How does government grow?

How does government grow?

All governments grow 'one regulation at a time'.  

Since governments operations today are so very large and ubiquitous, government growth imperceptible to the average citizen. Like a cancer, however,  that also increases one cell at a time, the final results can be devastating to the 'public body'.

With the creation of every law, bi-law, policy, regulation and/or  statute comes a legal obligation of the state to enforce it. This results in the hiring of more public sector workers including lawyers and their support organizations, court clerks, policy analysts, police officers and their support organizations, judges and their supporting resources, technical writers, IT support staffs, sign creators and installers, etc.

The forgoing identifies the financial costs. What about the costs to freedom. For example, as a citizen, do you spend a few hours each week to read up on all these rules and regulations to ensure that your actions confirm to their legal constraints on your freedom to act ? No? I didn't think so. BUT - be for-warned: "Ignorance of the law is no defence."

Our tax and government debt burdens have grown continually at rates that have exceeded our national wealth accumulation and rates of inflation ( which is created by government as another form of taxation) over my lifetime ( since 1951). Governments justify these increases due to increasing costs of ever-expanding public programs and services,  and their own rising administrative costs associated with meeting these responsibilities. We Taxpayers have also faced increased costs of living and we are all individually expected to 'live within our means, the state continues to claim that their needs are more pressing than ours and unapologetically demand ever more from us. At what point in our history did the needs of the state become a higher priority that the needs of the citizens that it is alleged to serve?

As a Libertarian, I seek smaller government. To achieve these, it stands to reason that you cannot reduce government size until you reduce the "responsibilities" that we, The Voting Public, assign to government. It seems to me, however, that we are more than willing to ask the government to take on New Responsibilities (ie add new regulations and programs) BUT we also never stop to reconcile whether its existing work assignment still provide any measurable value to us. For this reason, it is past overdue for The Public to implement a program of "Regulation Rollback" at all levels of government with the long terms vision of achieving a state of "Regulation Equilibrium". Allow me to explain….. 

Currently, there are some 500,000 regulations on the books in Ontario. I contend that many (most?) of these have out-lived their usefulness and currently consume more TaxPayers' Dollars than the value they provide. In business terms, a Public ROI could not be found that would justify their ongoing costs. Consequently, I propose Regulation Management & Retirement Board  (RMRB) that would possess the mandate to manage and trim all provincial regulations with the ultimate objective of reaching a state of "Regulation Equilibrium".   To achieve this, the RMRB would:

1. Prevent the passing of any new regulation unless 5 existing regulations could be identified and retired which no longer meet a pre-defined Public ROI yardstick. 
2. Ensure that all costs associated with passing new regulations, as well as researching/identifying the 5 to be retired, must be born by the party that seeks to new regulation. 

The expected outcome? - over time, the number of regulations will decrease along with the costs associated with enforcing them. 

 It can logically be expected that groups interested in creating new government regulations will find it increasingly difficult to identify existing regulations that the Taxpaying Public is willing to eliminate. "Regulation Equilibrium"will be  achieved when, theoretically, these special interest groups will be unable to identify 5 existing regulations that can be eliminated in exchange for the one new regulation they desire. At some point, it may become necessary to change the rules to allow the exchange  of 3 existing regulations for one new one, then 2 for 1 and ultimately 1:1.

One advantage of the RMRB is that it will become increasing difficult to pass new regulations,  or maintain existing regulations,  that only serve small interest groups, and not the broader interests of society. The small interest groups will seek new channels to satisfy their interest without incurring public costs.

Excessive Regulations serve as a dead weight hung about the shoulders of the creative, entrepreneurial and productive elements of society. Wealth creation is the primary goal of any nation's economy so that the standard of living for all citizens can continue to rise. If the regulatory burden continues to increase, then the wealth creation process is further hampered.

On the other hand, some level of regulatory control is necessary and beneficial. It is hoped that the "Regulation Equilibrium" that is reached and maintained finds the right balance for Canadian society.

Consider a theoretical continuum of regulatory burden in a province like Ontario - the extreme left of that continuum would start  with zero regulations and progress towards the extreme right to represent  an infinitely rising number of regulations.  A state with no regulations would manifest  as the purest form of laissez-faire market economy with the greatest level in individual freedoms − some may call this 'utopia'; others 'anarchy'. As the regulatory burden increased from zero the economy would pass through various stages of 'controlled anarchy' through states of various degrees of socialism and/or fascism, and ultimately communism controlled but dictatorship with little to no individual freedoms for the public masses. Somewhere along this continuum, an optimal level of regulations would be struck to find an acceptable balance of personal and market freedoms and controls for all.

