Comments on The Burd Report: The first op-ed piece that makes sense

While William may have moved on, I’m left with the...

2009-06-04T16:33:47.519-04:00

While William may have moved on, I’m left with the job of defending myself against his inaccurate assertions, just like Wally has had to do many times.
William takes far too much latitude when he “quotes” other contributors and reshapes their posts like so much jell-o.

To wit - “Manfred has moved from his initial claim about "key aspects" and "facts" to his final, more gentle statement of "inclination" and "belief"” "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

My posts referred to only two facts and they remain facts, whether or not William sees them as such. Fact one – “the very fact that they are unexpected problems” is even referred to as such by him in one of his own posts, and fact two – “it is in fact an 'insurance policy' that pays benefits to its participants based on participation levels” is accurate and not debatable.

And as for the “key aspect” to which he refers, I wrote of only one - “ONE of the key aspects”, (not the ONLY key aspect,) is that “it will never provide a benefit of long term solution to extended unemployment situations”. I maintain that EI, while it has survived some name changes, was never intended as a “long term solution” to long term unemployment but as a temporary support mechanism to provide interim partial income between employment terms and was funded by employee and employer contributions for that purpose, hence the time limits on payouts.

To further illustrate William’s penchant for putting words and whole ideas in other people’s mouths and at the tip of their pens, earlier in this string, he attributed the following statement to me “4) two separate income assistance programs are better than one combined program”. Nowhere does that statement or idea appear under my name. What I did write was “New programs would be better and more open to adjustment to deal with such dynamics.” How he butchered that one is still a mystery to me.

In defending my contributions, I am really saying that for anyone to rewrite my words, especially in a form that hardly resembles the original, and then comment on THEIR version is simply ludicrous and absolutely pointless. Sticking to what’s being written and commenting on that, that’s fair, but not what William offers as any sort of wannabe analysis. That’s just sillyness.

Well, this has been an interesting exchange of vie...

2009-06-03T16:36:19.939-04:00

Well, this has been an interesting exchange of views about EI. I'm content to leave it, now that Manfred has moved from his initial claim about "key aspects" and "facts" to his final, more gentle statement of "inclination" and "belief".

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
--Daniel Moyniham

Over and out!

While there would certainly be difficulties in de...

2009-06-02T19:49:00.082-04:00

While there would certainly be difficulties in designing the Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) initially, we already have a template in the way the Canada Child Tax Benefit and GST rebate programs work. Our government has years of experience in taxing back benefits of all kinds for higher income earners.

Many reputable Canadian policy analysts and think tanks, even some business people, have taken positions in favour of the GAI recently, and it's worth taking a look before dismissing it out of hand.

I will be glad to list some of these organizations and individuals if anyone wants to know.

As to the fear that the GAI would mean the federal government was "taking care of/administering every aspect of our lives" that seems far fetched. Our health care programs, education systems, child care, roads, most labour legislation etc etc would continue to be managed by provinces.

One more argument about the GAI that should hold appeal for Canadians is how much cheaper it would be to administer than the myriad of programs in place now. Many of these, even though delivered provincially, are funded at least partially by the feds anyway. Why not let them do it all?

GAI is an idea whose time may have come, let's check it out.

Deborah Haynes O'Connor

The panacea of a one-program-solves-all prospect i...

2009-06-01T11:27:31.347-04:00

The panacea of a one-program-solves-all prospect is as plausible as one-government-does-it-all nightmare. Imagine a 'federal' government taking care of (administering) every segment of our lives, as opposed to several levels of varying 'expertise' and responsibility (federal, provincial, municipal). Hard to imagine, for me anyway. My inclination is to distrust a single all-encompassing solution to a multi-level series of issues and problems, potential efficiencies aside. Eventual modifications to any program are a given and the more complex a program is, the greater the difficulty in modifying it to meet its evolving objectives.

So I stand by my belief that our EI problems are several problems presenting all at once and need to be addressed individually but within the context of an overall understanding of each unique issue and their connection to each other.

The trouble with keeping the mix of different fede...

