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.