FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Coal, Oil and Gas Are All Very Nice, But ……

Well, it looks like we’ve got a conundrum. On the one hand, everyone is increasingly concerned about climate change, while on the other hand cheap sources of coal, oil and natural gas keep popping up. However, while a hearty supply of coal, oil and natural gas provides cheap energy sources for now, eventually even these sources will become depleted. And then what? By the looks of it, certainly not renewable energy sources! What about seriously dealing with the ongoing impact of fossil fuel usage on the climate?

North Americans aren’t the only ones in this boat. Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, and the rest of the developed world are rowing to the same tune. Much of the prognosis is being attributed to new technologies in drilling, in particular the recovery of shale oil and gas through a contentious process called “fracking”. In addition, new pipelines are expected to pop up all over the world, including those planned for between Russia and China and the U.S. and Canada. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities are also expected to expand in the U.S. and Canada in order to export natural gas to Asia and Europe. But at what environmental risks?

Oil and gas extraction and production is responsible for about a third of all carbon emissions, while the combustion engine releases about another third of pollutants. Alas, by 2030 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to cut power plant emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels. The EPA is particularly going after power plants, notably those electrical generation operations powered by coal — coal still producing almost 40 percent of electricity generation in the U.S. The new EPA proposal, if approved, will most likely force power plants to switch to natural gas or to seek out renewable or nuclear energy resources. Remember, the U.S. is currently the second largest contributor to global warming on the planet.

As for Canada, Environment Canada predicts that the country will fail to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, primarily because of the oilsands projects whose emissions are expected to triple. Regulations on Canada’s largest oil and gas emitters have yet to be released, seven years after they were first discussed. The federal government talks a good talk, but has failed to walk the walk.

The problem is that President Obama has to convince the states and the fossil fuel industry to reduce carbon emissions in line with national targets. Despite states such as Missouri and Illinois for example which continue to produce at least 80 percent of their electricity from coal. Prime Minister Stephen Harper believes that Canada doesn’t get enough credit given how hard it is to cut emissions from a system where much of the energy is already clean — namely hydroelectric power. The PM completely ignores the predicted increases in greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands and the potential environmental issues surrounding the expansion of pipelines to carry oilsands crude oil across Canada and into the U.S. Between Obama and Harper, when it comes to urgently dealing with fossil fuels, one gets a feeling of witnessing — excuse the expression — the blind leading the blind.

Leave a comment »

When It Comes to the Public Service – Politicians Always Look to the Easy Answers

Well, here we go again. In both Canada and the U.S., certain political factions are continuing to treat public servants as “costs” rather than as “assets”. They believe that all one has to do to get deficits under control and to balance budgets is cut public service jobs and freeze public servants’ wages. Even better, let’s just make the public service operate more like private corporations — a crazy notion that I previously had blogged on.

However, the fact of the matter is that many of government’s human resource problems have arisen from changes in the nature of the public sector workforces and a lack of political will. While clerical jobs once dominated the bureaucracy, professional occupations do today. Governments need to recruit and keep employees to fill those posts. Current job classification systems prevent agencies from aligning compensation with what comparable occupations in the private sector pay, undermining government’s ability to attract top performers. Political motivated attacks on the public service only help to increase what have already become stressful working conditions. This in turn has increased concerns over the mental health of senior managers and public sector employees, and subsequent lost of productivity.

Cuts in operating budgets of various departments/agencies often lead to program and service delivery becoming “dysfunctional”, no longer able to effectively serve their respective clients. Since this primarily is a consequence of token cuts, one has to ask oneself why a government would continue to support the existence of reduced programs and services. Maybe it’s time that politicians bite the bullet and make some hard choices. Governments need to do their evaluations and eliminate programs and services that they believe are no longer essential. There will no doubt be an outcry by affected interest groups, including unions, and various supporters of such programs. However, governments will just have to have the political will and stamina to face such opposition, something that hasn’t been too much in evidence in the past.