 I believe that a properly implemented Regulation Management & Retirement Board  could go along way to finding and maintaining this balance, 

Dragon's Den for Privatizing Government Monopolies

My wife and I have a wonderful weekend routine.

I make a "red eye" coffee for each of us on our Gaggia espresso machine, then we settle on the couch with our 2 cats in attendance and chat about all sorts of things, including politics.

Yesterday, Cynthia and I were discussing how to reach and encourage entrepreneurs to create new and profitable business models that could address our GTA commuting and transportation problems. That's when she came up with a brilliant idea!

"What if" she said "there was a Dragon's Den for privatizing government monopolies like the parts of our transportation sector that are publicly controlled and operated?"

With that question, the creative juices began to flow  ….

Like the current Dragons Den, the format would include a small panel of experts that would receive entrepreneurs to hear and critique their business ideas related to replacing or augmenting an existing public sector monopoly with competing, pay-for service, private sector alternatives.

The panel could include current or former political leaders who understand government and business. Likely candidates: Mike Harris, John Tory, Bill Gairdner (Author of 'The Touble With Canada - Still'), John Manley, Maxine Bernier.

An important role of the panel would be to identify the monopoly roadblocks that government has imposed to deter or prevent private sector competition. These identified roadblocks could feed action items for politicians to act upon so that the proposed business models could become viable.

The business proposals could come from anyone with a good idea - whether it is an individual citizen or a major domestic or international corporation.

Some of the problems we face in Ontario are similar to those that have been addressed successfully in other countries or Canadian jurisdictions. To hear the visions of entrepreneurs as well as the success stories of existing business enterprises, and their discussions with the expert panel concerning their viability in Ontario, would make this version on the Dragon's Den as compelling as the original one..

Now all we need to do is to take this idea to the Dragons' Den to see what kind of traction we can get on the idea.   :-)

Is Dalton McGuinty hooked on OPM?

Have you ever wondered why Dalton McGuinty was unable to keep his promise 8 years ago to not increase taxes?  My theory is that he is hooked on OPM!    ;-)

For politicians like Mr. McGuinty, the temptation must be overwhelming to project himself as the 'Iron Man' of  political heros by throwing OPM (other people's money) at every problem and hope that the problem will go away as if by magic. This seems to work in comic books but not so well in reality.

I wonder how well Mr. McGuinty would fare at the election polls if he no longer had access to a reliable supply of OPM? How would he solve problems? …. and if he promised to solve them without OPM, would anyone belief his promises?

I have come to believe that OPM is a dangerous and powerful stimulant that needs to become a controlled substance in Ontario. In the hands of the wrong people, they can experience delusions of grandeur that, to thousands of observers, can appear real. Yet, the schemes that they concoct and the promises that they make while under the influence of OPM often have little or no basis in reality.

Curiously, dependence on OPM appears to be an affliction that is experienced only by some members of the political class. They are easy to pick out of the crowd — they are the politicians who make big and expensive promises that can only be implemented if they have access to an endless supply of OPM. In the case of Mr. Guinty, his OPM habit is obvious from the years of growing OPM use that we have all observed.

Now, a word about OPM.

• The clinical features exhibited by a person hooked on OPM include: grand delusions of power - a smarmy smile when speaking publicly - and a Pinnochio-like nose after prolonged use. Strangely, not everyone can see the nose extension feature — like in 3D movies, only those who own a pair of 'OPM abuse detection glasses' can observe the nose elongation.
• OPM is produced in Ontario which makes it a popular resource among Ontario politicians because they can claim that they only obtain their supply from local producers. 
• The crop of OPM can vary from year to year depending upon a myriad of conditions —  for this reason, politicians hooked on OPM cannot depend upon a bumper crop every year. 
• In manufacturing terms, it takes an almost infinite range of 'factors of production' combined with hard work, creativity and personal sacrifice in order to produce OPM. 
• All OPM producers are obligated by Ontario law to give up a portion of their crop to the political class every year in return for "protection services". Failure to comply can result in fines ( ie confiscation of more OPM) and/or a prison sentence. 
• Many producers are resentful about how much of their OPM crop they must forfeit each year. A few have begun to openly compare the expensive operation of the political class to the 'protection rackets' of the mafia during the last century. 
• OPM is a precious crop to its producers who must retain sufficient portions in order to meet the needs of themselves and their families. A curious feature of OPM is that its clinical features do not appear when used by the producers and their family members

Members of the Ontario Libertarian Party have no OPM suppliers. They conduct their affairs within a small budget that has grown through the generous and voluntary donations of time and money by people who are opposed to the abusive use of OPM in political affairs.

