Amid global economic turmoil, there is a broad consensus about two factors: Economic recovery depends largely on effective government action, and yet the public is also skeptical about government's ability to both fulfill its newly expanded mandate and achieve efficiency-minded savings that will help restrain overall spending.
Resolving this paradox requires pursuing a new era in government, upgrading its managerial capabilities to ensure a stronger return on taxpayers' investment. Political leaders and civil servants will need to go further and faster than they did in previous reform initiatives to meet this “whole-government transformation” imperative.
Canada's leaders can build on substantive steps already taken. Thanks to both federal and provincial reform efforts of recent years, Canada is better positioned than many other countries to deliver further change. Canadian leaders can also continue to learn selectively from what has worked well in other countries.
For example, New Zealand responded to an economic crisis in the 1980s by giving each government agency a clear set of objectives and an agency-level CEO with the flexibility to innovate – and it used this change to shrink the size of government while improving the quality of public services. Similarly, Sweden responded to a 1990s financial crisis by using top-down budgets to drive annual improvements in government efficiency that exceeded many parts of the private sector.
Larger and more complex countries have recently undertaken equally ambitious initiatives. For nearly 12 years, the British government, under Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown, has pursued an integrated reform program that links departmental budget allocations to predefined outcome targets – successes so far include reduced waiting times for medical treatment and improved test scores in public schools. In the past year, the French government under President Nicolas Sarkozy has launched a program to re-think every aspect of its public service model. In Washington, President Barack Obama has put government reform at the forefront of his agenda.
There is no single prescription for success, yet there is a core set of priorities that we believe define whole-government transformation. Foremost is the need to improve performance and delivery through focused objectives, consistent measurement of progress, accountability for success and failure, and alignment across government agencies on decision making, performance management and service delivery.
For example, lean operations can streamline decades-old processes and reshape public services around the citizen. Modern information systems can transform the use of data and analysis, enabling better decisions. And superior talent management can help public agencies attract, develop and retain highly skilled employees – especially important as Canada prepares for a wave of retirements by government employees.
Achieving clarity on such broad priorities is just the start of the reform process. Implementing truly transformational change is arguably a greater challenge. Many an ambitious reform initiative has delivered only part of its promise. Four factors are critical:
First, leaders should establish a vision of reform that tells public sector employees what is required of them and why, and that causes citizens to expect and demand high-quality services. Articulating a reform narrative has been a priority of Mr. Blair, Mr. Brown and Mr. Sarkozy, illustrating the importance of top leaders' full and sustained engagement in reform.
Second, leaders should articulate and deliver a prioritized program. This means being both comprehensive, touching all aspects of government; and specific, setting out objectives for performance improvement. There must be a clear sense of what “good” looks like, with change implemented in priority order and manageable chunks.
Third, a renewed institutional capacity should be built to drive reform at an accelerated pace and with sufficient rigour. The Blair government's “Prime Minister's Delivery Unit” was charged with meeting top-priority objectives for individual departments while embedding a delivery culture across government. More recently, the French government created a co-ordinating group to drive cross-government reforms, ensuring that top-quality performance is on the agenda of every department.
Fourth, there should be a new focus on building managerial capabilities. Managing talent in any decentralized, diverse organization is no easy task. The recent Harper budget's proposed centralization of the federal human resources function – realigning six separate federal agencies – marks an important step forward. Yet it does not address the human capital gap in attracting and developing high-potential employees, or the managerial gap in leading them.
The economic crisis presents Ottawa and the provincial governments with an opportunity to embrace a more radical phase of reform. In doing so, they can create a more agile and resilient public sector and help Canada become more competitive to meet future challenges. Jiri Maly is a principal and Nora Aufreiter is a director in the Toronto office of McKinsey
Do we have the will to do this? -the stakes are worthhile . leadership in the world by" creating a more agile and resilient public sector and help Canada become more competitive to meet future challenges." PR
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
Never Forget the Victims of Intolerance and Oppression
Least we forget-It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended
This blog entry is in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!
Now, more than ever, with Iraq , Iran , and others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it's imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.
We should never forget,never look the other way and never let it happen again PR
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Brant Taxpayer Coalition Questions on the expropriation
click to enlarge
EXPROPRIATION QUESTIONS AND A NEED TO KNOW Pass along please
Questions asked
Are we paying too much based on market conditions? Is the $68K per building difference or $2.7 million, a 27% premium that we want to pay at taxpayer expense?
Where are the displaced people- our new dwellers going to go?
If the value is in the land only,should we buy the land not the buildings and save the added cost of demolition ?
Why are we buying dilapidated buildings at a premium to demolish them at Taxpayers expense? What is the Environmental clean up cost? What is the heritage cost? What is the legal cost? What are the contingency costs of the venture?
Why did we not follow the normal council procedure and open the Expropriation by law to public input, scrutiny and debate?
If the budget process ,is open to public input and takes 3 months, how can a expropriation budget by-law –that accounts for !0% of the annual operating budget be approved in a one session council meeting with little or no public input, scrutiny or debate ?
Contact your public representatives to get answers - it’s your money, use it wisely
Public Brantford Representatives
Mayor Mike Hancock
519-759-4150
mhancock@brantford.ca
WARD 1 Councillors
Jennifer Kinneman
519-717-3872
jkinneman@brantford.ca
Mark Littell
519-717-0403
mlittell@brantford.ca
WARD 2 Councillors
John Sless
519-717-0673
jsless@brantford.ca
Vince Bucci
519-717-0518
vbucci@brantford.ca
WARD 3 Councillors
Greg Martin
519-754-7269
gmartin@brantford.ca
Dan McCreary
519-761-2439
dmccreary@brantford.ca
WARD 4 Councillors
Richard Carpenter
519-770-6027
rcarpenter@brantford.ca
James Calnan
519-732-6476
jcalnan@brantford.ca
WARD 5 Councillors
Marguerite Ceschi-Smith
519-758-5093
mceschi-smith@brantford.ca
John Bradford
519-755-8255
jbradford@brantford.ca
Provincial representative Dave Levac dlevac.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Federal representative Phil Coleman McColeman.P@parl.gc.ca
Expropriating an $11.5 million gamble
We totally agree with the expositor editors assessment and compellling call for caution PR 'there has got to be a better way to spend that kind of money -or better yet, add the money to the public coffers and lighten the burden on an already stretched taxpayer
Expropriating an $11.5 million gamble pointof view Posted By JOHN CHAMBERS
Council should be commended for wanting to see improvements to the south side of Colborne Street. A derelect eye sore to be sure, a major face-lift and revitalization would be a major shot in the arm for a downtown begging to return to its former glory.
But should this council risk an $11.5 million price tag to expropriate a block of 41 properties in order to clear the way for redevelopment? In trying economic times, there has got to be a better way to spend that kind of money -or better yet, add the money to the public coffers and lighten the burden on an already stretched taxpayer. "We have waited for the private sector, but we have to accept now that it's not coming, so we have to do something bold," said councillor Mark Littell, chairman of the South Side of Colborne Task Force, on the proposal to expropriate the property, and he's right.
But if the private sector hasn't been able to address the growing concerns of the south side of Colborne Street to date, shouldn't alarm bells be going off around council chambers?
It's important to remember that council is elected by the constituents to represent them -council is not and should not be in the property acquisition business -especially at the cost currently pegged for this plan.
Bottom line, city residents can't afford to see any of their tax dollars go to a project that can't be fixed with a simple cash injection; $11.5 million is just a start for a project of this magnitude. The question remains of where some of the residents living in that block will go -an interesting social question and topic of future debate; How much will it cost to demolish the properties? Will we discover there are now environmental concerns or learn that a potential developments' footprint is too big for the allocated space?
There are just too many unknowns to move forward at the taxpayers expense.
And frankly there is nothing worse than taking on a multi-year commitment to pay for something that may not ever materialize.
If this council was truly interested in moving forward with the property and its redevelopment in the best interest of the taxpayers than they should have sought actual proposals from interested groups, businesses, individuals and government on what a redeveloped property would look like, and once an option is selected than move forward with expropriation if need be; but have the common sense to make sure all of the partners, and their money, is locked into the project before putting residents on the hook for a proposal they can't afford.
Expropriating an $11.5 million gamble pointof view Posted By JOHN CHAMBERS
Council should be commended for wanting to see improvements to the south side of Colborne Street. A derelect eye sore to be sure, a major face-lift and revitalization would be a major shot in the arm for a downtown begging to return to its former glory.
But should this council risk an $11.5 million price tag to expropriate a block of 41 properties in order to clear the way for redevelopment? In trying economic times, there has got to be a better way to spend that kind of money -or better yet, add the money to the public coffers and lighten the burden on an already stretched taxpayer. "We have waited for the private sector, but we have to accept now that it's not coming, so we have to do something bold," said councillor Mark Littell, chairman of the South Side of Colborne Task Force, on the proposal to expropriate the property, and he's right.
But if the private sector hasn't been able to address the growing concerns of the south side of Colborne Street to date, shouldn't alarm bells be going off around council chambers?
It's important to remember that council is elected by the constituents to represent them -council is not and should not be in the property acquisition business -especially at the cost currently pegged for this plan.
Bottom line, city residents can't afford to see any of their tax dollars go to a project that can't be fixed with a simple cash injection; $11.5 million is just a start for a project of this magnitude. The question remains of where some of the residents living in that block will go -an interesting social question and topic of future debate; How much will it cost to demolish the properties? Will we discover there are now environmental concerns or learn that a potential developments' footprint is too big for the allocated space?
There are just too many unknowns to move forward at the taxpayers expense.
And frankly there is nothing worse than taking on a multi-year commitment to pay for something that may not ever materialize.
If this council was truly interested in moving forward with the property and its redevelopment in the best interest of the taxpayers than they should have sought actual proposals from interested groups, businesses, individuals and government on what a redeveloped property would look like, and once an option is selected than move forward with expropriation if need be; but have the common sense to make sure all of the partners, and their money, is locked into the project before putting residents on the hook for a proposal they can't afford.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
BreakPoint: Chilling Free Speech, 2/24/09 - 2/24/2009 12:15:50 PM
BreakPoint: Chilling Free Speech, 2/24/09 - 2/24/2009 12:15:50 PM: "Chilling Free Speech
Mapping Political Persecution
February 24, 2009
Dotting the streets on a certain online map are hundreds of red teardrops. Click on a teardrop at a particular address, and come up with the words, “Patricia Greenwood. Insurance agent. $100.”"
This is unbelievable in a democracy. In fact, “domestic terrorism” is not too strong a word to use for what’s occurring in California—and it’s a reminder of what happened when citizens allowed similar tactics to go unchallenged in another time and place.
Seventy-odd years ago, Adolf Hitler turned loose his brown shirts on Germany. These vicious young thugs went street by street, seeking out Jews and communists and trade union leaders. They beat them up and destroyed their places of business. In this way, Germany, a strong country, was taken over by an evil man and regime.
Using Google maps to pinpoint opposition views is an abuse -whether you believe in either position -this is a bad precedent that should be discouraged PR
Mapping Political Persecution
February 24, 2009
Dotting the streets on a certain online map are hundreds of red teardrops. Click on a teardrop at a particular address, and come up with the words, “Patricia Greenwood. Insurance agent. $100.”"
This is unbelievable in a democracy. In fact, “domestic terrorism” is not too strong a word to use for what’s occurring in California—and it’s a reminder of what happened when citizens allowed similar tactics to go unchallenged in another time and place.
Seventy-odd years ago, Adolf Hitler turned loose his brown shirts on Germany. These vicious young thugs went street by street, seeking out Jews and communists and trade union leaders. They beat them up and destroyed their places of business. In this way, Germany, a strong country, was taken over by an evil man and regime.
Using Google maps to pinpoint opposition views is an abuse -whether you believe in either position -this is a bad precedent that should be discouraged PR
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Water footprint
Water is a scarce commodity... and we live in an age in which, for better or worse, people of all kinds are obsessed with reducing their "carbon footprint." Now there are more footprints to worry about: water footprints.
The Wall Street Journal recently gave some examples of this sort of thing:
It takes roughly 20 gallons of water to make a pint of beer, as much as 132 gallons of water to make a 2-liter bottle of soda and about 500 gallons of water, including water used to grow, dye and process cotton, to make a pair of Levi's stonewashed jeans.
Other examples include the nearly 35 gallons of water behind every cup of coffee, the 700 gallons behind the typical dyed T-shirt, and the 630 gallons to produce a single hamburger.
So a water footprint is basically how much water you use to produce a given consumer good. There is a lot more attention focused on reducing this water footprint, especially since water-scarcity issues are cropping up a lot more these days.
You may be familiar with these numbers: Two-thirds of the world's population face water shortages by 2025, according to the United Nations. And according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, about 36 states face water shortages by 2013.
These issues may not seem so pressing to you, since every time you turn on the tap, the water flows. And you can get all the bottled water you can buy at any grocery store. Unless you live in the Western states, where water rights are more of a concern, you may not appreciate water-scarcity issues.
But it is an important issue for industrial users of water all over the world. Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks, Levi's, and about 100 other companies recently held a conference in Miami on reducing water footprints. So this is serious business.
It's not just an attempt to be eco-friendly, either. It's nothing but good old-fashioned greed that compels companies to think about their water usage. If you are Coca-Cola, you need a good water supply. And you can't have locals railing at you for depleting their already low water supply to make fizzy sugar water. Coca-Cola either finds ways to use water more efficiently or the locals will shut production down.
The Journal notes in passing SABMiller's experience in Tanzania. SABMiller makes Miller Lite, Peroni, and Pilsner Urquell. Its factory in Dar es Salaam depleted local aquifers, causing them to grow increasingly salty. Meanwhile, the city has water shortages already. SABMiller has to find a way use water more efficiently or it will go out of business in Tanzania.
These kinds of stories repeat themselves in different settings all over the world. As one manager for the Freshwater Footprint Project for the World Wildlife Fund said, "Three billion more people are going to be on this planet" by 2050. "Somehow, we're going to have to use the same amount of water we use today."
Nalco is right in the heart of this issue. Nalco's customers are industrial users. Nalco's services improve water efficiency. The company also offers services to reduce air pollution, treat industrial wastewater, and more. In this, Nalco is the global leader, with a 17% global market share. It's bigger than GE in water.
The Wall Street Journal recently gave some examples of this sort of thing:
It takes roughly 20 gallons of water to make a pint of beer, as much as 132 gallons of water to make a 2-liter bottle of soda and about 500 gallons of water, including water used to grow, dye and process cotton, to make a pair of Levi's stonewashed jeans.
Other examples include the nearly 35 gallons of water behind every cup of coffee, the 700 gallons behind the typical dyed T-shirt, and the 630 gallons to produce a single hamburger.
So a water footprint is basically how much water you use to produce a given consumer good. There is a lot more attention focused on reducing this water footprint, especially since water-scarcity issues are cropping up a lot more these days.
You may be familiar with these numbers: Two-thirds of the world's population face water shortages by 2025, according to the United Nations. And according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, about 36 states face water shortages by 2013.
These issues may not seem so pressing to you, since every time you turn on the tap, the water flows. And you can get all the bottled water you can buy at any grocery store. Unless you live in the Western states, where water rights are more of a concern, you may not appreciate water-scarcity issues.
But it is an important issue for industrial users of water all over the world. Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks, Levi's, and about 100 other companies recently held a conference in Miami on reducing water footprints. So this is serious business.