Moreover, governments will no longer be asking public servants to do more with less and to undertake the near impossible. While such program elimination will result in a “leaner and meaner” public service, it will also lead to ensuring adequate resources and support are provided to ensure the effectiveness of the essential programs and services. After all, is it not the role of government to make the hard choices? Once done, politicians must stop simply attacking public servants, get on with modernizing the public service to meet its future challenges, reduce unnecessary contracting out of services, and improve government’s ability to attract top performers.

Leave a comment »

American Gun Culture Gone Amok!

Lucille, get my Magnum 45 because I’m moving to Georgia. Low and behold, that state’s Governor just signed into law the possibility of every gun owner carrying a weapon into a church, bars and government buildings under certain conditions. Schools will also be authorized now to allow staff members to carry weapons on campus. All this because advocates believe that it will protect the constitutional right to bear arms. So much for Georgia peach and friendly Southern hospitality!

Hey, I can even carry a gun to an airport out there. If discovered when going through security, as long as I have a valid gun permit, I simply would get slapped on the wrist and sent home. What more can a law-abiding gun owner hope for?

Despite the evident on-going gun violence in the U.S., more states have been introducing more lax gun legislation, especially those that are Republican controlled. Here in Canada, both the number of victims and the rate of firearm-related violent crime fell by more than one-quarter between 2009 and 2012. This represented a rate of 21 victims per 100,000 population in 2012. The rate of firearm-related homicide in Canada was reported to be 0.49 per 100,000 population in 2012, which was seven times lower than that of the United States at 3.5 per 100,000 population in 2012.

On the one hand, you have American police representatives expressing grave concerns over having citizens carrying guns out in the open. Then there are those on the other hand, including the gun lobbyists, who appear to believe that arming everyone will make them safer from attacks by the so-called “bad guys”. One can only hope that bystanders don’t get caught in the crossfire. Having guns allowed in bars or restaurants reminds me of the old Wild West mentality. Unfortunately, we’re supposed to be living in a modern age. At least, I hope we are!

Leave a comment »

Why Performance Pay Doesn’t Work in the Public Service

Recently, both federal administrations in Canada and the U.S. have reintroduced plans to implement merit-based pay systems in the public service. Every few years, discussions about the introduction of a more performance-based pay system for public servants surface. This year is no different. From past experiences the problem is that, for the non-executive groups in particular, the implementation of such pay systems doesn’t work very well — if at all!

In the U.S., the Partnership for Public Service has proposed a plan to introduce a federal pay system that would compensate workers at a level on par with their cohorts in the private sector, with extra pay for only those who perform above expectations. Federal-worker unions have opposed the plan, saying the current pay system has served the nation well. The government has experimented with pay-for-performance programs in the past, particularly with the Defense Department’s National Security Personnel System, which Congress canceled in 2009. According to unions and other federal-worker groups, that program failed in part because employees did not trust that it would work fairly.

In Canada, the federal Treasury Board, which oversees pay structures for federal departments, recently introduced pay-for-performance programs for the non-executive categories of public servants. However, federal unions are challenging the Conservative government’s new performance management regime, touted as a “new beginning”. The government claims it will make Canada’s public servants more productive and efficient while weeding out poor performers. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has filed a policy grievance on behalf of 17 unions against key provisions of employees’ new mandatory performance agreements, saying these violate collective agreements. The unions are also concerned that the performance appraisal approach is unfair, biased and flawed, often depending on the personal relationship between managers and departmental staff.

Proposing performance-based compensation systems to bring the public sector into line with private sector approaches is like comparing eggs and apples. So much of what the public service does is in immediate response to the policies and politics of the government of the day. This more-or-less precludes any reference to a genuine “bottom line” when assessing results and achievements in meeting organizational objectives. This leaves managers with a need to simply assess employees’ contributions to meeting daily operational activities and their ability to effectively adjust to the whims of one’s political masters. Even measuring short-term efficiencies can be tricky, if not impossible, under such circumstances. Measuring long-term effectiveness is even more difficult given the ever present winds of political change.

