitalism, private property rights, natural law and the entire basis of zoning (actually an elitist attempt to keep the wrong people out of various areas in England where it was conceived) to the impacts of the entire system on property values, speculation and the orderly development of a City for this blog to explain. Plus, I am not an urban planner but have formed an opinion based on my experience in front and behind the scenes in development approval. The public cannot be expected to understand all of these underlying principles or the play between their various supporters. Developers will always push for the freest market possible. Homeowners will always fear change in their neighbourhoods and a vocal minority will generally lead an opposition. And politics does nothing but further confuse the issues and rather than constructively engage people it creates animosity about something that should be considered positive: growth and intensification

Here are some conclusions I have made: Happy people don't call City Hall to complain. A significant number of people less than a majority of people call City Hall. Therefore, particularly with respect to Toronto's growth, most people are fairly happy or indifferent. And given the rate that most new condo projects sell at, the market is further stating to Council that it is mostly positive about new developments.

People disconnect their own theory/belief when it comes to change in their neighbourhood. Why else would free market conservatives, home-ownership supporting liberals and/or some tenants-rights activists oppose many of these developments? New supply means cheaper rents and home prices, a free market encourages the growth of private capital. All of us believe in rational and good government but many of us believe that means "I get my way." They forget that Minto's Skyscrapers are directly related to their own ability to propose and get approval for a much-needed home renovation. Somehow the wealthier the land-owner or the bigger their property, the less right they should have to question blanket zoning by-laws that treat all properties similarly regardless of their individual characteristics or local context.

Without knowing it, Torontonians generally become supporters of a Soviet-style central decision making regime where plans for the use of capital and assets, i.e. the means of production, are made by City Hall bureaucrats. Most people would consider those fighting words but I've long argued that this is the real world application of political theory and you cannot disconnect the two! They may not like to be called that but that is exactly what they support - if they don't understand that, it is time to do some reading. I suggest starting with John Locke, some Marx, perhaps some Adam Smith...

I'm rambling. To get back to my central point - Politicians are in a lose/lose situation with regards to development approval and ought to divest themselves of authority for individual decisions while setting the broader policy context. In fact, that is what we elect them to do, not to review building plans or the location of driveways to new developments. The current system works on conflict of interest and deal-making, whether that's with NIMBY voters or secretly pro-development colleagues on Council. Some people think this is about contributions to candidates and lobbying rules but that is very simplistic. This is about politicians sheltering the public from the tough decisions. It's about the fact that Laws and Sausages are two things the public shouldn't see being made.

This is why a Vancouver-model, with exactly the kind of broad-policy oversight I mention above is set by Councillors while day-to-day decisions are made by experts and others in the development field through peer review. This preserves the integrity of their decision-making process; something that all City Councillors would benefit from.

It is clear to me that the OMB system is broken and for bringing that to our attention yet again Councillor Filion has done us all a service. However, when one fails to achieve anything constructive and sings the same tune, does not adapt his approach, change strategy, one has to worry about the effectiveness of that politician. I imagine most developers know well the records of local Councillors and their chance of a reasonable and open discussion about local change and those who will drive even the most modest changes to the OMB.

Unfortunately, Mr. Filion is also being somewhat less than honest with the public. The City of Toronto currently has Legislative Powers to reform many of its processes for building and zoning reviews, particularly with respect to the Committee of Adjustment set-up. The Provincial Government has at least expressed an interest in giving more authority to the City of Toronto in a de-politicized process.

Consider too that Councillor Filion supported appeals against the City of Toronto’s new plan. This is one of those odd prerogatives that Councillors enjoy – to oppose the Corporation whose by-laws they are sworn to uphold. Does it then make sense that after Council has made a decision – by the majority, that a minority can assist aggrieved homeowners Associations in holding up that By-law from taking effect? In this instance it was the City’s Official Plan. Councillors have funded fights against their own Urban Planners. What kind of use of Tax Dollars is that? Either fire them for giving bad planning advice or take their professional advice. Reports can be questioned in Council after all.

Furthermore, this Administration with the tacit support of Councillor Filion has completely failed to follow-up on former Chief Planner Paul Bedford’s directions that a new Zoning By-law be written within 5-years of the adoption of the new Official Plan. It has identified money as a central issue of course.

But this petty decision, to throw sand across the sandbox at the Dirty Rotten Developer is not only a sad reflection on our politics and our politicians but on our own ability to accept the organic and unorganized growth of a vibrant City. After all, how did John Filion’s constituents get their homes in the first place? Were they always there or at some point did a developer not apply to break some rules, create some new ones - it used to be farmland at Yonge/Sheppard after all!

The attitude is, I got here first - go find your own Greenfield to ruin! It is far past the point where we address the suburban growth patterns that make us entirely susceptible to an economic collapse fueled by higher carbon-based energy prices.

At the end of the day we need OMB Reform to remove the adversarial approach but we also need a substitute appeal mechanism separate from City Council. Council needs to update its Zoning By-law to be in conformity with the goals of the new Official Plan. Lastly, Council should create peer review and other panels to make decisions about individual development applications after they have set the broader policy context.

Is Donald Trump an Idiot?

2008-09-30T05:29:00.000-07:00

On CNN this morning, Donald Trump was asked about his support of John McCain and for his opinion about the bailout. Like any good politician, he answered the question he wished he was asked and not the one he was asked.

To paraphrase: "Well yeah I support John McCain because of his experience and because he knows how to deal with OPEC. You have to control the price of oil. Listen, If I owned a store, and you owned a store and we fixed prices, we would be thrown in jail. That is exactly what the OPEC countries are doing. I like John McCain because he will go to those OPEC countries and address this and tell them they've got to stop hurting our economy."

But the true slice of brilliance came next:
The 'Trumpster' added: You see it with the failure of the bail-out. The bailout failed and the price of oil dropped by $10 a barrel, the highest ever drop in the recording of oil. Look, I think the price of oil is more important to our economy than interest rates."

How the hell did this man ever make one red cent?

The price of oil drops when speculators and buyers believe that there will be a drop in demand for oil. If anything, OPEC regulates the supply of oil not the price. Numerous countries have held revues of the system, world economists, resource experts and all pretty much agree with the way the system is run. The issue with oil is that it is an incredibly inelastic market so that any increase in supply results in short term price decreases that spur demand that ultimately result in price increases.

So yesterday, as wise as it may have been not to give Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check for trickle-down economic intervention, the markets reacted poorly and speculators held the belief (I would imagine) that the economy was in for a rougher than smooth ride with more job loss and a general slowing of economic activity. In other words, they believed as credit freezes up, foreclosures and bankruptcies continue, notwithstanding that Congress may still act to do something to prop up the flailing US economy there would be less demand for oil and gas in the coming weeks and hence lower prices.

We witness this every summer in Ontario as prices decrease Monday morning as a portion of those people in the workforce go back to work (think of how nice traffic is in July and August) and rise again for the weekend as people make plans and drive more. Then there is a refining stage between crude oil and gas at the pump which adds its own supply and demand issues.

What baffles me about Trump's comments are that he deals in real estate, a different market that involves speculation, regulation and responds to supply and demand. If a housing market is flooded with very nice, high quality, cheap apartments, it doesn't make sense to build a Trump Tower for instance. Similarly, if there are few apartments, the price of those on the market goes up - as anyone who moved to Toronto in the mid-to-late 90's can attest. With respect to land values, speculators do what they do best and buy properties that they believe will be critical pieces of a larger assembly or assemble properties believing zoning changes are achievable. If major transportation projects are announced, speculation runs rampant. There are short games and long games, micro and macro effects and forces at play in both oil and gas and the housing market. So Trump must enjoy a better understanding than his comments demonstrate.

Perhaps this is an Apprentice-styled rouse?

Perhaps Trump is smarter, way smarter than I am giving him credit for. Trump relies heavily on the price of carbon-based fuels to build his buildings - everything from steel, concrete (very CO2 intensive,) glass and simply moving dirt around, costs more as the price of gas goes up. So, if there is doubt in the economy, created in part by the total lack of understanding in the economy of a President McCain, that would mean that the price of oil would be fairly low for sometime into the foreseeable future. But there's a flaw in his thinking if that's the case since less people would be able to afford his luxury condominiums if the economy remains ill. So that would not be very wise ultimately since he benefits far more from a strong economy than from cheap gas and instability.