If you are also opposed to the abuse of OPM by our political class, I urge you to vote Libertarian on October 6.

The Party of Choice on Patient Waiting Lists

We read and hear about it all the time —  patients with medical conditions, serious or otherwise, that find themselves waiting weeks and sometimes months for a visit with the appropriate medical professional.

Our usual response is generally apathy because we have become immune to the constant media barrage of bad news …. until the day that a medical crisis hits us, or someone close to us!

Any suggestion of a  "2-tier Health Care System" commonly elicits responses of fear that the fable of Canada being home to "the best health care system in the world" would prove untrue.   Cynics, 'statists' and 'bleeding-heart' liberals  acclaim loudly that our sick and dying would only have timely access to needed medical services based on their ability to pay,  and the poor would be left out in the cold.

Well, at the risk of prompting responses of hysterical resistance, I wish to propose an idea that lays out a new approach to a "2-tier Health Care System" with a twist. I must re-emphasize that this is only a suggested approach and not a finalized program. The ideas  below will need lots of work and discussion if they are to work, but the general approach is what is important.


The Proposed Scenario:

• For patients who are unable to secure the services of a Personal or Family Physician, they are free to use the services of a PS (Pay-for-Service) Physician if their own OHIP-covered Physician is unable to see them within 48 hours. This option can be chosen in lieu of attending a hospital Emergency department or OHIP-covered drop-in clinic if so desired.
• For patients that require access to a Medical Specialist, they are free to see a PS (Pay-for-Service) Physician Specialist, if an OHIP-covered Specialist is unable to treat them within 72 hours. It is better that patients seek local help that feel that their only option is to leave Canada to find the care urgently needed.
• Any Medical Doctor who can submit proof of Medical School graduation from any other country in the world, but who has not received a license to practice in Ontario, can also offer PS (Pay-for-Service) Medical Services. The onus will be on the patient to decide if the service is worth the fee charged. In addition,  PS (Pay-for-Service) Physicians will be free to charge fees that will attract and retain patients. They will also be legally required to carry medical malpractice insurance to protect the patients they treat. In general, the "buyer beware" principle will apply in the relationship between patient and PS Physician.
• Supply and demand will determine the viability of the Second Tier PS Physicians' practices —  the best will thrive and the worst will fail as in any market. Since Toronto has immigrants from virtually every country on earth, it is likely that many of these immigrants will be willing to trust a PS Physician from their homeland if they have the means to pay the medical fee. New PS Physicians may opt to charge low fees when they first begin to practice and adjust their rate schedules as their practice becomes more successful.

This proposed approach may appear radical to many of you, but it has its merits. These include:

• Foreign-trained doctors can be legally employed in Ontario to practice their profession. 
• Patients will have another local avenue to explore in order to receive prompt medical attention rather than waiting and fretting while their medical conditions worsen.
• The OHIP system will face real competition for the first time. The likely outcome will be shorter waiting lists as patients find successful treatments from PS Physicians, or it will increase the interest of OHIP-covered MDs in seeking ways to serve their patients in a timely manner.
• Ontario will attract and retain foreign-trained medical professionals when they learn that the Public Sector Health Care Monopoly has loosened its grip to make room for them to practice.

In Ontario, one thing is clear - the current Health Care Monopoly is rapidly becoming unaffordable. Conditions will only get worse over the next 30 years as demands on the system rise in response to the increasing needs of our aging population.  The status quo can only lead to 2 possible outcomes:

1. Our ever-rising Health Care costs will bankrupt the province, OR
2. Our Health Care Monopoly will be forced to ration even more health care services than it already has, and this will inevitably lead to either longer waiting lists or medical conditions than will no longer be covered under OHIP.

We can ignore the inevitable and wait for this medical tsunami to hit our shores, or we can act now to implement a Pay-for-Service  alternative similar to the approach suggested above. When the tsunami hits, it will likely be our only lifeboat. 

The Ontario Libertarian party is The Party of Choice for good reason. We believe in the power of free markets to out-perform government monopolies because history confirms this belief a thousand times over. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until today, the standard of living we all enjoy today is the direct result of the collective efforts of many generations of entrepreneurs who have continued to win the trust and pocketbooks of people by solving their problems for a profit. 

Its time to provide the people of Ontario the power to choose other health care options than those solely supplied by our existing Heath Care Monopoly. 

Libertarian candidate for Thornhill

The following 2 minute introduction to myself as the  Libertarian candidate for Thornhill will air on Rogers TV on a regular basis from mid September to October 6.

