The curse of the spendthrift legislators

"Democracy at its finest," those were the words used by one City of Toronto councillor yesterday in a deputation marathon that lasted 22 hours. The City of Toronto needs to find $775 Million in savings in next years budget (2012), or it will need to raise taxes or cut services or both. Yesterday 334 people had registered to speak in front of City council to plead their case for saving their particular pet service (see picture) or support the cuts. In the end just under 200 got to speak (many just left during the night) and only one of those spoke in favour of cuts to spending. That is a sobering statistic.

This outbreak of parsimony is now wide spread in Western Democracies. In Europe, nations are teetering toward default on their financial obligations. Our American neighbours are in danger of defaulting by next week. At the Provincial and State and municipal levels across North America, governments of all stripes are coming to grips with massive debt, all of this in the midst of a weak recovery from a severe recession. Recession part two could be a result. The chickens are coming home to roost, the curse of the spendthrift legislators threatens everyone.

But look at Toronto, mobs of rent-seekers stepping up to ensure that they are cared for in the way they have become accustomed. "We want our services, and we want someone else to pay for them," that is the message of the debate.

Last October the new Mayor was elected to "stop the gravy train," to stop what he presented as the excessive fluff that citizens were forced to subsidize. He also promised not to cut services, perhaps naively. Certainly there was some fluff, and maybe the Mayor was aware that his promise was just that. The Mayor and council hired independent auditors KPMG, to suss out the "core-services," things that are required (by their definition) in a big city so that the $775 million shortfall could be eliminated without much pain. Right.

So here we are, for me the lesson is clear, despite all the evidence that you might think favours our cause, we are still at the bottom of a mountain. For those that hope that the libertarian utopia is just around the corner, give your head a shake, then take a deep breath, and prepare for a generational fight. 

Disastrous Debt - America plays chicken with the world

My letter-to-editor in the National Post July 28, 2011

Imagine using your credit card to purchase an item in a store, and having it refused because you have exceeded your credit limit. Essentially that is what is about to happen to the U. S. government. I doubt it will happen, but having it come so close, less than one week, has already had a negative impact on the American credit rating.
The lesson from this is that no person and no country, should rack up a debt so large that payback is jeopardized. How could this happen to a sovereign nation?
Well, probably not that differently from the debt accumulated by an individual, I would imagine. When spending is greater than income, when wishes are confused with needs, and when the future seems so far off, anyone can get into debt problems.
But countries are managed by intelligent people (we hope), elected to represent the best interests of the population. That of course is an assumption that is debatable.
Americans have long considered themselves the world's policemen. America claims it is defending liberty and its own interests in the many, many military adventures it has launched since the Second World War. In how many countries has the American military deployed troops? Would you believe 150 countries! More than 10% of America's Armed Forces personnel are in other countries, far more than at any time since the WWII. Imagine the expense. Most often war or military occupation is a choice and it invariably causes debt, American legislators and Presidents have chosen war and occupation, many times. Spending is a choice as well, so is borrowing. Just as households can live within their means, so to nations. The problem is not debt, it's spending. Instead of living within one's means, an individual chooses to buy now and pay later, putting off payment to the future.
But nations are different from individuals. An individual can only blame him/herself, presumably no individual was physically forced to accept debt or repay it. Nations of course use force as in almost all aspects of their operations. Legislators are often elected with a plurality of votes, not a majority. Even a majority seems inadequate morally, when so many are forced to pay for government actions that they would not support. Yet that is the morality of gang action, of democracy! Worse, the burden of debt is shared by everyone in the nation at some level whether they supported the government action or not, young, old, the newborn and the aged. The original need for the debt is often dubious. The economic pain to the nation is frequently unequally distributed. But the coercion required to repay the debt is always huge and widely spread.
This debt problem won't be "fixed" by raising the debt ceiling (which will happen). What is required is not going to happen, that is, a full assessment of what the U. S. government should and should not be doing. The Democrats and Republicans are on the same side, and that is not on the side of the American people. People will realize that at some point, but when?

The most hated group in America, Atheists!

Atheists watch this. In America you are the most vilified minority around, even though as a group you are probably the least violent, most tolerant, most thoughtful and intelligent.
From Stefan Molyneux:

Kooks left and right

This morning I described myself to a new acquaintance as a politician. I could have said blogger, since the pay is about the same, but I used politician, an uncomfortable word choice for me. The guy looked at me, and realized he did not recognize me (unsurprisingly). Without much pause, he asked, left or right?
It seems thats how people perceive the world of politics (maybe thats our problem?). So I gave the standard libertarian reply: "we don't fit that description." I then proceeded to run down a list of leftish things that I support: choice in abortion, gay marriage, anti-war in Afghanistan, Libya, etc., then I switched to rightish things: gun rights, diminished role of government, low taxes etc. Of course he had never heard of us. "New," he asked? I smiled.
The reason I bring this up is the incident in Norway, 76 dead at the hands of an "extreme right-wing" terrorist. Personally I think he is nuts, but maybe thats too generous. There  have also been left-wing terrorists that have committed murder on a large scale, although they have had a political agenda and they seem to have disappeared of late. The Norwegian nut-case had an agenda, yes, but to say it was confused is somehow disrespectful of the 76 victims. My point is, right or left, like the cartoon above, are just different words that have the same meaning in libertarian parlance: no choice.