"Flat" Taxes

On September 12, 2005, the National Post ran an editorial that endorsed the idea of replacing progressive rates of income tax with a single rate: the so-called “flat” tax. In support of the flat tax, the paper essentially argued that a single-rate income tax works well for lower-income individuals because they can be provided with a large personal exemption: the Post impliedly endorsed Alberta’s $15,000.00 personal exemption as an example.

I will not suggest that income taxes are good things: they are not. The point here, however, is that a large personal exemption only adds insult to an already injurious tax.

In a country that taxes the populace, representation without taxation is as bad as taxation without representation. A personal exemption from taxation turns a proponent of low taxes and limited government into an opponent of both. The higher the exemption, the greater the popular opposition to limited taxation and government.

The quickest way for all citizens to be crushed by a government is to relieve some citizens of the burden of carrying its weight.

Premier Begs for Cure for New Political Disease: Gaposis

On September 2, 2005, the National Post ran a column penned by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the provincial Liberal party. In that column, the Premier bemoaned the fact that “the politics of the moment, the heat of the debate, or the emotional impact of that day’s headline” tends to derail the search for a better provincial-federal fiscal relationship. He explained that, to keep the search from getting “lost” in the politics, he proposes a royal commission to study provincial-federal fiscal arrangements. However, having so far conducted his free-spending government’s quest for a federal bail-out by angrily pointing the finger at Ottawa, Premier McGuinty’s sudden request for dispassionate, depoliticized research is, to say the least, hypocritical.

What is worse, the premier is not looking for answers. Rather, he wants the federal government to admit that there is a problem with provincial-federal relations. The striking of a royal commission by the federal government would constitute just such an admission.

The premier would do well to stop begging for federal money and admissions of guilt. The federal Liberals have the support of Ontario voters. And, as the premier knows, he is crying foul now only because of the utter failure of a health care system with which he refuses to part for ideological reasons.

In 1969, Ontario’s PCs imposed a government monopoly in health insurance and introduced provincial income taxation to pay for it. That failing system now consumes 40% of Ontario’s budget and climbing. Ontario’s personal and corporate income taxes combined are insufficient to pay the cost of socialized medicine in the province.

This is no time for politics and royal commissions. With the ongoing loss of Ontario’s manufacturing base to low-cost jurisdictions like China, the time has come for Ontario to question the wisdom of both Ontario’s health insurance monopoly and its income taxes.

Murder, and its Perpetuation

On August 29, 2005, the National Post ran a column written by Ontario Progressive Conservative party leader John Tory. In it, Mr. Tory continued not only to advocate measures that will not give us safer streets, but to side-step the cause of the violence.

Mr. Tory said he wants to “send a strong message to criminals that gun crimes mean serious jail time” and that “that’s why” he is urging tougher sentencing for “gun” crimes. Two things. First, consider that 50% of murders in gun-controlled Britain (which does not share a border with the USA) are committed with kitchen knives. Murder, not weapons, is the issue. Second, the murderers walking our streets are not deterred by longer sentences: they do not expect to live into their 30s. In fact, the “I’m livin’ hard and dying young” attitude is a huge part of their tough-guy image.

Mr. Tory suggested that if we “beef up” our border security, we can “make a difference”. Yet, according to a 2001 publication by MP Garry Breitkreuz, there are an estimated 7,000,000 to 11,000,000 firearms in Canada already. If it were even remotely possible that tougher border security would stop murderers from importing guns, the only difference we could rationally expect would be slower border crossings that will harm Ontario’s economy.

Mr. Tory called for better organized youth “programs” to “prevent crime”. This is a vague reference to the notion that recreation centres and basket ball courts for the poor prevent murder by keeping would-be murderers from getting bored. Boredom and poverty are not the causes of murder. Almost all human beings will be bored many times in their life: almost none of them will murder someone. To imply that poverty makes one a murderer is to slander and marginalize the poor, almost all of whom will never murder anyone.

The single problem that lies at the root of all of these murders is that the murderers among us view themselves as being beyond good and evil. As they see it, civil society is weak because it distinguishes between good and evil. Civil society is, for them, a sucker; a host to be occupied, intimidated and looted by armed, anti-moral macho men.

