An Analysis of the Election Budget

All appearances now seem to indicate that the Harper government will fall as result of the non-confidence motion to be voted on tomorrow. In light of this reality, I decided to take a look at the budget that will undoubtedly play a significant role in the events to come. Being unwilling to read the entirety of the 352 page budget at this time, I contented myself with reading the government’s summary, which can be found here. I did end up looking at the full budget occasionally as well. For those of you who are interested, it can be found here. What follows is a brief commentary on some of the proposals in the budget that I found significant.

To give some context, this budget follows two years of focus on stimulus spending. With plans for stimulus spending now winding down, the government is projecting a $29.6 billion deficit for the upcoming fiscal year, down from $40.5 billion last year. The government developed this budget based on the assertion that Canada has and will continue to experience economic growth that is anomalously high amongst G7 nations. The government asserts that as a result of policies implemented in this budget as well as those resulting from previous budgets, the federal government will return to surplus budgets once again by the 2015-2016 fiscal year. These claims are similar to those made in last year’s budget, and were specifically attacked by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page as having been unrealistically optimistic.

The budget puts forth a variety of proposals meant to help address various issues surrounding economic growth and job creation. It features 5 central categories of concern: supporting job creation; supporting families and communities; investing in innovation, education and training; preserving Canada’s fiscal advantage; and planning a return to balanced budgets. I will address the plans laid out in each of these categories in this article. This article is in no way comprehensive. Many provisions in the budget have been ignored.

Rethinking Welfare

Welfare is a common feature of many advanced capitalist nations. However, it has commonly been criticized by those who question why a person who is able to work but is not doing is entitled to impose the burden of his sustenance on society.  Some critics ask why these individuals do not simply find a job and support themselves. These critics claim that the existence of welfare discourages recipients from looking for work, since recipients know they can live relatively comfortably without getting a job.

There are two problems with this analysis; the first of which is the presumption that welfare receiving individual could readily find a job if only he/she looked hard enough. This is simply not the case. In a capitalist society, there are never enough job opportunities available for every citizen who wants a job. Indeed, it is not even certain that it would be entirely desirable for such a situation to arise in a capitalist society. Such a level of job availability would effectively remove the  threat of unemployment as an effective tool for ensuring quality of labour. That is to say with such high employment rates, employers would have more to fear in firing a worker as there would be a very limited pool of alternative workers to hire. Employees would, in turn,  have less incentive to produce quality work because of the higher amount of alternative jobs available to them should they quit or be fired.

The second flaw of basic critical analysis lies in the assumption that welfare provides a comfortable standard of living. Most people living on welfare struggle to meet their needs despite living off the public purse. While it is true that some, who are satisfied with this meagre form of living, choose not attempt to seek anything beyond it, most welfare recipients have a fairly strong incentive to seek employment, as a way to improve their quality of life.

In addition to these two problems with the critique of welfare, it is important to consider the purely ethical case to be made in favour of welfare. Even if we were to assume that all welfare recipients live as such by choice, there is a strain of thought which would suggest that it is entirely unethical for us to leave any person with no means to support themselves.

This argument, although admirable, is of course ridiculous. If people are perfectly able to contribute to society, they do not deserve the option of simply living off social assistance. This seemingly cruel way of seeing things is true if for no other reason than that living off welfare is nota choice that could be practically taken by every able worker in society. It is simply not a practical option outside the realm of fantasy. For a society to function, its inhabitants must perform work. It is the individual’s right to choose not to perform any work, but if he chooses this path willingly, there is no justification for his continued support by the government. If private individuals feel differently and wish to fund a charity providing unconditional social services, that is their business, but it is not for them to decide that the public as a whole should fund this cause.

Sadly, as mentioned in previous paragraphs, we must recognize that our society is partially populated by people who are out of work for many reasons. They may be unable to find a job, too busy with childcare to work or perhaps physically or mentally disabled to the point that they are unable to work. These issues should be enough to prevent us from ending the welfare program in its entirety.

However, this is not to say that we should continue to dispense welfare payments via current methods. There is a way in which we could collect a contribution from welfare recipients – namely, through workfare.

Opposition Opportunism

On January 25^th, 2010, Canada’s Parliament was meant to resume sitting. And it would have, if not for the fact that our Prime Minister decided it would be very unfortunate if he had to keep democracy open for that particular period of time. Instead, Harper opted to prorogue Parliament, ensuring that it would not return to action until March 3^rd. But don’t worry about that too much! The opposition parties are here to help!

Opposition parties claim to be just as outraged about Harper’s disregard for accountable governance as average Canadians are (which, given the state of voter apathy in Canada, is maybe not the best analogy). So, on January 25^th, the NDP and Liberal MPs went “back to work”, returning to Parliament Hill in a bid to show Canadians that they have taken the moral high ground, turning up for work on days when they could have been relaxing like a number of Conservative MPs must be doing right about now.

What everyone seems to have been forgotten is that, little over a month ago, they were much less enthusiastic.

Stephen Harper and the Decline of Government Accountability

When Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party first came to power in 2006 one of the most central components of their platform was the idea of open and accountable government. At the time, the nation was preoccupied with the outrage caused by the Sponsorship Scandal, under which certain segments of the former Liberal government stood accused of funnelling up to 100 million taxpayer dollars to various private sector advertising firms in exchange for little to no actual services provided. Indeed, upon receiving power Harper passed the Federal Accountability Act, which was meant to help make the government more transparent (most notably the act banned corporate and union campaign contribution as well as opening up the bidding process for many types of government contracts).

