Canadian Cincinnatus

Mayor David Miller is behaving obnoxiously during Toronto's Garbage strike

So what else is new?

Let’s take a look at Miller’s contempt for ordinary Torontonians as it manifested itself this week:

At the beginning of the week, the finger wagging from city hall chastized the people against dump garbage illegally. Granted the city has a responsibility to keep the city clean but circumstances have painted householders into a corner. They have to take their garbage somewhere but if they take it to the transfer station, they will be hectored and bossed around by a bunch of striking city workers, forced to wait needlessly in long line-ups, and ordered, again completely needlessly, to walk their garbage in past the picket lines, when the strikers decide to let them past. Where is the empathy?

And top it off, David Miller instructed us to obey the picket captains while we are at the transfer station. Say what! The citizens are told by the mayor they elected to take orders from people who are currently refusing to work? What kind of nonsense is this? Earth to David Miller: the mayor listens to city residents, city workers listen to the mayor, and nobody has to listen to strikers because they are currently unemployed.

What people need is a realistic option, an alternate place where they can take their garbage. I know, I know, the city is finally setting up temporary dumpsites. But at the beginning of the week, this option wasn’t being discussed. Instead of threatening people with bylaws infractions, why didn’t Miller reassure us that help in the form of alternate dumpsites is on the way, so don’t panic and dump garbage where it doesn’t belong. Same message, different tone, indicating a different mindset. If the mayor phrased his message that way he would have indicated to us that he viewed his job as that of providing the best services at the lowest tax rate possible. Instead, both the unions and the mayor are signalling their arrogance - that they think we are dependent on them instead of the other way around. This is what a government that gets too big sounds like.

Is David Miller having a Bob Rae moment?

On Monday, my esteemed co-blogger, Mike Downtown, posited the theory that Toronto’s current garbage strike is a kabuki theatre between Miller and his pals in CUPE (the municipal worker’s union) designed to bolster Miller’s flagging image as a get-things-done leader.

Perhaps, but I am not so sure.

While there is no question that Toronto’s mayor and the unions that represent the city’s workers have an incestuous relationship, one should not underestimate the short sighted destructive greed labour unions seem to be endowed with. Unions have proven time and time again to be incapable to understanding the fact that the economic health of their employer is in their long term interest (exhibit A: the UAW). Take for instance the way provincial unions reacted to Ontario Premier Bob Rae when he attempted to tame a recession-induced budget shortfall in the early 90’s with Rae days (a few unpaid days off a year for provincial workers). They called him a traitor. They threw socialist Bob under the bus, which resulted in small government crusader Mike Harris as Premier. Public sector unions cannot seem to get it that the ultimate arbiter of these things is public opinion.

Perhaps a dynamic like this is playing out now in Toronto. It may be the case that Miller does not have much of a choice in the matter because he has painted himself into a fiscal corner. He has been spending like a drunken liberal for 6 years, creating a huge debt even before the current recession hit. Now he is forced to create his own version of Rae days – eliminating the rule that allowed municipal workers to roll over their 18 (!) annual paid sick days over from one year to the next, which has created a $250 million unfunded liability since city since workers can cash their accumulated unused sick days out when they retire. If the union had any sense they wouldn’t pick a fight over an issue like this at a time when people are losing their jobs. I think they are hoping that Miller caves in to them because he has to.

One thing Mike Downtown and I agree on though (I mean with regard to this issue - we agree on many other things) is that it is in David Miller’s political interest to end this thing ASAP.

Christine Elliott – another red Tory loser?

Troubling news articles like this makes me wonder if Christine Elliott wants to cast herself in the “socially moderate, fiscally conservative” role, you know, the kind of politicians Canadians (we are told) can’t seem to get enough of, like John Turner, Kim Campbell, Paul Martin, Ernie Eves and John Tory. After all, Canadians are defined by their moderation. They certainly won’t elect “socially left-wing, economically socialist” politicians like Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chrétien, let alone (gasp) unelectable “socially conservative, fiscally conservative” troglodytes like Mike Harris or Ralph Klein. These people will never win high office here!

And then there is the issue of human rights commissions which confirms my suspicions. 

As Hugh McIntyre of the Western Standard blog points out, scrapping the human rights commission is a winning issue if the substance of the matter is explained to the voters beforehand. Most people in that poll likely didn’t know just how much of a threat these tribunals are to free speech and free thought. If the issue is vigorously presented in those terms, it can be an out-of-the-park home run for the Conservative Party.