        

My name is Gene Balfour and I am your Libertarian candidate for Thornhill .

In this short presentation, I will tell you:

 who I am, 

why I am running in this election, and 

why the  Libertarian Party has the best vision for Ontario .

-              I was born and raised in the Toronto, and Thornhill has been my home for the past 20 years.

-              I was at Woodstock in 1969, and health and physical fitness have been core interests throughout my   life.  Since the mid 1970s,  I have worked for computer, staffing and consulting enterprises.

-             I am a happily married  man, a father of 2 wonderful daughters and

-             I am new to politics.

I am running in this election because of a defect in our democracy. 

At no time in my life have I ever been presented the option to vote for a party that was serious about reducing the role  government in my life – especially in the area of taxes.  Four years ago, I decided to become that option  so that all Thornhill citizens could vote for less government if they were so inclined.

What do Libertarians  mean  when we say that we are the ‘party of choice’ ?

Its mainly about taxes, intrusive government bureaucracies and monopolies.

For the first two, the logic is simply this: if you pay much less tax, you will have much more to spend on your own needs and priorities. This will also mean that you will become much less reliant  on government  programs, and so the need for big government will shrink.

Monopolies are illegal in the private sector --- so why are they legal when government operates  or sponsors them?    We believe that this double standard should not exist.

A Libertarian led government would  privatize The Beer Store, all  public Hydro operations , the LCBO,  and the Ontario Lottery Corporation.   In addition, we would  strip away the monopoly powers of every public sector union in Ontario. These monopoly powers are not compatible with our concept of a free and democratic society.

Sadly, over the past 50 years, Ontario has increasingly embraced a culture of CITIZEN SLAVERY  by GOVERNMENT CONTROL. For this reason, I ask you to give notice to your fellow citizens than this state of affairs is no longer acceptable.  Vote Libertarian on October 6.

Transportation Issues in the GTA - A new path to resolution

-         The GTA has recently been declared as the area with the longest commute to work in Canada and it is a   top concern for residents.

I am a GTA commuter.

I have lived in Thornhill this past 20 years and in North York the previous 25 years. Since 1978, I have been a regular TTC subway rider. While public transit has been “the better way” for me than commuting by car, I have also run to work, rode my motorcycle to work, taken the bus, and I occasionally drove my car to the office.

Today, people have many options for commuting.  These include : walking, running, cycling, scooter or motorcycle, car and car-pooling using public roads  as well as toll-fee highways (407etr), bus, street car, subway, commuter train.

What does this tell you?  That people use the option that best suits their needs and circumstances at any given point in time.

There is no one silver bullet that government can find that will satisfy all commuters.  Gridlock and long commutes have been top citizen issues for as long as I can remember. If government was able to provide the answers,  then these issues would have long ago become artifacts of history.

Its time for a new approach and it involves dismantling the government monopoly in transportation services and opening the flood gates to private sector ideas.

Step 1: Identify the deterrents and constraints to private sector investment, and remove them. This must include elimination of the many unnecessary transportation regulations that discourage and curtail the creative thinking and capital investments that are needed to address our complex and chronic transportation issues.  Some people may resist this. However, with every decision there are usually tradeoffs and we must make these decisions with a careful consideration of these tradeoffs and our top priorities.

Step 2: Notify the corporations who possess the know-how and resources to address our transportation issues, and proclaim boldly that Ontario is open for business.

Since the industrial revolution, almost all of our most significant technological achievements have come from entrepreneurs who have been motivated by profit to find and keep happy customers. Government has had its chance – now its time to let capitalism come to the rescue .

Why is Monopoly legal for government?

"Do as I say, not as I do" is an apt motto for governments everywhere. This is particularly true when exploring the topic of monopoly.  Wikipedia describes it as follows (italics)


In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise is the only supplier of a particular kind of product or service. Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service, and a lack of viable substitute goods.


When not legally coerced to do otherwise, monopolies typically produce fewer goods and sell them at higher prices than under free market competition to maximize their profit at the expense of consumer satisfaction.  Sometimes governments legally decide that a given company is a monopoly that doesn't serve the best interests of the market and/or consumers. Governments may force these companies to splinter into smaller independent corporations as in the case of United States v. AT&T, or alter its behavior as in the case of United States v. Microsoft, to protect consumers.

Monopolies can be established by a government. A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors from entering the field by using unfair competitive practices which derive from its market or political influence. There is often heated debate over whether market restrictions are in the best long-term interest of present and future consumers.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself. However, certain categories of behavior that occur when a business is dominant, can be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are all examples of government granted and enforced monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.

