To the credit of the three leaders of Ontario’s largest political parties, there was a great deal of talk about policy in last night’s leaders debate. That is always nice to see both from the perspective of a policy wonk and a voter. I found, however, that most of the policies that were being hotly debated were pretty irrelevant.
Ontario is in economic and financial trouble. This is the issue that should be dominating the election but by tacit agreement none of the major parties are really talking about it. There are two questions that were asked that should have brought this issue to the forefront but all three leaders allowed each other off the hook and gave incredibly weak answers.
The first question was how the budget is going to be balanced.
Dalton McGuinty responded by talking about how much spending he introduced and plans to introduce.
Tim Hudak responded by talking about how he will make sure that ¾ of the budget is defended from cuts (health and education).
Andrea Horwath responded by saying something about blank cheques to corporations which I think was referring to corporate tax cuts, but that doesn’t make any sense on a couple of levels.
The second question is closely related to the first question, although perhaps not many people realize it. The last question of the night asked if the party leaders would be open to more private participation in the health care system. With health care spending growing faster than government revenue and taking up about half of the budget this is an important question for deciding how to get Ontario out of deficits.
Dalton McGuinty responded by saying he will beg for more money from the federal government (forgetting it seams that there is only one taxpayer).
Tim Hudak responded with an anecdote about how it sucks to have a child that is sick (I have absolutely no doubt that it sucks a lot).
Andrea Horwath responded with a rant against the capitalist system (which to be fair is at least on message).
There was another question that asked why politicians aren’t bolder. Each tried to respond by saying that they are bold, but the answers described above makes a lie of these claims. Yet the solutions to Ontario’s problems will require boldness and none of the leaders last night showed that they have an ounce of it.
Showing posts with label Dalton McGuinty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dalton McGuinty. Show all posts
Dalton McGuinty picking emotion over logic
Dalton McGuinty has “dared” Tim Hudak to go to London and “look the people in the eye” and tell them that he will cancel the government’s deal with Samsung to “create 16,000 solar and clean energy jobs.” The London mayor joined in on the taunt pointing out that London has an unemployment rate of 9.1%. It is this sort of appeal to emotion argument that makes me despair of politicians.
Having a job and keeping a job is an emotional issue for everybody. It is the way that you support yourself and any family that you may have. Without a job people often feel humiliated and degraded (plus you can’t afford stuff). I went nearly a year without employment after I graduated university, and so I have a taste of what the unemployed suffer through.
This is not a good argument for public policy.
If Dalton McGuinty wants to argue that solar power is the greatest benefit for the cost, fine because then we can have a fruitful discussion.
Instead Mr. McGuinty wants to paint the PC Party as being callous. Instead of having an honest debate the Liberals want to pull on people’s heart strings.
All political parties do this to one degree or another, but I fine this case to be particularly irritating. It must be hard to look someone in the eye and say that they have to find a new job, but if keeping that person employed is costing more than it is worth then it is the rest of us that are hurting.
At the same time if the market was allowed to distribute resources without government interference, it is more than likely that these people would be able to find a job producing something that people actually want to pay for. Thus they will the benefit the rest of us rather than hurt us.
But no, such a logical argument cannot be allowed to be heard.
Having a job and keeping a job is an emotional issue for everybody. It is the way that you support yourself and any family that you may have. Without a job people often feel humiliated and degraded (plus you can’t afford stuff). I went nearly a year without employment after I graduated university, and so I have a taste of what the unemployed suffer through.
This is not a good argument for public policy.
If Dalton McGuinty wants to argue that solar power is the greatest benefit for the cost, fine because then we can have a fruitful discussion.
Instead Mr. McGuinty wants to paint the PC Party as being callous. Instead of having an honest debate the Liberals want to pull on people’s heart strings.
All political parties do this to one degree or another, but I fine this case to be particularly irritating. It must be hard to look someone in the eye and say that they have to find a new job, but if keeping that person employed is costing more than it is worth then it is the rest of us that are hurting.
At the same time if the market was allowed to distribute resources without government interference, it is more than likely that these people would be able to find a job producing something that people actually want to pay for. Thus they will the benefit the rest of us rather than hurt us.
But no, such a logical argument cannot be allowed to be heard.