It's not just an attempt to be eco-friendly, either. It's nothing but good old-fashioned greed that compels companies to think about their water usage. If you are Coca-Cola, you need a good water supply. And you can't have locals railing at you for depleting their already low water supply to make fizzy sugar water. Coca-Cola either finds ways to use water more efficiently or the locals will shut production down.
The Journal notes in passing SABMiller's experience in Tanzania. SABMiller makes Miller Lite, Peroni, and Pilsner Urquell. Its factory in Dar es Salaam depleted local aquifers, causing them to grow increasingly salty. Meanwhile, the city has water shortages already. SABMiller has to find a way use water more efficiently or it will go out of business in Tanzania.
These kinds of stories repeat themselves in different settings all over the world. As one manager for the Freshwater Footprint Project for the World Wildlife Fund said, "Three billion more people are going to be on this planet" by 2050. "Somehow, we're going to have to use the same amount of water we use today."
Nalco is right in the heart of this issue. Nalco's customers are industrial users. Nalco's services improve water efficiency. The company also offers services to reduce air pollution, treat industrial wastewater, and more. In this, Nalco is the global leader, with a 17% global market share. It's bigger than GE in water.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Municipal accountability- auditor general position needed
What we need is more aountaility the savings would be enormous . " auditors general have become more popular due to their use by senior levels of government.
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going." We need some innovative thinking in this area - Brantford should consider this and the Brant Taxpayers Coalition should endorse this move . PR
C-K may get new position Posted By TREVOR TERFLOTH, THE DAILY NEWS In the interest of municipal accountability, the idea of an auditor general will come before council on Monday.
An administrative report released yesterday stated the main task would be performing value for money audits, as well as ensuring transparency and providing council with independent advice.
This report didn't make a recommendation on the position, but simply introduced the concept.
The function of this position differs from an external auditor, who concentrates on financial statements. The auditor general is not required to be a municipal employee, and in this case, would work on a contract basis.
"Should council wish to create an AG office, we would recommend an initial two-year pilot project during which its effectiveness can be evaluated," the report stated.
Including salary, benefits, professional development and equipment, the position would cost approximately $140,000.
However, the report stated some of the costs could be offset through savings found by the auditor general.
As the item is in Monday's consent agenda, it would take an act of council to bring it up for discussion.
Gerry Wolting, general manager of corporate services, said councillors wished to look into the idea after the recent budget deliberations.
West Kent Coun. Bryon Fluker said auditors general have become more popular due to their use by senior levels of government.
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going."
According to the report, other municipalities with an auditor general include Toronto, Ottawa, Oshawa and Markham.
Fluker said it could be more efficient if the auditor general's duties were shared with other taxpayer-support organizations, such as school boards and the hospital.
However, he said there could still be controversy on spending.
"Value for dollar can often be very subjective," he said.
The Chatham-Kent Coalition of Concerned Citizens -- which is now on hiatus -- had called for an auditor general review in 2005.
Bob Kominek, who was a member, said the $140,000 cost for an auditor general would be "paltry" compared to the millions of dollars he believes are spent needlessly.
"I would go for that," he said. "Our taxes keep going up, and I don't believe we're getting value for our dollar."
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going." We need some innovative thinking in this area - Brantford should consider this and the Brant Taxpayers Coalition should endorse this move . PR
C-K may get new position Posted By TREVOR TERFLOTH, THE DAILY NEWS In the interest of municipal accountability, the idea of an auditor general will come before council on Monday.
An administrative report released yesterday stated the main task would be performing value for money audits, as well as ensuring transparency and providing council with independent advice.
This report didn't make a recommendation on the position, but simply introduced the concept.
The function of this position differs from an external auditor, who concentrates on financial statements. The auditor general is not required to be a municipal employee, and in this case, would work on a contract basis.
"Should council wish to create an AG office, we would recommend an initial two-year pilot project during which its effectiveness can be evaluated," the report stated.
Including salary, benefits, professional development and equipment, the position would cost approximately $140,000.
However, the report stated some of the costs could be offset through savings found by the auditor general.
As the item is in Monday's consent agenda, it would take an act of council to bring it up for discussion.
Gerry Wolting, general manager of corporate services, said councillors wished to look into the idea after the recent budget deliberations.
West Kent Coun. Bryon Fluker said auditors general have become more popular due to their use by senior levels of government.
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going."
According to the report, other municipalities with an auditor general include Toronto, Ottawa, Oshawa and Markham.
Fluker said it could be more efficient if the auditor general's duties were shared with other taxpayer-support organizations, such as school boards and the hospital.
However, he said there could still be controversy on spending.
"Value for dollar can often be very subjective," he said.
The Chatham-Kent Coalition of Concerned Citizens -- which is now on hiatus -- had called for an auditor general review in 2005.
Bob Kominek, who was a member, said the $140,000 cost for an auditor general would be "paltry" compared to the millions of dollars he believes are spent needlessly.
"I would go for that," he said. "Our taxes keep going up, and I don't believe we're getting value for our dollar."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Native leaders willing to work out deal with city - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
Native leaders willing to work out deal with city - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA: "Eventually, a formula would have been implemented to allow Six Nations to benefit financially from development projects.
But MacNaughton said both the Confederacy and elected councils had decided in a joint meeting last Sunday not to consider the draft memorandum, 'not because of its contents,' but because they believed an agreed process involving strict confidentiality was not being followed.
It was 'tainted' by a leak from Brantford's council immediately following its consideration of the document in a closed-door session last week, he said, and was further violated when Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock released it to the media.
MacNaughton also recounted an instance from last week when 'some lawyer' held up a document in a proceeding and said: 'There's an agreement' -- when it was still supposed to be confidential until all councils had a chance to review it.
He further insisted the memorandum was supposed to remain in a process of confidentiality all the way to the table of the ongoing land claims negotiations involving Six Nations, Canada and Ontario.
The leak not only 'disrupted' the process, he said, it also raises concerns in the eyes of Six Nations about the motives of Brantford council.""
"Interesting - the problem can be solved but not with those who breach confidentiality by grandstanding . In this case the adage -Loose lips sink ships-has proven true- discustingly" PR
But MacNaughton said both the Confederacy and elected councils had decided in a joint meeting last Sunday not to consider the draft memorandum, 'not because of its contents,' but because they believed an agreed process involving strict confidentiality was not being followed.
It was 'tainted' by a leak from Brantford's council immediately following its consideration of the document in a closed-door session last week, he said, and was further violated when Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock released it to the media.
MacNaughton also recounted an instance from last week when 'some lawyer' held up a document in a proceeding and said: 'There's an agreement' -- when it was still supposed to be confidential until all councils had a chance to review it.
He further insisted the memorandum was supposed to remain in a process of confidentiality all the way to the table of the ongoing land claims negotiations involving Six Nations, Canada and Ontario.
The leak not only 'disrupted' the process, he said, it also raises concerns in the eyes of Six Nations about the motives of Brantford council.""
"Interesting - the problem can be solved but not with those who breach confidentiality by grandstanding . In this case the adage -Loose lips sink ships-has proven true- discustingly" PR
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Time to put cap on public salaries
Wow -some common sense at last "Here's what doesn't make sense:
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here. " PR
Time to put cap on public salaries
Posted By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD
It was a rare glimpse of humanity you don't often get in rough-and-tumble scrums.
Finance Minister Dwight Duncan made a frank admission about just how close to home the fallout from the economic meltdown has hit.
Duncan, whose Windsor riding has been devastated by the havoc in the auto sector, has clearly seen the pain close to home.
Asked if he was daunted about the tough road ahead, he had this to say: "Frankly the challenges I face as finance minister aren't nearly as challenging as families who lose a job," Duncan said.
"I have a little house on a little cul-de-sac of 20 houses and I can tell you that even among my neighbours and friends and families what has gone on is deeply troubling."
It was refreshing to have a minister in a "this too will pass" government admit the unemployed are more than just numbers in a pie chart.
Duncan will deliver his budget on March 26.
It will be pivotal -- a document that could well define his government. Revenues are down and the demands on the public purse have never been higher. As the unemployment rolls soar, welfare costs will skyrocket.
Having wrestled public sector unions to the ceiling in salary negotiations, Duncan's going to have to come up with billions of dollars to pay for those pay hikes.
What worries me is the tacit permission we have given politicians to rack up big deficits.
I suspect Premier Dalton McGuinty is also concerned, and that's what prompted him to give a flurry of interviews where he talked about "stimulus
In tough economic times it makes sense to build public infrastructure. But you should build only what you need.
We need new roads, new sewers and an improved electricity grid.
When the Toronto Stock Exchange can't function because of a power outage, it's time to fix those hydro transformers.
It makes sense to build new rail lines, so people outside the downtown core have access to good mass transit.
Here's what doesn't make sense:
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here.
Don't give contracts to cronies. We need a nonpartisan arbiter with integrity to police the cash as it goes out the door.
If you're going to bail out the auto sector, union members are going to have to make concessions.
The unemployed, people who are doing twice the work for half the salary, people who are just hanging on by their fingertips, will not buy in to a budget that bails out fat cat car execs and well-paid auto workers. Ditto for public sector and auto worker pensions. Their gold-plated defined benefit plans have tanked? Too bad.
You can't expect taxpayers who have no pensions to bail out people who do.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to kick-start their domestic auto sectors, some European countries are offering big cash bonuses to taxpayers to buy new cars.
That makes sense. It would get workers back on the line and give hard-pressed workers a break.
I'll bet on budget day Duncan will be watching for the drapes to twitch around his street. My guess is his neighbours will be his toughest critics.
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here. " PR
Time to put cap on public salaries
Posted By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD
It was a rare glimpse of humanity you don't often get in rough-and-tumble scrums.
Finance Minister Dwight Duncan made a frank admission about just how close to home the fallout from the economic meltdown has hit.
Duncan, whose Windsor riding has been devastated by the havoc in the auto sector, has clearly seen the pain close to home.
Asked if he was daunted about the tough road ahead, he had this to say: "Frankly the challenges I face as finance minister aren't nearly as challenging as families who lose a job," Duncan said.
"I have a little house on a little cul-de-sac of 20 houses and I can tell you that even among my neighbours and friends and families what has gone on is deeply troubling."
It was refreshing to have a minister in a "this too will pass" government admit the unemployed are more than just numbers in a pie chart.
Duncan will deliver his budget on March 26.
It will be pivotal -- a document that could well define his government. Revenues are down and the demands on the public purse have never been higher. As the unemployment rolls soar, welfare costs will skyrocket.
Having wrestled public sector unions to the ceiling in salary negotiations, Duncan's going to have to come up with billions of dollars to pay for those pay hikes.
What worries me is the tacit permission we have given politicians to rack up big deficits.
I suspect Premier Dalton McGuinty is also concerned, and that's what prompted him to give a flurry of interviews where he talked about "stimulus
In tough economic times it makes sense to build public infrastructure. But you should build only what you need.
We need new roads, new sewers and an improved electricity grid.
When the Toronto Stock Exchange can't function because of a power outage, it's time to fix those hydro transformers.
It makes sense to build new rail lines, so people outside the downtown core have access to good mass transit.
Here's what doesn't make sense:
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here.
Don't give contracts to cronies. We need a nonpartisan arbiter with integrity to police the cash as it goes out the door.
If you're going to bail out the auto sector, union members are going to have to make concessions.
The unemployed, people who are doing twice the work for half the salary, people who are just hanging on by their fingertips, will not buy in to a budget that bails out fat cat car execs and well-paid auto workers. Ditto for public sector and auto worker pensions. Their gold-plated defined benefit plans have tanked? Too bad.
You can't expect taxpayers who have no pensions to bail out people who do.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to kick-start their domestic auto sectors, some European countries are offering big cash bonuses to taxpayers to buy new cars.
That makes sense. It would get workers back on the line and give hard-pressed workers a break.
I'll bet on budget day Duncan will be watching for the drapes to twitch around his street. My guess is his neighbours will be his toughest critics.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
feeding on failure industry
Feeding On Their Own Failure
Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, National Post, February 03, 2009
but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. This raises critical issues about spending waste or trough feeding - PR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caregivers face a conflict of interest: Their advice, when followed, diminishes the demand for their services. Practising doctors and dentists make their living by treating health problems, not in eradicating their source. The dichotomy is reflected in many areas in which services are created to respond to preventable conditions.
The charity and poverty industries are examples. No one suggests that handing out soup and blankets to the homeless will affect the homelessness situation. Charity fundraising depends on whatever disease or disaster is the object of the campaign. Although fundraisers are rarely in a position to actively maintain the conditions that assure the need for their services, whole industries have developed around conditions for which the real remedy is fundamental change.
There is, however, a socially accepted industry that provides a product, the consumption of which actively increases the need for more. It is funded by Canadians through labour exploitation and taxation, and it is highly profitable. The Aboriginal Industry is an amalgamation of lawyers, consultants, anthropologists, linguists, accountants and other occupations that thrive on aboriginal dependency. The industry's strategy is pushing atavism -- reverting to the past for solutions to present problems.
The magnitude of the industry's processes can be seen in the number of government agencies among the participants. In addition to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, almost every government department now funds an aboriginal division and numerous programs that target the aboriginal population. Such funding enables the Aboriginal Industry to pursue endless negotiations, the main function of which is to pave the way for more meetings.
It is important to point out, however, that the actions of the Aboriginal Industry are not necessarily a case of vulgar opportunism -- like the hypothetical dentist proffering candy; its motivations are far more subtle and complex. Many members of the Aboriginal Industry are not even aware that they are part of it. There is no conspiracy being perpetrated by the lawyers, consultants and anthropologists working for aboriginal organizations. What exists is a natural impulse to follow material interests, to veer ultimately toward self-interest. It is understandable that industry members advocate policies that lead to jobs, contracts and payments to members of their group. Politics is all about interests, and so it is hardly surprising that political actors turn out to be self-interested.
What is notable about the Aboriginal Industry is its altruistic posture. Its members claim to be trying to "work themselves out of a job," while they pursue initiatives that ensure the continual need for their involvement in aboriginal policy. The atavistic programs and services they advocate as aiding "self-determination" actually maintain native dependency and dysfunction, thereby justifying demands for increases in government funding. And while they may truly believe their intervention is beneficial, their interests tend to prevent them from examining inconvenient facts and theories that would reveal the destructive character of the initiatives they propose and implement. Their arguments supporting current aboriginal policies become a form of mystification, and everyone involved in the industry is inclined to support them because they are all benefiting from keeping the processes going.
It is important to point out that there is a diversity of motivations within the Aboriginal Industry itself. First, there is the idealistic group, emotionally motivated by a sincere desire to help native people. Some uncritically accept that the best future for aboriginals is some level of return to the Rousseauian ideal, whereby they will live in some kind of mythic pre-contact Eden. Others simply support whatever aboriginal organizations demand because of the belief that this must be what aboriginal peoples "want."
A second group can, for lack of a better term, be considered professionals. They are hired to promote the cause within the capacity of their discipline. Their role is to fill the demand for a predetermined purpose; they may teach, consult, supply professional services and so on. Their attitudes range from cynicism to disinterest.
A third group often encompasses the attributes of the first two but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. They are the linguists who promote unilingual native language teaching in elementary grades, then develop course materials and teach them, sentencing the children to a future of low academic achievement and the resulting social dysfunction. They are the anthropologists who encourage a backward spiritualism and mythology in which they themselves do not believe, but which keeps native people in a convenient state of passivity. And especially, they are the lawyers who collect enormous fees for conflicts they initiated, for agreements that require endless negotiations, for land claims settlements they use as retirement funds. - Excerpted from Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation, by Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, published by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008.
Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, National Post, February 03, 2009
but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. This raises critical issues about spending waste or trough feeding - PR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caregivers face a conflict of interest: Their advice, when followed, diminishes the demand for their services. Practising doctors and dentists make their living by treating health problems, not in eradicating their source. The dichotomy is reflected in many areas in which services are created to respond to preventable conditions.
The charity and poverty industries are examples. No one suggests that handing out soup and blankets to the homeless will affect the homelessness situation. Charity fundraising depends on whatever disease or disaster is the object of the campaign. Although fundraisers are rarely in a position to actively maintain the conditions that assure the need for their services, whole industries have developed around conditions for which the real remedy is fundamental change.
There is, however, a socially accepted industry that provides a product, the consumption of which actively increases the need for more. It is funded by Canadians through labour exploitation and taxation, and it is highly profitable. The Aboriginal Industry is an amalgamation of lawyers, consultants, anthropologists, linguists, accountants and other occupations that thrive on aboriginal dependency. The industry's strategy is pushing atavism -- reverting to the past for solutions to present problems.
The magnitude of the industry's processes can be seen in the number of government agencies among the participants. In addition to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, almost every government department now funds an aboriginal division and numerous programs that target the aboriginal population. Such funding enables the Aboriginal Industry to pursue endless negotiations, the main function of which is to pave the way for more meetings.
It is important to point out, however, that the actions of the Aboriginal Industry are not necessarily a case of vulgar opportunism -- like the hypothetical dentist proffering candy; its motivations are far more subtle and complex. Many members of the Aboriginal Industry are not even aware that they are part of it. There is no conspiracy being perpetrated by the lawyers, consultants and anthropologists working for aboriginal organizations. What exists is a natural impulse to follow material interests, to veer ultimately toward self-interest. It is understandable that industry members advocate policies that lead to jobs, contracts and payments to members of their group. Politics is all about interests, and so it is hardly surprising that political actors turn out to be self-interested.
What is notable about the Aboriginal Industry is its altruistic posture. Its members claim to be trying to "work themselves out of a job," while they pursue initiatives that ensure the continual need for their involvement in aboriginal policy. The atavistic programs and services they advocate as aiding "self-determination" actually maintain native dependency and dysfunction, thereby justifying demands for increases in government funding. And while they may truly believe their intervention is beneficial, their interests tend to prevent them from examining inconvenient facts and theories that would reveal the destructive character of the initiatives they propose and implement. Their arguments supporting current aboriginal policies become a form of mystification, and everyone involved in the industry is inclined to support them because they are all benefiting from keeping the processes going.
It is important to point out that there is a diversity of motivations within the Aboriginal Industry itself. First, there is the idealistic group, emotionally motivated by a sincere desire to help native people. Some uncritically accept that the best future for aboriginals is some level of return to the Rousseauian ideal, whereby they will live in some kind of mythic pre-contact Eden. Others simply support whatever aboriginal organizations demand because of the belief that this must be what aboriginal peoples "want."
A second group can, for lack of a better term, be considered professionals. They are hired to promote the cause within the capacity of their discipline. Their role is to fill the demand for a predetermined purpose; they may teach, consult, supply professional services and so on. Their attitudes range from cynicism to disinterest.
A third group often encompasses the attributes of the first two but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. They are the linguists who promote unilingual native language teaching in elementary grades, then develop course materials and teach them, sentencing the children to a future of low academic achievement and the resulting social dysfunction. They are the anthropologists who encourage a backward spiritualism and mythology in which they themselves do not believe, but which keeps native people in a convenient state of passivity. And especially, they are the lawyers who collect enormous fees for conflicts they initiated, for agreements that require endless negotiations, for land claims settlements they use as retirement funds. - Excerpted from Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation, by Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, published by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Save Canadian beef at MacDonalds - a hoax
Editors note and clarification : The supposed source of the the Macdonald beef boycott responded indicating that this is a hoax that he did not author. MacDonalds uses Canadian Beef. We apologize to him and our readers for any inconvenience. We have modified our information accordingly . We have left the modified information to show how hoaxes are made- and why it is important for readers to be skeptical of all inter net unchecked information sources. In the future we will be more careful with our information .Hoaxes are not funny , not cleavor -they damage people,companies and resources.
This is from a reader that has a beef that I believe is worth printing . For those that are concerned , I suggest that you write/e-mail MacDonald's in protest, copy your MP and start a petition to protect your quality Canadian beef supply. Boycott if you think it is effective and make as many people aware of the situation as you can PR
CANADIAN BeefTHE HOAX
This IS A GOOD DECENT MAN WHO TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE THIS
AND: HE SIGNED THE STATEMENT AND: INCLUDED HIS CONTACT INFO:
I'm sure those of you who aren't in the cattle business don't
understand the issues here. But to those of us whose living depends on
the cattle market, selling cattle, raising the best beef possible... This
is frustrating.
This will keep us from ever stopping there again, even for a drink.
The original message is from the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association
Canadian cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in Canada to support their restaurants.
Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money
at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of Canada are the
ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good
enough to provide beef.
We personally are no longer eating at McDonald's, which I am sure does not
make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact
felt.
Please pass it on. Just to add a note:
All Canadians that sell cattle at a livestock auction barn have to
sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cattle any part of
another animal. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet.
McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much
of their beef from South America.
The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as Canadian beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't.
The Canadian public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may
be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's.
Canadian ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the worldand
this is what Canadians deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where
quality is loosely controlled. Therefore, I am proposing a boycott of
McDonald's until they see the light.
I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it
comes to jeopardizing my family's health, that is where I draw the line.
I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it
to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at
least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message
reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over
THREE MILLION consumers!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you?
Acting together we can make a difference.. If this makes sense to you,
please pass this message on.
THIS IS A HOAX DO NOTHING FOR INFORMATION ONLY
This is from a reader that has a beef that I believe is worth printing . For those that are concerned , I suggest that you write/e-mail MacDonald's in protest, copy your MP and start a petition to protect your quality Canadian beef supply. Boycott if you think it is effective and make as many people aware of the situation as you can PR
CANADIAN BeefTHE HOAX
This IS A GOOD DECENT MAN WHO TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE THIS
AND: HE SIGNED THE STATEMENT AND: INCLUDED HIS CONTACT INFO:
I'm sure those of you who aren't in the cattle business don't
understand the issues here. But to those of us whose living depends on
the cattle market, selling cattle, raising the best beef possible... This
is frustrating.
This will keep us from ever stopping there again, even for a drink.
The original message is from the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association
Canadian cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in Canada to support their restaurants.
Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money
at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of Canada are the
ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good
enough to provide beef.
We personally are no longer eating at McDonald's, which I am sure does not
make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact
felt.
Please pass it on. Just to add a note:
All Canadians that sell cattle at a livestock auction barn have to
sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cattle any part of
another animal. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet.
McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much
of their beef from South America.
The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as Canadian beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't.
The Canadian public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may
be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's.
Canadian ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the worldand
this is what Canadians deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where
quality is loosely controlled. Therefore, I am proposing a boycott of
McDonald's until they see the light.
I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it
comes to jeopardizing my family's health, that is where I draw the line.
I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it
to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at
least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message
reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over
THREE MILLION consumers!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you?
Acting together we can make a difference.. If this makes sense to you,
please pass this message on.
THIS IS A HOAX DO NOTHING FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Monday, February 16, 2009
Whistleblowers needed to protect stimulus package
This article by FAIR makes sense PR
Canada has also made little use of whistleblower protection—a highly effective method of combating misconduct and fraud. A 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers study showed that whistleblowers uncovered far more fraud than internal audit and all other management control systems combined. The study, which polled 5,400 senior executives from 40 countries, found that 43 per cent of corporate frauds had been initially detected by employee tip-offs.
The lesson is clear: top-down controls such as regulatory oversight and corporate governance standards are not sufficient: they need to be augmented by strong mechanisms that enable employees to safely report suspected misconduct.
This is why the U.S. is moving to strengthen its already wide-ranging whistleblower protection legislation. However, on this important front we Canadians are essentially naked.
For government whistleblowers the Accountability Act’s much-touted “ironclad protection” has been a huge disappointment, as predicted by critics even before this loophole-ridden legislation was passed into law. The new whistleblower watchdog, the public sector integrity commissioner, watches over approximately 400,000 federal public servants in a secretive bureaucracy that spends about half a billion dollars every day. It defies belief that, during her first year of operation, with a staff of 21 and a budget of $6.5-million, commissioner Christiane Ouimet has been unable to find a single occurrence of wrongdoing in the entire federal public service.
As for private sector whistleblowers, the government has not even made a pretence of any effort to protect them. While Canadians who work for corporations listed on a U.S. stock exchange may have some protection under the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Canadians in the private sector have no such shield against corporate reprisals.
What this means in practice is that conscientious employees who courageously come forward in an attempt to halt misconduct not only have their allegations ignored, but are typically subject to the most determined and vindictive reprisals, orchestrated by their bosses, in order to silence and punish them. Most lose their careers and their livelihood, and in the process many also lose their families and their health.
We all lose as a result. Our government departments and corporations, unable to purge themselves of these self-serving actors, lose touch with their values and their purpose. And both investors and employees lose as our businesses stumble, shedding jobs and market value while our governments fumble.
In tough economic times it becomes even more important to ensure that scarce resources are available for vital services like education and health care, rather than being wasted.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should follow U.S. President Barack Obama’s lead by providing real protection for both government and private sector employees who report misconduct. By doing so he would not only help to safeguard his multi-billion dollar stimulus spending, but would help protect the integrity of our institutions, our economy and our democratic way of life.
Canada has also made little use of whistleblower protection—a highly effective method of combating misconduct and fraud. A 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers study showed that whistleblowers uncovered far more fraud than internal audit and all other management control systems combined. The study, which polled 5,400 senior executives from 40 countries, found that 43 per cent of corporate frauds had been initially detected by employee tip-offs.
The lesson is clear: top-down controls such as regulatory oversight and corporate governance standards are not sufficient: they need to be augmented by strong mechanisms that enable employees to safely report suspected misconduct.
This is why the U.S. is moving to strengthen its already wide-ranging whistleblower protection legislation. However, on this important front we Canadians are essentially naked.
For government whistleblowers the Accountability Act’s much-touted “ironclad protection” has been a huge disappointment, as predicted by critics even before this loophole-ridden legislation was passed into law. The new whistleblower watchdog, the public sector integrity commissioner, watches over approximately 400,000 federal public servants in a secretive bureaucracy that spends about half a billion dollars every day. It defies belief that, during her first year of operation, with a staff of 21 and a budget of $6.5-million, commissioner Christiane Ouimet has been unable to find a single occurrence of wrongdoing in the entire federal public service.
As for private sector whistleblowers, the government has not even made a pretence of any effort to protect them. While Canadians who work for corporations listed on a U.S. stock exchange may have some protection under the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Canadians in the private sector have no such shield against corporate reprisals.
What this means in practice is that conscientious employees who courageously come forward in an attempt to halt misconduct not only have their allegations ignored, but are typically subject to the most determined and vindictive reprisals, orchestrated by their bosses, in order to silence and punish them. Most lose their careers and their livelihood, and in the process many also lose their families and their health.
We all lose as a result. Our government departments and corporations, unable to purge themselves of these self-serving actors, lose touch with their values and their purpose. And both investors and employees lose as our businesses stumble, shedding jobs and market value while our governments fumble.
In tough economic times it becomes even more important to ensure that scarce resources are available for vital services like education and health care, rather than being wasted.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should follow U.S. President Barack Obama’s lead by providing real protection for both government and private sector employees who report misconduct. By doing so he would not only help to safeguard his multi-billion dollar stimulus spending, but would help protect the integrity of our institutions, our economy and our democratic way of life.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Canada is free, but what about you?
Canada is free, but what about you? Good question .I am less free because I do not do enough to protect my freedom. I let others take away my rights by not speaking out , I deserve what I get because of my lazy complacency and blind indifference to abuses. Thank you for reminding me that I have a personal responsibiity to keep Canada and myself free by voicing my opinions and making a tipping point and pivotal difference through real action. PR
FREEDOM
Posted By Christi Chartrand Brantford
The more I think about Canada, and look around at all of the wars going on around the world, I am truly grateful to be where I am. I am free ... well, at least more "free" than others.
It's true, I don't have bombs blasting all around me, but the guns in schools and on the streets still frighten me.
It's true, I am free to believe in whatever religion I choose, but I must be careful, because even the slightest thing can offend my fellow freedom fighters (such as a nativity on my front yard).
I am free to live on a peaceful street, but must be sure to lock my doors at night, too many children disappear these days. I am a woman, and even though I have many rights, I am still scared to go out alone at night.
I am free to have children, but not necessarily free to keep them. I am free to vote and I do, but the majority of the country doesn't. Canada is free, it's true, but how free are you? Christi Chartrand Brantford
FREEDOM
Posted By Christi Chartrand Brantford
The more I think about Canada, and look around at all of the wars going on around the world, I am truly grateful to be where I am. I am free ... well, at least more "free" than others.
It's true, I don't have bombs blasting all around me, but the guns in schools and on the streets still frighten me.
It's true, I am free to believe in whatever religion I choose, but I must be careful, because even the slightest thing can offend my fellow freedom fighters (such as a nativity on my front yard).
I am free to live on a peaceful street, but must be sure to lock my doors at night, too many children disappear these days. I am a woman, and even though I have many rights, I am still scared to go out alone at night.
I am free to have children, but not necessarily free to keep them. I am free to vote and I do, but the majority of the country doesn't. Canada is free, it's true, but how free are you? Christi Chartrand Brantford
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Gridlock Myth Busters
Lets start a new group called Gridlock Myth Busters- everyone can add value with suggestions to break or slay the need more to solve gridlock myth. Be a dragon slayer get involved
Gridlock Myth Busters- Comments on the age of golden health Care
There is a grass root movement growing that wants to fix institutional service and product delivery lapses and problems. Gridlock Myth Busters is such a group of enlightened people. They participate in the system, hear and see the challenges and make constructive actionable suggestions to solve common problems and public challenges.
These public system challenges, artificial or real, are often gridlocked by the inability of the in place service providers to make constructive alternatives available to those they serve. A combination of factors, such as a lack of focus, lack of urgency, lack of economic necessity often ensures that customer service gridlocks and their resulting poor service results become the accepted and tolerated public practice.
Gridlocks are expensive
Scarcity ensures high prices and even higher delivery costs
The marginal return of more public funding is low, despite apparent self serving and aggressive denials of those that profit and administer the often self- imposed service /product gridlocks that they provide
The Hospital gridlock myth
Common cited hurdles for poor end user service
• Not enough beds and money
• Not enough qualified health care providers
• Cannot do because of restrictions and red tape
• A buck passing attitude of” Not our responsibility”
• Blind do nothing complacency rewards
The result -a hardening of the public care artery
The hardening , gridelock or constriction of services is the result of limiting care capacity to hospitals and government Long term care beds. All resources are not used to solve the capacity challenge. This ensures limited high cost publlc funded care .
Why do we always need more ? The need more money myth explored and busted
Solutions
Necessity is the mother of innovation.