So, if monopolies are so undesirable in the private sector, why do we tolerate the numerous monopoly practices and enterprises controlled by government?


Government monopolies in Ontario take many shapes. To identify a few, we have: The Beer Store; Liquor Control Board of Ontario; Ontario Lottery Corporation; energy service providers such as Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and Powerstream; law enforcement - specifically the Ontario Provincial Police; all publicly funded schools under the control of the Ontario Ministry of Education; all medical and health care service providers who receive payment from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP); nearly all construction of roads, highways and other forms of infrastructure under the control of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation; the issue of all Liscences and Certificates pertaining to births, deaths, driving vehicles, immigration, status, sporting activities, etc. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.


Everyone claims that there is extensive waste in government operations - a natural bi-product of monopoly. While 'waste' can take many forms, the worst type of government waste is its misallocation of human capital. Allow me to explain. Some government jobs are 'productive' in that they provide services that are desirable, such as teaching and nursing. However, many are non-productive in the sense that they are not "wealth creating" or "life enriching". Instead, they  are "wealth distributing" by their very nature and, as such, they are not productive. The entire tax collection process of government, is a good example of where you will find these jobs. Governments also feature many "make work" jobs which provide no useful output to the taxpayer but exist to service the "power politics"goals of senior bureaucrats. Since citizens cannot consume the output of "workers" who produce no consumable output, then this represents misallocation of human capital. It would be better that these workers be employed in jobs that produce consumable goods and services for which people are willing to pay.

Public sector labour unions are also a form of monopoly, and all government operations are prime breeding grounds for powerful and intransigent labour unions. I have written more about this topic in another blog.

The Minimum Wage Law, supported enthusiastically by union members, is another manifestation of monopoly practice foist upon us by government leaders. It distorts prices in the labour market and protects unionized workers from competition by people who are willing to work at lower wages. It prevents many students from obtaining summer work and, consequently, deters them from acquiring work experience that will help them to land higher paying jobs in the future. Seniors, who miss the social interaction of work life, may also face an employment barrier due to the Minimum Wage Law should they wish to re-enter the workforce in low-pressure, entry-level service jobs.  It should be their choice if they wish to work at lower wages, not the government's.

The prevalence of monopoly practices in government, and their undesirable outcomes,  are topics for which volumes could be written.  This article has been written only to raise this topic as an issue about which we, the Taxpayer, should elevate to the political level for election purposes.

After being employed in the Information Technology, Staffing and Business Transformation consulting businesses for the past 34 years, and following the extensive reading that I have done in Economics, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. There is no valid reason why any government "make work" jobs need exist.
2. With modern technology, there is no reason why most tax collection jobs need exist and if the tax code were simplified, the collection of taxes could be relatively simple compared to what exists today.
3. The existence of modern, sophisticated and proven business models for outsourcing entire business processes is a strong argument why there is no reason to employ so many public sector workers when better, free market options could be put in place. 
4. We, the Taxpayer, do not owe any public sector work a job. All jobs must justify themselves to the satisfaction of the stakeholders, or cease to exist.

I have chosen to run as the Libertarian candidate for the upcoming Ontario election because I am convinced that we can all enjoy better lives without the public sector monopolies that currently restrict our choices and waste our resources on a massive scale. If elected, my mandate will be to roll back our Ontario Public Service bureaucracies to employ fewer than 20% of the entire Ontario work force. I have faith in Ontario's entrepreneurs to discover the correct business formulas to replace any government services that the market desires.

Government debt is our debt

"Live within your means" was a principle taught to me, and consistently  role-modeled by, my parents from my earliest memories. From this modeling, my siblings absorbed an approach to life that includes being as debt free as possible. It therefore irks me to helplessly watch government debt rise to levels that make me very uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong. I believe there are appropriate  times and reasons to borrow money. In my case, I  have borrowed for big ticket items, such as a home, but I have never borrowed to finance my lifestyle. I have always paid cash to buy a car and saved the money first before doing so;  consequently, I have never had a car loan. As a young man, I bought second hand cars, rather than new, because I did not have the financial means to purchase a car without going into debt.

I don't expect everyone to live like I do. To "live within your means" means different things to each of us. However, when it comes to incurring public debt (our collective debt!) , it feels morally wrong to have my financial principles trampled by other citizens who do not share my understanding of "live within your means". I respect everyone's to live according to their beliefs; all I ask is that they return the same respect to me and not insist that I pay for their excessive spending habits.

