Your Personal Platform

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a good one.

'Estimates for the Government of Canada and Other Supporting Documents'

Treasury Board Reports

This is a much more detailed list of expenditures. There's enough in there to keep the right-wingers on the board posting for a long time. And that's a good thing.

As a side comment (on the lighter side) note that in Part I the office of the ethics commissioner had a budget of 0 in 2004-2005, and $4.6M in 2005-2006. Hmmmm....

Next, for fun, click Part III performance reports.

You will get to this page.

Departmental Performance Reports

This is the area of the treasury board site where the government (like every teenage male) gets around to measuring itself.

This is the type of information that needs to be deciphered, prettied, and served up for common consumption so that the average voter has an idea what's going on. It took me an hour and a bit to get to those pages, and I'm an obsessive information junkie. Do you think that Joe and Jane Srinivasaan, of Oshawa, are going to take the time to do it ?

[Michael Hardner]

$76b on social services? I quit.

Is that too much or too little ? Answer: who knows ?

What is that money spent on ?

Once we start getting down to the brass tacks, then the left-right cariactures will fall away and we can have some substative discussions on where money should be spent. I don't know that every Canadian would care enough to be informed on these things, but certainly the types of people who come to MapleLeaf would get some better information and that would be a good thing.

[geoffrey]

Nearly a billion bucks to the CBC. I wish Global was public so I could know how much they spend, I can tell you its less than a billion.

The CBC is 50% of our policing budget for the nation. Very sad.

The $6b to Indians kind of pisses me off too.

And $2.6b for the Tresury Board. I always thought they just oversaw spending... weird.

[Michael Hardner]

Nearly a billion bucks to the CBC. I wish Global was public so I could know how much they spend, I can tell you its less than a billion.

The CBC is 50% of our policing budget for the nation. Very sad.

The $6b to Indians kind of pisses me off too.

And $2.6b for the Tresury Board. I always thought they just oversaw spending... weird.

Well, the policing (RCMP) doesn't apply in the same way, coast to coast.

You're right about the $2.6B for the TSB. What is that spent on ?

Again, more information would shed light on this type of discussion and we could have a good discussion.

On another page, I noticed the TSB stated that the government is running on the lowest % of GDP since the fourties, which is a good thing.

[geoffrey]

Government spending still makes up way too much of our GDP though. Money isn't in the people's hands.

[Michael Hardner]

Government spending still makes up way too much of our GDP though. Money isn't in the people's hands.

If the TSB is correct, then we're close to a postwar low in terms of spending as a % of GDP.

I doubt the US is near that, and they don't even have universal healthcare.

I'm guessing that your idea is that spending should generally be reduced. That's fine, but you can't make it zero unless you make all common services user-paid.

That would include roads, policing, and military. Needless to say, charging a people a bill for military service would be cumbersome. Also, there's more overhead in creating multiple pay-points for services.

I'd like to proceed to a discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be cut but I'm not sure that the reports I've linked to have enough information there.

[Hicksey]

I would eliminate corporate welfare and limit personal welfare to 10 months a year.

Corporate Welfare

The market will take up the slack if we let a company go do and we'll end up with several stronger smaller companies for it. We'll save billions even after the unemployment payments.

Personal Weflare

Welfare has become a vocation in this country and it sickens me to death. As such I would make only 10 months of assitance available per calendar year. There is plenty of seasonal work in this country, there's no excuse an able bodied person can't work for two months a year. Those that cannot work do not belong on welfare and should be on either temporary or permanent disability. To encourage people to work, recipients would no longer be penalized the next month for making more money than they were due to receive this month. You make it, you keep it. We want people to reap the benefits of working and see how much better off they can be.

This program would eliminate about 13% of the budget and wouldn't hurt a soul.

[Michael Hardner]

This program would eliminate about 13% of the budget and wouldn't hurt a soul.

Hicks:

It would save $25B ? That's interesting. Explain how.