Reality check suggestion
Manage your resources better
• Use all available beds
• Use all available care resources
• Change restrictions and delayer overlapping administration services
• Use new technology
• Maximize existing plant and equipment use
• More suggestions available….
How would you solve the gridlock problem?
The Gridlock Myth Busters can be confidentially reached at
respondfeedbacknow@yahoo.ca
With your consent -we will pass your suggestions on to those that can make a difference for both comment and action
Canadian Justice-fact or a process fiction?
A friend of mine showed great courage and fortitude by seeking justice and redress in the Federal Tax Court yesterday.With a intelligent layman's skill. he sought a resolution of 63 vexing rights issues in Judge Woods court in Hamilton . We wait to see what happens.Whose justice will be served? Will there be real precedent setting law making based on merit with a thinking justice or more of the same - the checked form list legal process?
I admire those that stand firm to their convictions - my friend is such a champion. He is a person who has no fear and is proceeding to defend his beliefs with honour and conviction. Lets see what his critics and the paid drones say and remember Thomas Jefferson.
"He who fears criticism," declared Thomas Jefferson, "is hopeless. Only those who do things are criticized. The idler is lost sight of in the march of events—but the doer is watched and criticized. To hesitate for fear of criticism loses the battle while the doers march on to victory and triumphs.
"If your cause is right, be not afraid of criticism: Advocate it, expound it, and, if need be, fight for it. Critics always will be, but to the strong-minded they are a help rather than a hindrance. As the horse spurts forward when prodded with the spur, so the doers forge ahead under the lash of criticism. Take your part on life's stage and play your part to the end. Stand for that which is good [that which is right]. Be a doer, not a drone. Look the world in the face and let the critics criticize."
In my view, my friend is the victor no matter what the ruling.PR
I admire those that stand firm to their convictions - my friend is such a champion. He is a person who has no fear and is proceeding to defend his beliefs with honour and conviction. Lets see what his critics and the paid drones say and remember Thomas Jefferson.
"He who fears criticism," declared Thomas Jefferson, "is hopeless. Only those who do things are criticized. The idler is lost sight of in the march of events—but the doer is watched and criticized. To hesitate for fear of criticism loses the battle while the doers march on to victory and triumphs.
"If your cause is right, be not afraid of criticism: Advocate it, expound it, and, if need be, fight for it. Critics always will be, but to the strong-minded they are a help rather than a hindrance. As the horse spurts forward when prodded with the spur, so the doers forge ahead under the lash of criticism. Take your part on life's stage and play your part to the end. Stand for that which is good [that which is right]. Be a doer, not a drone. Look the world in the face and let the critics criticize."
In my view, my friend is the victor no matter what the ruling.PR
Monday, February 09, 2009
Trade you. Barter is back in Russia - International Herald Tribune
Trade you. Barter is back in Russia - International Herald Tribune: "Trade you. Barter is back in Russia
By Ellen Barry Published: February 8, 2009
MOSCOW: Does the Taganrog Automobile Factory have a deal for you! Rows of freshly minted Hyundai Santa Fe sport utility vehicles are available right now. In exchange — well, do you have any circuit boards? Or sheet metal? Or sneakers?"
Barter-Problem or opportunity? Should GM,FORD ,et al barter the excess car inventory? Can the government barter redundant fixed resources that cost money to hold and vield no return ?Are inflationary mega government bailouts any better?PR
By Ellen Barry Published: February 8, 2009
MOSCOW: Does the Taganrog Automobile Factory have a deal for you! Rows of freshly minted Hyundai Santa Fe sport utility vehicles are available right now. In exchange — well, do you have any circuit boards? Or sheet metal? Or sneakers?"
Barter-Problem or opportunity? Should GM,FORD ,et al barter the excess car inventory? Can the government barter redundant fixed resources that cost money to hold and vield no return ?Are inflationary mega government bailouts any better?PR
Top judge adds voice to debate over legal fees
McLachlin's nudging of the legal profession was part of a speech in which she decried the lack of affordable legal help in Canada. She said that some courts report that more than 44 per cent of cases involve self-represented litigants.
Unbundlingis thriving in the U.S., but is in its infancy in Canada, where the concept is being promoted by law societies in British Columbia and Alberta. Lawyers effectively act as consultants for their clients for any work that the clients can do themselves.
In a 2008 report, a Law Society of British Columbia task force described unbundling as "a midway option between full service representation and no representation."
The report notes that lawyers must come to terms with the fact that self-representation is not going away because legal information is easily obtainable online. The "cultural shift" of the information age is making legal information easily obtainable online by a new generation of computer-savvy litigants.
"Many of these litigants will not see the value in hiring a lawyer to collect and process information they might easily collect themselves."
Canadian Lawyer magazine, in a survey published last summer, reported that the average "going rate" in Canada for a two-day trial civil is $25,220. It costs an average of $1,250 for a bail hearing, $4,820 for a separation agreement and $6,600 for a child custody and support agreement, said the survey of 300 lawyers.
To cope with an escalation in go-it-aloners, courts are scrambling to offer how-to guides, tip services, checklists and some are even setting up storefront kiosks that offer legal help.
Knowledge empowers people and breaks expensive traditions -Good for the Inter-net knowledge which is affordable and available- PR
Unbundlingis thriving in the U.S., but is in its infancy in Canada, where the concept is being promoted by law societies in British Columbia and Alberta. Lawyers effectively act as consultants for their clients for any work that the clients can do themselves.
In a 2008 report, a Law Society of British Columbia task force described unbundling as "a midway option between full service representation and no representation."
The report notes that lawyers must come to terms with the fact that self-representation is not going away because legal information is easily obtainable online. The "cultural shift" of the information age is making legal information easily obtainable online by a new generation of computer-savvy litigants.
"Many of these litigants will not see the value in hiring a lawyer to collect and process information they might easily collect themselves."
Canadian Lawyer magazine, in a survey published last summer, reported that the average "going rate" in Canada for a two-day trial civil is $25,220. It costs an average of $1,250 for a bail hearing, $4,820 for a separation agreement and $6,600 for a child custody and support agreement, said the survey of 300 lawyers.
To cope with an escalation in go-it-aloners, courts are scrambling to offer how-to guides, tip services, checklists and some are even setting up storefront kiosks that offer legal help.
Knowledge empowers people and breaks expensive traditions -Good for the Inter-net knowledge which is affordable and available- PR
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Liberals avoided financial oblivion with Iggy's coup - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
Liberals avoided financial oblivion with Iggy's coup - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA: "Liberals avoided financial oblivion with Iggy's coup"
intereting assessment of Real politics in action- and the strategy that caused the change came form the Frontier Centre - small focused intelligent people are the tipping point. PR
intereting assessment of Real politics in action- and the strategy that caused the change came form the Frontier Centre - small focused intelligent people are the tipping point. PR
Monday, February 02, 2009
Equalization- we are not equal in Canada
The entitlement debate continues- Who shall have,and who pays for the entitlements? PR Some think that we can do better and that our regional subsidy system is not transparent, it is not sustainable and it is driven by excess.
"Expressed another way, without a federal equalization and transfer payment program, Ontario “keeps” its $981 per person and much more, while the traditional have-not provinces would suffer revenue hits akin to recently plunging equity values.
This is high risk stuff for all. We have entire populations that see their economies in very unrealistic ways, have a complete sense of entitlement to the subsidies and have little real understanding of the full extent of their dependence on B.C., Alberta, Ontario taxpayers. (Saskatchewan is more complicated. It is a “have” province for the purposes of equalization; it is a “have-not” when all federal transfers are calculated.)
To the extent that the current crisis weakens the capacity of the principal contributing jurisdictions to pay for all this, populations in the recipient jurisdictions are open to all the risks associated with a sudden disruption. "
Bubbles normally have at least four distinct characteristics.
First, the arrangements which lead to bubbles are not transparent and are complex to the point that they are incomprehensible to most people. Observers have agreed for decades that our system of regional subsidies qualifies on this score. So also does the sub-prime mess.
Second, bubbles are driven by expectations and entitlements that have no realistic basis in history or actual need. Again, there is little doubt that the recipient jurisdictions qualify on that score, to judge by their public sectors and expectations for generous government programming which greatly exceed general standards elsewhere in North America. The similarity to American and European housing expectations – the root cause of so much of the current financial turmoil – is remarkable.
Third, bubbles are unsustainable. Equalization payments to other regions in the past four years, largely from Ontario and Alberta taxpayers, have grown four times faster than Ontario’s growth. And equalization payments to Quebec have grown over that period by ten times the rate at which Ontario grows. Now, with Ontario joining the equalization recipients, such growth in payments will fall hard on BC and Alberta.
While Flaherty’s decision, also announced Monday, to limit growth in equalization payments to the growth in the economy helps in the short-term, it does nothing to address ridiculous imbalances of the sort where Ontario (to say nothing of Alberta or other provinces which are net payers) loses massive amounts of money through overall federal redistribution even though and at the very time Ontario’s economy takes a hit.
Fourth, the bursting of bubbles is not controlled by anyone and its actual timing is unpredictable. If we’ve learned nothing else in the past two months, we’ve learned that.
The federal role in all this is analogous to the role Wall Street bankers played in the current financial crisis. Ottawa has put in place a wide variety of subsidies for regions without ever examining, in a public way, the aggregate impact of them. It also took no steps to measure the largest of these – equalization – against its intended impact because it didn’t even bother to measure program comparability, the avowed goal. Finally, Ontario’s federal legislators took no serious steps to understand the problem, a governance failure that ranks with the failure of boards of directors and regulators in the United States to understand the full impact of securitization and the packaging of sub-prime loans.
Our regional subsidy system is not transparent, it is not sustainable and it is driven by excess.
"Expressed another way, without a federal equalization and transfer payment program, Ontario “keeps” its $981 per person and much more, while the traditional have-not provinces would suffer revenue hits akin to recently plunging equity values.
This is high risk stuff for all. We have entire populations that see their economies in very unrealistic ways, have a complete sense of entitlement to the subsidies and have little real understanding of the full extent of their dependence on B.C., Alberta, Ontario taxpayers. (Saskatchewan is more complicated. It is a “have” province for the purposes of equalization; it is a “have-not” when all federal transfers are calculated.)
To the extent that the current crisis weakens the capacity of the principal contributing jurisdictions to pay for all this, populations in the recipient jurisdictions are open to all the risks associated with a sudden disruption. "
Bubbles normally have at least four distinct characteristics.
First, the arrangements which lead to bubbles are not transparent and are complex to the point that they are incomprehensible to most people. Observers have agreed for decades that our system of regional subsidies qualifies on this score. So also does the sub-prime mess.
Second, bubbles are driven by expectations and entitlements that have no realistic basis in history or actual need. Again, there is little doubt that the recipient jurisdictions qualify on that score, to judge by their public sectors and expectations for generous government programming which greatly exceed general standards elsewhere in North America. The similarity to American and European housing expectations – the root cause of so much of the current financial turmoil – is remarkable.
Third, bubbles are unsustainable. Equalization payments to other regions in the past four years, largely from Ontario and Alberta taxpayers, have grown four times faster than Ontario’s growth. And equalization payments to Quebec have grown over that period by ten times the rate at which Ontario grows. Now, with Ontario joining the equalization recipients, such growth in payments will fall hard on BC and Alberta.
While Flaherty’s decision, also announced Monday, to limit growth in equalization payments to the growth in the economy helps in the short-term, it does nothing to address ridiculous imbalances of the sort where Ontario (to say nothing of Alberta or other provinces which are net payers) loses massive amounts of money through overall federal redistribution even though and at the very time Ontario’s economy takes a hit.
Fourth, the bursting of bubbles is not controlled by anyone and its actual timing is unpredictable. If we’ve learned nothing else in the past two months, we’ve learned that.
The federal role in all this is analogous to the role Wall Street bankers played in the current financial crisis. Ottawa has put in place a wide variety of subsidies for regions without ever examining, in a public way, the aggregate impact of them. It also took no steps to measure the largest of these – equalization – against its intended impact because it didn’t even bother to measure program comparability, the avowed goal. Finally, Ontario’s federal legislators took no serious steps to understand the problem, a governance failure that ranks with the failure of boards of directors and regulators in the United States to understand the full impact of securitization and the packaging of sub-prime loans.
Our regional subsidy system is not transparent, it is not sustainable and it is driven by excess.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
What we need is leadership, not gigantic deficits - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
What we need is leadership, not gigantic deficits - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA: "ADDING BACK THE DEBT
Over the next six years, the budget office estimates, we could easily add back the $105 billion in debt that we dropped between 1997 and last year. Canada's debt-to-GDP level, the economists keep repeating, is the lowest in the G-7, at about 30 per cent. Not for much longer.
Here's the amazing thing: Nobody cares. Not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, and of course neither the New Democrats nor the Bloc.
They all want Harper to spend, spend, spend. Indeed, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has indicated that if Harper doesn't borrow and spend enough, he'll invoke the coalition and topple his government."
And it's not just them. Most nominally conservative think tanks, and all the economists, are singing from the same song sheet. Their mantra: Canada is in a sound position fiscally, relative to the rest of the G7. We can afford to incur some debt; indeed we must do so, if we are to avoid an economic apocalypse. As long as the spending is "wise," and "targeted," and as long as the resulting deficit is "cyclical" and not "structural," the experts tell us, it's all good.
My question (which I concede is impolite and possibly annoying when we're all about to receive new bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, community centres, hydro towers, sewage treatment plants, windmills and clay pots for our gardens) is this: Why are we doing it?
The message -end the age of unproductive entitlement-re-invent ourselves through leadership and learning how to compete- PR
Over the next six years, the budget office estimates, we could easily add back the $105 billion in debt that we dropped between 1997 and last year. Canada's debt-to-GDP level, the economists keep repeating, is the lowest in the G-7, at about 30 per cent. Not for much longer.
Here's the amazing thing: Nobody cares. Not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, and of course neither the New Democrats nor the Bloc.
They all want Harper to spend, spend, spend. Indeed, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has indicated that if Harper doesn't borrow and spend enough, he'll invoke the coalition and topple his government."
And it's not just them. Most nominally conservative think tanks, and all the economists, are singing from the same song sheet. Their mantra: Canada is in a sound position fiscally, relative to the rest of the G7. We can afford to incur some debt; indeed we must do so, if we are to avoid an economic apocalypse. As long as the spending is "wise," and "targeted," and as long as the resulting deficit is "cyclical" and not "structural," the experts tell us, it's all good.
My question (which I concede is impolite and possibly annoying when we're all about to receive new bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, community centres, hydro towers, sewage treatment plants, windmills and clay pots for our gardens) is this: Why are we doing it?
The message -end the age of unproductive entitlement-re-invent ourselves through leadership and learning how to compete- PR
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Ottawa set to increase national debt by over $100 billion: reports - Yahoo! Canada News
a poor return on our investment
Ottawa set to increase national debt by over $100 billion: reports - Yahoo! Canada News: "The federal government is facing a series of massive deficits that together will completely reverse the past decade's paydown on the national mortgage and set Canada's finances back more than $100 billion, new forecasts suggest.
Two separate budgetary projections"
Ottawa set to increase national debt by over $100 billion: reports - Yahoo! Canada News: "The federal government is facing a series of massive deficits that together will completely reverse the past decade's paydown on the national mortgage and set Canada's finances back more than $100 billion, new forecasts suggest.