There is a key moral issue here. By living within my means, I will never leave a legacy of debt to my children, or anyone else's children for that matter.  Yet, our government leaders are addicted to spending every nickel of tax revenues and then 'going to the bank' to extend their spending spree.   Our politicians bribe us with our own money in an their attempts to win power, then "pay off" their vote-supporting special interest groups when they get into office. By my way of thinking, to "buy power" using public money (both tax revenues and debt) is a morally despicable practice and one that I equate to embezzlement.

Furthermore, since almost every Ontario citizen was raised with some form of religious teaching, I contend that we were all introduced to some variation of the "thou shall not steal" commandment that is found in the bible. If religious training is considered by many religion adherents to be essential to insure that our children grow up to be responsible citizens, then why do so many of our grownup citizens now demand more and more government spending that results in mounting debts that must be paid by future generations? If we claim to love our children so much, why do we saddle them with this future load? This is theft no matter how you look at it, and it should be punished by law.

But why are our "public servants" exempt from this punishment?

I have a suggestion to enforce a "live within your means" policy in the Ontario government. It will require work and discussion to put into effect, and it will likely be seen as too "radical" by many citizens, but I believe that those who manage the public purse must have some "skin in the game" and "feel the pain" that we all feel when they exceed their spending limits. My suggest goes something like this (in italics below).

If government line managers exceeds their budget limits, then they will personally make up the deficit by:    

1. Forfeiting an amount from their accrued pension allocation that equals the budget shortfall in order to balance their budget. 
2. If this is not enough, then forgo receiving employment benefits to the extent it will take to balance the budget.     
3. If this is still not enough, then salary deductions will kick in until the shortfall is made up.
4. And if this is still not enough, then the manager will either be terminated  or demoted to a non-management position and debt payments will be deducted from future employment earnings until the debt is cleared.  

I dare say that few managers will ever spend beyond their limits if consequences such as these are put in place. This debt-repayment scheme would apply to any government official that is responsible for spending, no matter how small or large the budget.

While this suggestion may seem draconian to many readers, stop to think about the seriousness of the debt that these incompetent and/or corrupt officials inflict on innocent children and citizens who have no way to defend themselves from this debt buildup. Children have no way to defend themselves against the actions of these officials and neither do the voters who reject the notion of fiscally frivolous governments. There is no better way than imposing these 'skin in the game' reckless spending consequences to ensure that those who manage the public purse act responsibly.

As the Libertarian candidate for the Thornhill riding and entering my  first election, I have no political baggage to prevent me to campaigning on the "skin in the game" fiscal accountability plan described above. Public debt is my #1 concern, and I believe that the only way to tackle this issue permanently is to greatly reduce the size and role of government in our lives, put stringent controls on our public servants that "have teeth" to ensure that they work, and to return to a type of community living where we all learn to live within our means or accept the consequences at a personal level. I f we don't do this, how else are we to teach our children to live within their means if they have no role models to observe?        


 

Public Sector union strikes should be illegal

Public Sector strikes and other "work to rule" actions are generally not very popular with the public or the media. In some cases, citizens are inconvenienced by the disruption of services. If you are like me, however, a more typical reaction is: "How dare they?!"

The "attraction" of a position with the Ontario Public Service (OPS)  is well known. The common perception is that most "public servants" have very "cushy" jobs, enjoy exceptionally good employment benefits and have a level of job security that is the envy of everyone in the private sector who has ever been "downsized" out of a job. In addition, career advancement is more often determined by seniority than merit, and a "public servant" who consistently performs at an unacceptable level is nearly impossible to terminate. With all these advantages, I ask, what could they possibly be upset about that would warrant a strike?

I cannot ever recall a Public Sector strike that was ever about anything other than higher wages, better benefits or improved work conditions. If private sector workers were to have serious concerns about any of these issues, they would seek new employment elsewhere. However, union workers and their leaders choose strike or  other service disruption actions over this alternative  because they know that they hold monopoly power over their employer (the Taxpayer) and they are reluctant to give up the "hard fought gains" that the unions have extorted in the past that make their currents positions more attractive than employment outside of the Ontario Public Service.

Ontario laws should be based on the principle that all taxpayers share equal access to public services without unfair bias directed towards some groups at the expense of others. However, this principle does not exist in the Ontario Public Service as long as the 'right to strike' exists. Since individual taxpayers are unable to negotiate the amount of income tax they must pay, then union workers must not be able to hold the taxpayer hostage in order to "negotiate" better terms of employment. The way I see it, if money has exchanged hands in a business transaction, then services must be rendered without excuse, delays or game-playing.  A strike, therefore, is a blatant violation of this principle.

