Fp Manager of Special Projects, Murray Hopper, attracted the attention of Financial Post editor Diane Francis in her September 29, 1994 commentary with his advocacy of the "Dutch clock" auction as one means of reducing the cost of welfare without penalizing welfare recipients' incentive to seek employment. A full account of Hopper's suggestion will appear in an upcoming issue of consent.
BY DIANE FRANCIS
Canada's deficits are not insurmountable problems. They are a symptom of weakness among our political leadership. This is part of a continuing series showing where some Post readers would cut costs.
I cut $12 billion, or one-third, off the federal government deficit after spending two hours with the 1993 public accounts, without touching social spending. Then I published a number of terrific new ideas from readers. Here are more:
Murray Hopper, manager of special projects for the Freedom Party of Ontario, suggested that governments attack the soaring welfare cost problem through the use of a unique "Dutch-clock" auction. Welfare costs have jumped under Bob Rae's NDP government because of its open-ended rules and overly generous payments that now are equivalent to two-thirds of the provincial deficit this year.
The NDP actually allows 16-year-olds to live at home and collect pogey. It also hands out welfare routinely to new and illegal immigrants without computer checks with other jurisdictions.
The result is horrific. According to the most recent available figures published by Ottawa, one out of every 10 individuals in Canada is living on government welfare payments (the majority of these are children). Ontario, thanks to Rae, has surpassed Newfoundland with 12% of its population on pogey compared to Newfoundland's chronic 11.7%.
The national welfare costs are $13.49 billion with half of this paid in Ontario, which only has 40% of the national population.
Hopper says the Dutch clock auction would involve setting a price for a commodity, turning on a clock and dropping the price second-by-second until someone bids for the commodity.
"For simplicity's sake, we will assume the welfare period begins on the first day of the year and that the January cheque is $1,000. Immediately, the Dutch clock begins to tick and the entitlement drops by one dollar a day throughout January, reducing the February cheque by $31 to $969. By the end of the year the cheque is down to $635. After two years, $270 and zero in the third year.
"But the carrot is that clients are permitted to earn two dollars for every dollar lost to the Dutch clock. Both parties benefit. The welfare recipient is urged to abandon dependency and seek employment; the government begins to save on costs."
Larry Elford of Lethbridge, Alta., offers a number of unique ideas to reduce government spending, including the notion of a four-year "sunset clause" on every government-sponsored plan, program and grant. He suggests fixed terms for re-elections of four years at which time all programs, plans and grants are also suspended so that people can not only vote for candidates, but must vote on extending the sun-setted programs.
Elford also would suspend any grants or preferential treatment to special interest groups. His logic is flawless here: Discrimination against individuals and groups is strictly forbidden under Canadian law. Conversely, privileges for certain individuals and groups should also be forbidden.
Canada's voters - not politicians and civil servants undertaking studies - should decide what government departments and programs to retain and which to eliminate.
Ballots should contain multiple-choice questions. For example, he suggests, "Do you want a secret police agency that costs $162 million? Yes or No;" "Would you privatize the CBC and eliminate $981 million in annual subsidies? Yes or No;" and so on.
He also suggests voters cast ballots on moral and legal issues. Examples include, "Do you support capital punishment for certain serious crimes?" "Do you support doctor-assisted suicide?" or "Do you support a ban on handguns?"
This is real democracy as opposed to the colonial parliamentary system we now suffer under with politicians allowed to spend our money to further their own ends.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
