Just looked at the GrassRootsAvenger blog comments on the Hancock policy platform. He/She bemoans the fact Hancock poses questions and presumably does not offer enough answers. Fair enough and to the Avengers credit, some comments are posted to some of the questions they have on the Hancock policy. I would like to respond from my perspective on the answers...and I will check with Dave Hancock to see if his positions are different and report back if necessary.
Expanding school breakfast and lunch programs wherever needed; Is this a role for the provincial government?
Yes! Children are the responsibility of parents first and then each and every Albertan, individually and collectively where needed. Where a child is not able to realize their potential or is in danger or is hungry - we as a society ought to be helping to fix the problem...short term and long term. Feeding children in need is a no-brainer! If kids are not ready to learn and grow into healthy, productive, confident and self-reliant citizens because they are hungry, or scared, in need or at risk for whatever reason...society needs to step up to the plate. That, in part, is why we have government!
Implementing strategy to create 60,000 new post-secondary learning spaces; And just how much is this going to cost?
Plenty and worth every dollar! Education is the key to a prosperous productive and cohesive society especially in the knowledge based, technologically driven globalized reality of today. To not maximize our greatest assets - our human capacity is not just short sighted...it is stupid! Besides this is already official GOA policy - but like so many such "decision" of recent - it is not being implemented. Investment - the long view and strategic planning is what this is all about. The Alberta Republicans seem to know the cost of everything and the value of not very much.
Discontinuing Alberta Health Care Premiums and offering tax incentives for healthy lifestyle choices; Like Dinning's proposed tax on junkfood?
Not really! Dinning's junkfood tax is not likely to change much of the behaviours of those who are being harmed by poor nutrition - the poor! His tax is actually going to penalize and hurt poorer people disproportionately because research shows they are more likely to buy cheap, convenient but unhealthy fast food. Hancock is suggesting an incentive system to reward positive changes in behaviours that will reduce demands on the health care system. Fresh carrots not stale sticks!
Instituting a province wide ban on smoking in all public places; What about personal freedom?
What about personal freedom -it is not absolute. It is proven that your second hand smoke puts my life in danger. Smoke on your own property and not where children are around either. Consider it your "personal property" right to kill yourself on your own property and on your own time. By the way I will be paying your health care costs - even heroic ineffective interventions to extend your life through technology with my tax dollars to keep you alive. I will also be paying for your cancer treatments all because you lack the personal responsibility to take care of yourself. Thx a bunch! What about my personal freedom to chose not to pay for your irresponsible behaviour? Why not take individual responsibility here. You smoke you pay your own health costs. That is some two tier medicine that I could "live" with but will gladly forfeit the tax savings for a universal system - even if smokers are abusing it.
Instituting a government-run liability program for the volunteer sector; Whoa! Doesn't this mean taking on some huge potential liability...Isn't this expanding the role of government further into the private realm?
Yes and yes! If we do not support volunteer organizations to ensure safety and security of the people they serve - often our most vulnerable citizens. We neet to protect the volunteers too from abuse, unfounded litigation or allegations. Otherwise they will disappear along with the entire not-for-profit sector. Then government will end up hiring staff to do the work - because the issues and problems will not go away. Government replacement programs will be much more expensive and less likely to get optimal results as well. The private sector insurers are boosting rates in the face of greater perceived risks because the volunteer sector cannot afford to screen volunteers now. We are seeing more claims so the solution is more and better screening, more training and a backstop on liability insurance. We do co-insurance for workers compensation - why not the not-for-profit and voluntary sector?
The responses from The Grassroots Avenger are classic old-style shallow short term and narrow fiscal conservative thinking about reducing taxes and government's role. To them it is all about the costs and rarely about the value of effective outcomes. PROGRESSIVE conservatives see both sides - value for tax money and a postive role for government to step in but only where individuals and markets can't do the job.
Nice work, Ken. You refute well the monolithic and short-sighted dogma of the right flank. The welfare of our children, the intellectual cultivation of all citizens, the promotion of healthy lifestyles and the support of volunteerism should be important not only to government but to all civically-minded individuals. In a civil society, uplifting our most vulnerable citizens and supporting those who help them ought to be universal endeavors that must not be ignored due to ideological squabbles.
ReplyDeleteSean
Good column, Ken. I have alway respected your views from the days in the late 1980's when you always spoke out even if it went against the party line and when you were on the polical panel in the 1990's, I think it was CBC.
ReplyDeleteI like David Hancock. He's a decent fellow and has the courage of his convictions. I remember him from his days at Matheson & Co. and CUDGC and his run against Mike Percy in 1993.
His platform is well thought out and illustrates that government can be a force for good in our society. If our kids are not educated and ready to compete on the world stage, there is no Alberta Advantage. His shot against Jim Dinning took a lot of guts too.
Good work
I got the following note from Dave Hancock when I asked him to review this post to see if I was reflecting his views. Here is what he said:
ReplyDelete"Had a look at your blog. Your answers are right on except I wouldn't be quite so harsh on smokers even if they do deserve it."
My harshness on smokers is perhaps more personal than political having lost too many good friends to cancer as a result.
I saw Hancock's profile in the Calgary Herald today. I like him. He's not my first choice (probably number 2 now after Stelmach), but I think it is unfortunate that with him in the game, we risk splitting the "quiet, solid minister, honourable man" vote to the benefit of Dinning, Oberg and Morton. That's my only worry here (I hate having to think in those terms, by the way, but that seems to be the reality of the first ballot).
ReplyDeleteStelmach and Hancock appear to be the anti-thesis of Oberg (and to a lesser extent, Dinning). Solid ministers, loyal to the current administration, and not apt to be self-promotional. See the differences? Too bad the media don't give them their due as a result, although there is still time for that to improve. It seems to be getting marginally better in the last few weeks.
Great post!
ReplyDeleteI particularly like "The Alberta Republicans see the cost of everything and the value of nothing." So true
One questions, though, regarding the tax incentives for healthy choices. How are tax incentives going to motivate a population who, presumably, don't make enough to pay much tax to begin with? We need to make healthy choices more affordable, but I'm not sold on the idea that tax incentives are the best way to do it for this population. Providing subsidies to local producers, so that locally grown produce isn't as expensive, might be one option (not to mention more environmentally-friendly).
Erin
Hey Erin - thx for the feedback...Incentives only work if they directly relate to the behaviour. Therefore I would give cash out up to the health care premium for those who pay (directly or via employer contributions) and for those who don't pay due to low income, we would do the same thing - pay out cash to the level as if they were paying health care premium so they could get into healthier food or recreation or even something like a library card or music lessons for example for their kids etc.
ReplyDeleteAffirmative action - you bet - but it has to be accountable - people can't just join the gym and not show up...
You Bet!
ReplyDeleteDave will be advocating a carbon neutral goal for industry in the next day or two and he will demand some stricter Nox and Sox limits as well.