[geoffrey]

How about this noble idea:

Unless your handicapped, you don't get welfare ever. You get 3 months of EI benefits to find a new job then you suffer until you do.

Sick of people draining our system so the deserving people get the shaft.

[Hicksey]

This program would eliminate about 13% of the budget and wouldn't hurt a soul.

Hicks:

It would save $25B ? That's interesting. Explain how.

Do the math. 2 months is 1/6 of a year. 1/6 expressed as a percentage ... 16.67%. It turns out my quick estimate was low. It turns out it would save in the neighborhood of 32 billion.

[Michael Hardner]

A few problems:

First of all, welfare payments are handed out locally (maybe provincially) out of a pool of money that dribbles down from various sources.

How much does the federal government dole out towards welfare is the next question. If you know, please post that number. The final question is how many welfare recipients are able bodied, as a percentage.

Your $32B savings figure is undoubtedly quite high.

[Hicksey]

A few problems:

First of all, welfare payments are handed out locally (maybe provincially) out of a pool of money that dribbles down from various sources.

How much does the federal government dole out towards welfare is the next question. If you know, please post that number. The final question is how many welfare recipients are able bodied, as a percentage.

Your $32B savings figure is undoubtedly quite high.

That's not a problem actually and it greatly helps with equalization between the federal level and the lower levels. Where are all the deficits being run right now? At the Provincial and Municipal levels right? As long as transfer payments aren't cut by the federal level this makes a big dent in the deficits for many governments. This initiative primarily helps on lower levels of government. But, you have to remember that the federals are already running surpluses and its only the lower levels that need the help. This is a smart way of restructuring to provide funds for these governments without raising taxes--a concept largely lost on Canadian politicians.

[Michael Hardner]

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations:

Single employables make up from 20%-37% of receipients...

Let's pick 33%

http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm

If we use 2003 figures and say there are about 1.8 M recipients in total....

http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/princi...erwelfare_e.htm

And they make an average of say $8000/yr...

http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/report...03/WI2003_e.pdf

That gives us...

4.8 Billion paid out to employable people.

If my math is right your cuts would amount to $800M. That's quite a bit more than I thought.

But as a percentage of the federal budget, it comes out to .4%.

If you include the budgets of the provinces, which I believe pay into that type of social assistance too, then it's much less.

[Michael Hardner]

I have to say that the amount is more than I thought it would be, even if it works out to be .2%.

You could probably reallocate resources to focus on getting people off welfare in a different way and achieve the same kinds of cuts. It would take a little more imagination but it could be done.

[Hicksey]

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations:

Single employables make up from 20%-37% of receipients...

Let's pick 33%

http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm

If we use 2003 figures and say there are about 1.8 M recipients in total....

http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/princi...erwelfare_e.htm

And they make an average of say $8000/yr...

http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/report...03/WI2003_e.pdf

That gives us...

4.8 Billion paid out to employable people.

If my math is right your cuts would amount to $800M. That's quite a bit more than I thought.

But as a percentage of the federal budget, it comes out to .4%.

If you include the budgets of the provinces, which I believe pay into that type of social assistance too, then it's much less.

To be honest, I didn't have the time to wade through StatsCan so I took the 25 billion number you first offered.

But it is a great start toward meaningful welfare reform.

[Michael Hardner]

I see. Well, I don't blame you for getting started on the wrong foot. If the government stats were clearer, then we would have had a better idea from the start.

This exercise that we went though, though, proves to me that more information can and does lead to better discussions with regards to government policies - in this case social spending. Therefore, I am sticking to my platform for better information as a means to better debate which leads to better policies.

For my part, I was educated as to the level of employable welfare recipients out there (much higher than I thought) and the relatively large numbers of people receiving social assistance.

1.7M people is something like 5 % of the country. Whether you're left or right, you have to acknowledge that that is a huge waste.

Any corrections or brickbats out there ? Send them this way.