When Christine Elliott equated the human rights commission issue with faith-based funding, she really only displayed her lack of political judgement. Faith-based funding didn’t fail because it was too right wing. It failed because it was really hated by conservatives – the PC Party of Ontario’s core supporters. In contrast, ending human rights commissions is something conservatives are passionate about. It is a rallying cry. As it will also be for a sizable portion of moderate and uncommitted voters, when the harmful nature of these odious institutions is explained to them.

But one gets the impression that Christine Elliott, like all good red Tories, isn’t interested in vigorously defending anything at all. She thinks she can just glide to victory on her ‘moderation’ – just like John Tory did.

I wonder what other issues she will compormise on to get along?

The red Tory electability myth is like a phoenix. No matter how many times unprincipled ‘moderate’ red Tories get electorally shellacked, the moderation-as-the-key-to-winning-the-election myth rises up from the ashes.

Toronto's phony strike

I'm going to go way out on a limb here with a bold prediction: Toronto’s strike will be short.  Damn short.

Let’s not forget that during the last strike, in 2002, then Councillor David Miller (now Mayor David Miller) refused to cross the picket lines and instead marched with the striking civic union workers.  Now that Miller is the mayor, and the unions are his big supporters, there is no way he’s going to flatten them to the wall, and they know that.

In fact, all the left wing councillors of Miller's executive rely heavily on the unions at election time.  Indeed, in a 2006 article in the Toronto Star about Alexandra Bravo, the left’s pick to try and unseat streetcar right-of-way fighter Ceaser Palacio, the Star printed a revealing quote from Bravo: a campaign worker suggested they should accuse Palacio of spending beyond the campaign limits, but Bravo refused saying, “we get help from the unions, so we’re not lily white there either.”

There’s no way the left wing executive and mayor will let their biggest supporters, the city unions, stay out on strike.

However, Miller will still win with the phony strike.  The public will see a two or three day strike, so Miller will look like he’s standing up to the unions, even if he just gives into them in the end.  All the voters will remember is that he fought CUPE and they settled the strike.  Good enough.  Very few will actually look at what’s in the contract.

Miller knows this because he is very politically astute.  Any opponent in 2010 will have to be even better, so the Right should choose a candidate to unseat Miller very carefully.  So should Toronto voters.

Mike Downtown

Oh nooooo! John Tory wants to run for mayor again

Until now, I had figured that it would be a sure thing that David Miller would be dumped as mayor of Toronto in 2010, given how much he has mismanaged this city and how the residents are beginning to notice his incompetence. It seems that no matter where I go, I run into people who can’t stand the guy, and I am not just talking about conservatives. These days, Miller-hatred crosses all political bounds. However, now I find a fly in my ointment. The fly’s name is John Tory.

Its not that John Tory won’t make a better mayor than Miller; there is no question that he would do a better job. Just take one look at how Miller is screwing up.

The problem is that John Tory has proven over and over again that he has absolutely no political instincts whatsoever. He was the architect of Campbellmania in 1993 - the biggest washout by a political party in Canadian history. He repeated the Ernie Eves disaster at a time when the people of Ontario were looking for any excuse to get rid of McGuinty. Or rather, he added to the rout by not even winning his own seat. Then when tried to get into Parliament a year later by staging a by-election, he managed - as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party - to lose in the safest conservative seat in the province. No, his track record teaches us plainly that the man as a big L (for loser, not liberal) branded on his forehead.

Just a bit of advice for John if you are reading this: If you feel you are too young to give up on politics, do something you haven’t done before in your life – work your way up from the bottom. Try it. You might learn something on the way up – like how to win.

Arthur Laffer on the coming inflation

Thursday’s Wall Street Journal included a very lucid article by Arthur Laffer, the famous discoverer of the Laffer curve. A few of his observations on the fiscal insanity currently gripping the US Federal Reserve Board are:

“About eight months ago, starting in early September 2008, the Bernanke Fed did an abrupt about-face and radically increased the monetary base -- which is comprised of currency in circulation, member bank reserves held at the Fed, and vault cash -- by a little less than $1 trillion.”

“The percentage increase in the monetary base is the largest increase in the past 50 years by a factor of 10 (see chart nearby). It is so far outside the realm of our prior experiential base that historical comparisons are rendered difficult if not meaningless.”

“With an increased trust in the overall banking system, the panic demand for money has begun to and should continue to recede. The dramatic drop in output and employment in the U.S. economy will also reduce the demand for money. Reduced demand for money combined with rapid growth in money is a surefire recipe for inflation and higher interest rates.”