Perhaps Trump truly believes that McCain does have the ability to impact OPEC policies while every single other world leader also dependent on cheap gas to fuel economic growth has been unsuccessful. Those leaders undoubtedly employed more diplomacy than McCain is capable of, enjoyed a greater esteem for their nation and was seen as less greedy - things the US are not very well known for as they enter the post-Bush era. So how will John McCain be able to do anything about oil prices (especially when in reality, there is a fixed supply, whether we burn it quickly or slowly is another issue?)

He could invade those nations that are members of OPEC and remember that he will not tell his plans because you 'don't tell sovereign nations what you're thinking.' That would ultimately cause higher gas prices - nothing costs more to fuel than a War! Would McCain create greater stability in the mid-East region? That is highly doubtful given that he supports maintaining an occupying force in Iraq and is talking tough about Iran.

Oil and gas markets want stability - as most markets do. McCain does not possess the skills to stabilize the economy and his approach to foreign affairs would not necessarily create greater stability than Obama - not enough to look past his lack of economic knowledge. Forget Palin. She's a nightmare.

McCain would give a gas tax holiday - at least if he keeps his word, when gas prices are at their highest, which would of course, drive prices higher while also removing the source of the Highway Trust Fund. So he's not an Eisenhower by any stretch of the imagination as some are suggesting he is with his Nuclear Plant program. Though one could argue that McCain's nuclear plan is similar to Eisenhower's Interstate program in that it would create an infrastructure that is ultimately financially unsustainable!

Anyway you look at it, there is simply no way in which a McCain government would be able to do anything about the price of gas and inevitably, his efforts to fix the problem would only make them worse. The flip side of the question here is whether the absence of OPEC would decrease the price of oil or whether competition would have a deleterious effect on the oil market? OPEC mandates and regulates how much each nation is contributing to the global pool of oil. This ensures that in times of crisis in one OPEC nation, others can ensure that global supply is maintained.

Lastly, if the Americans possessed the world's majority share of oil and had the ability to set prices, do I even have to ask the question that logically follows? Would they subsidize the rest of the world by selling their natural resources at below-market rates? And would they sell that resource off prior to it achieving its highest possible market value? Oil is not currently worth what it ultimately will be as supplies continue to dwindle and if our consumption continues at its current levels or worse increases. So wouldn't it make sense for nations to keep the lid on their supplies for as long as possible to achieve the highest market value - the last barrel is worth significantly more than the first - notwithstanding the expense of getting to that last barrel.

What is up with Trump? Is he being serious or has too much carbon-based hair product finally leaking through to his brain! Oh, right. He's American which means the sun rises over his bed every morning and it will and should forevermore!

Capping CEO Compensation vs Progressive Taxation

2008-09-29T08:03:00.000-07:00

They're at it again. They're talking about birdies instead of fundamental problems - even if the birdie is part of the fundamental problem.

This morning it appears that Congress will support a package of $700 Billion in aid to failing Wall Street and Main Street banking firms. However, before Congress votes a number of Members of the House of Representatives must get up and speak before voting since they're up for re-election. And since this is the height of silly season in the US, speak they will!

And who better to kick around than CEO's? The best, most hypocritical of these speeches come from House Republicans. First, let me say that I do not disagree with a policy that CEOs of those firms that receive Federal assistance should have caps on their remuneration packages. Given that the entire economy is on the line, largely because of their greed, it is reasonable to expect that the leader of a firm needing assistance shouldn't get anything extra.

But let's back up a moment here. Remember that most true conservatives will argue for user pay in most instances and that taxes should reflect as closely as possible the consumption of services, not to ensure the equitable provision of a service regardless of income, i.e., that taxes should be based on the cost imposed on society by the individual and not their income. The rich don't cost anymore to serve so they shouldn't pay more in taxes the belief goes. Flat taxes are the conservative ideal. From there it is a gray area - an attempt to limit the mix and balance of the share of individual proportions of the entire tax bill.

It is also the partner of the belief that high taxes reduce the incentive to innovate, work hard and try to get ahead. I think that is a fundamentally flawed view - there are leaders and followers, achievers and under-achievers regardless of the amount of taxation. Conservatives want government to be small, off our backs (though oddly, religious conservatives want to be in your bedroom) and for taxes to be constantly reduced regardless of other factors. And market intervention is to be avoided as much as possible.

But, it appears that deregulation of the financial services sector has resulted in massive over-speculation in the housing market, bad, risky and predatory loan practices and the bundling of mortgages into funds that have eliminated many ties between the investment and the asset. In other words, some of the mortgages are totally illiquid since there is no direct tie to an actual property. 100's of mortgages were bound together as packaged investments and now that the housing market has collapsed due to a slowing of the economy, over-valuation of houses and over-borrowing by consumers, well, there's about $700 Billion of artificial value that needs to be bought. That is why even the experts don't know the value of the assets.

So now it is crazy election time. Rather than advocating for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans - after all, if John McCain thinks that those earning over $500,000 a year aren't rich, then raise it to $1 million per year or whatever level you believe is wealthy and crank their taxes. Then you wouldn't have to drive further firms from Wall Street to London, further reducing the economic and commercial influence of America. What many Americans fail to see is that many firms have already left the NYSE because of the possible prosecution of CEO's for accounting errors. It's my belief that in their effort to recover their political careers after ENRON and Worldcom, Politicians passed wrong-headed legislation that went too far and after the wrong things. By all means, clean up malfeasance but go after the crimes, not the errors. Perhaps one of the flaws with the Enron business was the significant reliance on private power companies in California and the concession agreements they had with the State?

If the Federal Government taxed the hell out of Golden Handshakes - be it from stock, options or dollars, then they really needn't worry about the size of these packages. In fact, the bigger the better. To the best of my knowledge, a CEO's compensation is determined by a Board of Directors, appointed by Shareholders who own stock and meet on an annual basis to make major decisions. These are the people to whom the CEO is responsible and accountable. CEO compensation packages and the details of their contracts are their problem! Tax Corporate earnings and CEO compensation packages and let private firms determine market value for the services of CEOs!

I cannot believe that in all this din, no one is talking about the hypocrisy. Obama should be saying - 40 percent of a $75 million dollar CEO compensation package is $30 Million; A lot of money. Why does John McCain not want the CEO to pay those taxes? Instead, my opponent would rather show-boat and suggest doing something that he knows we cannot legally do and that is a far more interventionist, socialist, liberal policy than anything I'd ever suggest; Capping private sector wages. He opposes a minimum wage and high taxes but wants to cap incomes? Who is this John McCain? Who are these conservatives?

If your firm gets a bail-out or declares bankruptcy, you shouldn't get a 'golden handshake.' If you leave a firm at any other time - congratulations, good work, enjoy your wealth. Now gimme those taxes!

It's these kinds of debates that really make me think we have little hope to solve the larger problems that we face, be it climate change or pandemics or the looming energy crisis. We get so caught up in these petty issues that we fail to see the trees for the forest.

McCain vs McCain

2008-09-28T07:11:00.000-07:00

"I'm a foot soldier from the Reagan Revolution."
"I believe in regulation."
"I believe in de-regulation."
"I'm for the bail-out."
"I'm not for a bail-out."
"I believe in a free market."
"I want to limit CEO compensation packages."
"I believe in tax cuts."
"I'm experienced."
"I represent change."
"I own 9 houses." (No, wait. He didn't say that - he couldn't remember how many he owns!)
"I care about the Middle Class." (No, wait. He didn't say that. He said Main Street.)
"I don't believe in taxing the wealthiest at a higher rate."
"I believe in giving Americans tax credits for mortgages."
"We need to address the problems that Americans face."
"We need to freeze spending."
"We don't need the UN to tell us what to do....except in
"I can work with our partners."
"You don't tell your partners what you're going to do."
"I took on these guys, I took on those guys."
"I can work with anyone."
"I do not have a temper."

You might think that these statements were made by two separate candidates in the US Presidential election. Unfortunately, these are all quotes or paraphrases from John McCain. McCain is a populist hypocrite and a public liar.

On this morning's ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, he was trying to clean up after his botched Debate. What a loser. This man has contradicted himself every day of the last two weeks.

Foreign Affairs:

Palin says "If we know Osama is there we should go into Pakistan." Meanwhile, McCain tries to convince the American people that Obama wants to invade Pakistan rather than send strike forces in to take out Bin Laden. Obama has taken the George Bush position (that killed John Kerry in 2004) that America is responsible for its own security and will answer to no one. Obama means that if you see Osama Bin Laden on Satellite or have intelligence as to his whereabouts - you take him out with a covert, strategic strike - just as Palin has suggested and most Americans would agree with. Pakistan, and the governing party must understand that this is a potential consequence of their inaction - by not allowing them to respond ahead of time, to assist NATO in Torra Borra, McCain exposes his Pakistani allies to retribution from extremists in Pakistan. "You don't tell them what you're going to do." He is so totally out to lunch on this issue it's not funny. Lie to your friends, be honest with the indifferent and threaten enemies seems to be his M-O.