Two separate budgetary projections"
Can we afford to look the other way?
a bad precedent
Say sayonara to good Samaratins reported by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Did you feel that? It was our society sliding a little closer to the abyss. Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that a good Samaritan who pulled an injured passenger out of a wrecked car could be sued by that passenger.
This twisted ruling represents the death of that state's law, which says that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency car at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."
But now the court says that Lisa Torti can be civilly liable for the permanent spinal damage suffered by Alexandra Van Horn, the passenger she dragged from that car wreck. Van Horn is now a paraplegic, and claims her condition is Torti's fault – and Van Horn wants to sue; the fact that Torti believed she was saving Van Horn's life seems not to matter to Van Horn – or to the court.
In a decision that could only be rendered by a group of lawyers, the court ruled with Van Horn, claiming that the original state statute only applies to people providing "emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency." Torti's rescue of Van Horn from the car wreck doesn't count.
Nice, huh? It's true: no good deed goes unpunished.
If there's any true justice in this world – and I'm growing increasingly doubtful that there is – Van Horn will lose her lawsuit against Torti when it goes to court this coming summer. I'm hoping for a quick and unanimous decision in Torti's favor.
But regardless of the outcome of this particular trial, I'm sure that by ruling with Van Horn, the California Supreme Court has already done plenty of damage; you can be sure that people in that state – and all over the country – will be sure to think twice next time they see a chance to help someone in need. And I bet many of these people will decide that it's safer to just look the other way.
You can thank a lawyer for that.
Say sayonara to good Samaratins reported by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Did you feel that? It was our society sliding a little closer to the abyss. Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that a good Samaritan who pulled an injured passenger out of a wrecked car could be sued by that passenger.
This twisted ruling represents the death of that state's law, which says that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency car at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."
But now the court says that Lisa Torti can be civilly liable for the permanent spinal damage suffered by Alexandra Van Horn, the passenger she dragged from that car wreck. Van Horn is now a paraplegic, and claims her condition is Torti's fault – and Van Horn wants to sue; the fact that Torti believed she was saving Van Horn's life seems not to matter to Van Horn – or to the court.
In a decision that could only be rendered by a group of lawyers, the court ruled with Van Horn, claiming that the original state statute only applies to people providing "emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency." Torti's rescue of Van Horn from the car wreck doesn't count.
Nice, huh? It's true: no good deed goes unpunished.
If there's any true justice in this world – and I'm growing increasingly doubtful that there is – Van Horn will lose her lawsuit against Torti when it goes to court this coming summer. I'm hoping for a quick and unanimous decision in Torti's favor.
But regardless of the outcome of this particular trial, I'm sure that by ruling with Van Horn, the California Supreme Court has already done plenty of damage; you can be sure that people in that state – and all over the country – will be sure to think twice next time they see a chance to help someone in need. And I bet many of these people will decide that it's safer to just look the other way.
You can thank a lawyer for that.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
mega casino a no go
Charest bail out fails
Brant MPP Dave Levac's proposal to build a new casino and sports complex in the city's northwest and hand the current gambling hall and civic centre over to Laurier Brantford to redevelop is dead.
City council on Monday rejected a request to open discussions on the idea.
"I'm saddened, but council has spoken and they drive the agenda," Levac said in an interview after councilors voted 6-3 against opening discussions with Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and other potential partners about the broad strokes of his proposal.
"It was unfortunate that there was some over-exaggerated rhetoric and personal shots, but I won't play that game," the MPP p>"Having said that, I accept the decision and let's move on."
Voting in favour of the ill-fated resolution were councillors John Sless, Vince Bucci and James Calnan.
Opposing it were Mayor Mike Hancock and councillors Mark Littell, Greg Martin, Richard Carpenter, Dan Mc- Creary and John Bradford. Councillors Marguerite Ceschi-Smith and Jennifer Kinneman were not at the meeting.
Brant MPP Dave Levac's proposal to build a new casino and sports complex in the city's northwest and hand the current gambling hall and civic centre over to Laurier Brantford to redevelop is dead.
City council on Monday rejected a request to open discussions on the idea.
"I'm saddened, but council has spoken and they drive the agenda," Levac said in an interview after councilors voted 6-3 against opening discussions with Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and other potential partners about the broad strokes of his proposal.
"It was unfortunate that there was some over-exaggerated rhetoric and personal shots, but I won't play that game," the MPP p>"Having said that, I accept the decision and let's move on."
Voting in favour of the ill-fated resolution were councillors John Sless, Vince Bucci and James Calnan.
Opposing it were Mayor Mike Hancock and councillors Mark Littell, Greg Martin, Richard Carpenter, Dan Mc- Creary and John Bradford. Councillors Marguerite Ceschi-Smith and Jennifer Kinneman were not at the meeting.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Frontier Centre is a source of high quality information
The Global “Go-To Think Tanks”In a world saturated with information, connected by the web and challenged by complex issues that often hit like a meteor from outer space, there is a growing need to know where to turn for high quality information and analysis on critical policy issues. Increasingly policy makers and the public are turning to the close to 5,500 public policy research organizations around the world for assistance. This report, from the January 2009 edition of Foreign Policy Magazine identifies and ranks the leading think tanks in every region of the world. The Think Tanks And Civil Societies Program releases its 2008 Report. The Frontier Centre ranks 22 of top 284 nominated North American (non-USA) think tanks. Special publication.
"The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent public policy think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future through public policy research and education and to explore positive changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and opportunity."
"The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent public policy think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future through public policy research and education and to explore positive changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and opportunity."
Frontier
The Global “Go-To Think Tanks”In a world saturated with information, connected by the web and challenged by complex issues that often hit like a meteor from outer space, there is a growing need to know where to turn for high quality information and analysis on critical policy issues. Increasingly policy makers and the public are turning to the close to 5,500 public policy research organizations around the world for assistance. This report, from the January 2009 edition of Foreign Policy Magazine identifies and ranks the leading think tanks in every region of the world. The Think Tanks And Civil Societies Program releases its 2008 Report. The Frontier Centre ranks 22 of top 284 nominated North American (non-USA) think tanks. Special publication.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Gaurdians of accountable government
Frontier Centre gets well earned performance endorsements for performance from its peers and the public;
Frontier rated as the 22 top think tank in North America
Western Standard’s “Liberty 100” Top 10 for 2008
It has been said that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” and 2008 was no exception for Canadian friends of liberty.
Many Canadians worked hard in 2008 to fight the advance of big government and the erosion of economic and personal liberty. Some worked in relative obscurity in their own communities, while others were high profile or filled leadership roles in prestigious organizations – but all were important.
The Western Standard is putting the finishing touches on “Liberty 100,” a list of 100 Canadians who distinguished themselves in 2008, or over a lifetime, in the defence of liberty.
Creating the "Liberty 100" list wasn’t difficult. Ranking the 100 friends of liberty who made this list according to the significance of their contribution has, however, been extremely difficult. The "Liberty 100" will be released soon, but we need your help. Below is our Top 10 list, but we are asking our readers to let us know who they think deserves to be recognized for their contribution to economic or personal liberty.
“Liberty 100” Top 10 list:
1. Ezra Levant
www.ezralevant.com
The issue that dominated 2008 was the attack on freedom of speech and expression by human rights commissions across Canada, and Ezra Levant was at the centre of this issue as a pro-free speech newsmaker, advocate, lawyer and blogger. Levant has written "Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights." His single-minded defence of free speech makes him the Western Standard's choice for the #1 spot on our Liberty 100 list for 2008.
2. Dr. Michael Walker
The Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Dr. Michael Walker is a senior fellow of The Fraser Institute and president of the Institute’s Foundation. He served as executive director of The Fraser Institute from its establishment in 1974 until 2005. He has done more in his lifetime to advance economic liberty than any other Canadian.
3. Marc Emery
Cannabis Culture
www.cannabisculture.com
Marc Emery is the Vancouver-based publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and an internationally recognized opponent of drug prohibition. He faces a possible lifetime in an US prison for openly selling marijuana seeds, should he lose his extradition hearing scheduled for early this year.
4. Mark Mullins
Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Mark Mullins is executive director of The Fraser Institute, Canada's largest and most important free market think tank. His efforts and the work of the Institute are essential to the freedom movement.
5. Peter Jaworski
Institute for Liberal Studies
www.liberalstudies.ca
Peter Jaworski is editor of the Western Standard, executive director of the Institute for Liberal Studies and the organizer of the annual Liberty Summer Seminar, an event that has energized the pro-liberty youth movement. He is Canada's most important and prominent libertarian activist.
6. John Williamson
Manning Centre for Building Democracy
www.manningcentre.ca
John Williamson is a Manning Centre for Building Democracy fellow and outgoing federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, resigning in 2008 for academic pursuits. Williamson continues to keep pressure on the Harper Conservatives to reduce taxes and government spending.
7. Peter Holle
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
www.fcpp.org
Peter Holle is the founding president of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is a consistent advocate for policy reforms that enhance personal and economic freedom.
8. Dennis Young
Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.ca
Dennis Young is leader of the Libertarian Party. A veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia, Young's personal experience as a soldier has made him a capable and credible advocate for a libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy. His law enforcement background has also made him an effective critic of the war on drugs.
9. Mark Steyn
Maclean's Magazine
www.steynonline.com
Mark Steyn is an internationally recognized columnist and the author of "America Alone." Excerpts from "American Alone" published in Maclean's magazine were the subject of a human rights complaint, which Steyn and Maclean's successfully fought. Steyn has put Canada's struggle for free speech in the international spotlight.
10. Jean-Serge Brisson
Ontario Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.on.ca
Jean-Serge Brisson is former leader of the Libertarian Party who made news in 2008 by winning his personal court case against the mandatory bilingual sign bylaw in Russell, Ontario. He was also sentenced to 90 days in prison for his ongoing refusal to wear a seatbelt while driving. He is currently serving his time on weekends.
Congratulations to the “Liberty 100” Top 10 – and thank you for your work in the defence of liberty.
Stay tuned for the complete "Liberty 100."
Frontier rated as the 22 top think tank in North America
Western Standard’s “Liberty 100” Top 10 for 2008
It has been said that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” and 2008 was no exception for Canadian friends of liberty.
Many Canadians worked hard in 2008 to fight the advance of big government and the erosion of economic and personal liberty. Some worked in relative obscurity in their own communities, while others were high profile or filled leadership roles in prestigious organizations – but all were important.
The Western Standard is putting the finishing touches on “Liberty 100,” a list of 100 Canadians who distinguished themselves in 2008, or over a lifetime, in the defence of liberty.
Creating the "Liberty 100" list wasn’t difficult. Ranking the 100 friends of liberty who made this list according to the significance of their contribution has, however, been extremely difficult. The "Liberty 100" will be released soon, but we need your help. Below is our Top 10 list, but we are asking our readers to let us know who they think deserves to be recognized for their contribution to economic or personal liberty.
“Liberty 100” Top 10 list:
1. Ezra Levant
www.ezralevant.com
The issue that dominated 2008 was the attack on freedom of speech and expression by human rights commissions across Canada, and Ezra Levant was at the centre of this issue as a pro-free speech newsmaker, advocate, lawyer and blogger. Levant has written "Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights." His single-minded defence of free speech makes him the Western Standard's choice for the #1 spot on our Liberty 100 list for 2008.
2. Dr. Michael Walker
The Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Dr. Michael Walker is a senior fellow of The Fraser Institute and president of the Institute’s Foundation. He served as executive director of The Fraser Institute from its establishment in 1974 until 2005. He has done more in his lifetime to advance economic liberty than any other Canadian.
3. Marc Emery
Cannabis Culture
www.cannabisculture.com
Marc Emery is the Vancouver-based publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and an internationally recognized opponent of drug prohibition. He faces a possible lifetime in an US prison for openly selling marijuana seeds, should he lose his extradition hearing scheduled for early this year.
4. Mark Mullins
Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Mark Mullins is executive director of The Fraser Institute, Canada's largest and most important free market think tank. His efforts and the work of the Institute are essential to the freedom movement.
5. Peter Jaworski
Institute for Liberal Studies
www.liberalstudies.ca
Peter Jaworski is editor of the Western Standard, executive director of the Institute for Liberal Studies and the organizer of the annual Liberty Summer Seminar, an event that has energized the pro-liberty youth movement. He is Canada's most important and prominent libertarian activist.
6. John Williamson
Manning Centre for Building Democracy
www.manningcentre.ca
John Williamson is a Manning Centre for Building Democracy fellow and outgoing federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, resigning in 2008 for academic pursuits. Williamson continues to keep pressure on the Harper Conservatives to reduce taxes and government spending.
7. Peter Holle
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
www.fcpp.org
Peter Holle is the founding president of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is a consistent advocate for policy reforms that enhance personal and economic freedom.
8. Dennis Young
Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.ca
Dennis Young is leader of the Libertarian Party. A veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia, Young's personal experience as a soldier has made him a capable and credible advocate for a libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy. His law enforcement background has also made him an effective critic of the war on drugs.
9. Mark Steyn
Maclean's Magazine
www.steynonline.com
Mark Steyn is an internationally recognized columnist and the author of "America Alone." Excerpts from "American Alone" published in Maclean's magazine were the subject of a human rights complaint, which Steyn and Maclean's successfully fought. Steyn has put Canada's struggle for free speech in the international spotlight.
10. Jean-Serge Brisson
Ontario Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.on.ca
Jean-Serge Brisson is former leader of the Libertarian Party who made news in 2008 by winning his personal court case against the mandatory bilingual sign bylaw in Russell, Ontario. He was also sentenced to 90 days in prison for his ongoing refusal to wear a seatbelt while driving. He is currently serving his time on weekends.
Congratulations to the “Liberty 100” Top 10 – and thank you for your work in the defence of liberty.
Stay tuned for the complete "Liberty 100."
fix health or you could lose your life
The future consequences of uncontrollale inflated health costs
Government questions the dollar value of human life
Dear Friend,
Recently, a depressing story from England provided a glimpse into America's not-too- distant (and oh-so-grim) healthcare future as it could be in the looming Age of Obama. A cancer patient in Britain was denied the drug that could have held his kidney cancer at bay for six months, because treatment was deemed to be too expensive by British healthcare authorities.
And you thought life was a priceless gift from God. Guess again. In Britain, at least, the "priceless gift" has a price tag. And to the British government, Bruce Hardy's life is not worth the $54,000 cost of cancer treatment.
The drug in question is Pfizer's Stutent, which according to clinical trials, can delay the progress of cancer for as much as half a year.
This shocking decision was made by the British government agency called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (which creates the incredibly ironic acronym of "NICE," even though this particular decision is anything but). According to the guidelines set by this agency, the British government can only "afford" about $22,750 to prolong a person's life – except in rare cases.
Of course, only true apparatchiks could so dispassionately make such an outrageous statement in public, and there's been massive public protests over the ruling throughout the UK – as there should be.
Government questions the dollar value of human life
Dear Friend,
Recently, a depressing story from England provided a glimpse into America's not-too- distant (and oh-so-grim) healthcare future as it could be in the looming Age of Obama. A cancer patient in Britain was denied the drug that could have held his kidney cancer at bay for six months, because treatment was deemed to be too expensive by British healthcare authorities.
And you thought life was a priceless gift from God. Guess again. In Britain, at least, the "priceless gift" has a price tag. And to the British government, Bruce Hardy's life is not worth the $54,000 cost of cancer treatment.