It is time to eliminate the 'right to strike' option in the Ontario Public Service.

Without the ability to lead a strike or other services disruption action,  union leaders will be forced to find constructive ways to make themselves relevant in the OPS work place. Ideally, union leaders will doff their "adversarial caps" in favour of a productivity partnership with their employer and begin to operate on the principle that all positions must exists solely to fulfill the needs of the employer, and not the other way around. 

Let's examine one productivity partnership scenario described in italics below.

All organizations within the Ontario Public Service have a mission to fulfill. Otherwise they would not exist. This mission, or "statement of purpose", or "department's mandated services" (or any other appropriate title that may apply) should be clearly defined by senior management in each and every division and department within the OPS, then accurately and succinctly articulated to all employees so that there is no ambiguity as to the purpose of their work efforts and those of the people with whom they work. The mission statement should be posted in the office lobby for all to see ( visitors and employees) and it should be the first thing all employees see in their work area and/or when they sign on to their workstation each day. This constant reminder is intended to ensure that no employee ever lose sight of why they have their job or where to focus their efforts to productively supporting the mission of their department, division and enterprise.

Union organizations could, if they elect to,  play valuable roles in assisting enterprises and their employees to achieve their stated mandates.  

For example, all organizations face continual change on small and large scales. Small changes can be accommodated by the efforts of line managers, but large changes are a different matter.  Large change can ensue from significant adjustments to organizational mandates or from the introduction of productivity-enhancing process improvements made possible by new technologies. Most large corporations employ professionals known as Change Managers that coordinate and deliver the services that are required to help employees adjust to their changing job responsibilities and working conditions.  If union leaders were to take on the challenge of building professional Change Management organizations within the OPS, they could provide these valuable and constructive services that would support the interests of  their union members, the  Ontario Public Service itself and the the Taxpayer. Such a win-win-win relationship would be a welcome change to the adversarial role that currently exists between unions and employers.

One advantage of the above scenario is that it would necessarily lead to a shift in the relationship of employee promotions and compensation to one based on merit (ie meeting or exceeding the job mandate), rather than seniority or need or any other alleged justification that unions currently support. 

From my 30 years experience working in the staffing industry, I have come to believe that a job should not exist unless it can profitable support the mission of the organization it serves, and it should be compensated in proportion to the extent that it profitably supports the stated mission.  By extension, this principle should apply to larger entities such as departments. In the case of union organizations and their leaders, if they cannot produce sufficient value to warrant such a role within the Ontario Public Service, then they should cease to exist.  In any case, once the 'right to strike'  and other productivity impairment (example - "work to rule") options are made illegal, the clout with which they can currently leverage to "negotiate" on behalf of their members will be greatly impaired unless they have something else to offer that is constructive, such as the  win-win-win relationship described above.

The onus to discover a valid and enduring productivity partnership must fall on the unions. We, the Taxpayer, do not owe them a job. However, to enable union organizations to define and transition to a meaningful and profitable role in this regard, I propose that we maintain an 'open door' to their efforts for a reasonable period of time, but limited to a hard deadline. 

As the Libertarian candidate for Thornhill in the upcoming provincial election, this is one of the most important issues that I will pursue if elected.

Eliminate exclusive public sector pension plans

As governments have grown larger over the years, their legions of employees have been able to command enviable employment perks coerced frequently using the "collective bargaining" tactics of their unions. The generous Defined Benefits pension plans are a good example of such perks. However, in 2011, when virtually no private sector company can afford to offer Defined Benefits pension plans, they continue to exist on an exclusive basis for most Ontario's public sector employees.

Many government workers will attempt to justify this perk on the basis that they are "public servants" mandated to deliver essential services to all citizens. Yet, those citizens with a sound grasp of Economics will understand that it is the private sector worker who creates the wealth that accounts for our standard of living and, without this continuous stream of wealth creation, there would be no source of tax revenues to fund the jobs or employment benefits of our tens of thousands of public sector employees in Ontario.

The way I see it, all Ontario citizens are all in the same boat - working hard to create a better life for ourselves and our families. For this reason, I cannot justify why a public sector worker should benefit from a perk that is not available to all private sector workers.

Let's consider the case of the Defined Benefit Plan of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP).

Eligible for the OTPP's Defined Benefit Plan are 178,000 teachers in elementary and secondary schools in Ontario. The Ontario government, and designated private schools and organizations, match the teachers’ contributions.  The Defined Benefit Plan pays out $4.5 billion in pension benefits annually to 117,000 pensioners, including survivor pensions.