However, even in those early days Harper’s plans for accountability fell short of what was needed. Justice John Gomery, who headed the public inquiry into the scandal, stated in response to the proposed act that “The Accountability Act isn’t an answer to my report”. Gomery wanted more leeway to have incompetent government bureaucrats fired, which he said was nearly impossible. Additionally, Gomery felt that the Act did not do enough to hold senior government officials and cabinet ministers accountable for their actions. Harper did nothing to acknowledge Gomery’s requests and so our government remained in great part the same as it was during the Sponsorship Scandal. However, this was hardly a remarkable action. Governments and prime ministers ignorantly ignore the advice of better informed independent third-parties all the time. To truly understand Harper’s feelings about accountability, one must look at the culmination of many of his acts as Prime Minister.

Why the Copenhagen Accord is Doomed to Failure: The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Earlier this week the world’s leaders concluded from the climate change talks in Copenhagen and things are not looking rosy. The summit failed to produce a legally binding treaty on climate change, although it was a failure that many had predicted. In an act of greater failure still it produced very little in the way of quantitative emissions reduction targets. But even if the world’s nations had managed to produce a legally binding treaty with set targets in emissions reduction for all nations, would it have work?

The Education System is Dysfunctional #1: The way we teach is wrong (Digitally Remastered Edition)

I have decided to take another go at my article series on the education system which, despite being one of my favourites, never reached completion. I’m starting from the beginning with revised editions of my old articles. One complaint I received about these articles before was a lack of sources. This time I intend to provide links to important resources. It won’t be a bibliography or anything. Just some places you can go to find out more and confirm I’m not making stuff up. Here we go again!

The education system is dysfunctional.

Quite a large claim to make. How could anyone whose opinion is of any merit say such a thing? Surely, I am simply a maniac with some grudge against my school teachers. Perhaps you should stop listening to me and leave this place right now as I am evidently crazy.

If you are still here perhaps you are willing to consider the idea that one of the most sacred institutions in our world is, right now, as I type these words, destroying young minds forever. And at the very core of this problem is the way in which we carry out the process of education.

Morality is Not Subjective… (Usually)

These days, people are far too concerned about differences in culture. Don’t get me wrong, I’m the last person to consider my race, religion or culture superior to those of others. I have nothing against immigration or the many new ideas it brings with it. However, it seems to me that many people, in their righteous quest to accept all cultures, have gone a little overboard.

Does multiculturalism require that we allow for deviant moral behaviors as well? Many supposed intellectuals would say yes. To them different moral standards in other countries are not necessarily wrong, just different.

On a fundamental level, these people are completely incorrect.

Canadian Electoral Reform: Replacing Our Current System With Actual Democracy

In Canada one of the most important pillars of our society is that we live in a democracy. We can sleep well at night knowing that our elected officials must always fear losing power if they lose the support of the people. In this way we can be certain that our government will usually employ the policies we want them to. Right?

Wrong.

In the current system many Canadians voices are not heard at all. I am not talking about people who choose not to vote, but of Canadian citizens who cast their ballot for the candidate and party of their choice. How can this be, you ask? I shall tell you.

Why Conservatives and Free-Market Idealouges Should Embrace a Carbon Tax

Remember the Carbon Tax? That dreaded item of Stéphane Dion’s Liberal agenda that was going to destroy the economy forever. It was all part of the grand Liberal plan to tax Canadians into submission. It was just another socialistic policy, doomed to failure from the beginning.

Or was it? Why is it that people think of a Carbon Tax as some how leftist (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and fiscally irresponsible. In truth the Carbon Tax is a very conservative environmental policy. Think about it for a moment. A carbon tax works by discouraging the use of any process that produces carbon dioxide. It would provide just enough financial disincentive for energy companies to research and eventually produce and sell alternative energy.

A carbon tax if implemented properly would completely replace current government environment initiatives such as those implemented by the current Conservative government, previous Liberal governments and various provincial governments across the country in which the government subsidizes companies researching alternative power. These subsidies are used to fund research directly or by subsidize the price of alternative energy. The government of Ontario is a good example as it contributes large amounts of funding to wind power.

The problem with these approaches is simple. They distort the market.

The Unwinnable War: How To End The War On Drugs

In a time when many have begun to question how well their government is spending their money it was inevitable that the supposed War On Drugs would become a topic of discussion. That is because (in case you had not noticed) many of the world’s most powerful countries not only have extensive laws prohibiting the use and possession of many drugs but have spent billions of dollars hunting down those who break these laws. But is the government spending your money wisely?

It may seem that the government’s role in this issue is an obvious one. After all, the drugs that are prohibited include marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and many other similar drugs known to have harmful side-effects. Surely it is the responsibility of the government to protect us and our children from these dangerous substances. In principle it seems like a good idea. In practice, the effectiveness of these policies is questionable.

The fact is that despite all the government’s programs and policies aimed at eliminating drugs very little progress has been made towards this lofty goal. Do you really think that right now, if you wanted to go out and purchase some marijuana you would not be able to? Do you truly believe that the government is anywhere close to shutting marijuana production in our country. Every year hundreds of millions of dollars is spent in Canada’s War On Drugs but yet drug use has only been increasing. In 1994 28.5% of Canadians admitted to having used illegal drugs in their lifetime. In 2004, that number reach 45%.