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 .