The OTPP's Defined Benefit Plan is a very attractive perk for all eligible Ontario teachers and is likely one of the main reasons why many teachers enter, and/or stay in the teaching profession. However, because 50% of its funding comes from the government, then it is a perk that benefits one group of citizens (teachers) at the expense of Ontario taxpayers. 


As another consideration, what happens if a day comes when the OTPP is forced to default on its payment obligations due to insufficient funding? Are the Ontario taxpayers on the hook to make up the difference? And if so, why?

To rectify this inequity and risk liability for all Ontario taxpayers, I propose that all Ontario Pension Plans be mandated to:

1. Offer only Defined Contribution plans for all future new hires in order to eliminate the risks of future payment defaults. 
2. Accept contributions solely from the employee/plan participants ( ie. accept no matching contributions from the government for public sector employees)
3. Accept any Ontario citizen as a customer. 
4. Offer all retirement products/plan services on a competitive basis ( ie no monopoly advantages to be allowed).

The above 4 suggestions are intended to ensure that no group of taxpayers receive an employment benefit that is not available to all taxpayers. After all, if we are all forced to pay taxes or face potential jail time for tax evasion, then there is absolutely no justification for providing "public servants" with any tax-funded perks that are not available to all taxpayers.   If this means that fewer citizens will be attracted to employment in the Ontario Public Service, then I wish them godspeed in their chosen employment. The Ontario Government will simply need to adapt "do more with less" as is the case with all non-monopoly private enterprises. The resulting leaner public sector, consisting of employees who want their jobs for the merits of the job itself rather than its employment perks, would be a welcome change in Ontario.

For those of you interested in further reading on this topic, please see "Freedom 55 is Still a Possibility for Some" by Dan Kelly printed on FP8 in the August 2nd edition of the Financial Post at http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx.

Liberate Ontario on October 6, 2011

This is my first blog, and you can expect it to be the first of many in the months ahead as I hope that their content will stimulate an interesting exchange of political ideas and visions of a society that promotes greater individual freedoms.

I have started blogging in support of my election bid as the Libertarian candidate for Thornhill in the Ontario provincial election on October 6.

Of course, I have no illusions regarding my changes of getting elected. I have chosen to run as the Libertarian candidate solely to raise awareness, in a small and personal way, of an issue that has eaten at me for too many years. The issue is: How can anyone claim to live in a democracy when the option of less government is never presented on the ballot at election time?

For the past 30 years, I have always "voted Conservative" because it appeared to be the option closest to my real desire which was for lower taxes and much smaller, less invasive government. However, regardless of the party in power, I have witnessed the steady propagation and metastasis of the cancer of government at all levels. What this now means is that a baby, born in Ontario, takes its first breath owing its share of our collective government debt which amounts to about $150,000 ! This kind of inter-generational theft cannot go on if we wish to look in the mirror and see the face of an honest, fair and moral human being.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that incurring debt is an appropriate thing to do at certain stages of one's life… buying a home, for example. But I cannot conceive of a circumstance that, being anything short of life-threatening, could justify an excuse to foist a debt of $150,000 on an infant.

As the Libertarian candidate for Thornhill, my goal is simply to pose questions to voters that will lead them to consider how much government they are willing to tolerate in their lives, and to explore ways in which we can reign in, and reverse, the government sprawl that has manifested the high taxes and questionable value of the monopoly-delivered public services that we must all endure.

I know that many of you will not agree with my views, and I accept this. However, I suspect that there are many people like me who want less government and have either never had the option presented to them at election time, or else they have lost faith and/or interest in voting because the option they desired most did not exist. I hate to think that your vote for me would be a 'protest vote' against the status quo, but if this is what would motivate you to add your voice to a growing number of citizens who desire less government at Queens Park, then I welcome your support. Even an outcome of as few as 1000 Thornhill ballot 'smaller government voices' on October 6 will get the attention of the other major parties and, whoever wins the election will surely take note that it will not be wise to take the sizable Libertarian vote lightly.

If truth be told, it does not matter much to me which party is elected just so long as that party works towards smaller, less intrusive government footprints in my backyard. Four years ago, I vowed that I would never enter a ballot booth again if the option of less government was not presented. For now, I have chosen to offer my name and my time to present this option to you under the Libertarian banner - a first for the Thornhill riding. My hope is that this gesture, combined with a lot more future work, debate and discussion, will one day lead to elections where smaller government, lower taxes and a more streamlined, citizen-friendly public sector is standard fare on the election menu.

Join me on this quest and take the first small steps to Liberate Ontario and vote for the Ontario Libertarian Party on October 6 .