The drug in question is Pfizer's Stutent, which according to clinical trials, can delay the progress of cancer for as much as half a year.
This shocking decision was made by the British government agency called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (which creates the incredibly ironic acronym of "NICE," even though this particular decision is anything but). According to the guidelines set by this agency, the British government can only "afford" about $22,750 to prolong a person's life – except in rare cases.
Of course, only true apparatchiks could so dispassionately make such an outrageous statement in public, and there's been massive public protests over the ruling throughout the UK – as there should be.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
PM had 'no choice' but to appoint senators: Greene Raine
lets see what happens in 8 years.... Pr
PM had 'no choice' but to appoint senators: Greene Raine: "In a release, Harper said all incoming senators had promised to support eight-year term limits and other Senate-reform legislation. Harper said he made the appointments at this time to prevent a potential Liberal-NDP coalition government from getting the opportunity to fill the seats."
PM had 'no choice' but to appoint senators: Greene Raine: "In a release, Harper said all incoming senators had promised to support eight-year term limits and other Senate-reform legislation. Harper said he made the appointments at this time to prevent a potential Liberal-NDP coalition government from getting the opportunity to fill the seats."
Thursday, December 18, 2008
speaking outon faceook
Chatham Daily News - Ontario, CA: "Spinning wheels on laws
Posted By SUN MEDIA
Posted 2 mins ago
The politics of protest works just fine in Ontario, especially if it's done over a keyboard.
After the announcement backing off on some restrictions planned for young drivers, we now know which way the Ontario Liberals will go when there are political tradeoffs to be made.
The decision by Transportation Minister Jim Bradley to back off on some restrictions proposed for young drivers was based on backlash, not on the merits of driver safety, which, ostensibly, was the reason for making the changes in the first place.
Not that young protesters didn't have a point, but the province didn't exactly blink on this one -- it withered."
Posted By SUN MEDIA
Posted 2 mins ago
The politics of protest works just fine in Ontario, especially if it's done over a keyboard.
After the announcement backing off on some restrictions planned for young drivers, we now know which way the Ontario Liberals will go when there are political tradeoffs to be made.
The decision by Transportation Minister Jim Bradley to back off on some restrictions proposed for young drivers was based on backlash, not on the merits of driver safety, which, ostensibly, was the reason for making the changes in the first place.
Not that young protesters didn't have a point, but the province didn't exactly blink on this one -- it withered."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Home values seen losing over $2 trillion during 2008 - Yahoo! News
Home values seen losing over $2 trillion during 2008 - Yahoo! News: "NEW YORK (Reuters) – Homes in the United States have lost trillions of dollars in value during 2008, with nearly 11.7 million American households now owing more on their mortgage than their homes are worth, real estate website Zillow.com said on Monday.
U.S. homes are set to lose well over $2 trillion in value during 2008, according to an analysis of recent Zillow Real Estate Market Reports."
What next hyper deflation? Wake up people-the getting more for doing less as illustrated by " protected" interest groups in all sectors of the economy is over. Perform or pay the consequences - merit and economic supply and demand rules will once again rule - Pr
U.S. homes are set to lose well over $2 trillion in value during 2008, according to an analysis of recent Zillow Real Estate Market Reports."
What next hyper deflation? Wake up people-the getting more for doing less as illustrated by " protected" interest groups in all sectors of the economy is over. Perform or pay the consequences - merit and economic supply and demand rules will once again rule - Pr
Business News - Southern auto workers resent bailout - ArcaMax Publishing
Business News - Southern auto workers resent bailout - ArcaMax Publishing: "Southern auto workers resent bailout
SMYRNA, Tenn. (UPI) -- Efforts to provide a federal bailout to U.S. automakers in Detroit have stirred resentment among non-union autoworkers in the U.S. South, observers say.
The Bush administration has indicated it may dip into the $700 billion financial industry bailout funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress to help Detroit's 'Big 3' automakers after Republican senators, mainly from the South, killed a separate, $14 billion auto industry bailout bill.
The GOP senators, led by Bob Corker of Tennessee, demanded unionized Detroit autoworkers take pay cuts to level their wages with those earned by non-union counterparts in Southern plants owned by Japanese automakers Nissan, Honda and Toyota. That position has strong support among the workers at those plants, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
'Over here, we're taking days off without pay to keep the company going, but the unions for the Big Three aren't willing to do that,' Kathy Ward, 54, who has worked 27 years at the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tenn., told the newspaper. 'Everyone has to give a little in times like these.'
Union opponents 'use the phrase, 'You don't want the Yankees telling you what to do,'' a Southern organizer told the Post."
SMYRNA, Tenn. (UPI) -- Efforts to provide a federal bailout to U.S. automakers in Detroit have stirred resentment among non-union autoworkers in the U.S. South, observers say.
The Bush administration has indicated it may dip into the $700 billion financial industry bailout funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress to help Detroit's 'Big 3' automakers after Republican senators, mainly from the South, killed a separate, $14 billion auto industry bailout bill.
The GOP senators, led by Bob Corker of Tennessee, demanded unionized Detroit autoworkers take pay cuts to level their wages with those earned by non-union counterparts in Southern plants owned by Japanese automakers Nissan, Honda and Toyota. That position has strong support among the workers at those plants, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
'Over here, we're taking days off without pay to keep the company going, but the unions for the Big Three aren't willing to do that,' Kathy Ward, 54, who has worked 27 years at the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tenn., told the newspaper. 'Everyone has to give a little in times like these.'
Union opponents 'use the phrase, 'You don't want the Yankees telling you what to do,'' a Southern organizer told the Post."
reportonbusiness.com: Working for nothing, but getting something
reportonbusiness.com: Working for nothing, but getting something: "Working for nothing, but getting something"
use talent that is available-real people doing real things with their time
use talent that is available-real people doing real things with their time
Monday, December 08, 2008
Dion leaves gracefully?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/08/dion-replace.html?ref=rss
Dion will bow out early to clear way for successor
Last Updated: Monday, December 8, 2008 4:55 PM ET
CBC News
Embattled Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced Monday he will step down earlier than planned, leaving his potential successors to battle over who will steer the party ahead of a possible election.Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, seen at a news conference on Oct. 20, said Monday he would step down earlier than planned. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Dion originally planned to stay on as a caretaker leader after the party's dismal election results until his successor was chosen in early May. But he has faced growing pressure from his party to leave due to his handling of the recent political crisis and his widespread unpopularity among voters.
"I have decided to step aside as leader of the Liberal party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen," Dion said in a release. He did not specify a date.
Dion will bow out early to clear way for successor
Last Updated: Monday, December 8, 2008 4:55 PM ET
CBC News
Embattled Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced Monday he will step down earlier than planned, leaving his potential successors to battle over who will steer the party ahead of a possible election.Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, seen at a news conference on Oct. 20, said Monday he would step down earlier than planned. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Dion originally planned to stay on as a caretaker leader after the party's dismal election results until his successor was chosen in early May. But he has faced growing pressure from his party to leave due to his handling of the recent political crisis and his widespread unpopularity among voters.
"I have decided to step aside as leader of the Liberal party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen," Dion said in a release. He did not specify a date.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Canadians-lets help the Governor general
Another negative first for Canada that can be avoided? We have a situation where the Bloc or separatists are the king makers to Canada's political rule. It is ironic that Canadians paid the way for this situation to happen. Without our public subsidy-and left to there own fund raising efforts from their own Quebec constituents- they would never have been able to reach this level of ccntrol or influence. Dion ,the champion of clarity -"do you want to separate"-under the Liberal Chretein government is now beholden to the Bloc to capture and maintain power from the elected conservative government.
Tragically-when the Conservatives called for economic restraint in these acknowledged hard times - cutting special interest subsidies to poitical parties - the knives came out. The hypocrasy is blatant. The proposed political hyjacking of parliament by the coalition ,Liberals,NDP and Bloc Quebeois is a potential reality that needs the Governor General's approval. The stakes are high. We are now potentially forced to be governed by a unelected special interest group of people with questionable skills to weather the economic storm.
Governer General -Why not ask the Canadian people-in the form of a plebicsite what they wish you to do? In the public interest , a plebicsite could add clarity and direct democratic credibiity to the situation.
Tragically-when the Conservatives called for economic restraint in these acknowledged hard times - cutting special interest subsidies to poitical parties - the knives came out. The hypocrasy is blatant. The proposed political hyjacking of parliament by the coalition ,Liberals,NDP and Bloc Quebeois is a potential reality that needs the Governor General's approval. The stakes are high. We are now potentially forced to be governed by a unelected special interest group of people with questionable skills to weather the economic storm.
Governer General -Why not ask the Canadian people-in the form of a plebicsite what they wish you to do? In the public interest , a plebicsite could add clarity and direct democratic credibiity to the situation.
help the Governor general
Another negative first for Canada? We have a situation where the Bloc or separatists are the king makers to Canada's political rule. It is ironic that Canadians paid the way for this situation to happen. Without our public subsidy-and left to there own fund raising efforts from their own Quebec constituents- they would never have been able to reach this level of ccntro; or influence. Dion the champion of clarity -do you want to separate-under the Liberal Chretein government is now beholden to the Bloc to capture and maintain power from the elected conservative government.
Tragically-when the Conservatives called for economic restraint in these acknowledged hard time - cutting special interest subsidies to poitical parties - the knives came out. The hypocrasy is blatant. We are now potentially forced to be governed by unelected special interest people with questionable skills to weather the economic storm.
Governer General -Why not ask the Canadian people-in the form of a plebicsite what they wish you to do? In the public interest , a plebicsite could add clarity and democratic credibiity to the situation.
Tragically-when the Conservatives called for economic restraint in these acknowledged hard time - cutting special interest subsidies to poitical parties - the knives came out. The hypocrasy is blatant. We are now potentially forced to be governed by unelected special interest people with questionable skills to weather the economic storm.
Governer General -Why not ask the Canadian people-in the form of a plebicsite what they wish you to do? In the public interest , a plebicsite could add clarity and democratic credibiity to the situation.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
FISCAL STORM
This perfect fiscal storm has been brewing for months.
Elementary teachers have been holding out on signing a new contract. This financial statement is like a big stick to get them to sign. How popular will teachers be if they strike at a time when everyone else is feeling the financial pain?
Worse, the public service is growing out of control. It's the monster that swallows our tax dollars.
While the private sector is growing only marginally, more and more people are joining the province's not-so-exclusive club of people making $100,000 on the public purse.
If the province wants to hold the line, the first place to start is with a freeze on pay increases on civil servants making $100,000 or more.
Instead, the first cuts will come with a delay in implementation of things like a dental plan for low income families and a delay in hiring more nurses.
What a mockery Wednesday's statement made of Duncan's much-ballyhooed plan to divvy up budget surpluses among municipalities. Remember when he announced that shell game back in March?
He told us any time there was more than an $800 million surplus, instead of paying down the province's massive $169-billion total accumulated debt as was the law, only the first $600 million would go to pay down the debt. The rest would be distributed to the province's 445 municipalities based on population. The amount to be allocated is capped at $2 billion.
Back then, Duncan estimated the minimum amount that would be allocated would be $200 million.
Oops. Now we have a $500 million deficit.
Back then, local politicians tripped over themselves to gush over Duncan's hypothetical cash windfall.
Better not hold your breath getting that pothole fixed. And better check the bridge before you drive over it, fellas.
He said the government wouldn't try to spend its way out of the recession. That's a relief. Then again, you could make a very strong argument they have pretty well spent their way into it.
He did acknowledge, though, the importance of infrastructure investments, "which create jobs and improve competitiveness for tomorrow."
Presumably that means some of the big ticket transit programs are still on the table. That's good. There's no need to panic on projects that benefit everyone.
IMPRUDENT
You have to ask: Is this just the thin end of the wedge? Is this half-billion-dollar deficit truly manageable? Or is Duncan setting us up for more bad news in his budget next spring?
What we need is a little fiscal austerity here.
Duncan is fond of using the word "prudent." His budget projections are "prudent." His fiscal policy is "prudent."
Well, I had a cat called Prudence once. She met a nasty end when she carelessly -- and imprudently -- ran in front of a car.
The point is even though I called my cat Prudence, she still did foolish things.
I have a horrid feeling Duncan's economic statement is a bit like that. He can call it prudent if he wants. It won't make a lick of difference when we are all so much financial road-kill.
Christina Blizzard covers Queen's Park for Sun Media. She can be reached at christina. blizzard@tor. sunpub.com.
FISCAL STORM
This perfect fiscal storm has been brewing for months.
Elementary teachers have been holding out on signing a new contract. This financial statement is like a big stick to get them to sign. How popular will teachers be if they strike at a time when everyone else is feeling the financial pain?
Worse, the public service is growing out of control. It's the monster that swallows our tax dollars.
While the private sector is growing only marginally, more and more people are joining the province's not-so-exclusive club of people making $100,000 on the public purse.
If the province wants to hold the line, the first place to start is with a freeze on pay increases on civil servants making $100,000 or more.
Instead, the first cuts will come with a delay in implementation of things like a dental plan for low income families and a delay in hiring more nurses.
What a mockery Wednesday's statement made of Duncan's much-ballyhooed plan to divvy up budget surpluses among municipalities. Remember when he announced that shell game back in March?
He told us any time there was more than an $800 million surplus, instead of paying down the province's massive $169-billion total accumulated debt as was the law, only the first $600 million would go to pay down the debt. The rest would be distributed to the province's 445 municipalities based on population. The amount to be allocated is capped at $2 billion.
Back then, Duncan estimated the minimum amount that would be allocated would be $200 million.
Oops. Now we have a $500 million deficit.
Back then, local politicians tripped over themselves to gush over Duncan's hypothetical cash windfall.
Better not hold your breath getting that pothole fixed. And better check the bridge before you drive over it, fellas.
He said the government wouldn't try to spend its way out of the recession. That's a relief. Then again, you could make a very strong argument they have pretty well spent their way into it.
He did acknowledge, though, the importance of infrastructure investments, "which create jobs and improve competitiveness for tomorrow."
Presumably that means some of the big ticket transit programs are still on the table. That's good. There's no need to panic on projects that benefit everyone.
IMPRUDENT
You have to ask: Is this just the thin end of the wedge? Is this half-billion-dollar deficit truly manageable? Or is Duncan setting us up for more bad news in his budget next spring?
What we need is a little fiscal austerity here.
Duncan is fond of using the word "prudent." His budget projections are "prudent." His fiscal policy is "prudent."
Well, I had a cat called Prudence once. She met a nasty end when she carelessly -- and imprudently -- ran in front of a car.
The point is even though I called my cat Prudence, she still did foolish things.
I have a horrid feeling Duncan's economic statement is a bit like that. He can call it prudent if he wants. It won't make a lick of difference when we are all so much financial road-kill.
Christina Blizzard covers Queen's Park for Sun Media. She can be reached at christina. blizzard@tor. sunpub.com.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Set up a corporate whistleblower program
Say “whistleblower” to some execs and the reaction your likely to get is one of fear and loathing. It shouldn’t be that way. Whistleblowers can help keep your company out of trouble by catching fraud and corruption – things harmful to your company’s reputation and bottom line over the long haul – early on. But many companies do not have a whistleblowing program in place.
Earlier this month, the International Chamber of Commerce, a free trade organization founded in Paris in 1919, issued a set of comprehensive whistleblowing guidelines for anyone to use.