[Hicksey]

I see. Well, I don't blame you for getting started on the wrong foot. If the government stats were clearer, then we would have had a better idea from the start.

This exercise that we went though, though, proves to me that more information can and does lead to better discussions with regards to government policies - in this case social spending. Therefore, I am sticking to my platform for better information as a means to better debate which leads to better policies.

For my part, I was educated as to the level of employable welfare recipients out there (much higher than I thought) and the relatively large numbers of people receiving social assistance.

1.7M people is something like 5 % of the country. Whether you're left or right, you have to acknowledge that that is a huge waste.

Any corrections or brickbats out there ? Send them this way.

I am surprised as well. But I am surprised the amount of employables is that low. I am really curious what qualifies a WR as "employable". People that are disabled such that they cannot work do not belong on welfare, they belong on a disability pension. I have no problem supporting those that cannot work. Those that can however--IMO it is their responibility as a citizen to pull their share of the load. Welfare should be a temporary crutch, not a vocation as it might as well be now.

[Michael Hardner]

I am surprised as well. But I am surprised the amount of employables is that low. I am really curious what qualifies a WR as "employable". People that are disabled such that they cannot work do not belong on welfare, they belong on a disability pension. I have no problem supporting those that cannot work. Those that can however--IMO it is their responibility as a citizen to pull their share of the load. Welfare should be a temporary crutch, not a vocation as it might as well be now.

Well, there you go. Information illuminates. It also creates a hunger for more information.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I did know somebody (Ontario) who couldn't work long hours due to a brain injury and was receiving welfare. Some of the welfare links I posted above do have that information but you have to dig to get it.

[Riverwind]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I did know somebody (Ontario) who couldn't work long hours due to a brain injury and was receiving welfare. Some of the welfare links I posted above do have that information but you have to dig to get it.

I know a couple people with similar problems - they both want to work but back injuries require lie down every two hours or so which makes them useless for most jobs. They both don't look like they have a disability so it would be easy for someone that does know them to assume they are employable.

[Michael Hardner]

Hicks:

I have to tell you that I made an honest mistake in the calculations above....

I misread a table, so the numbers are wrong. I've spent an hour trying to find better numbers and have, so far, failed.

[ClearWest]

Awesome responses, guys. I'm glad this thread took off.

My platform is based on the philosophy of Libertarianism. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative when it comes to government. Look at it this way:

-Government has no right to dictate what you can and can't put in your body, or how you live your life.

-Government has no right to tell you how to spend your money--Nor to spend it for you.

Thus, there will be no prohibition, no censorship, no conscription, and no taxation.

Individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property. And no one has the right to take those from you using force or fraud--Not even the government. To take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. Governments have done all of this throughout the history of the earth--and Canada does it today through things like taxation, conscription, censorship, and prohibition.

What about our social programs? Well, we believe that they can be funded in voluntary ways, not through money that is taken forcefully from people.

Military

Military spending can be greatly reduced and concentrated so that it only serves to defend Canada in times of crisis. We will not equip our armies for occupational wars. And, as I mentioned earlier--I will ban the conscription and make military service purely voluntary.

Health Care

Universal health care is a nice idea--but not if it has to be funded through taxation. I'm thinking privatization. If a city or other private group wants to provide free health care to all residence, by all means go right ahead. Just fund it through voluntary pledges rather than theft. One-tier healthcare isn't enough-- Two-tier healthcare isn't enough. With 32 million people in Canada, we need 32 million-tier healthcare. Let each person individually decide what healthcare is best for them. Open the industry up for competition, and let the people individually decide what services they want. That doesn't mean you'll have to bring your credit card to the hospital--It just means that you'll buy your insurance from someone other than the provincial government.

Education[/u]

See above. And also, it will not be mandatory that someone attend school. There are alternative methods--Like being raised by your family. And no, there will not be any "state-approved" curriculum. People can decide what education they need for themselves without big brother telling them.