By McCain's reasoning - you can openly threaten states that are hostile to you but you cannot threaten to cut off foreign aid to allies when they don't help you. Is anyone buying this bullshit? That Americans do not see him as an Angry Old Man who will do or say anything for power is startling.

On Domestic Issues:
McCain supports the Bush Tax cuts and is continually trying to convince the American people that Obama would increase taxes on Americans - particularly on the middle class. How do people let this guy lie to them? Go to obama.com and you can see Barack's tax plan. It is clear that it will shift burdens from low-wage earners, single-income families and middle-class Americans on to Corporations and the rich.

John McCain says he doesn't believe in the greed of Wall Street and the excess that is rewarded. Yet he does not want to tax the rich at any higher rate. In essence, he wants a flat tax. How can people not see through this? Forget the compensation packages - like Earmarks they are a visual yet ultimately fairly inconsequential part of the problem. Allow Shareholders to limit compensation packages - they ultimately own publicly-traded companies. The Federal government has the ability to claw-back compensation packages by a much simpler measure - TAX THEM!!! Instead, McCain is playing populist - they all are with respect to the financial bailout.

Health Care:
McCain argues that nationalizing Insurance means telling people which Doctor they can visit. What an idiot. Americans: I am Canadian and can chose my own Doctor - though we do have a shortage as 'greedy' doctors go to America to earn money off the backs of your sick and fail to pay us back for our investment in their education - so, thanks for running a profit-drive health care industry. We take your guns, you take our Doctors. Back to my point. By eliminating profit-driven Insurance companies from the Health Care equation, you eliminate a 3rd party, non-medical decision maker saying no to necessary treatments. (Hello? Greed anyone?) Look at the facts. US Health Care delivery costs more and has worse outcomes than in Canada. FACT.

It's basic. Government does not profit from its activities and when it delivers a surplus - that's the peoples' surplus. AIG, a major insurance company, with major health care services and investments in health insurance is going to be bailed out by the Federal Government. AIG will at some point, deliver benefits to its shareholders though that looks like it will be the American people for the foreseeable future. So...AIG makes money from people who need health care/insurance. They and their competitors say no to services they perceive as unnecessary and pay-out only portions of coverage for services - a health care coupon as it's called.

Here's how it works in Canada. I need health care, I go to my doctor or Hospital. I get treatment. Sometimes that means medication, a portion of which is covered by our Socialized drug-purchasing policies - those programs that attract AARP buses to Toronto from Buffalo to buy cheap drugs. Sometimes my health care entails a wait. But I never, ever get a bill for it and I can feel comfortable knowing that the person serving me my food also has the same opportunity and that they're not coming to work with an infectious disease because they can't afford a doctor's visit or medication to solve their problem.

So John McCain talks big about limiting greed and corruption. Then he endorses the current Health Care approach - a license to Insurers and private Hospitals to print money. What a liar. What a hypocrite. What a jerk.

Earmarks:
Much ado about nothing? Earmarks totaled $18 Billion last year. The US spends 10 Billion everyday in Iraq. Earmarks pay for local projects such as needed road fixes that don't meet bureaucratic criteria, bridges to encourage economic development (under SAFETLU bridges are assessed only from cost-benefit/transportation perspective) and cultural projects like privately run Holocaust museums.

Spending Freeze:
I'm not sure what McCain meant by this. If he meant that when he took office, no cheques would be issued except those he excluded (Defense, Veterans Affairs, maybe one other) then he is proposing to close Washington DC until he gets educated on line-by-line spending - in a budget of over $3 trillion! He has already shown that he is a slow-learner. Does this mean that DC would be closed until sometime in 2010 when he understands finally how government works? I'm confused. How will congressmen get to Congress with all that garbage piling up on the streets of DC? Does he mean that Congressmen won't get paid? The Federal government cannot simply have a spending freeze of any substantial weight since most of what the Federal Government spends is in entitlements - programmed spending to deliver... core programs. Does he close the Federal Highway Administration? Does he close the FDA with all the food security issues the US faces? What exactly does John McCain mean by a spending freeze? It sounds great because it plays on our passions - which are emotional, not rational.

How will John McCain fix the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund? He's already stated he wants a Gas Tax holiday. And here is my conclusion:

The problems in the American Economy have been created by a detachment with reality and a lack of effort to address cracks in the system as they've developed like so many cracks in the New Orleans levies. Greed fuels the whole thing - whether that's an expectation of lower taxes or mortgages based on good wishes instead of economic solvency, unlimited credit and ego-driven anger against those who succeed under the current rules. Americans love to kick their success stories while also boasting of the American Dream. There must be some parallel to psychological conditions, like schizophrenia and/or paranoid delusion but definitely ADD.

America, if you want another high-functioning Moron as your President, one who will lie to you, lie to your neighbours, threaten your foes and take us to the brink of all-out Global war...then please, vote for John McCain. If you want this ship we call earth, to steer itself successfully through the challenges we face, then vote for bold change - vote for Obama, or please for the sake of the rest of us on Earth, just don't vote at all.

New Conspiracy Theory: Bush went after Saddam cause he went after his Daddy. Given McCain's quoting of Teddy Roosevelt's 'walk softly with a big stick' (totally misinterpreted by the way) and his propensity to not tell anyone what you are really thinking and McCain's well known anger towards those who have ever crossed him, even once, let alone torturing him for 10-years leaving his body scarred and maimed .... McCain secretly wants to send the US Military back to Vietnam to make those m-f's pay for what they did to him!

Presidential Debate - McCain Whack-a-Mole?

2008-09-26T07:45:00.000-07:00

CNN this morning says that John McCain has now left Washington and has gone to his Campaign Headquarters in Virginia. Why? I thought he had suspended his campaign until the Financial Crisis had been solved. If he is at his campaign headquarters, presumably he will be working on, discussing and in other ways, working on his campaign. I guess, he's figured that his whole idea of suspending a Presidential Campaign is ridiculous.

The US has been focussed on the question of who the next President will be and what direction they will take the country in that it is impossible for one candidate to suspend a campaign. Regardless of his inaction, the rest of the country, his party, his supporters, independents and of course the Democrats are still campaigning and are still seeking answers and leadership. McCain loses any right to point the finger at Obama for ever voting 'present' in the Illinois legislature. At least Obama was present. McCain has done nothing but make himself irrelevant this week which certainly undoes much of the hard-work he has done.

The President, as much as we'd like the current one to do so, cannot simply disappear from the scene, nor can his return to Washington cause a solution to crumble to pieces - as McCain's recent return to Warshington has (*yes, Warshington, this is McCain we're talking about.) So Obama has largely said little of deep consequence but his presence has been calming and displays to the American public that he both hears their concerns while also realizing that the health of the Economy at large, on a macro-scale, is of crucial importance to the lives of Americans.

University of Ole Mississipi, which is hosting the debate, has spent $5 million in preparation for the debate. McCain tried to cancel this debate, a debate about foreign issues which he is supposed to have the upper-hand on. He is truly desperate. He is starting to know why VP candidates must be carefully veted - Palin clearly is bombing now that people are looking beyond the surface. Anytime she speaks now, all one can think is, my god, McCain better live if he gets elected.

"Anytime Putin raises his head in our Airspace, where do you think he's going to go first into America? Hello? Alaska and that is where we send them up to keep eyes on them..." wooohooo.... what world does Sarah Palin live in? Did they stop reporting news in Alaska sometime during the Cold War? Doesn't she know that Economics are what killed soviet communism - not tough talk.

Now I'm seeing Harry Reid and Chris Dodd hammering away at John McCain. No one on the right is doing that to McCain. His designates have gone silent - because they have no clue how to spin this. The Republicans are trying to distance themselves from their own President. McCain is stuck between Iraq and a hard place - to either support Bush's plan and further alienate house republicans and true conservatives, or to support the plan, side with Democrats, and go with the majority of experts (albeit Bush appointees) who seem to agree that major intervention is required. The times have caught up to McCain in the worst of ways.

Obama is playing this as well as anyone possibly could. He has in essence said many of the same things as McCain. However, he of course benefits because he didn't say stupid things about the Fundamentals of the economy in the last 10 days as McCain did. It's like watching a game of Presidential Whack-a-Mole. Anytime McCain raises his head, Obama, Biden and a host of surrogates are ready to whack him! It's almost unfair. Obama's lead will continue to widen.