It might play well in the pages of the National Post, but those who cast these animals as the victims of a society that did not build them enough entertainment centres; those who share the murder’s twisted philosophy that guns, not people, commit murders; are excusing – even justifying – murder. The murderers of tomorrow hear those justifications loud and clear as they load their pistols and clear their minds of any vague ethical doubts about the acts they are about to commit.

To stop the murders, we must strictly enforce even minor laws so as to imprison murderers and would-be murderers alike. Period.

The (un)constitutionality of equalization payments

On Friday, August 26, 2005, the Globe and Mail ran an editorial about Ontario possibly falling into “have not” status among the provinces in coming years, and the role that federal equalization payments might be playing. It concluded:

“Do the current program and other federal transfer mechanisms need reform, accountability and an accurate means of measuring their impact on all provinces? Absolutely. Should the rich provinces get back all the dollars their taxpayers send to Ottawa, thereby eliminating the so-called fiscal imbalance? Absolutely not, because that would reduce federalism to nothing more than a financial balance sheet and effectively turn the central government into a non-profit collection agency for the wealthier provinces.”

To my knowledge, Ontario has not proposed that it receive “all” of the money its taxpaying residents pay to the federal government. Ontarians and their government recognize that, as Canadians, they must contribute to exclusively federal matters like the military, for example. However, Ontario is indeed losing under the current equalization scheme, and it is losing unjustly.

In a free and democratic country, a government may spend only what the country’s constitution gives it authority to spend. Canada’s constitution gives the federal government only the authority to pay out the amounts set out in the Constitution Act, 1907, which is still in force and binding. The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to redistribute wealth via the current federal equalization payments. If the federal government wants to engage in such spending, it should be seeking a constitutional amendment.

Because the federal equalization payments are unconstitutional, Premier McGuinty is wrong to ask for federal money . However, Ontario would be in the right to demand an end to equalization payments, and a corresponding reduction in federal taxation. This it could rightly do in the name of freedom and the rule of law.

How to win the softwood lumber war

National Post, Letters
August 25, 2005

Re: The Case For Surrender, Andrew Coyne, Aug. 24.

Mr. Coyne is right that Canadian provinces are subsidizing timber, and that those subsidies are bad for the economy. They also encourage environmental harm and poor forest management. He also has a clear-cut case on the wrong-headedness of domestic retaliation: imposing more taxes on goods imported from the United States would only lower the Canadian standard of living.

However, I cannot agree that Canada should simply surrender. There is another, quite peaceful, option. Canada should buy some commercial time on major U.S. media networks so that we can speak directly to hardworking, overtaxed American homebuyers.

I can see the commercial now: happy, smiling, Canadians waving their Canadian flags in front of their newly built homes. The overdub: “By overtaxing imported Canadian lumber, the U.S. government has made it more costly to build a home in the United States. But there is an upside: by paying more to build your home, you have made it possible for Canadians to build their homes at lower rates. We, the new home owners of Canada, thank you for your ongoing financial commitment to the housing of Canadians.”

It would not be long before Americans demanded the axe be taken to U.S. taxes on Canadian wood.

Paul McKeever, Oshawa, Ont.

Courting the 'burbs

National Post, Letters
Saturday, August 06, 2005

Re: A City Stunt that’ll Play Well in the ‘Burbs, Adam Radwanski, Aug. 5.Contrary to Mr. Radwanski’s speculation, Stephen Harper’s promise to make drivers, cyclists and pedestrians subsidize GO Transit and Toronto Transit Commission fares will not “endear” him to those living in the 905 belt. Mr. Harper does not propose that drivers receive a similar subsidy for their gasoline, licensing fees, artificially inflated auto insurance premiums or car maintenance costs. Nor can I imagine that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians will discontinue their current mode of transportation for a chance to give Mr. Harper a peck at the GO’s Kiss ‘n’ Ride.

To make residents of Oshawa, Ont., or Flin Flon, Manitoba subsidize GO and TTC riders is not merely something that will turn off Harper’s “conservative base” — it will rightly turn off anybody who believes that it is wrong to hitch your wagon to another person’s horse. Each individual should pay the full cost of his own freight, and should choose only the method of transportation that he or she can afford.

Mr. Harper would do well to advocate the tried-and-true policy of personal responsibility: “Pay only for what you get, and get only what you pay for.” The something-for-nothingers displeased with that message have already parked their votes and their Volvos elsewhere.

Paul McKeever, Uxbridge, Ont.