Setting up a valid and legitimate merit-based appraisal system is the first and foremost ingredient for any potential success. Ensuring that managers are adequately trained in order to respect and maintain such a system on a continuing basis is the next most important requirement. Finally, the system’s development and implementation has to involve consultations with those employees who are directly affected, otherwise there can be no employee buy-in. Without these three key elements, any performance-based approach will result in an inequitable and fraudulent compensation system. What the stressed-out pubic service doesn’t need right now is another claim to disrepute!

Leave a comment »

What’s Going On With All That Snail Mail?

Well, it looks as if the time has come once again to replace the horse and buggy with the horseless carriage. Yes, what we’re talking about is the ongoing debate over the viability of postal services in Canada and the U.S. Both postal services are loosing significant amounts of money with so-called ‘snail mail’, and need to reduce their costs and increase revenue sources. They are billions of dollars in the red, and the federal governments apparently are not interested in intervening to save their butts. Governments claim that they have enough on their plates with current deficits and the ubiquitous desire to balance their books.

In Canada, over the next five years Canada Post is planning to cut door-to-door delivery where it currently exists in favour of the use of more community postal boxes. In addition, there will be about 8,000 fewer postal positions by the end of this period. In the U.S., talks have evolved around discontinuing Saturday postal deliveries and reducing the number of outlets in communities. Of course, the cost of postage stamps keeps climbing in both countries!

The removal of direct postal delivery has raised the ire of some citizens, although community postal boxes have been around for some time now. It is argued that seniors and persons with disabilities will find it especially difficult to get to such boxes to pick up their mail. Indeed, for many seniors and persons with disabilities the loss of mail delivery is a major concern, particularly as these persons most likely rely heavily on this service. Given this winter’s severe weather, I can certainly understand their reluctance or inability to leave their homes. Some kind of alternative ways of picking up their mail will have to be worked out, either through volunteers or other subsidized means.

Let’s face it, in some communities the postal service is the most direct way in which the federal government communicates with its citizens. Not everyone has access to the Internet, can afford it or wishes to have access to it. For this reason, politicians are going to have to deal with these issues. Already, municipalities, local community bodies, businesses and charities are expressing their concerns over what impact the reduction in regular door-to-door mail delivery will have on them. Up until now, the debate has narrowly centered on the bottom line of the postal service and how to improve competition with private delivery services.

However, now is the time for a much broader and in-depth discussion as to the consequences of such policies for our citizens, especially at the community level. Such decisions are far too important as to not include much more debate at the federal political level. As an essential national service, there still is a need to explore all possible alternatives. In turn, the rationale for any resulting policies must then be clearly explained to everyone’s satisfaction. Otherwise, there could be the danger of a citizen revolt and countless actions against the postal services. It may be snail mail, but its delivery is still important to many individuals and communities through rain, snow, wind or hail.

Leave a comment »

Keystone XL – Pipe Dream or Nightmare for Canadian and American Politicians

Well, it appears that the proposal for the Keystone XL pipeline has finally passed at least one of its biggest hurdles. In its Final Environmental Impact Statement, the U.S. Department of State concluded that completing the pipeline’s northern leg would not have a major impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, this statement still doesn’t guarantee that the pipeline, facilitating the north-south movement of Canadian heavy crude over 4,000 miles across North America, will receive final approval from Washington. As events have shown, there has been a fundamental confusion in the Obama administration’s policy approach to Keystone from the very beginning. Given environmentalists’ opposition and some emerging legal challenges, President Obama may yet choose to take his merry time to decide on whether to allow the pipeline’s construction.

One thing is for sure, whether the Keystone XL pipeline is built or not, the development of the Alberta “oilsands” will continue. Too much has been invested to date to stop the flow and transport of its so-called dirty heavy crude. Indeed, North American railroads have been taking up a good deal of the slack, much to the dismay of communities located along their tracks and a real fear of future derailments of oil-hauling trains. The cry of “remember Lac Megantic” goes up and rightly so.

