Tag Archives: Dalton McGuinty

Greece Is The Word

Posted on by
1

This may come as a super big surprise to all the regular readers out there but I admittedly wasn’t at my most open-minded in my expectations of the province’s Drummond Report. Its arrival coincided with me reading the last few chapters of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big To Fail. Oh good. A former bank economist tapped to tell us how to put our fiscal house back in order while we’re still mired in the biggest economic slump since the Great Depression brought on by the egregious behaviour of our international banking system.

Step 1: tightly regulate your banks and never again believe that, left to its own devices, the free market is a self-correcting entity.

I’m sure that’s somewhere in Mr. Drummond’s 17 million page report.

What I don’t understand is, if this province is in such a pickle (mmmmm…. gherkins) financially speaking, why did the government hem itself in, seeking solutions from only one narrow perspective? Why not throw the doors open to get a variety of opinions and views, not just the one fixated on the capital side of things?

On top of which, “Our mandate precludes us from recommending increases in tax rates…” Run that by me again, would you please, Mr. Drummond? Our mandate precludes us from recommending increases in tax rates…

So, the government wants to tackle their deficit/debt problem with one hand tied behind its back. Despite being told in the report that “The roots of Ontario’s current fix lie in both the economy and in the province’s record of failing to keep growth in government spending in line with revenue growth” [bolding ours], the province doesn’t want to hear a word about one tool for growing revenue? That would be taxation.

Oh, I get it now.

Tap a guy who’s sure to deliver the goods, in terms of some scary, pant load filling, Greece-we’re-right-behind-you scenarios (slyly bringing up a spooky Grecian spectre while denying he’s doing anything of the sort: “By current international standards, Ontario’s debt is relatively small. We are a very long way from the dreadful fiscal condition of countries that have dominated the news over the past two years…Even Greece, the poster child for rampant debt, carried an Ontario-style debt load as recently as 1984”), Leopold to Dalton McGuinty’s Superintendent Chalmers, remove one possible option from the recovery tool box, so that when you come in less heavy with your next budget, we all breathe a sigh of relief and collectively say, well, it could’ve been much worse.

Regardless to what extent the Liberal government attempts to implement Drummond’s suggestions, it has already achieved its purpose. If this province is really serious about righting the fiscal ship, spending cuts are inevitable. Austerity, folks. It’s all the rage. So much so that, apparently, there’s absolutely no need to listen to other opinions on the subject.

Which is all a little strange because, early on in his report, Drummond summarizes how we got to this point in the game. “Ontario’s revenues now do not cover its spending. In 2010–11, the latest full fiscal year, the government ran a deficit of $14.0 billion — equivalent to $1,059 for every Ontarian and 2.3 per cent of the province’s gross domestic product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to GDP of any province. This is not because spending is particularly high; relative to GDP, Ontario’s spending is one of the lowest among the provinces.”

Ummm… ? What?

Our spending is already one of the lowest among the provinces relative to GDP and now we’re being told that only by reducing spending even further will we be able to dig ourselves out of this hole we’ve created? Does that not seem, I don’t know, a little counterintuitive? Despite the constant painting of the McGuinty government as a gang of reckless spenders, profligate in scandal, eHealth, ORNGE, etc., etc., we read that, in fact, Ontario’s something of a skinflint compared to our provincial brethren.

Further on in the report, Drummond comes right out and tells us how we got to this point. “The reasons are simple. Beginning in 2003, the Canadian dollar began a strong ascent that lifted it from the persistent lows of the previous decade (around 70 US cents) to the recent highs (around parity with the U.S. dollar) during the past four years, with only a brief dip in late 2008 and early 2009. This surge in the currency made Ontario’s exports more expensive for foreigners to buy and rendered the province’s exporters less competitive, while also making imports cheaper.”

Combined with the ongoing effects of free trade that allow companies to scurry off to lower wage jurisdictions, our higher dollar helped gut this province’s manufacturing base, and those jobs left behind inevitably paid less. There was also that nasty global recession that lingers still like a cold that no amount of Echinacea can kill off. And let’s not forget the purely ideological slashing of corporate tax rates that led to the logical conclusion of a company like Caterpillar closing up shop and taking its record profits to Indiana because its workers here refused to accept a cut of some 50% to their wages and benefits.

So yeah, there are plenty of reasons why Ontario faces a record deficit and debt. Government spending just doesn’t seem to be high on that list. Why are we so intent on setting it up as the main culprit that needs to be brought to heel?