Healthcare: Saving the System vs. Saving the Patient

On June 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision in the matter of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). The majority of the court found that prohibiting privately-funded health care leads to waiting lists. They concluded that those waiting lists can and have led to deaths and to physical and psychological harm and pain. They concluded that prohibiting privately-funded health care creates patient pain without any corresponding public healthcare gain. And, for those reasons, the majority declared Quebec’s prohibition of privately-funded health care is an unjustifiable violation of an individual’s rights to life and security of the person.

The court’s decision does not render private health care prohibitions in Canada’s other provinces unconstitutional, but the reasons for the decision certainly make it clear that prohibitions in other provinces may in the future be found unconstitutional if their respective government health care monopolies leave patients as poorly attended as they are in Quebec’s government-run health care system: according to the reasons for the decision, Quebec’s prohibitions never would have been declared unconstitutional if Quebec’s government-run health care system had provided “reasonable” levels of health care. Throughout Canada now, the left is staring at that “if” without a blink, and they are engaged in an all-out war of words to make sure that Canadians believe that the court’s decision imposes a duty to dump even more tax dollars into government health care. In newspapers, on television, in the board rooms of numerous left-wing health care NGOs, “how can we improve the government system and thereby keep the prohibitions in place in Canada’s other provinces?” is, foolishly, the focus of almost all related discussion.

One would like to think that at least the National Post – arguably the Canadian newspaper most sympathetic to free market economic reforms – could be relied upon to make the case for privately-funded health care. Such has not been the case. Instead, the National Post has published a number of columns and editorials issuing warnings of possible pitfalls of capitalist competition in health care funding, and promoting what is nowadays politely labelled “corporativism”, “public-private partnership” or “the third way”, but what was originally known as “fascism“: a system in which private companies serve a single payor – the government – which sets down rules and regulations dealing with such things as the nature, quantity and speed of services provided, the prioritization of service recipients, and the prices at which services will be provided.

For example, on June 10, 2005, columnist Andrew Coyne re-assured Canadian socialists and corporativists that:

“Despite what you may have heard, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision does not mean the “end of medicare.” It does not even necessarily mean the legalization of private insurance, at least outside of Quebec. …Conservatives who are already citing the court’s ruling in support of a parallel private health care system…are as unconvincing as the Prime Minister’s smug assurances that all is well because of last September’s health care accord….The case for private insurance would be more compelling were there reason to believe the public system was operating at maximum efficiency…Nor are we lacking for detailed plans for reform. These are to be found…in two other recent inquiries: the report of the Senate committee headed by Senator Michael Kirby, and that of the Alberta government commission headed by Don Mazankowski. Both propose radical reforms to the delivery and funding of health care — but within the envelope of public finance. That is, each would seek to import the basic mechanisms that make private markets such efficient allocators of resources – choice, competition, prices — while preserving the “single payer” model.”

On June 11th, Mr. Coyne continued his pitch:

“But the right of an individual patient to purchase private insurance, in the particular circumstances of his own situation, need not be the model for society as a whole. There may be better ways of alleviating waiting times in the public system than by allowing a private system to work alongside it, which would obviate the need for such drastic remedies. And indeed the evidence suggests there is: a system of “internal markets,” along the lines proposed by the Kirby committee or Alberta’s Mazankowski commission.”

On June 17, 2005, the National Post published a colum by Adam Radwanski, who wrote:

Preserving the same system for Canadians of every social, economic and regional background is a noble and worthy goal; indeed, it’s essential to preserving the sense of social responsibility on which this country has been built. But that aim has been clouded by politicians and interest groups who, to either score points against their rivals or maintain a status quo they benefit from, have lumped together universal care with the manner in which it is delivered…Universality is a question of principle; delivery is one of practicality…Last week’s ruling represents an opportunity as much as a threat — a chance for a long overdue dialogue that puts all the delivery options on the table in order to ensure universality for the long-haul.”

Most recently (on June 29, 2005), the National Post ran an editorial that stated:

With the Liberals having bizarrely dismissed the [Chaoulli] decision out of hand, and with Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh now picking fights with the Canadian Medical Association because doctors dared suggest a role for the private sector in medicare, a Conservative campaign in favour of greater flexibility within the public system could not be more timely.