In addition, the Americans don’t appear to be in any hurry to bless such endeavours given the vast amounts of oil now coming out of American ground. The U.S. has become fairly energy self-sufficient in oil and natural gas supplies due to “fracking” technologies. Indeed, record U.S. oil production, which rose by 992,000 barrels per day in 2013, more than cancels out the amount of oilsands bitumen that the pipeline would transport to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. However, experts estimate that within the next 15 years the U.S. will still have to import about 30% of its daily oil requirements. This compares to only a few years ago when Americans were looking at importing 70% of their needs. Having ready access to Canadian heavy crude oil could provide one distinct advantage with respect to ensuring American national security. If all of that 30% were to come from Canada, future “energy independence” would most likely encompass an entire continent. No more need to rely on Arab oil imports.

However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have dropped the ball on this file. Refusing to take “no” for an answer, the PM even gave hints of a threat to divert the heavy crude to China via a new pipeline to the Pacific coast. The mighty Chinese already have a very small but important stake in oilsands development. Sorry, but trying to bully the American President into quickly approving such a project is probably not a good strategy! Demonstrating that the Canadian and Albertan governments are really serious about dealing with the problem of carbon pollution may have been more advantageous and useful. Furthermore, TransCanada and the other pipeline companies will have to better demonstrate their capacity to minimize any environmental and economic damage from potential pipeline leaks — and inevitably there will be more such leaks.

In the meantime, numerous American industry associations and environmentalists continue to battle it out to convince the Obama administration and Congress as to the merit of their respective positions. All the Canadian administration can do is sit awkwardly on the sidelines, patiently wait and see what will happen. Who knows, Canada’s pipe dream scenario may yet become its worst nightmare!

Leave a comment »

New Year and Crazy Politics to Look Forward To

Well. A new year has arrived and with it the certainty that politicians in the U.S. and Canada will provide us with plenty of entertainment — no matter how painful. Once again, one is starting off the year with new scandals, thanks largely to Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and what is now being called “Bridgegate”. Apparently, four days of George Washington Bridge delays in September were allegedly caused on purpose by Governor Christie’s office in order to punish a local Democratic Party mayor. In addition, questions are being raised about how the good Governor had directed some of the federal recovery funds in aid of the victims and extensive damage resulting from Superstorm Sandy. New Jersey Lt.-Gov. Kim Guadagno strongly denied that Christie’s administration had tied Superstorm Sandy recovery funds to support for a prime real estate project in Hoboken. However, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer ratcheted up her allegation about the funding link and apparently has turned over documents to a federal prosecutor investigating his staff. Remember, Governor Christie was expected to be a strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination for 2015. Maybe not so much anymore?

Here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is still going to have to deal with a number of Senate spending scandals — some of which are currently under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). With federal elections coming up in October 2015, it will be very interesting to see just how long it will take for the RCMP to proceed with any potential criminal charges? In the meantime, the current government’s standing in the polls is going down. It appears that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been making headway with average Canadian voters, despite his apparent inexperience and having misspoken a number of times. Given the Liberal Party’s position in support of the legalization of marijuana (alias pot, Weed, reaper, Mary Jane, food, ganja, kush), I’d certainly vote for his party! Think of all the revenue one could raise. It may even help some people cope better with what’s going on!

Then we have President Obama telling us how we all need “Big Brother” to oversee your interests, whatever those may be. If the American spy agency is reading this, please note that I love spy movies. As your neighbour, I love Americans and would never walk on your manicured lawns without your permission and for fear of being shot. Carry on Mr. President and please let us know how it all works out in the name of national security.

I can’t wait to see what the coming year has in store for us. More of the same I trust. Meanwhile, keep smiling and enjoy the rollercoaster ride. Happy New Year!!!!!

Leave a comment »

Obamacare – Solution or Stop-Gap Measure?