Obama played the debate coin-flip well too. They put the foreign affairs debate ahead of the domestic affairs debate. Obama will not lose any ground on foreign affairs and will destroy McCain on domestic issues next week, particularly after this debacle and McCain's total fumbling of Economic Issues. Young people, influenced by shows like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, can only drift further away. And the excitement on the Democratic side, the unprecedented voter registration and grass-roots movement that is Obama, will ensure that there are no election day swindles this time around - no Florida's hanging chads or Ohio vote-count issues. Hopefully.

Just wait unit Obama puts forward his ideas for who would be in his Cabinet - Clinton, Clinton, Powell and William Cohen are among those I speculate will be named to prominent positions. Perhaps General Wesley Clark? Oprah? lol Then add a couple of republicans for a Lincoln-esque Cabinet, challenged by those who disagree with the President and Obama will pick up a huge number of independents. Palin for Secretary of Hockey Moms?

However, until John McCain finds his way out of Virginia, proves that he knows how to get to Ole Miss by 9:00 tonight, we have to assume he is lost.

Harper's Math don't add up to Democracy

2008-09-24T04:31:00.000-07:00

I just saw a headline that was worth at least a minor blog. Jack Layton is entertaining the possibility of a coalition with the Liberals, should Canadian voters deliver another minority mandate. Stephen Harper is saying that this idea is 'undemocratic.'

Huh? If this is an example of Steve's math, anyone considering giving him the keys to the Canadian economy for another 3 or 4 years might want to reconsider. 37 percent is a minority Steve. When you run a minority government like a majority, that is undemocratic. When you use a 37 percent mandate to steer us closer to the nightmare that is our southern neighbour's economy, you are undemocratic. When you reduce Cultural funding without any notice and when you impose censorship on culture, that is undemocratic. When you reduce or eliminate funding of challenges to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is undemocratic.

What is not undemocratic is the formation of a coalition government of parties that share a general political viewpoint that's left-of-centre/progressive. As usual, there are slim differences between the Liberals, the New Democrats and now the Green Party. I vote Liberal generally though I have voted NDP strategically in the past - sorry Tony but Olivia Chow is simply a better (harder-working, more transparent, accessible) politician. I imagine many fellow Canadians hold their nose and vote for the ABC candidate and will this election.

I kinda feel sorry for Steve and his poor conservatives. They've inherited a great economy that is currently suffering with the fate of the US economy and its credit crisis. The measures they have taken have done nothing of note - a 2 percent GST cut that did little to stimulate the economy and that most people don't really tend to notice. Most economists will tell you that Sales Tax cuts are also beneficially regressive and keep more money in the pockets of those who already have it. If anything, Sales Tax reductions increase personal savings. Meanwhile, they've run our government so close to balanced that there is little room to absorb any need for higher social supports that would be needed as a result of a significant economic downturn. Like the hordes at the gate, they've raided reserves and played fast and loose with Canada's fiscal health.

Canadians, hopefully, are smarter than that. We have not voted for fiscal conservatism in Canada in at least 3 elections. Now that we've seen the mean-spirited, anti-democratic, we're right, you're wrong and on your own style of Conservatism brought by Harper in action, I think voters will be turned off even more. You can put him in a turtleneck and sit him beside a fire to chat about crime and punishment and he becomes even creepier!

I also like that the New Democrats can have an impact on the Afghan mission while not having full control over it. In a Liberal/NDP coalition, presumably the Liberals responsible, global-partner approach to foreign relations would be balanced against the NDPs unrealistic, stay-at-home, peace-nik, can-we-hug-it-out, approach. While I don't agree with preemptive strikes, I do believe in striking the fuck out of people who help others hit you! In other words, if other words are necessary, the NDP has a very convenient way of advocating for women's rights in Canada, not so much in Afghanistan - apparently 97 Canadians killed is too high a price for the freedom of Afghan women. One might want to ask this of the local New Democratic candidate when they knock on your door: "If your daughter wasn't allowed to go to school....How many Canadian soldiers would you be willing to sacrifice to change that?" Sorry - I'm a Kissinger fan - Real Politik. We'd all love for everything to go peacefully and for everyone to get along but there are people in the world who will stick a knife in you even after you give them your wallet. Bin Laden is one of those.

You see. This is the problem with Steve. He doesn't get that while Canadians had concerns about corruption within the Liberal party, they generally agreed with the surplus-spending approach taken by Mr. Martin and Mr. Chretien. They like that Jean stood up to George and said, "You have no proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq." Would Steve have had that courage? At the same time, Jack would quit NATO (or be a member like France, on his own convenient terms) and would sell our F-18s for Bicycles! Probably not, but you get my drift.

And this all brings me back to Democracy and Steve's concept. In a cynical attempt to win votes in an election, Harper has now flip-flopped on the Afghanistan mission and has foolishly threatened the welfare of our troops by setting a firm time-line for withdrawl. No word about how Canada will react if other NATO members do not step up. And let's be clear, here. Pakistan must be convinced of the necessity of allowing NATO troops to enter their sovereign country to hunt and kill or otherwise bring to justice, Osama Bin Laden. So, Harper has now betrayed his own convictions to appease voters. How undemocratic.

Let's have a centre-left coalition that recognizes global climate change issues and wants to introduce innovative cap-and-trade and carbon tax systems to better address our current crises in energy and environment, not one that speaks to a narrow base of Conservatives that are angry for some reason or feel they've paid more than their fare share. I guess if you only have a Grade 10 education though, you might be owed some money back since the rest of us used it to get a higher education! I think most Canadians had hoped this is what we voted for the last time.

A centre-left coalition would represent greater than 50 percent of Canadian voters and if strategic voting takes place, which is highly likely, that number could be as high as 60 percent. That's a greater mandate than George W. Bush has ever enjoyed.

I can also accept that people don't necessarily want Stephane Dion to be Prime Minister. I think it's wise of the leader to surround himself with his teammates because in a democracy (hint, hint Steve) decisions are made by a multitude of people - not a kingly leader who silences his own cabinet and reverses any previous policy of open and non-confidence votes. So please Steve, don't insult our intelligence when your opponents shift to react to the winds of public demand for government that functions and meets the needs of Canadians. Not one that plays political games to try and take advantage of polls and economic cycles. Not one that promises fixed elections, then runs to the Governor General as soon as government breaks down. No Steve. You, sir, are undemocratic.

American Money Madness

2008-09-23T06:08:00.000-07:00

This was written Monday, September 22nd amid the Wall Street Financial Crisis.

It chops, it shreds, it dices, slices, cubes and juliennes...well, maybe not but the brand of the American Greenback has been amazingly strong for the past 60-plus years. Many have speculated about the future of the Empire and given its current attraction to spectacle and violence, one needn't wonder why. Is this the sunset?

Recently, American financial markets have approached collapse. Much of the blame for this problem lies squarely with the American people themselves and their lust for bright bobbles and colourful beads. Without regard for how they will ever pay for material goods, Americans continue to consume like there really is no tomorrow. Why won't this generation pass on a better lifestyle? Because this generation has mortgaged the house to buy dinner. Because this generation has put their retirement on layaway. The strongest Generation gave way to the hungriest, thirstiest, most-consumerist generation of people on the face of the planet

I'm never sure how much anyone pays attention to Lou Dobbs but based on the fact that he does have a number of best-selling books, a prime-time Cable News Network show and a nationally syndicated radio show, he does have some ability to sway public opinion. That's a very scary thing for someone with no public record and a seeming inability to link his complaints together! The price of gas should be low, governments shouldn't run deficits, income taxes should be low, politicians should earn less as should Corporate CEOs. Wall Street should be bailed out but so too should the American Consumer who pays, hold your breath, 18 percent interest fees on their 3rd Credit card. My favourite Lou Dobbs position though is on illegal immigrants; who should be neither deported nor granted amnesty (there's a mysterious 3rd option I guess.)

So today (and all week) the news is all about Washington's Wall Street bail-outs. 700 Billion will be loaned to AIG Insurance, coming a few months after the Bear Stearns bail-out, the decision not to help a number of Investment Banks and to allow Morgan Stanley and another Investment Bank to become commercial banks...phew...that's only part of it. Today, Washington (add an R if you're a McCain fan) will be starting to debate this bail-out and much of the sentiment being expressed in the US Capitol reflects much of the Main Street thinking in the US. I'm a main-streeter on this one and I admittedly am not enough of a macro-economist to understand monetary policy extremely well. But that doesn't stop me from being concerned or thinking that somehow a 'fast one' is being pulled as George W Bush exits the Oval Office.