“It's difficult to estimate the magnitude of the inflationary and interest-rate consequences of the Fed's actions because, frankly, we haven't ever seen anything like this in the U.S. To date what's happened is potentially far more inflationary than were the monetary policies of the 1970s, when the prime interest rate peaked at 21.5% and inflation peaked in the low double digits. Gold prices went from $35 per ounce to $850 per ounce, and the dollar collapsed on the foreign exchanges. It wasn't a pretty picture.”

“I doubt very much that the Fed will do what is necessary to guard against future inflation and higher interest rates. If the Fed were to reduce the monetary base by $1 trillion, it would need to sell a net $1 trillion in bonds. This would put the Fed in direct competition with Treasury's planned issuance of about $2 trillion worth of bonds over the coming 12 months. Failed auctions would become the norm and bond prices would tumble, reflecting a massive oversupply of government bonds.”

“a rapid contraction of the monetary base as I propose would cause a contraction in bank lending, or at best limited expansion. This is exactly what happened in 2000 and 2001 when the Fed contracted the monetary base the last time. The economy quickly dipped into recession. While the short-term pain of a deepened recession is quite sharp, the long-term consequences of double-digit inflation are devastating. (italics mine)”

Get ready for some stagflation boys!

UPDATE: Here is a graph showing how much the supply of US dollars in circulation has increased in recent months, and how much of an historical anomaly this is:

Look at that and tell me inflation isn't around the corner.

What Todd Palin should do to David Letterman

You must have heard the sexual joke David Letterman made about Sarah Palin’s daughter: “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” He was referring to Willow Palin, who is thirteen years old.

What should Willow Palin’s father - the guardian of her honour - do? I say he should confront Letterman and demand satisfaction.

While dueling has always been against the law, in the good old days the law turned a blind eye to affairs of honour. I think it is high time for this attitude to resume.

The reason people used to be more circumspect was because an attack on somebody’s reputation could have life-or-death consequences. In this case, is their any doubt that in a fair fight Todd Palin could beat David Letterman with pistols, swords or fists?

To me, the real beauty of dueling is that it is an entirely voluntary activity. Letterman is under no obligation to accept any challenge. But if he refuses Todd Palin, he declares himself a coward. While the opprobrium of cowardice has more than a whiff of antiquity about it, don’t let yourself be fooled by all that political correctness around you. The code of honour goes back tens of thousands of years. It is hard-wired into our soul and cannot be eradicated by antiseptic ivory tower mandates. A public demonstration of cowardice has real consequences, even in the twenty-first century, even in New York, and even among debauched celebrities.

As Heinlein put it, “an armed society is a polite society.”

(That is why the creep at playboy.com, who listed the top ten conservative women he would like to “hate fuck,” can get away with it today. He knows he can hide behind his computer terminal. A hundred years ago, he would have faced a line-up of angry challengers. This is incidentally why I don’t think much of people who flame others on the internet. It is the sport of cowards.)

A life experience Obama didn’t have

Victor Davis Hansen describes a formative life experience that he had at the family farm after returning home after spending 9 years in academia.

Choice quotes:

“I wish the President well, but he is butting up against human nature. And that is a fight one cannot win.”

“Obama reminds me a little of myself–at 26. I had left the farm for 9 years to get a BA in classics, PhD in classical philology, and live in Athens for two years of archaeological study-all on scholarships, TAships, research-ships and part-time summer and school jobs tucked under the aegis of the academic, no-consequences world. By the end of endless seminars, papers, theses, debates, discussions, academic get-togethers, I had forgotten much of the culture of the farm where I spent years 1-18.”

“after the requisite degrees I left academia, and returned to farm 180 acres with my brother and cousin-and sadly was quickly disabused of the world of the faculty lounge.”

“Obama will come to his senses with his ‘Bush did it’, reset button, moral equivalency, soaring hope and change, with these apologies to Europeans, his Arab world Sermons on the Mount to Al Arabiya, in Turkey, in Cairo, etc., his touchy-feely videos to Iran, his “we are all victims of racism” sops to Ortega, Chavez, and Morales. It is only a matter of when, under what conditions, how high the price we must pay, and whether we lose the farm before he gains wisdom about the tragic universe in which we live.

A sojourn at an elite university, you see, can sometimes become a very dangerous thing indeed.”

But as Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

Toronto Council Seeks to Gag Opposition

Toronto Mayor David Miller's latest plan to silence critics is to change the rules so he and his councilors can use taxpayer dollars to sue for slander or libel.  That means they can sue at the drop of a hat, or more importantly, their critics will know that taxpayer funded lawsuits will fly if they go a little over the top in their criticism of Toronto's government.