Well it’s finally here, much to the consternation of the Republican Party and half of the American population according to recent polls! As of the first of October, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect and the uninsured multitudes were invited to go on-line or in person to seek out an appropriate health insurance plan. However, the continuing debate is anything but over. Article after article continues to explore the pros and cons of this new healthcare initiative. Critics see it as being too costly for middle class families, forcing many small and medium-sized businesses to lay off workers, being overly complex or hurting the quality of healthcare in the U.S.

On top of which, a Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare law last year, while upholding it, allowed states to choose whether to expand Medicaid, the government’s medical insurance program for the poor. As a result, some claim that millions of poor people will be left uncovered by the ACA. They live in states, mainly found in the South, largely controlled by Republicans who to date have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states, many of whom are Black or Hispanic. They are now among the eight million Americans believed to be impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help.

Regardless of the implementation of Obamacare, the fact is that according to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, a private healthcare foundation, almost half of working Americans between the ages of 19 and 64 currently have no insurance or are under-insured. Other recent studies concluded that more than 65 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to healthcare costs. Compared to other member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development who have universal government-run healthcare programs, Americans are paying a lot more for healthcare and getting a lot less value for services provided. Furthermore, it pays to be rich in the U.S. in order to have access to quality health care. Lack of regulations essentially allows hospitals to charge whatever they like. According to a database of hospital medical charges, there are huge disparities for pretty well every medical procedure everywhere in the United States. Sticker prices are shockingly inflated and the differences are in many cases astronomical. In 2005, the average cost of a day in a hospital was anywhere from $1,629 (for for-profit hospitals) to $2,025 (for nonprofit hospitals). For cancer patients, the average cost was $3,000 a day.

Dependent upon the private insurance sector in U.S., an important reason for the high healthcare costs is that prices for healthcare goods and services are negotiated between individual health insurers and physicians, hospitals or drug companies. On top of which fees in the private healthcare sector have been jealously guarded trade secrets among insurers and providers of healthcare. In other countries, prices either are set by government or negotiated between associations of insurers and providers of care, on a regional, state or national basis. In Canada, healthcare costs are regulated by provincial healthcare agencies, in consultation with hospital and physician representatives.

One of the major problems with Obamacare is its complexity and general coverage. Indeed, polls indicated that most of the uninsured Americans didn’t know that the health insurance exchanges or marketplaces had opened on October 1rst. It is there that persons who don’t have coverage through their employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits. Incredibly, failure to secure health insurance can end up in one being penalized by the government. Starting in 2014, almost every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances.

All of this is complicated and even confusing. However, it appears to be the best that the current administration can do at this time under difficult circumstances. It certainly isn’t the end all and be all to healthcare reform, and is often portrayed as a stop-gap measure to at least insure the estimated 30 to 40 million Americans that had no health insurance what-so-ever.

Still, here we have former members of the Tea Party holding the Republican Party hostage in a senseless act to delay the ACA’s implementation and its subsequent funding, three years after the Act was passed by Congress. Oh, let’s just shutdown the government and blame the President for not willing to compromise and proceeding with “socialized medicine”! Compromise on what? As in Canada, the healthcare debate will go on for years to come, especially given an aging population and ever increasing healthcare costs. Politicians in both countries will have plenty of future opportunities to bicker over the numbers and options, public or private, short-term or long-term. Bandages aren’t enough when only major surgery may be required.

Leave a comment »

Why Minimum Wage Still Remains an Important Issue in North America

Here we go again! Controversy has surfaced over discussions in Canada and the U.S. over raising the existing minimum wage levels at the federal, state and provincial levels. In both countries, minimum wages differ among states and provinces. In the U.S., the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour. In Canada, minimum wages vary among provinces: the highest being in the territory of Nunavut at $11.00 per hour to the lowest in Alberta at $9.75 per hour. The current provincial average rate in Canada is around $10.00. There is no Canadian federal minimum wage for industries under federal jurisdiction, as the federal government has simply adopted provincial minimum wages in its labour standards legislation.