The basis of the problem is that greed spurred Wall Street to bundle and re-sell below-Prime Mortgages, many of which were issued to people with no income, no credit and no paperwork to prove either fact. Loans were being handed out to anyone who could sign their name to a form. Often, mortgage agents were grossly over-calculating buyers' ability to pay a mortgage and signing them up to ridiculous loans that were bound for default from the day they were signed. These mortgage brokers made commissions directly based on the value of those mortgages. So here is one place where greed raises its ugly head. The heads of these bundled mortgages were in some cases, making upwards of $10,000 per day in commissions. Greed on Wall Street.

Onto the homeowner, who is not without fault here. Someone once proposed to me that these homeowners were suckered in by crafty mortgage brokers. But anyone who earns a paycheque will tell you that they know what they can and cannot afford. If you are a minimum wage employee (in a country with very low minimum wages) you probably aren't going to own a home worth a $1/4 Million. That's basic math, which I suppose the US does do extremely poorly in standardized tests compared to other developed nations. But it is also greed. The refusal to accept one's own fate is a factor of greed. While striving to make one's lot in life is admirable, one must also realize the value of one's talents in the market-place.

Now it comes time to address the problem - Americans, both private and in business, are defaulting on loans and mortgages that exceeded their ability to pay for them. The value of homes is decreasing as the market reacts to unprecedented foreclosures. Home ownership is not a right - shelter may be but owning a home is not. Owning a home is a result of hard work, wise investment, posessing an economically valued skill (like being able to dunk a basketball) and a number of other factors.

To paraphrase, Bill Maher: "The US can't simply say we're number 1 and expect it to be so." Like Ontario in the early 1990's, when banks issued far too many Ontario Bonds, the US needs to realize that the sun could set on them if they don't work hard to ensure the robustness of their economy. John McCain is quite rightly calling for people to put country first. But does that mean bailing out Private capital interests with public money to the tune of $700 Billion?

We are seeing the most-free market, non-interventionist President interrupt and interfere in the economy to an unprecedented degree. The lack of rules and regulations on Wall Street over the last 10 years (yes, Clinton bares some blame) has led to runaway greed which has led to this failure. Now, instead of a middle-path creating stable markets, the market has gone wild and needs to be reigned in to a miserable degree. Again, this loan is to prop up the finances of investors - not everyday people with high mortgages, 401Ks and insured savings accounts. No, this is for much bigger money that makes money with money! This is a Sunday morning mulligan at Augusta National, not at your local Muni!

It may also be a good thing that "American confidence" is down. For too long, the US has been overconfident in the resiliance of its economy without working to ensure the fundamentals remain strong.

An Idea to reduce the impacts of Property Re-Assessments

2008-09-19T08:02:00.000-07:00

First off, let me be quite clear that I am not an expert in Property Taxes. Let me also state though that I often fail to give myself enough credit and that I may indeed be an expert in Property Taxes relative to most people, even though I've only briefly paid them directly in my life.

All properties in Ontario are assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). Re-assessments are conducted on a semi-yearly basis. I say semi-yearly since there have been frequent adjustments made to this system since its introduction by Mike Harris' Conservatives in 1997. The original goal was to have every property receive a Current Value Assessment each year and for local governments to base next-year taxes on those assessed values. However, in Toronto at least, there have been phase-ins of increases and decreases within property classes and clawbacks between classes of assessed properties.

The idea is based in an idea of financial fairness - all properties should be assessed on the same market value. However, financial fairness does not always mean fairness in application. For instance, updating a property to current value means that those people who have built equity over many years of home ownership can be driven out of their home or forced to take drastic financial measures to stay, if their incomes drop.

Now, I am very cold and rational when it comes to home ownership and believe that an asset must be used appropriately for one's position in life. In other words, to me, it doesn't make sense for a retired couple to own a 4-bedroom home after all the kids have left - my own parents included. I wonder why one would tie up that equity and those extra bedrooms when we have both a senior's income crisis and a housing/homelessness issue. Certainly other forms of investment can offer more stable, reliable and as high return on investment without the volatility of taxes that are based on the market value of an investment.

I believe therefore that it is up to individuals to make decisions based on their own interest - the system of Current Value Assessments is itself is fair in its basis - all properties are treated the same. What is unfair is the application of current value assessments to the system of property taxation.

Let's delve further. First, there are a number of separate classes of property from a simple residential class which includes condominiums to multi-residential (6 units or more) and onto Industrial and Commercial classes. Each assessment class has its own formula for the calculation of assessed value. Multi-res for instance factors in market value of similar apartments in a largely de-controlled rental market -typical incomes are factored in as they are for a commercial property. Property Taxes then have to be split into their two components - school taxes and local/municipal taxes.

Education taxes are curious. All properties pay the same tax rate so that a condominium owner pays more in education taxes than someone who rents an apartment of the same time (because all things being equal, condominiums have a higher assessment per sq foot than rental) yet a homeowner with the same number of children pays substantially more than the renter. So in essence, homeowners subsidize the education of the children of tenants. This has an effect of equalizing the inequality in the mill rate between homes and rented units which the left often complain are taxed unfairly. More unfair is the difference between a condo owner and a tenant of a multi-res unit who consume the exact same amount of service and the similarity in the mill rate between the condo owner and the home owner - when the homeowner is less efficient in the consumption of public services like Garbage Collection, Fire and Water to name a few.

Each year, the City gets both a figure for the entire assessment of the Cities properties in each class and for each property individually. It uses those assessments to calculate who gets what share of the total tax bill for the City - the cost of providing current programs and servicing debt associated with Capital expenditures. In other words, the City slices the pie - first according to class - each class gets a certain weight - Residential 1, Industrial and Commercial something like 3.14 but coming down due to a phasing of weight towards residential to attract more business. Then those classes are divided up so that the Forest Hill Mansion worth 10 Million gets its share relative to the Junction bungalow worth 350,000 and the Rosedale tenant gets there share relative to the tenants of north Scarborough (through their annual rent.)

The difficulty with using Current Value Assessments is largely their volatility and the average homeowners ability to manage significant year-to-year increases in Current Value and resulting taxes. Not many people can withstand an after-tax increase in one cost center of 3 to 5 percent which is by no means unheard of. CVA also disincents homeowners from making improvements to their own home since those improvements may result in the value and consequently, the taxes. However, CVA, is still in its basis, fair because it reflects wealth, as closely as it can. If a home increases in value, so too does the homeowner's wealth increase, notwithstanding liquidity issues.

So here is the idea. Since the City receives the Assessments on each property, presumably it has the ability to retain those records and to perform such tasks as calculating a five-year running average of each assessment. Therefore the City could greatly reduce the volatility of the property tax system by basing taxes on a Five-year running average, thereby removing the cross-sectoral and inter-sectoral subsidizing that occurs through clawbacks and phase-ins. In essence, this is a budgeting tool for residents that allows them to see a gradual increase in taxes while also basing them on current values. This would smooth volatility while decreasing complexity of a system to minimize impacts. A system such as this was not possible prior to now but since MPAC has been running for nearly 10 years, it should be easy.

This came to mind after I saw a headline that said something to the effect that assessment had grown by 20 percent in the 3-years while the Ontario Liberal Government had frozen assessments. Clearly, some property homeowners in the province will be hit with massive increases while others will see mild reductions due to revenue neutral tax shifting. So the short-term benefit of the freeze will result in extreme pain in the short term for those whose assessments increases are among the highest.

I see lots of elderly homeowners in my Parkdale neighbourhood and I wonder how they will handle the hotness of this neighbourhood when they get their reassessments. Of course, I think they should sell their asset for over a million to one of many willing buyers and live comfortably without having to climb stairs or shovel sidewalks, but that's my insensitivity right?

Handguns and Handjobs

2008-09-18T06:03:00.000-07:00

Look at the Birdie!!! Don't look at the Camera, the Flash or the photographer! Look at the Birdie.

Now that your attentions are diverted from the real problem we face with violence in our schools, the desperation that an element of our youth face, or the mere fact that we will always have a criminal element in society running an underground economy made larger only by the number of things we prohibit...

LET'S BAN HANDGUNS...Puuhhhllllleaaase!!!!

Typical lefty bleeding heart response. I'm not huge on guns. In fact, two years ago I turned down a chance to go to a shooting range in Las Vegas, later learning that I missed the golden opportunity to fire an Uzi, a 357 Magnum and an AK-47 - at nothing less than images of stereotypical muslim cut-outs. (tongue planted firmly in cheek, heavy sarcasm font.) Apparently I missed something close to the Zed and the Gimp scene from Pulp Fiction.