Given the sort of columns that the National Post has been publishing, that assertion clearly implies private sector delivery of health care services within a system in which government is the only payor. The assertion could not be more counter-productive and harmful to the future of Canadian healthcare. And given that it is coming from a paper that – rightly or wrongly – is widely thought to be pro-capitalist, there is a definite risk that the National Post’s pro-corporativist/anti-capitalist proposal will be mislabeled “capitalist”, thereby undermining the very concept, and defaming capitalism in general. Yet capitalist health reforms, not corporativist partnerships between government payors and private sector service deliverers, are a Canadian patient’s only hope.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. In a system funded only by government, politicians are the only payors. As such, they demand of health care service providers one thing: a system that, by appearing good enough, keeps voter discontent sufficiently low to avoid ejection from office. Vendors – even private sector vendors – respond the only way they can: by rationing healthcare. As a result, patients suffer and die on waiting lists. In truth, this is of little relevance to the politician, because only a minority of voters are in health care waiting lists, and because those who die in line do not vote. It is also of little concern even to a private-sector vendor: having kept the politicians happy, it gets a comfortable, competition-free, seat at the government trough.

Patients do not want better rationing. They do not care if “average wait times” are reduced. They want their own wait times reduced, and they know that decreased averages might have no effect at all on the amount of time they wait. Canadian patients also know that waiting is not the only problem: the quality of service delivered patients takes precedence, as it should, over any socialist, ideologically-driven commitments to “save universal health care”.

Introducing more “private delivery” of publicly-funded health care will not end rationing, it will not improve wait times significantly (if at all), and it most certainly will not improve patient satisfaction. The time is now to allow each Canadian to make their funding of the public system optional. We must allow patients also to be the payors, so that they can call the tune, instead of the government doing so. Their tune, I assure you, will be not “save the system” but “save the patient“. Health care providers then will either play that tune, or go out of business. And that is exactly as it should be.

Let's keep ideas

Toronto Star, Letters

Jun. 20, 2005

Results matter more than broken promises (Editorial, June 19).

That the public cares more about results than about the means used to achieve them is most certainly true. However, I must disagree with your conclusion that “everyone would be better off if politicians promised results instead of mechanics.”

On some level, everyone wants the same things — better services at a lower cost. With all politicians promising those results and avoiding debate on how to achieve them, distinguishing politicians at election time could amount to little more than debates about managerial competence and name recognition.

In response, all parties would be encouraged to choose leaders who were former CEOs or movie stars, no matter how lacking in political vision or courage. But government is not business and it certainly ought not to be show business. To make informed choices in the voting booth, we must each be able to gauge the feasibility of parties’ promised goals by independently evaluating the means by which they propose to achieve them.

Whereas all politicians clearly must “steer clear of empty and counterproductive promises starved of ideas,” it would be an error, and a disservice to the voter, to steer clear of ideas altogether. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario, Uxbridge

The new insanity

The Globe and Mail, Letters
Wednesday, May 18, 2005, Page A20

Uxbridge, Ont. — Re Is Premier In Vanguard Of A New Politics? (May 17):

To avoid the political cost of spending cuts or tax increases, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty pleads for a $5.7-billion contribution of federal revenue to Ontario’s purse.

Such a contribution would violate Canada’s constitution; aggravate secessionist sentiments; blur the lines of political and fiscal accountability; leave Ontario’s spending crisis unaddressed; and spawn harmful copycat efforts throughout all levels of government in all provinces.

Murray Campbell opines that Ontario’s NDP and Progressive Conservative MPPs would “have to be mad” not to endorse Mr. McGuinty’s strategy. If true, the Premier had better beg for an additional, massive federal investment in psychiatric hospitals for those of us who advocate fiscal responsibility, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

Letter to Toronto Star editor re: Non-confidence motion in Parliament

Toronto Star

May 12, 2005

Procedural `tricks’ postponed vote
A matter of political confidence

Opinion, May 11.

It appears that Professor Errol Mendes has allowed his politics to compromise his intellectual integrity. In asserting that “votes of confidence are grave matters that should not rest on procedural tricks,” he points the finger at the Opposition. Yet, surely his assertion applies with equal force to the government, which has used “procedural tricks” to postpone a vote of no confidence. The professor’s political bias is made most obvious by his lament that, “It is also troublesome that the opposition parties will soon get the chance to make a proper confidence motion …” Troublesome indeed.

Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Canada, London, Ont.

« Previous Page — Next Page »