In his February 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama urged Congress to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9, saying the move would reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. As usual, critics argue that increasing the minimum wage would raise businesses’ costs and, in turn, reduce the number of employees they could hire. However as noted by the Department of Labor, the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981. When adjusted for inflation the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s, and more than $10 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s.

This brings us to the question of what is a minimum wage and how is it determined? Originally, minimum wages tended to be calculated based on some percentage of the average industrial wage. For example, one may have desired it to be set at 50 or 60 percent of the average industrial wage. Today according to Statistics Canada, the average hourly wage in Canada for persons 15 years and older is $23.75. In the U.S., the average hourly wage in the private sector is around $24.00. However, what has happened over the recent decades has been a lag in minimum wage levels when compared to yearly increases in industrial wages. Indeed, average minimum wages have rarely even kept pace with inflation rates, not being adjusted for the annual cost of inflation increases. Instead, increases in minimum wage rates are dependent on governments to prescribe in law, a process often taking place over the course of several years.

We are now no longer talking about a “living wage”. How can a family of four expect to live comfortably in an urban setting on one income based on a minimum wage? At or slightly above the poverty line, this is why there are so many families with both couples working: often referred to as the “working poor”. With the loss of good paying jobs in manufacturing in particular, the so-called “middle class” is slowing shrinking. Many unemployed persons are forced to seek employment in the retail and services sectors where minimum wages play a much greater role in effectively determining wages.

Moreover, politicians are less likely to be influenced by anti-poverty groups than by industry lobbyists. Recently, members of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in Canada stated that almost 20 percent of Ontario workers were forced below the poverty line in the three years since the provincial Liberal Government froze the minimum wage at $10.25 per hour. ACORN’s province-wide campaign is calling for the rate to be immediately increased to $14, reflecting the rise in inflation since 2010. A Minimum Wage Advisory Panel, appointed by the Liberals in July 2013, is examining a potential provincial minimum wage increase in 2014. However, one can be certain that industry representatives will once again raise the age-old specter of increased unemployment in those sectors where minimum wages are currently used as base income levels. As in the U.S., it is very unlikely that there will be any significant changes to minimum wage rates in Ontario or in Canada. Perhaps, it’s about time for Ontario to take the lead and ensure that workers are entitled to a real “living wage”.

Leave a comment »

Leadership: It’s Not Only About What You Know, It’s Also About What You Don’t Know

“The buck stops here” is a phrase that was popularized by U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who kept a sign with that phrase on his desk in the Oval Office. Well, in the last few weeks, we’ve learned from President Obama and Prime Minister Harper that the buck appears to stop elsewhere. Sorry, but among the principal attributes of good leadership is setting the tone and establishing the culture for an organization, be it public, private or non-profit. This means that it isn’t always what a leader is aware of but what he or she is not aware of that is important.

In the case of President Barack Obama, it was his apparent lack of awareness of the pending release of the IRS Inspector General’s scathing report criticizing the IRS handling of claims by conservative groups for tax exemption as non-profit “social welfare” organizations. In the case of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it’s his claims to a lack of knowledge about recent substantial monies gifted to Senator Mike Duffy by his own trusted Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright. Senator Duffy, a Conservative appointee, is involved in the Senate scandal about living and travel expenses, and now sits as an independent in the Senate. The PM apparently denies having any knowledge of what may very well have been a criminal act, and one resulting in the subsequent resignation by Mr. Wright. Now this is a PM who in 2005 vowed to run an accountable and totally transparent government if elected.

In both cases, these national leaders pledged to run ethical and transparent administrations. Thus, like any good leaders, their respective values should be reflected under their administration. In turn, they are accountable to their parties and to the electorate for any and all activities undertaken during their administration. It is not enough to simply deny knowledge of illicit activities and irregularities. Leaders should own up to their general responsibilities for good governance and ensure that those responsible are dealt with under the full force of the law if warranted. Simply making excuses does not cut the mustard!!! Ultimately denying responsibility is not an option, for as President Truman professed: the buck stops at the top.

Leave a comment »