But, I did shoot a .22 calibre rifles when I was in Boy Scouts - at a shooting range in the basement of a High School no less! Simpler times I guess? I think it's important to note that I grew up in conservative London Ontario, not Evansville Indiana or some such place. After Toronto's second-ever school related shooting, I'm troubled that Toronto's Mayor simply keeps re-iterating his desire to infringe personal rights and ban handguns, as if the guns being used in crimes are legal or registered in the first place.

Guns are already licensed at this point and I believe, registered - or at least they were at one point in Canada. In the past, the Mayor has said that the guns being used in crimes are largely coming in from the US where handguns will never, ever be banned. Not even American liberals, serious ones anyway, would ever suggest banning handguns, so this issue dies at the border. Which is exactly where the problem lies - aside from the social causes. So the Mayor's strategy - as well communicated as it is, is sadly off the mark, please pardon the pun. We may as well have a turnip as Mayor given the chance of success of such a strategy.

While I agree that much of the responsibility for addressing this problem lies at the feet of the Canadian federal government, I believe Mr Miller needs to speak to different people in Ottawa and address different problems than he is with his lame, unimaginative and to date falling on deaf-ears "Ban Handguns" message. The problem is with our porous borders and our pathetic federal criminal justice system, which lacks skills, funding and manppower in terms of enforcement CSIS? RCMP -who? The US has made a cottage industry from law enforcement! We're also plagued by judges who seem incompetent of reading the winds of public opinion and applying that sentiment to their sentancing.

If Mr. Miller is serious about getting guns off the street and I believe he is, he must push for more support to enforce EXISTING laws from federal law enforcement agencies. Who is Canada's DEA, ATF or FBI? If it is the Toronto Police that is responsible, then perhaps funding should be redirected from hassling pestulant squeegie kids to hassling dangerous gangsters with violent rap sheets. The power to redirect those resources lies within the Mayor's office. Rudy Giuliani didn't just wait for the Feds to clean up Times Square and if that is what our Mayor is claiming he'd like to, then he should genuinely get tough, not put on a tough-guy act when times are tough.

It's ironic too because in the past, the left has traditionally argued for the decriminalization of some things that others consider detrimental to society-at-large. I'm talking mainly about Marajuana, which most honest and educated political scientists will tell you ought to be decriminalized and I frankly agree. I'm not saying decriminalize handguns either - licensing has an impact, as the City of Toronto ironically will also tell you when it comes to Massage Parlours. So the Mayor essentially finds that licensing suffices for handjobs but not for handguns? Or he just believes that prostitution ought to be legal? I didn't see that in his platform, did you?

And here is my conclusion and its probably stating the obvious. City Hall is really good at pointing the finger at others while doing very little to innovate or find solutions to problems that they actually have control over, particularly under this administration.

North American Jobs, Free Trade and Individualism

2008-09-17T05:48:00.000-07:00

I just saw a comment written to CBC and aired on their morning news on Newsworld. The gist of the comment was that the writer wanted to know what the next government would do about job creation, and the loss of hi-paying jobs, largely replaced by minimum wage jobs with which people could barely make ends meet.

To my mind this reflects a mindset that many on the left employ when thinking about public policy and the economy. While they definitely care about the welfare of 'the people' the left, and I am looking at you NDP, generally forget the concepts of individualism, personal responsibility, choice and that the concept of 'wealth' does not end at a nation’s borders. My problem with Conservatives, conversely, is that they lack a true care for those who are unable, for whatever reason, to manage their own affairs be those personal or business concerns.

Let me further explain. Conservatives (by definition if not always by practice) generally think that everyone should ‘pull up their bootstraps’, ‘get off their asses’, ‘quit their whining’, rely on their family for social support (even orphans) and generally look after themselves without 'government handouts' and a 'welfare state.' Conversely, those on the left of the political spectrum believe that no one or at best, very few of us, are able to make good decisions, adjust, adapt, re-learn or ‘double their efforts’. They often overlook the fact that certain people’s circumstances are also the result of a record of bad choices and decisions – one ought to be comfortable just because; the sun will never set on their economy.

I am simplifying. To be clear, I am also sticking to economic issues. Our Canadian Liberal Party is not without fault but the grassroots definitely reflects a desire to facilitate those who are able to do as well as they can - they sky's the limit. At the same time, we believe (or at least this liberal does) that there are people who need varying degrees of assistance, from fully supported living to a minimum national income policy that ensures senior's incomes are augmented to a livable standard. Regulation on business ought to be firm but ought to also allow for innovation, competition and wealth generation for shareholders - this is a mixed economy after-all.

On a Macro-economic level, I firmly believe that the wealth of the world is more important than wealth at home and that protectionism harms Canadian businesses more than it hurts them. As a developed nation, we ought to be proud that the jobs that are being created in Canada are either very high paying or are service-oriented. And let's not overlook the role of the individual.

Let's go back to the viewer's comment. A socialist looks at 'the working class' as a whole, not as a collective of individuals. Each person has the ability to take various steps and make assorted decisions to improve their lot, whether that be growing within a job or by seeking new employment opportunities. You might say skills are an issue and I agree. However, as I age, the worries of the past seem to fade - As one ages, one's skills and experience similarly grow, maturity improves, work ethic and productivity generally increase and hence the value of one's labour naturally increase. For example the coffee server becomes the chief barista and eventually moves on to store manager and perhaps even to district manager. If the coffee server does not see advancement in the future, choices are available, particularly in an open labour market with competition.

Perhaps my fictitious Barista realizes she really enjoys food service and decides to go back to school to become a chef. Government ought to facilitate that through education, training and apprenticeship programs. But Government ought not to mandate 'lifetime job security' for the Barista either as that would truly disserve everyone from the customer to the lowly newbie coffee server. This is the flaw of considering the labour market as a whole, instead of as a collective. I recall in High School having a similar lack of faith in the individual's ability and responsibility to make healthy decisions - be they financial, education, social; whatever.

And let’s not forget the Barista’s Asian counterpart. As Canada's relative wealth increases, we also see a massive growth in the worldwide economy. On CBS’ Sunday Morning, Alan Greenspan stated that on a worldwide basis, 200 Million people had been pulled above the poverty level in a relatively short amount of time though I can’t recall exactly how long – under his tenure as Chairman of the US Federal Reserve perhaps. That is a staggering number. At the same time, while Canada and the US have enjoyed steady growth many of those nations that truly required economic success to provide the basic necessities of life and to pull them forward towards the 21^st Century, have seen huge economic growth.

Is there a concentration of capital occurring to some degree? Yes, and that is a concern. However, to disregard the sharing of wealth amongst the global community is to allow your socialism to end at national borders - "Workers of the white world unite?" Instead of concentrating on those nations that are ‘stealing’ our jobs and trying to organize workers there, improve working conditions and regulations in those countries, fat, western Labour organizers sit and whine about the loss of jobs. Why not advocate for tougher environmental regulations in those countries to ensure developed nations can compete? Too often, labour concentrates on keeping an old order instead of adapting to change and ensuring that change benefits them.

Economics is about action and reaction, cause and effect, supply and demand. The entire basis of monetary systems is the value of human labour. In the west, we have allowed wage rates to grow for low-skilled jobs producing cheap goods that we consume in excess. It's no wonder then that low-wage jobs are moving to labour markets with cheaper labour. However, the wealth that we generated previously has allowed our labour market to become much more educated and highly skilled. We in the west also enjoy something that those in developing nations know little of: Leisure time. Lefties place no value on this. Does a Mexican labourer, driving a rivet for $15/less per hour have the cottage, boat and 4-weeks of vacation that the Ford Talbotville worker has? Yeah....right.

Now, I don't want to just pick on the left. I think that government should provide for those who need to transition or who must make difficult choices with respect to employment opportunities. Workers should be protected on worksites through regulation, for instance. Apprenticeship and training programs should be accessible and affordable for those facing tough times. I don't believe in a totally open labour market without a minimum wage and minimum wages ought to keep pace with inflation through CPI-pegged annual or bi-annual increases.

In an open labour market, the worker ultimately has the most power because they can sell their services to the highest bidder. Some regulation is needed to ensure minimum standards by job class so that un-skilled labour does not under-price skilled labour, though workers also benefit by being able to out-bid other labourers as well – limits on competition obviously limit competition. Individualism also says each labourer has the potential to improve skills, seek new experience and increase the value of their labour.

