An Idea to reduce the impacts of Property Re-Assessments

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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.