I’d be a little more down with the austerity agenda if there was a body of evidence to back up the notion that it’s the way out of our current dire fiscal situation. But so far, I’ve come across precious little of that. Austerity has not yet proven a panacea for places like the U.K., Portugal or Greece. (h/t to The Inverse Square Blog for the info.) And while it may seem a little early in the process to pronounce failure, I think history remains on the countercyclical side, suggesting it’s still too soon to cut-and-run from the idea of more stimulus, more deficits and debt until the economic outlook is a little less bleak.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be looking at efficiencies and alternative methods of delivering services that give a bigger bang for the taxpayers’ buck. I just think we’re given huge space to one point of view when clearly our economic problems are multifaceted. Cutting government spending is the easiest option on the table right now as long as it’s made political palatable. That’s the purpose the Drummond Report serves. We best ignore it, however, if we’re searching for actual long term solutions.

— warily submitted by Cityslikr

Our Harmful Politics Of Transit

Posted on by
1

So, a few days of bashing Mayor Rob Ford’s flailing, rearguard action to save some semblance of his ad hoc transportation city plan, it’s time to pause and not forget the other contributor to the sad, sad state of transit affairs in these parts: our negligent overlords at Queen’s Park.

You got to hand it to them for possessing the sized stones they obviously possess, chiming in now, telling us to get our ducks all in a row so we could push ahead with building us some transit. Didn’t we already have that up until March of last year when the premier caved in and signed the Memorandum of Understanding that allowed the mayor to unilaterally rip up a plan that was in place at the time, that thing called Transit City? Where was the province’s demand for council approval back then?

I know, I know. It’s all political. The wobbly provincial government facing a fall election was unsure of the power of this thing called Ford Nation that the mayor touted. Better safe than sorry. Live to fight the fight another day. Besides, if Premier McGuinty forced Mayor Ford’s hand then, the mayor might’ve won the day and we’d already be on the wrong track of transit expansion.

But the equivocation, the serious case of constant cold feet toward public transit have been the rule rather than the exception for provincial governments, if not forever, than for the past 27 years or so. (And lest you think I’m letting Ottawa off the hook on this, I consider them largely an absent parent who shows up occasionally with a gift of electoral bribery.) What if the Mike Harris government never filled in that hole along Eglinton Avenue in 1995 and killed the subway plans? Or, had the same government not ceased paying its portion of the TTC’s annual operating budget? While there is much to criticize about the TTC, it would’ve been a different organization had it and the city not been forced to pick up the provinces half of the tab.

A situation Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals promised to rectify in 2003 when it was elected. And has continued to promise for the past 9 years. It seems the timing just hasn’t been optimum, money-wise. Ever.

Even their grand gesture to finally solve the city’s transit woes with their backing and funding of Transit City, quickly became a little less grand. When the economy went south with the global financial crisis in 2008, they began to blanche and waffle to the tune of some $4 billion, and a scaled back version established a certain easy come, easy go tone to the government’s attachment to the project. A tone the mayor quickly exploited in his bid to kill it last year.

Unfortunately this m’eh attitude toward public transit shown by Queen’s Park is ingrained. Hell, one might even call it endemic. Yeah, yeah. We know there’s a problem but, hey, we already got a lot of balls in the air. When the time’s right, the money’s flowing, when pigs fly, we’ll get right on it. Until then, here’s a biscuit. Don’t count on getting one regularly but be ready to jump when we say jump.

There was that favourite line of mine from The Sopranos, back in season one I believe it was. They shit on our heads and want us to thank them for the hat?! If you’re going to go around acting all mature like you’re the only responsible grown-ups in the room, might I suggest accepting some of the responsibility that goes along with that? Including, but not exclusive, to making deals and then backing out of them on a fairly regular basis.

As the senior level of government in this relationship, shouldn’t they be instilling a certain degree of stability into the dynamic? Isn’t that what good parents do for their children? Bring a sense of consistency.

Whatever you thought about the government of Mike Harris, they couldn’t be knocked for a lack of consistency. They hated Toronto and couldn’t give a fuck about public transit. Unfortunate but you were never dealing with surprises.

This Liberal government? All over the map. And there’s not even a pattern to its inconsistency. We’ll call it, willy-nilly.

Champions of Transit City, then not so much. Do whatever you want kids. Come on! Make up your mind already!

There’s no rhyme. There’s no reason. No vision. No leadership.

So why are we answerable to them? A historical glitch. This once rural country gave provinces sole domain over what were, at the time, insignificant cities. An after thought. A, yeah whatever.

Sadly, an attitude that remains in place nearly 150 years later, long after the country has become predominantly urbanized. A haphazard, outdated approach that puts the province’s interests first, ignoring the glaring obviousness of the new reality that as go the cities, so goes the provinces, the country. So a bad decision (or worse, an ill-informed, solely political one) on transit at this juncture as we already lag so far behind other cities throughout the world, will not only adversely affect Toronto but Ontario and Canada.

And the galling thing about it for us (perhaps not the politicians involved) is that we have a built in structure of plausible deniability. No one has to take the blame. We gave them money. They wanted to build subways. Kids, eh? What are you going to do?