Health care in all forms must be provided to all Canadians regardless of their ability to pay for it. That is our true competitive advantage and we should do all we can to preserve it.

As you know, I do believe in a strong role for government but I do generally believe in the success of open markets. I believe in a strong social safety net, balanced budgets, Public Private Partnerships with good concession agreements, training programs and worker supports, public health care, user fees, full cost accounting and sustainable development. I believe in innovation to tackle the problems created by old thinking. I believe in experimentation with public policy and in overcoming the fears that prevent positive change. Adapt or die.

Senator Joe Biden, the Media and Personal Credit

2008-09-15T20:48:00.000-07:00

This story is making me laugh so I simply had to blog about it!

CNN is running a story about Joe Biden which includes a review of some of his work on the Senate Finance Committee and votes in the Senate for laws that would make it more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy. It's also important to note that he was one of 84 Senators that voted for the bill - not a squeaker by any means.

Some 'consumer advocate' - what is that anyway, someone who helps people spend more money consuming more bobbles I suppose - is part of this story and says something to the effect of "by making it harder to declare bankruptcy, he made it harder for people to keep their homes." The issue is that creditors want their money and if you owe it and can't pay, you're presumably forced to liquidate your assets to pay your creditors. Oh, what a horrible consequence...you borrowed too much, you couldn't pay for your debt and you had to sell. Not seeing the problem? Me neither.

If you've ever watched CNN's (and most media outlets) coverage of the credit crisis you will know that people like Lou Dobbs advocate for low-interest loans to the highest risk borrowers - even when they take out a 5th Credit Card. Now these same commentators (is incompetentator a word) turn and wonder why the US economy has suddenly gone in the pooper! Where does personal responsibility over spending and debt come into this whole discussion?

To take it one step further.... Today I heard that John McCain proposes to lower Food prices! hahaha...This poor old man has no clue. Unless he cancels all Ethanol programs to relieve the pressure on grain markets, while also magically inventing a solution to the energy crisis and climate change while also lowering Gas Taxes and eliminating Earmarks, and nationalizes the American Food Supply (how is this Conservative?) he hasn't a chance of lowering food prices. It's preposterous and they just flashed it up on the screen as one of his promises without blowing a hole in it right then and there.

Forget all the petty stuff about Palin. McCain is a populist liar who has now sold his sole to the Republican Party. Any sense of Maverick is gone. You know when Karl Rove says you're going to far, you really have gone to far.

This is a bit of a rambley blog but the point is this: McCain is lying his pants off, about his own plans and about his knowledge of the economy, his relationship to lobbyists, about Palin's experience, about his family's longevity (his father died at 70)...the list goes on - while Biden makes a gaff here and there but has an impeccable record and is a genuinely likeable guy.

So...Senator Biden voted on behalf of the many, many employees of Credit Companies that live in Delaware (doing his job) and voted for American responsibility over personal choice and personal accounatability over budgeting and personal spending and to keep a reasonable amount of credit and spending - a balanced approach.

Unfortunately, Americans somehow still refuse to believe the following: Democratic Presidents have had much better records - at war, at peace, with the economy, with the size of government. Their failures are their ability to win elections and to sound too high-minded and get off their core arguments.

Gas Price Insanity! The debate maddens me...

2008-09-12T05:44:00.000-07:00

Today’s blog asks some questions about Gas Prices.

My question's are:

"Do you support Higher Gas Prices at the Pump"

"Do you support higher Transparency in Energy: Oil, Gas, Electricity and Taxes"

"Is Higher Gas the Inconvenient Truth or the End of Suburbia or both"

"Would you support a ban on interviews conducted with people who just filled their tank?"

There are many more to be asked. As you may be able to tell, I believe that we still get a great deal in Canada and the US when it comes to Gas Prices and Gas Taxes. Actually, that's not really opinion but fact. Compared to Asia and Europe, we get a bargain at the Pump. We also pay more for Milk, Coca-Cola, Coffee and bottled Water. All of those products also depend on Cheap fuel to be manufactured and brought to market. The documentary 'The End of Suburbia' laments the death of the $5 Caesar salad.

There are a number of factors that create confusion and frustration: In the 70's there was a scare of shortages. Then for 30 more years we had cheap Gas. What gives? There is a lack of transparency at the pump. Remember those stickers that told you where your Gas dollar went? I don't think they're there anymore. Few people know accurately how much they pay per mile, how much they consume, the cost of their travel (there are many externalities in Transportation) or the subsidies they receive to drive - people still erroneously believe they pay the full cost of private travel or that road capacity has no cost.

We are told by industry groups that there is enough Oil and Gas in North America for the next 60 years if we just drill it but people like T. Boone Pickens also say that this is not the sole answer and that we must immediately start converting cars to clean Natural Gas. Industry Lobbies also pay millions to convince us and our legislators of their case. And Al Gore and David Suzuki tell us we certainly can't wait to start the move away from Carbon-based fuels given the Climate Change crisis - nor is it sustainable environmentally, economically, socially to continue the way we have.

No one likes prices going up. However, populist politicians are now spouting things like: The spike in Gas is as much as we paid for Gas in the 1970's. Well, inflation alone has meant a huge increase in the value of our dollar in the last 30 years which deflates this argument pretty quickly - in Real Dollar terms, its not that large a spike. But politicians are like Movie Theatres - every new release has to be the biggest ever regardless of inflation! Are we stupid for buying these politicians or are we simply pavlovian dogs wagging our tongues and drooling when they fight Big Oil?

I haven't even begun to talk about how cheap gas has subsidized suburban sprawl which in turn has made most of the complainers totally dependent on cheap gas. I guess, someone told these people at some point that Gas would always be cheap and there was some guarantee of a good life and a right to drive in the passing lane at all times. Parking should be free too right? Any amateur economist (myself included) can tell you the first rule of economics is that there are NO free lunches!!

Further complicating this debate the fact that we in Ontario have under-invested, perhaps even de-invested in Transportation for 30 plus years and that we have massive needs for new infrastructure and it becomes even more fun. Most public opinion surveys will tell you this: voters prefer user fees over general tax increases. Therefore, to increase road repair, increase public transit (which benefits drivers and trucks) we must draw even more from drivers, not less. At the same time, the public demands transparency in funding systems, reduction of gridlock, better road maintenance and fairness.

Every day there are media stories about record prices - and yet demand is still going up. We live in a free market economy but even if we didn't, we'd still have to deal with the natural economic laws of supply, demand and equilibrium price. We've seen gas sell out when the price was low. We still see line-ups as price goes up. There has been an increase in North American transit ridership but since we are allowing it to happen to us we have not pre-invested in public transit to accommodate new capacity.

However, here is where some of our Federal and Provincial politicians are also slightly dishonest with us. Gas Tax revenues (those that aren't flat per litre excise taxes) go up with the price of Gas as do Corporate Income Taxes (unless they enjoy loopholes and shelters.) So the government should be able to invest in alternatives that get people off of their addiction - kind of like the concept of legalizing and taxing drugs to pay for treatment programs!!! These would include alternative fuels, conservation, public transit, ride-share incentives, etc.. After all, we all pay for our roads through property taxes whether we own a car and drive it every day or sit at home and watch TV.

I don't have all the answers. I do love debate. If you have ideas, please share them politely. I know this is a hot issue and hits many people in their emotional strike zone - their wallet! I am lucky but have also made a choice to live in a neigbhourhood close to downtown and to drive less than 400k/month. I know others might not be so lucky. Please share any info you have about Oil and Gas, about the amount of refining capacity in North America, about how much you pay per km for roads, insurance and gas, and any other info and opinion related to this topic.

Earmarks 101 - Pork Barrells or Democracy in Action

2008-09-11T03:24:00.000-07:00

As the US elections heat up I thought I'd write a short primer for my Canadian friends and delve into the issue of Earmarks. What are Earmarks? Are they controversial and if so, why are they controversial? And of course I will try to add my own brand of political humour and opinion.

An Earmark is defined by Wikipedia as: congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding. Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

Like most governments, bureaucrats in the United States prepare annual budgets that contain essential program-based spending. Most of these programs are carried forward and this "Base Budget" contains nearly 90percent of US Government spending. In 2007, Congressional Earmarks totalled 10.4 Billion dollars. These funds include umbrella contracts that approve ongoing purchases and that may or may not be accessed in a given budgetary year. These funds include money for normal capital upkeep of well, the Capitol. Often programs that have become ineffective, bloated or simple failures continue to have funding allocated. The Base Budget is the Bureaucrat's budget. Earmarks are one way that politicians (and by extension electors) can influence the political process. In fact, controlling purse strings may be the single-most important way that politicians and bureaucrats exert influence and power.