Taxation

I've already said that there will be no manadatory taxes (no income tax, no sales tax, nothing), however, we still have to pay for our military, police, and roads. We will send out pledge forms to every household/community (whichever we can afford), and people will send in their pledges if they wish to support their peacekeepers they are encouraged to do so. If they don't they can just ignore it. Taxes will be solicited just as donations for private charities are--And whoever refuses to pay taxes can have their household removed from the list, and they will hear no more from us.

Government Handouts

Cut. No more Corporate Welfare, no more special interest groups subsidization, no more social assistance. These things will be left up to private donation and commercial means of raising money. About Corporate Welfare--if a corporation can't survive without government help then it is inefficient and will be punished in the marketplace. Will jobs be lost in the move to more efficient practices? Yes, probably. And that's okay. We are moving into an age where we don't need as much physical labour as we used to. Such can be done with machines. The future is in the entertainment industry, customer service, commercial advertising, recreation, tourism, etc. Do you think we would be where we are today if we had tried to stop electronic washing machines from replacing handwashing? Of course not. We need to move on.

So there you go. Feel free to respond and critique my platform. I also look forward to reading more of your platforms, and more of your thoughts!

[Riverwind]

What about our social programs? Well, we believe that they can be funded in voluntary ways, not through money that is taken forcefully from people.

Voluntary social programs == no social programs. People are just too greedy for any other outcome. Think about: most people consider themselves generous if the donated 10% of their income which means most people would donate much less. An average donation of 5% is the most you could reasonably expect. This is a small fraction of the 30-40% of income that people pay in taxes today which means that almost everything paid for today by the government would have to be eliminated (universal education, policing, roads and sewers, diaster protection, etc).

I don't think many people would be interested in that kind of world.

[Hicksey]

Awesome responses, guys. I'm glad this thread took off.

My platform is based on the philosophy of Libertarianism. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative when it comes to government. Look at it this way:

-Government has no right to dictate what you can and can't put in your body, or how you live your life.

-Government has no right to tell you how to spend your money--Nor to spend it for you.

Thus, there will be no prohibition, no censorship, no conscription, and no taxation.

Individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property. And no one has the right to take those from you using force or fraud--Not even the government. To take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. Governments have done all of this throughout the history of the earth--and Canada does it today through things like taxation, conscription, censorship, and prohibition.

What about our social programs? Well, we believe that they can be funded in voluntary ways, not through money that is taken forcefully from people.

Military

Military spending can be greatly reduced and concentrated so that it only serves to defend Canada in times of crisis. We will not equip our armies for occupational wars. And, as I mentioned earlier--I will ban the conscription and make military service purely voluntary.

Health Care

Universal health care is a nice idea--but not if it has to be funded through taxation. I'm thinking privatization. If a city or other private group wants to provide free health care to all residence, by all means go right ahead. Just fund it through voluntary pledges rather than theft. One-tier healthcare isn't enough-- Two-tier healthcare isn't enough. With 32 million people in Canada, we need 32 million-tier healthcare. Let each person individually decide what healthcare is best for them. Open the industry up for competition, and let the people individually decide what services they want. That doesn't mean you'll have to bring your credit card to the hospital--It just means that you'll buy your insurance from someone other than the provincial government.

Education[/u]

See above. And also, it will not be mandatory that someone attend school. There are alternative methods--Like being raised by your family. And no, there will not be any "state-approved" curriculum. People can decide what education they need for themselves without big brother telling them.

Taxation

I've already said that there will be no manadatory taxes (no income tax, no sales tax, nothing), however, we still have to pay for our military, police, and roads. We will send out pledge forms to every household/community (whichever we can afford), and people will send in their pledges if they wish to support their peacekeepers they are encouraged to do so. If they don't they can just ignore it. Taxes will be solicited just as donations for private charities are--And whoever refuses to pay taxes can have their household removed from the list, and they will hear no more from us.