Dalton McGuinty's new post-secondary student subsidy is a bad idea
Dalton McGuinty has announced that if re-elected he will introduce yet another subsidy for people who want a post-secondary education. This is a bad idea. Even if the province was not drowning in red and could actually afford the cost of this program, it would still be a bad idea. It either endangers the very worth of Ontario’s post secondary education system or it simply wastes money.
The core concept behind a post-secondary student subsidy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The idea is that: we can observe that people with degrees make more money, thus if more people have a degree then more people will make more money. This reasoning completely ignores why people with degrees do have higher incomes.
At least part of the reason why people with degrees make more money is that they tend to be more motivated people. An individual that is willing to invest in himself/herself is likely the same sort of individual that will work hard and advance her/his career. At the same time the reason why such a person would go to university in the first place is because employers find value in a degree or a college diploma.
So there is a demand for workers with a post-secondary education, but like everything else there is not an unlimited demand. Government subsidies can increase the supply of educated workers but the demand is reliant on market forces, thus supply outpaces demand. Anyone who has taken grade 11 economics knows (no university required) that if supply is greater than demand then the value of the supply decreases. This means that all those people who got degrees won’t be making as much as the government thought.
There is an old adage that people only value what they pay for. This popular wisdom is supported by evidence when it comes to post-secondary education. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that where there is a high subsidy for education students tend to be less motivated. If it isn’t a struggle for a student to afford school then they are more likely to take it less seriously.
This has an effect of furthering the devaluation of post-secondary education. Since students get the same degree or diploma regardless of grades, employers don’t know if they spent a few years learning to think critically or perfecting the art of beer pong. Some employers ask for transcripts but that it not always practical.
The end result is that Mr. McGuinty’s plan would likely strip Ontario’s post-secondary education of its value. This is, however, the worst case scenario.
The best case scenario is that it will turn out that pretty much everyone who is going to go to university or college are already going. Then there wouldn’t be a drastically increased supply to devalue degrees and diplomas. The only result is that government would have wasted yet another few million dollars.
Another scenario is that universities and colleges say thank you very much for the extra money and increase tuition by exactly the same as the subsidy (which would screw over the 1 in 6 that don’t qualify for the subsidy). The net result would be pretty much nil except that the government would have wasted even more of tax payer’s money.
So this program will either be a waste of money or destroy Ontario’s post-secondary education system. I’ll say it again, this is a bad idea.
The core concept behind a post-secondary student subsidy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The idea is that: we can observe that people with degrees make more money, thus if more people have a degree then more people will make more money. This reasoning completely ignores why people with degrees do have higher incomes.
At least part of the reason why people with degrees make more money is that they tend to be more motivated people. An individual that is willing to invest in himself/herself is likely the same sort of individual that will work hard and advance her/his career. At the same time the reason why such a person would go to university in the first place is because employers find value in a degree or a college diploma.
So there is a demand for workers with a post-secondary education, but like everything else there is not an unlimited demand. Government subsidies can increase the supply of educated workers but the demand is reliant on market forces, thus supply outpaces demand. Anyone who has taken grade 11 economics knows (no university required) that if supply is greater than demand then the value of the supply decreases. This means that all those people who got degrees won’t be making as much as the government thought.
There is an old adage that people only value what they pay for. This popular wisdom is supported by evidence when it comes to post-secondary education. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that where there is a high subsidy for education students tend to be less motivated. If it isn’t a struggle for a student to afford school then they are more likely to take it less seriously.
This has an effect of furthering the devaluation of post-secondary education. Since students get the same degree or diploma regardless of grades, employers don’t know if they spent a few years learning to think critically or perfecting the art of beer pong. Some employers ask for transcripts but that it not always practical.
The end result is that Mr. McGuinty’s plan would likely strip Ontario’s post-secondary education of its value. This is, however, the worst case scenario.
The best case scenario is that it will turn out that pretty much everyone who is going to go to university or college are already going. Then there wouldn’t be a drastically increased supply to devalue degrees and diplomas. The only result is that government would have wasted yet another few million dollars.
Another scenario is that universities and colleges say thank you very much for the extra money and increase tuition by exactly the same as the subsidy (which would screw over the 1 in 6 that don’t qualify for the subsidy). The net result would be pretty much nil except that the government would have wasted even more of tax payer’s money.
So this program will either be a waste of money or destroy Ontario’s post-secondary education system. I’ll say it again, this is a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)