“Fraud remains one of the most problematic issues for business worldwide, no matter the country of operation, industry sector, or size,” Francois Vincke, Chair of ICC’s Anti-Corruption Commission, said in a statement on the organization’s website. “While whistleblowing programs are a highly effective way to flag fraud early on, many companies do not have these schemes in place due to cultural or legal differences. ICC’s guide is the first set of practical tools that takes these factors into account, no matter the jurisdiction.”
For more, see the ICC Guidelines on Whistleblowing. Thanks to EthicsWorld for bringing this to our attention.
Earlier this month, the International Chamber of Commerce, a free trade organization founded in Paris in 1919, issued a set of comprehensive whistleblowing guidelines for anyone to use.
“Fraud remains one of the most problematic issues for business worldwide, no matter the country of operation, industry sector, or size,” Francois Vincke, Chair of ICC’s Anti-Corruption Commission, said in a statement on the organization’s website. “While whistleblowing programs are a highly effective way to flag fraud early on, many companies do not have these schemes in place due to cultural or legal differences. ICC’s guide is the first set of practical tools that takes these factors into account, no matter the jurisdiction.”
The website also noted a 2007 KPMG study fond that “25 percent of the incidents of fraud uncovered among 360 incidents analyzed came to light thanks to a whistleblowing system put into place by companies.”
The ICC recommends an eight-step plan for implementing a whistleblowing program that protects your company and your employees:
- Create a whistleblowing program as part of internal integrity practices
- Handle reports early on, in full confidentiality
- Appoint a high-level executive to manage the whistleblowing unit
- Communicate in as many languages as there are countries of operation
- Abide by external legal restrictions
- Allow reporting to be anonymous or disclosed, compulsory or voluntary
- Acknowledge, record and screen all reports
- Enable employees to report incidents without fear of retaliation, discrimination, or disciplinary action
For more, see the ICC Guidelines on Whistleblowing. Thanks to EthicsWorld for bringing this to our attention.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
topical survey of issues
Threats to our way of life
Article By: Elizabeth Rogers
Food crises, water shortages, pandemics and other disasters -- what do they mean for our future? More news from ideaCity 2008.
It seems the daily news is a maelstrom of new research and innovation mixed with dire warnings against impending crises. It's confusing at best, and alarming at times. Are things getting better, or are they getting worse? Can we find reasons to be happy (and hopeful) in the face of such threats as food prices spiralling out of control, water running out and pandemic illnesses potentially wiping out part of our population
Article By: Elizabeth Rogers
Food crises, water shortages, pandemics and other disasters -- what do they mean for our future? More news from ideaCity 2008.
It seems the daily news is a maelstrom of new research and innovation mixed with dire warnings against impending crises. It's confusing at best, and alarming at times. Are things getting better, or are they getting worse? Can we find reasons to be happy (and hopeful) in the face of such threats as food prices spiralling out of control, water running out and pandemic illnesses potentially wiping out part of our population
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Canadian Rant -
Canadian Rant.... I AM CANADIAN
I am in the minority in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and every casino in this country. I was born in the sixties, yet I am somehow responsible for some First Nations people being screwed out of their land in the 1700's! I pay import tax on cars made in Ontario. I am allowed to skydive and smoke, but not allowed to drive without a seat belt. All the money I make until mid July must go to paying taxes. I live and work among people who believe Americans are Ignorant.... These same people cannot name this country's new territory.
On April 1st, 1999, the map of Canada changed for the first time in 50 years with the creation of Nunavut Territory. The Northwest Territories was split and approximately 2 million square kilometres of the central and eastern arctic became 'Nunavut'. Although I am sometimes forced to live on hamburgers and don't have a pot to piss in, I sleep well knowing that my taxes helped purchase a nice six figure home in Vancouver for some unskilled refugee. Although they are unpatriotic and constantly try to separate...Quebec still provides most of my nation's prime ministers.95% of my nation's international conflicts are over fish.I'm supposed to call black people African Canadians, although I'm sure none of them have ever been to Africa for that matter.
I am being told that paying a 200% tax on alcohol is fair. I am also being told that the same tax on gasoline is also fair.
Even if I have no idea what happened to that old rifle my Grandfather gave me when I was 14, I will be considered a criminal if I don't register it. I am being told that spending $15 billion to promote the French language in the rest of Canada is fair when the province of Quebec doesn't support or recognize the English language.
I am being told that paying $1million for 3 Stripes ("The Voice of Fire painting in Ottawa) by the National Art Gallery was a good purchase, even though 99% of this country didn't want it or will ever see it.
When I look at my pension and realize that I take home a third of what I actually make, I say "Oh well, at least we have better health care than the Americans."I must bail out farmers when their crops are too wet or too dry because I control the rain.I must bail out big corporations who drive their business into the ground and say yeah that's ok when they move all their manufacturing plants and jobs to a third world country and say no problem.
My National Anthem has versions in both official languages. Canada is the highest taxed nation in North America, the biggest military buffer for the United States, and the number one destination for fleeing terrorists.
I am not an angry white male. I am an angry taxpayer who is broke. I am Canadian !!!
I am in the minority in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and every casino in this country. I was born in the sixties, yet I am somehow responsible for some First Nations people being screwed out of their land in the 1700's! I pay import tax on cars made in Ontario. I am allowed to skydive and smoke, but not allowed to drive without a seat belt. All the money I make until mid July must go to paying taxes. I live and work among people who believe Americans are Ignorant.... These same people cannot name this country's new territory.
On April 1st, 1999, the map of Canada changed for the first time in 50 years with the creation of Nunavut Territory. The Northwest Territories was split and approximately 2 million square kilometres of the central and eastern arctic became 'Nunavut'. Although I am sometimes forced to live on hamburgers and don't have a pot to piss in, I sleep well knowing that my taxes helped purchase a nice six figure home in Vancouver for some unskilled refugee. Although they are unpatriotic and constantly try to separate...Quebec still provides most of my nation's prime ministers.95% of my nation's international conflicts are over fish.I'm supposed to call black people African Canadians, although I'm sure none of them have ever been to Africa for that matter.
I am being told that paying a 200% tax on alcohol is fair. I am also being told that the same tax on gasoline is also fair.
Even if I have no idea what happened to that old rifle my Grandfather gave me when I was 14, I will be considered a criminal if I don't register it. I am being told that spending $15 billion to promote the French language in the rest of Canada is fair when the province of Quebec doesn't support or recognize the English language.
I am being told that paying $1million for 3 Stripes ("The Voice of Fire painting in Ottawa) by the National Art Gallery was a good purchase, even though 99% of this country didn't want it or will ever see it.
When I look at my pension and realize that I take home a third of what I actually make, I say "Oh well, at least we have better health care than the Americans."I must bail out farmers when their crops are too wet or too dry because I control the rain.I must bail out big corporations who drive their business into the ground and say yeah that's ok when they move all their manufacturing plants and jobs to a third world country and say no problem.
My National Anthem has versions in both official languages. Canada is the highest taxed nation in North America, the biggest military buffer for the United States, and the number one destination for fleeing terrorists.
I am not an angry white male. I am an angry taxpayer who is broke. I am Canadian !!!
Saturday, July 05, 2008
how to avoid a retirement home
How to Avoid the Nursing Home
As my aunt hits her mid-eighties, she has no intention of moving from the house she and my uncle bought when he came home from World War II. She's far from alone in this wish, as an AARP poll indicates that nine out of 10 older Americans prefer to stay in their own homes for as long as possible, rather than go to an assisted living or nursing facility -- and really, who could argue? As our nation's demographic shifts upward, we need to develop more effective, affordable and widely accessible programs and services that enable older people to remain safely and comfortably at home.
I read recently about Beacon Hill Village -- which is known as an "intentional aging-in-place" organization helping people in Central Boston spend their later years at home. Local residents determined to stay in familiar surroundings with friends and family nearby created and funded a nonprofit organization that works like a virtual retirement community. Members pay an annual fee ($580 for individuals, $850 for households) for regular services such as food shopping, drivers to take them where they need to go, and a schedule of outings, exercise classes and lectures. Additional services such as home repair and in-home care are also available for an extra fee as needed. Vendors are carefully screened and discounts are negotiated for members.
This is a growing trend, with more than 100 aging-in-place communities established and more in the works. The first ones grew from grass roots efforts spearheaded by residents, and now government and social service agencies are getting involved as well. Peter Notarstefano, director of Home and Community Based Services at the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (AAHSA), told me that setting up these organizations can be a lot of work, but those who do so find the rewards well worth the effort.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: AFFORDABILITY
Money, for funding an organization as well as paying individual fees, is the biggest barrier to establishing aging-in-place communities, and indeed most of the existing ones are in affluent areas populated by well-educated and well-connected professionals. However, some government and social service agencies are beginning to step up and share funds and expertise. United Jewish Communities, a national nonprofit, has used federal grant money to develop 45 "Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities" (NORCs: http://www.norcs.com/) as demonstration projects in neighborhoods or buildings where many older people live, including those who lack the means to join fee-based ones. These programs can take advantage of existing services like Meals on Wheels, and fitness classes and outings sponsored by local organizations such as senior centers and YMCAs. Then they focus on filling in identified gaps, such as providing affordable housing for those who can no longer physically or financially manage a large house but want to remain in their community... funding physical adjustments such as ramps and handrails to support mobility challenges... and providing supportive services, such as case managers.
These are steps in the right direction but the government is not focusing on solving the core problems that would reduce costs in the long-term. Notarstefano calls the government policy on spending for the elderly "short-sighted," pointing out, for example, that Medicare won't pay for fall-preventing safety measures such as inexpensive grab bars in the bathroom, but will readily pay doctor and hospital bills resulting from a fall. Medicaid picks up most of the bills for nursing home care, which costs on average $77,745 a year, according to AAHSA. Notarstefano's conclusion: Funding and coordinating more services to enable people to stay safely in their own homes is not only kinder and gentler, in the long run, it's more cost-effective.
WHAT TO DO?
Given that there is no effective oversight of medical practices, billing or program mandates, elders are on their own when it comes to seeking non-medical industry services. Whether aging in place is a goal you want to pursue on your own -- or with like-minded members of your community -- there are many resources and organizations to tap into...
AARP (www.aarp.org). This leading nonprofit offers a wealth of resources for aging in place. For example, there's a list of Certified Aging-in-Place Specialists (CAPS), contractors who are specially trained in making home modifications for older people. Click on http://www.aarp.org/families/home_design/ to find CAPS in your area.
The American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (www.aahsa.org). The 5,700 member organizations of this not-for-profit offer adult day services, home health care, community services, as well as senior housing, assisted living residences, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes and more.
The Eldercare Locator (www.eldercare.gov). This national service connects older people to resources -- such as local agencies and community-based agencies that serve seniors and their caregivers -- that help them live independently in their own communities. It is administered in part by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
The National Aging In Place Council (http://www.naipc.org). NAIPC draws together experts from all areas of expertise -- including aging, health care, financial services, legal, design and building sectors -- to help make independent living possible. Click on "A Guide to Aging in Place" for a wide range of practical and helpful tips, from promoting independence to understanding your risks.
Source(s):
As my aunt hits her mid-eighties, she has no intention of moving from the house she and my uncle bought when he came home from World War II. She's far from alone in this wish, as an AARP poll indicates that nine out of 10 older Americans prefer to stay in their own homes for as long as possible, rather than go to an assisted living or nursing facility -- and really, who could argue? As our nation's demographic shifts upward, we need to develop more effective, affordable and widely accessible programs and services that enable older people to remain safely and comfortably at home.
I read recently about Beacon Hill Village -- which is known as an "intentional aging-in-place" organization helping people in Central Boston spend their later years at home. Local residents determined to stay in familiar surroundings with friends and family nearby created and funded a nonprofit organization that works like a virtual retirement community. Members pay an annual fee ($580 for individuals, $850 for households) for regular services such as food shopping, drivers to take them where they need to go, and a schedule of outings, exercise classes and lectures. Additional services such as home repair and in-home care are also available for an extra fee as needed. Vendors are carefully screened and discounts are negotiated for members.
This is a growing trend, with more than 100 aging-in-place communities established and more in the works. The first ones grew from grass roots efforts spearheaded by residents, and now government and social service agencies are getting involved as well. Peter Notarstefano, director of Home and Community Based Services at the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (AAHSA), told me that setting up these organizations can be a lot of work, but those who do so find the rewards well worth the effort.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: AFFORDABILITY
Money, for funding an organization as well as paying individual fees, is the biggest barrier to establishing aging-in-place communities, and indeed most of the existing ones are in affluent areas populated by well-educated and well-connected professionals. However, some government and social service agencies are beginning to step up and share funds and expertise. United Jewish Communities, a national nonprofit, has used federal grant money to develop 45 "Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities" (NORCs: http://www.norcs.com/) as demonstration projects in neighborhoods or buildings where many older people live, including those who lack the means to join fee-based ones. These programs can take advantage of existing services like Meals on Wheels, and fitness classes and outings sponsored by local organizations such as senior centers and YMCAs. Then they focus on filling in identified gaps, such as providing affordable housing for those who can no longer physically or financially manage a large house but want to remain in their community... funding physical adjustments such as ramps and handrails to support mobility challenges... and providing supportive services, such as case managers.
These are steps in the right direction but the government is not focusing on solving the core problems that would reduce costs in the long-term. Notarstefano calls the government policy on spending for the elderly "short-sighted," pointing out, for example, that Medicare won't pay for fall-preventing safety measures such as inexpensive grab bars in the bathroom, but will readily pay doctor and hospital bills resulting from a fall. Medicaid picks up most of the bills for nursing home care, which costs on average $77,745 a year, according to AAHSA. Notarstefano's conclusion: Funding and coordinating more services to enable people to stay safely in their own homes is not only kinder and gentler, in the long run, it's more cost-effective.
WHAT TO DO?
Given that there is no effective oversight of medical practices, billing or program mandates, elders are on their own when it comes to seeking non-medical industry services. Whether aging in place is a goal you want to pursue on your own -- or with like-minded members of your community -- there are many resources and organizations to tap into...
AARP (www.aarp.org). This leading nonprofit offers a wealth of resources for aging in place. For example, there's a list of Certified Aging-in-Place Specialists (CAPS), contractors who are specially trained in making home modifications for older people. Click on http://www.aarp.org/families/home_design/ to find CAPS in your area.
The American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (www.aahsa.org). The 5,700 member organizations of this not-for-profit offer adult day services, home health care, community services, as well as senior housing, assisted living residences, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes and more.
The Eldercare Locator (www.eldercare.gov). This national service connects older people to resources -- such as local agencies and community-based agencies that serve seniors and their caregivers -- that help them live independently in their own communities. It is administered in part by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
The National Aging In Place Council (http://www.naipc.org). NAIPC draws together experts from all areas of expertise -- including aging, health care, financial services, legal, design and building sectors -- to help make independent living possible. Click on "A Guide to Aging in Place" for a wide range of practical and helpful tips, from promoting independence to understanding your risks.
Source(s):
Monday, June 30, 2008
high debt - high energy costs -can GM make it?
GM Shares Plunge to 53-Year Low
Troubles Deepen
As Investors Worry
About Liquidity
By JOHN D. STOLL and SERENA NG
June 27, 2008; Page B3
General Motors Corp.'s shares sank to a 53-year low Thursday on concerns about liquidity, equity dilution and a potential dividend cut, heightening speculation that the auto maker doesn't have enough cash to finance its turnaround.