To give you an idea of what might be funded through an Earmark, the company I formerly worked for had a strategy to identify a source for a Federal Earmark to run a demonstration project of our Road User Charging system. Our product is innovative but potentially too expensive for a local government to pursue alone. Federal programs have all been directed to a program authorized by President Bush's Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. Bureaucrats therefore held sole discretion over the redirection from their original, publicly approved intent. Given the President's flailing popularity numbers one wonders how legitimate that practice is (as much as I like Secretary Peters.)

While a famous Earmark was directed towards a bridge 'to nowhere' (I thought Ketchican was a huge tourist destination - maybe the Americans are using a Hunter S. Thompson Fat City-strategy to keep people away from Alaskan cruises, but I digress) most are for much smaller projects that might not be a top priority but definitely have public support and/or value. Another proposal getting heat is Senator Arlen Spector's attempt to get $100,000 for the United Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh for a 'Naturally Occuring Retirement Community. Hilary Clinton came under fire for her support of aWoodstock Museum. Senator Patty Murray of Washington has drawn heat for a $150,000 grant for the Northwest Electrical Industry Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for expanded training capability, acquisition of training equipment, and to meet the need for skilled electrical workers. I know: How dare they?

So...here's the gist. Many people figure that Earmarks are bad simply because they are not pre-approved by a bureaucrat. But America is the world's greatest democracy, or so we're reminded daily. If bureaucrats ultimately control the spending of tax dollars though, what is the role of the elected representative? Rules of conduct and procedure often preclude politicians from getting directly involved on their constituents' behalf relative to government decisions to refuse funding. Abuse of such rules lead to things like the Canadian Liberal Party's 'Sponsorship scandal.' We're therefore left with a number of questions.

What is the role of the politician? Is it to simply set rules? Or is the ability of a politicain to reward those who support them a legitimate power? Is it legitimate, within a larger budget/financial control system, for a politician to nominate a local cause or project to receive federal funding above what may have already been allocated? I would argue that it is legitimate for a politician to advocate (including moving Motions and earmarking) for causes and projects they have previously and openly supported. It is the role of the larger democratic institution to decide if the funding for that project is appropriate and in the interest of the larger population. Obviously, an Earmark for Iowans against all other Americans probably should not be funded by the US Congress. But an Earmark for Iowa Corn Farmers for Ethanol Alternatives is probably in the National interest, particularly if their research led to a reduction in the dependence on foreign oil and a ton of other positive effects.

I do not buy the argument that Earmarks are not made appropriately procedurally. A procedure exists and it is up to the politicians to know the rules and to do what they can to eliminate specific earmarks they don't agree with - not to eliminate earmarks wholly, throwing the babes out with the Hot Tub water.

So, now that you've read this you're hopefully with me...what's the big deal?

There is no big deal. In fact, the biggest deal about Earmarks is how overblown this issue has become. Politicians are tilting at windmills and its causing them trouble. Governor and would-be Vice President Sarah Palin is a great example. As Governor, she was trying to accomplish things for her citizens who pay taxes to the federal government. Now, as a 'Straight Talking' Republican, she is opposed to earmarks. This is a classic example of the problem with people painting Earmarks as 'Good' or 'Evil'. One woman's junk...

So...that's enough for now - I'm trying to keep blogs short and plentiful. Feel free to post comments as I don't have all the answers and always learn from other perspectives.

Greens in the Debate

2008-09-09T06:31:00.000-07:00

I'm torn about letting Elizabeth May into the Canadian Federal Debate but don't think this should be the issue it is - in other words, no skin off my nose whether she's allowed-in or not. Here's my thinking:

1. The Green Party do field candidates in every riding. But so did the Rhinos in the 70's and early 80's and surely other parties such as the Communist Party, at some point fielded candidates in every riding. So I don't know that this meets the test either way - there's no slam dunk.

2. The Green Party hasn't won a riding in Canada in any election. This is a clear fact that makes it easy to keep them out. It's a no-brainer. I cannot be convinced that not being in a debate has eliminated their ability to win a seat - I think bad policy and a muddled message have done that.

3. The Bloc is allowed in so why not let the Greens in. Exactly. A regional party who's aim is to disband the country is permitted in the National Leaders debate, even though they don't field candidates outside of Quebec. So...it's not like the debate has a record of holding high requirements for entry.

4. They let Preston Manning in prior to Reform winning seats. Again, precedent stands - what's the big deal?

5. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Harper versus Dion and Duceppe and Layton and May !? Sounds like a law firm not a debate. Imagine all the squalking - If she gets in, May win the whole thing be polite and by not saying one word out of turn.

6. Further splintering of the Left only helps the Tories. This is my own personal reason. I don't see much of a difference between the Liberals and the Greens except for the Liberal brand which has been tainted but has a hugely rich history as the Party of Lester B Pearson and Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The Greens are a mix of bitter ex-New Democrats and Liberals as well as an odd collection of libertarians and those who just wish they lived in Europe. Instead of changing existing parties by involving themselves, supporters of the Greens like an imaginary world where there are no conflicting interests and that we build all new policy consultatively.

7. This is actually where I prefer the American system. In limiting to 2 parties and independants, each party is forced to accomodate a wide-spectrum of views within, rather than be out-flanked. Both parties must accomodate viewpoints driven from the grassroots - this is how the Republicans have become a Big Government party while the Democrats have become about efficiency and centrist economic policy. I'm not saying that's what we need but without electoral/legislative reforms (ie without proportional representation) more parties will lead to unstable governments and more elections, not that I have an objection to elections per se.

I think Dion is being fair again - which will hurt him again unfortunately and plays into Harper's strategy to convince people that there would be two Liberal leaders at the debate. The Liberals should not concede ridings to the Greens - even to their leader. We ought not to flood May's riding with workers and money but we should field a candidate. Ceding ground says that the Liberals are not the Ruling Party and are not convinced that their plan for Canada is the best one. As a Liberal, I say let May stand up for herself on her Party's own two legs - once they find them.

So in my classic style, I've outlined some of my main issues with the National Leaders debate and the decision to not include Elizabeth May. I can't decide what I think but I'd love to hear comments.

Introduction

2008-08-13T20:22:00.000-07:00

I will fill in the details later - that's how I normally do it.

I am starting a new blog, away from my old blog to discuss City issues. I've decided to re-start this exercise but am taking a vow of nicety. It is my desire to not blame anyone but to identify the thinking and strategy behind certain decisions. To engage in civil civic discourse is the purpose.

With that I will make a simple statement about the explosion at Sunrise Propane in Toronto, well, North York that is. Straight up, I'm not aware of all of the facts. There is an ongoing investigation that will, I'm sure, result in some form of conclusion and ideally, responsibility for the explosion. And that is exactly what should happen. That, and everyone should have some gratitude that safety zones did, in this instance, exactly what they were supposed to do.

The force of the explosion caused damage to homes. None of them caught fire and thankfully, there is only one death as a result of the fire itself and we all wish the best to the family of the District Fire Chief who gave his life in the line of duty. Again, gratitude.

There must be a review of the zoning by-law but that will occur in due course and there is nothing to indicate that it is in anyway insufficient. We must not leap to conclusions or bans or anything of the sort. One only has to wonder about the number of small IEDs in North York backyards, attached to Barbecues to realize the consequences of treating relatively safe and stable alternative fuels such as propane like some sort of latent incendiary device.

In the future, we will need more, not less alternative fuel sources. Innovators have developed home-based Hydrogen Refueling stations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7496331.stm How will react to that concept?

So, let's all have a nice summer barbecuing while we can. While some will try to use this for political points I'm sure Council will make a sound decision and do very little except ensure that By-laws are adhered to and keep pressure on other organizations to ensure standards are met. That is after all, what makes City Hall tick. In the meantime, everyone, neighbours, Councillors, staff, needs to take a deep breath and ensure that a sound investigation is allowed.

The last thing we need is some huge zoning change that costs a lot of taxpayer money in courts to revoke property rights in the name of making everyone drive further to get things like propane, firewood, Gas, Paint, Dry Cleaning, Dentistry and other basic activities with possibly dangerous or toxic side-effects. Put your helmet and seatbelt on and hit the gas! While you're at it, don't locate schools, seniors, the mentally challenged, the physically challenged in or near our residential neighbourhoods and keep all buildings under 10-storeys....I mean really.

There, nice, short, to the point and no angry man - just a bit of good ol' JP sarcasm!