Council should be very careful with this for two reasons:

1) Totalitarian governments all over the world seek ways to intimidate and  silence opposition.  Of course, even the City of Toronto act doesn't make Toronto's government anywhere remotely near despotic, but is that the kind of government Miller wants to have something in common with?  It reflects poorly in the public perception.

2) Oscar Wilde.  When the Marquess of Queensberry left a note for Wilde accusing him of "posing as sodomite," Wilde promptly made a complaint of criminal libel.  But what came out during the prosecution of Queensberry was the opposite: the defense proved that Wilde was in violation of Victorian laws against homosexuality.  Not only were the charges dropped, but Wilde ended up in jail.  Wilde's reputation in Victorian England was irrevocably tarnished, and a great playwright was sidelined for the rest of his life.

So here's the danger for Toronto's mayor and councillors: sue with public money, and the public will equate you with tyrants, even though it's not a fair comparison.  Sue and you will bring your critic's libelous statements to the public eye again and again for months, all with columnists reminding taxpayers that they are paying for the councillors' (or mayor's) vengeance.

Okay, just to bug them: what a bunch of weasels!

It might be wiser to quietly kill this proposal and let sleeping dogs lie.  Sometimes, Toronto Council is its own worst enemy.

Mike Downtown

Why don’t conservatives ever argue their side of the debate?

In the US, Ronald Reagan was called the ‘great communicator’ because of his ability to persuade American voters. Unfortunately, the source of his talent remains a mystery to many people. This perplexes me because, as far as I am concerned, it is so obvious how he was able to convince so many people of his ideas – he communicated.

The most important principle of political argument is to hold up your side of the debate. Ronald Reagan did this. To me, that he did so is not amazing. What is startling is how few other conservatives do it. If you want to win the debate, first you have to explain your side of the argument. Duh!

In most cases a free market politician will simply proclaim, “I’m for free enterprise.” OK, yes, now tell us why. Why is capitalism better than socialism? Give specific and pertinent examples, take a tough stand on current issue, and maybe we will even believe you. Making a blanket statement isn’t enough to win the debate. The left knows this. That’s why they fight for socialism in detail. We need to do the same.

For example, I don’t know how many great arguments I have encountered in favour of free markets when I have attended conservative conferences and reading libertarian literature. Our trouble is, we only talk about this stuff among ourselves - in hushed voices. None of these excellent arguments ever seems to make it out into political campaigns.

When the NDP equate capitalism with cruelty and big government with compassion, why don’t we ever ask in return, what’s so compassionate about a government bureaucracy anyway? Show me the human face at the unemployment office? Tell me how a bureaucrat can demonstrate more empathy than a church group volunteer when all he is allowed to do is to follow the soul-less rules of his job like a calculating machine. Where’s the human face in this? It should be made clear that the only interactions that have a human face are the ones autonomous individuals engage in voluntarily. And what system enables that, Mr. Layton?

When the Liberals say they want to grow government because they are a friend of the little guy, we should – but don’t - bring up the fact that big government’s natural allies are big business and big labour. Instead of competing, big business would rather have tea with the Minister, give him a campaign contribution so that the coercive powers of the state now become a club to be used against their competitors. In contrast, small government benefits small and medium size business, the places where creativity and competition flourish in our society. Big government supports big institutions, small government supports small institutions.

When the race industry demands that minorities be protected, we should point out that the smallest minority is the individual, and if the individual – i.e. you and me – is not respected then who cares if the larger group you belong to is.

None of these arguments are new in free market circles (for instance, Stephen Harper is familiar with all of them), but they are completely new to political campaigns. These points are there for the taking. All that is needed is a conservative politician who will employ them vigorously.

Even the great Mike Harris didn’t do this. Sure, he walked the walk, but he rarely talked the talk. He never really articulated why capitalism and minimal government are so beneficial.

There are two outliers to this behaviour in recent Canadian history, and they are both instructive: the Canada-US free trade agreement and Stephane Dion’s carbon tax. In both cases (Brian Mulroney in the 1988 federal election, and Stephen Harper in the 2008 federal election) a principled stand was taken on a free market issue and the necessary arguments were forcefully made. And in both cases - surprise, surprise - the good guys won. Free trade is now widely recognized as the engine of Canada’s prosperity, and the green shaft is now recognized as the destructive socialist scheme that it really is. It can be done! 

We just got to do it more often.