— chidingly submitted by Cityslikr

I Decreed. What’s To Discuss?

Posted on by
3

Is it just me or is everyone beyond curious about how the Brothers Ford imagined Rob’s time as mayor of Toronto was going to play out? Did they really expect no challenge to their authority, no serious opposition? Like, ever? Was there no plan B in place when plan A (which consisted of little more than chest-beating and bullying) stopped working its magic?

Certainly doesn’t look like it at this juncture. Digging in their heels, closing ranks and perpetuating disarray seems to be their limited range of preferred options now that they are facing concerted resistance at city council. They’ve taken on an almost high browed tone of offended imperiousness at the sheer nerve of a majority of councillors finally assuming their rightful place as ultimate decision makers at City Hall. Well, I never… Of all the nerve. How dare they. Guards!! Off with their heads.

Perhaps that’s not a surprise, coming from Councillor Doug. He is new to the place after all. His experience is more top down business management, do as I say because I sign your pay check. Besides, having spent much of his time out Chicago way with its strong mayoral system, he may’ve got the impression that at a municipal level, we vote for a king every four years. Keep your eyes averted, plebes.

But the mayor’s been around the block a time or two. He was a councillor for ten years before becoming mayor. You’d think he’d know which way the wind blows at City Hall if you want to get things done.

But then comes this:

“It’s like winning an election. So if they voted me in, that means I don’t win an election? It doesn’t make sense.”

You’re right, Mr, Mayor. That makes absolutely no sense. You were elected mayor along with 44 others who were elected as councillors. Your job now is to convince, by whatever democratic means are at your disposal, at least 22 of those councillors to vote along with you. Every time. Or risk losing those parts of your agenda that you can’t sway a majority of councillors on.

But it seems as if Mayor Ford and his brother can’t get past their winner-take-all mindset. Politics as a football game as James Harbeck tweeted yesterday. “In football, if you win, you win. Ford seems to think politics is just like that too.” After a big setback on the waterfront debacle and a lesser but optically symbolic one with the budget, he’s refusing to accept the reality at City Hall. “Someone needs to tell him that the election isn’t the game, it’s just getting onto the team.”

Tell him again and again, over and over, as it just doesn’t appear to be sinking in as Matt Elliott over at Ford For Toronto points out today. On the Eglinton LRT, the wagons have circled and the indignant language from the mayor and his supporters has risen to a hysterical level. One time Team Ford strategist, Nick Kouvalis, has returned from the Death Star to point fingers, unearth enemies and beat the monosyllabic drum of group chant that worked so beautifully during the election.

We. Have. A. Mandate. Subways. Yes. Streetcars. No. Unions. Bad. All. Dalton’s. Fault. We. Have. A. Mandate. We. Have. A. Mandate. We. Have. A. Mandate.

As always when conservatives feel under siege, there’s a bleating tone of triumphal persecution in their counterattack. We won. We won. Stop picking on us. We don’t have to compromise. It’s our turn to rule the roost.

Through that lens, any criticism is nothing more than the salty bitterness of sore losers. It doesn’t even merit serious discussion. That’s how it is to be sidelined because you don’t agree with the mayor. Just like they were under Miller. Just like they were.

Councillor Peter Milczyn can’t seem to speak out without listing some sort of injustice inflicted upon him at the hand of the Miller administration. Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong is the official aggrieved archivist of those hard done by in the years 2003-2010. And the budget chief, woe was me, the budget chief.

“I mean, look, when the NDP came into power,” Councillor Del Grande allegedly claimed during an interview, “I was a white male, I paid a very severe price because it had nothing to do with ability any more, it had to do with male versus female.” Conservatives like him “were beat up brutally” at the hands of Milleristas. But fortunately, it left none of them bitter and/or vindictive.

While Councillor Del Grande, the mayor et al the poor, wittle put-upon conservatives may believe that they were sidelined and ostracized because of their political ideology might I suggest that, based on their performance in power, it had more to do with them being bereft of any good or constructive ideas? The budget chief eviscerates revenue streams and then complains that the city’s broke. As chair of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, Councillor Minnan-Wong costs the city hundreds of thousands of dollars leading the charge to tear up the bike lanes on Jarvis Street. And just yesterday, he joined fellow TTC commission member Councillor Milczyn in helping to vote down a request for a further report on the best course of action for the Eglinton LRT, precipitating the culmination of a clusterfuck of a TTC meeting that you need to read Steve Munro’s account to believe.

No, gentleman. The reason your views and opinions weren’t sought out before Mayor Ford assumed office was that your views are a serious detriment to the city. It’s got nothing to do with your gender, ethnicity or political persuasion. You’re just terrible elected representatives.

Any pushback that you are receiving isn’t payback. It’s simply called governance. Maybe you’re mixing that up with the word petulance.

— regally submitted by Cityslikr