GM stock fell $1.38, or 11%, to $11.43 in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange. In intraday trading, the shares slipped as low as $11.21. That was their lowest point since 1955, according to Reuters, when GM was making cars with tail fins and Dwight Eisenhower was president.
Troubles Deepen
As Investors Worry
About Liquidity
By JOHN D. STOLL and SERENA NG
June 27, 2008; Page B3
General Motors Corp.'s shares sank to a 53-year low Thursday on concerns about liquidity, equity dilution and a potential dividend cut, heightening speculation that the auto maker doesn't have enough cash to finance its turnaround.
GM stock fell $1.38, or 11%, to $11.43 in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange. In intraday trading, the shares slipped as low as $11.21. That was their lowest point since 1955, according to Reuters, when GM was making cars with tail fins and Dwight Eisenhower was president.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Unpaid bills and utility cutoffs increase- the future?
Service cutoffs -This is a disturbing outcome of high energy costs. What is happening in Canada and what measures are in place to protect consumers from unfair fee qouging and billing practises by utilities? PR
Unpaid bills and utility cutoffs increase
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Utility companies across the United States are more often turning power off to customers who cannot pay bills, industry figures show. With gas prices rising and the unemployment rate at 5.5 percent, the shutoffs have begun to affect moderately well-off customers, USA Today reported Tuesday.
Eight percent of households with incomes between $33,500 and $55,000 have had their electricity shut off this year due to non-payment, the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association said. "It's hitting people in the suburbs with two cars and two kids," NEADA Executive Director Mark Wolfe told USA Today. Utilities also say their cutoff rates have risen. PPL Electric Utilities in Pennsylvania shut off power to 7,054 customers from January through April a cutoff rate 168 percent higher than in the same months of 2007, the newspaper reported.
Utility companies frequently restore power after a few days, when customers agree to a payment plan. A federal program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program is supposed to help, but is out of funds, having provided $2.5 billion in assistance in fiscal 2008, the report said.
Unpaid bills and utility cutoffs increase
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Utility companies across the United States are more often turning power off to customers who cannot pay bills, industry figures show. With gas prices rising and the unemployment rate at 5.5 percent, the shutoffs have begun to affect moderately well-off customers, USA Today reported Tuesday.
Eight percent of households with incomes between $33,500 and $55,000 have had their electricity shut off this year due to non-payment, the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association said. "It's hitting people in the suburbs with two cars and two kids," NEADA Executive Director Mark Wolfe told USA Today. Utilities also say their cutoff rates have risen. PPL Electric Utilities in Pennsylvania shut off power to 7,054 customers from January through April a cutoff rate 168 percent higher than in the same months of 2007, the newspaper reported.
Utility companies frequently restore power after a few days, when customers agree to a payment plan. A federal program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program is supposed to help, but is out of funds, having provided $2.5 billion in assistance in fiscal 2008, the report said.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Demographics pose pressing dilemma: Renew or reinvent
Such is the ideal scenario of e-government and public sector renewal - senior managers open to change, willing to listen, and prepared to empower younger workers within their organizations to lead renewal efforts aimed at the nexus between digital and organizational innovation. Such is a key to both government relevance and renewal in the coming decade.Conversely, a more ominous scenario may be taking shape, one driven by widening concerns about a massive exodus of the senior management cadre across the federal and most provincial governments. Such departures, according to some, can only mean a critical loss of talent, knowledge and organizational memory at a time when the public sector confronts increasingly complex and managerial challenges.
Governments are thus beginning to at least consider the prospect of incentive packages for people to stay (a dramatic reversal of the mid-1990s program review era). New mechanisms, such as external audit committees (called for by the Federal Accountability Act) will also provide venues for many retired senior officials to exercise influence. It's also not completely unthinkable that many government executives may choose to stay longer as mandatory retirement becomes more the exception than the norm.
Governments are thus beginning to at least consider the prospect of incentive packages for people to stay (a dramatic reversal of the mid-1990s program review era). New mechanisms, such as external audit committees (called for by the Federal Accountability Act) will also provide venues for many retired senior officials to exercise influence. It's also not completely unthinkable that many government executives may choose to stay longer as mandatory retirement becomes more the exception than the norm.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Brant Taxpayers-doing something to reduce energy costs
Brant Power Amalgamation
Comments and recommendations from the Brant Taxpayer Coalition
It was recently reported that Brant County power is considering an amalgamation with Brantford power. Let us examine some of the historical facts associated with Brantford power. Eleven years ago the city of Brantford took over the Public Utilities Commission. All employees of the Public Utilities Commission became employees of the city of Brantford. Despite promises of massive savings, hydro rates, water rates, and municipal taxes went up. The city of Brantford sold services back to Brantford Hydro. This is a structure that is unique in Ontario. The original structure was put in place in order to allow the city to charge what some consider bloated administration costs to the hydro customers. There is a concern in the community that any merger with Branford could be caught in this same dilemma and even more concern that the costs for Brant power and the costs for city and county consumers would rise.
The best solution, if Brant County is merger minded, is to look for a partner who can provide reduced power costs for the county and its customers. The proposal from Horizon Utilities may provide this. As such, it probably should be explored in more detail. There are also other bordering utilities that could provide a similar solution.
If the costs can be reduced and if the agreement can provide reasonable safeguards for Brant County, the hydro costs would go down and the resulting attraction for economic development would be dramatic. It would be worth an independent feasibility study to determine the best course of action. Wise, judicious visible public negotiations could provide a boon for Brant County. We recommend that an outside, local consultant be commissioned to provide immediate short term strategic input so that Brant County can make an informed and correct decision on all available energy providers and least cost alternatives prior to the October decision deadline. The city of Brantford should commission a similar study.
We, the Brant Taxpayers Coalition, support any taxpayer friendly strategy that reduces costs to the end user, and that is consumer and business friendly. We feel that this strategy would promote and stimulate positive economic activity in our area.
Sieg Holle BS MBA
Communications Director
Brant –Taxpayers Coalition
Comments and recommendations from the Brant Taxpayer Coalition
It was recently reported that Brant County power is considering an amalgamation with Brantford power. Let us examine some of the historical facts associated with Brantford power. Eleven years ago the city of Brantford took over the Public Utilities Commission. All employees of the Public Utilities Commission became employees of the city of Brantford. Despite promises of massive savings, hydro rates, water rates, and municipal taxes went up. The city of Brantford sold services back to Brantford Hydro. This is a structure that is unique in Ontario. The original structure was put in place in order to allow the city to charge what some consider bloated administration costs to the hydro customers. There is a concern in the community that any merger with Branford could be caught in this same dilemma and even more concern that the costs for Brant power and the costs for city and county consumers would rise.
The best solution, if Brant County is merger minded, is to look for a partner who can provide reduced power costs for the county and its customers. The proposal from Horizon Utilities may provide this. As such, it probably should be explored in more detail. There are also other bordering utilities that could provide a similar solution.
If the costs can be reduced and if the agreement can provide reasonable safeguards for Brant County, the hydro costs would go down and the resulting attraction for economic development would be dramatic. It would be worth an independent feasibility study to determine the best course of action. Wise, judicious visible public negotiations could provide a boon for Brant County. We recommend that an outside, local consultant be commissioned to provide immediate short term strategic input so that Brant County can make an informed and correct decision on all available energy providers and least cost alternatives prior to the October decision deadline. The city of Brantford should commission a similar study.
We, the Brant Taxpayers Coalition, support any taxpayer friendly strategy that reduces costs to the end user, and that is consumer and business friendly. We feel that this strategy would promote and stimulate positive economic activity in our area.
Sieg Holle BS MBA
Communications Director
Brant –Taxpayers Coalition
Business News - IRS's private tax collectors losing money - ArcaMax Publishing
Business News - IRS's private tax collectors losing money - ArcaMax Publishing: "IRS's private tax collectors losing money
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Hiring private companies to chase after modest tax debts expects to be a losing deal for the Internal Revenue Service, critics say."
When the cost to collect exceeds the revenue collected what would you do?
Three companies hired in 2006 to recover $1 billion in unpaid taxes have so far secured a little more than half of what the program costs, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. The companies, which have recovered $49 million, keep 24 percent on commissions, the Post reported. Overall, the program Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., calls "the hood ornament for incompetence," is expected to lose $37 million, the newspaper report said. "It makes no sense at all to be turning over these tax accounts to private tax collectors that end up costing the taxpayers money," Dorgan said. David Alito, director of collection for the IRS, said the agency "wouldn't get down to this level, not that we wouldn't have made an attempt." The IRS uses private collectors to recover uncontested tax bills to help close the gap in an estimated $345 billion in taxes owed, the report said.
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Hiring private companies to chase after modest tax debts expects to be a losing deal for the Internal Revenue Service, critics say."
When the cost to collect exceeds the revenue collected what would you do?
Three companies hired in 2006 to recover $1 billion in unpaid taxes have so far secured a little more than half of what the program costs, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. The companies, which have recovered $49 million, keep 24 percent on commissions, the Post reported. Overall, the program Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., calls "the hood ornament for incompetence," is expected to lose $37 million, the newspaper report said. "It makes no sense at all to be turning over these tax accounts to private tax collectors that end up costing the taxpayers money," Dorgan said. David Alito, director of collection for the IRS, said the agency "wouldn't get down to this level, not that we wouldn't have made an attempt." The IRS uses private collectors to recover uncontested tax bills to help close the gap in an estimated $345 billion in taxes owed, the report said.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
School's out - on home learning
Home school learning unconstitutional?
Right to homeschool jeopardized by activist court
Once again, our personal freedoms are under assault. And this time, those doing the assaulting are the very people who are supposed to be protecting our rights. The issue boils down to a very simple question: who has the right to raise the children of this country? Parents or the State?
In the eyes of the 2nd Appellate Court of Los Angeles, parental rights are ceded to the State right after one's offspring leaves the womb. This California appeals court recently ruled that the parents of a staggering 166,000 students in the state could face criminal sanctions for – are you ready for this – homeschooling their children.
As unbelievable as it sounds, this ruling reversed an earlier decision by a California Superior Court judge stating that "parents have a constitutional right to school children in their own home."
The homeschooling issue has, unfortunately, become something of a political football as the movement has gathered momentum over the past decade or so. A small but growing band of parents has opted out of the public school education system, often for a variety of reasons from the religious to the moral to the purely educational. Regardless of the reasons for the shift, one look at the news stories about the sex and violence in our schools (let alone the severe dip nationwide in the public schools' basic skills test scores), and it's a wonder that there aren't more families that are homeschooling.
But now, thanks to an amazingly wrong-headed decision by irresponsible (and, I suspect, activist) judges, homeschooling could be removed from the equation for parents, forcing them to send their children to public school – or face criminal charges.
Who do you attack first? The alleged "child advocates" or this idiot Croskey? Either way, it's apparent that what's primarily on their mind is the reinforcement of their agenda – NOT the interest of the Long children.
How can ANYONE with the gall to call themselves a "child advocate" possibly endorse taking children out of a homeschooling program and tossing them back into the cesspool of the Los Angeles public school system? What "child advocate" would prefer to put children in an environment of schools that need armed security and metal detectors, and that have low test scores, and even lower graduation rates?
And as for "Justice" Croskey, you won't believe the unmitigated gall of the ruling! The ruling affirmed that the original trial court had found evidence that "keeping children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the chidrens' lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' "cloistered" setting.
Read that again and see if you don't want to drive out to L.A. and give this Croskey character a piece of your mind. Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to be sure that MY children interact with people outside of MY family!? Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to determine what is or is not a "cloistered" environment? And when has the emotional development of MY children EVER been the business of some government bureaucrat?
It's truly a mind-boggling ruling. It's one of the biggest assaults on our personal rights and freedoms that I've come across in years. And it could only come from the mind of a liberal activist judge – because only a liberal could possibly believe that it's better to take a child out of a loving home with involved parents (and you won't find any parent more involved in their child's life than a homeschooling parent), and put them into the nation's questionable public schools.
Of course, liberals want kids in the public schools, because it's the liberals that set the agenda of those schools – and they don't want to miss out on the ability to brainwash our kids with their left-wing, politically correct nonsense.
The only good thing about this ruling is that it is so wildly unconstitutional that it's almost guaranteed to be kicked up to the next highest court. And even if it has to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, I'd be stunned if this ruling wasn't eventually overturned at some level. But in the meantime, please help spread the rage.
Schooling you on outrageous court decisions, William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Right to homeschool jeopardized by activist court
Once again, our personal freedoms are under assault. And this time, those doing the assaulting are the very people who are supposed to be protecting our rights. The issue boils down to a very simple question: who has the right to raise the children of this country? Parents or the State?
In the eyes of the 2nd Appellate Court of Los Angeles, parental rights are ceded to the State right after one's offspring leaves the womb. This California appeals court recently ruled that the parents of a staggering 166,000 students in the state could face criminal sanctions for – are you ready for this – homeschooling their children.
As unbelievable as it sounds, this ruling reversed an earlier decision by a California Superior Court judge stating that "parents have a constitutional right to school children in their own home."
The homeschooling issue has, unfortunately, become something of a political football as the movement has gathered momentum over the past decade or so. A small but growing band of parents has opted out of the public school education system, often for a variety of reasons from the religious to the moral to the purely educational. Regardless of the reasons for the shift, one look at the news stories about the sex and violence in our schools (let alone the severe dip nationwide in the public schools' basic skills test scores), and it's a wonder that there aren't more families that are homeschooling.
But now, thanks to an amazingly wrong-headed decision by irresponsible (and, I suspect, activist) judges, homeschooling could be removed from the equation for parents, forcing them to send their children to public school – or face criminal charges.
Who do you attack first? The alleged "child advocates" or this idiot Croskey? Either way, it's apparent that what's primarily on their mind is the reinforcement of their agenda – NOT the interest of the Long children.
How can ANYONE with the gall to call themselves a "child advocate" possibly endorse taking children out of a homeschooling program and tossing them back into the cesspool of the Los Angeles public school system? What "child advocate" would prefer to put children in an environment of schools that need armed security and metal detectors, and that have low test scores, and even lower graduation rates?
And as for "Justice" Croskey, you won't believe the unmitigated gall of the ruling! The ruling affirmed that the original trial court had found evidence that "keeping children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the chidrens' lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' "cloistered" setting.
Read that again and see if you don't want to drive out to L.A. and give this Croskey character a piece of your mind. Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to be sure that MY children interact with people outside of MY family!? Since when has it EVER been the business of the state to determine what is or is not a "cloistered" environment? And when has the emotional development of MY children EVER been the business of some government bureaucrat?
It's truly a mind-boggling ruling. It's one of the biggest assaults on our personal rights and freedoms that I've come across in years. And it could only come from the mind of a liberal activist judge – because only a liberal could possibly believe that it's better to take a child out of a loving home with involved parents (and you won't find any parent more involved in their child's life than a homeschooling parent), and put them into the nation's questionable public schools.
Of course, liberals want kids in the public schools, because it's the liberals that set the agenda of those schools – and they don't want to miss out on the ability to brainwash our kids with their left-wing, politically correct nonsense.
The only good thing about this ruling is that it is so wildly unconstitutional that it's almost guaranteed to be kicked up to the next highest court. And even if it has to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, I'd be stunned if this ruling wasn't eventually overturned at some level. But in the meantime, please help spread the rage.
Schooling you on outrageous court decisions, William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)