Government Handouts

Cut. No more Corporate Welfare, no more special interest groups subsidization, no more social assistance. These things will be left up to private donation and commercial means of raising money. About Corporate Welfare--if a corporation can't survive without government help then it is inefficient and will be punished in the marketplace. Will jobs be lost in the move to more efficient practices? Yes, probably. And that's okay. We are moving into an age where we don't need as much physical labour as we used to. Such can be done with machines. The future is in the entertainment industry, customer service, commercial advertising, recreation, tourism, etc. Do you think we would be where we are today if we had tried to stop electronic washing machines from replacing handwashing? Of course not. We need to move on.

So there you go. Feel free to respond and critique my platform. I also look forward to reading more of your platforms, and more of your thoughts!

Being intensely distrustful of government (I support Harper but like any politician I only trust him as far as I can throw him) I can empathize with this approach. But I see it as a tad simplistic. While I like to see as little government intrusion into our every day lives as possible there are places where it is required and taking that away would take away from society as a whole.

For instance, where would be without an organized educational system? I beleive there ought to be a level of knowledge that one should be required to attain. And it has to be paid for which brings me to your method of taxation. Voluntary? There would be zero tax revenues. But the regressive system we have now is unfair. We should all have to pay an equal share of the tax burden and it should be in the form of a flat tax--everyone pays the same percentage of their pay to taxes and that's it.

Otherwise I'm pretty well in agreement.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm with Riverwest, and Hicksey to a lesser degree with regards to Clear's platform.

Really, this system was what we had in the recent past. If it had worked, then we would still have it.

In the 20th century, the economy grew and social pressures caused us to build a welfare state. In the 21st century, faith in these institutions is drifting. If you read the posts of right-of-centre people here, the biggest complaint is waste and abuse in the system.

Perhaps our current PM has the will to revitalize our safety net so that broad based faith in the system is restored.

[ClearWest]

Really, this system was what we had in the recent past. If it had worked, then we would still have it.

In the 20th century, the economy grew and social pressures caused us to build a welfare state. In the 21st century, faith in these institutions is drifting. If you read the posts of right-of-centre people here, the biggest complaint is waste and abuse in the system.

It didn't work because the government didn't let it work. If we go back and examine the Great Depression of the 1930's, we see that we failed economically not because we didn't have a social safety net, but because the government cut off our money supply. In the US, the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by one-third from 1929 to 1932. This made it so there was not enough money to go around--and businesses were not able to take out loans to keep their businesses working. And no one was able to invest. Thus, there was a collapse.

Of course, there were other problems initially such as the drop in the price of wheat, causing layoffs. But ultimately, businesses would have been able to keep going if the Federal Reserve hadn’t cut off our supply of money!

Now, Canada of course isn’t run by the Federal Reserve. And we didn’t have a “Bank of Canada” back then, but when the US businesses began rapidly selling their stocks, I’m sure many Canadian businesses began to panic, and they followed suit.

Conclusion: Government causes more problems than it solves. And we don’t need their help to have a stable, healthy economy.

For instance, where would be without an organized educational system? I beleive there ought to be a level of knowledge that one should be required to attain. And it has to be paid for which brings me to your method of taxation. Voluntary? There would be zero tax revenues. But the regressive system we have now is unfair. We should all have to pay an equal share of the tax burden and it should be in the form of a flat tax--everyone pays the same percentage of their pay to taxes and that's it.

Otherwise I'm pretty well in agreement.

First of all, I think we’ll still be able to collect revenue even though it is voluntary. Churches are run on a voluntary tithe. Private charities are run on voluntary donations. And we’ll be able to collect even more than they do because we’ll send out slips to each house, not demanding, but requesting a tax pledge. Plus we won’t need nearly as much revenue because we’re going to make so many cuts—and we’re really going to concentrate our services for better efficiency and lower cost.

As for education, no I don’t think that there should be any kind of government standard forced upon everyone. There can be a market standard, which will develop naturally depending on what jobs are in demand.

Let me know what you guys think of that. I like my political views to be challenged. Looking forward to your responses.