2009-05-31T12:16:42.008-04:00

The trouble with keeping the mix of different federal and provincial programs is that we continue with a patchwork of programs, different in each province, and each requiring its own set of rules and bureaurcrats to administer and enforce them. That is both confusing and extremely costly, not to mention inefficient as hell.

As Mr. Hayes says, we could get rid of all the other little programs and concentrate on proper administration of the GAI. Clean and simple, and people would know what to expect.

One of the aspects of the GAI that I like the most is that it would be a strong federal program delivered by the federal government through the tax system. I happen to believe in a strong central federal government (unlike Mr. Harper and Co. who would happily dismantle it and let the provinces run wild).

DJO

Manfred Schumann has revised his second point and ...

2009-05-30T19:16:24.524-04:00

Manfred Schumann has revised his second point and added a fourth:

2) revising EI insurance to provide long-term benifits would make it cumbersome and unwieldy and lead to disaster;

4) two separate income assistance programs are better than one combined program.

Comment (2). This revised point is more arguable, yet prima facie still seems refuted by the long and successful operation of private LTD insurance and public workers' compensation insurance.

Comment (4). Better? In a quantifiable sense? Or some other verifiable sense? Or in the realm of vague generalities, where it might be "better" were income assistance programs administered under a coherent policy of a single, unified management.

Three provincial premiers and most/all federal political parties have entered the discussion about revisions to EI. Manfred Schumann has made some relevant, arguable points, but they all need arguing. Could there be a better time to do it?

A substantial benefit to the GAI approach: it can ...

2009-05-30T18:33:33.412-04:00

A substantial benefit to the GAI approach: it can be effectd by a very minor adjustment to personal income tax, a system that many hate, but almost all accept.

Removing other benefit provisions (GST Benefit, Child Tax Benefit, clawbacks) at the same time as introducing the GAI would make the whole change more acceptable.

Perhaps, William, you could lay out a timeline on ...

2009-05-30T15:39:30.721-04:00

Perhaps, William, you could lay out a timeline on the EI changes that "allowed' the gov't to roll the fund into general revenues.

To my way of thinking, if an insurance policy is converted to produce a long term benefit it is likely as a result of turning it into an annuity or similar entity at some point. I said "If it is to continue as an insurance policy". By extension then, if EI were meant to fund long term benefits, it would have to be drastically revamped and would no longer resemble what it was designed to be. Then we would have a cumbersome and unwieldy system for combined short and long term benefits and I think that would be a predictable disaster. Better to create a well planned program to take up the need where EI leaves off. Changing a major program to such an extent is 'possible' but extremely unwise, especially to address unexpected problems. The very fact that they are unexpected problems indicates the likelyhood that further unexpected issues will manifest and then yet more changes would become necessary. New programs would be better and more open to adjustment to deal with such dynamics.

The notion of establishing a guaranteed annual inc...

2009-05-30T12:01:00.438-04:00

The notion of establishing a guaranteed annual income for Canadians is gaining ground again, or at least was before the economic crisis scared the pants off everybody.

That would meet the goal of universality, and I certainly agree that is a vital feature of any successful program. Delivered through the tax system, it can be relatively unobtrusive and simple to administer compared to a typical welfare program.

Certainly the hierarchy of federal and provincial programs we have now is confusing, costly, inefficient and simply unfair. After all, a loaf of bread costs the same whether you're an injured worker (the top of the heap and best paid) or an unemployed able bodied welfare recipient (the bottom).

I suspect the economic mess we're in will put a quick end to any talk of a GAI for the forseeable future. So called "poverty reduction" will amount to nothing more than a renewed orgy of sticking band aids on people without making any real change to policies or income levels.
DJO

DJO asks, Why should one person receive higher inc...

2009-05-30T08:01:28.149-04:00

DJO asks, Why should one person receive higher income assistance than another? With respect to the EI TOP UP suggestion, the general answer seems to be that people who voted to reduce income assistance benefits to the level of penury are now, themselves, needing to claim those benefits.

DJO claims that dividing people is never a good thing? Certainly many people lose enthusiasm for supporting a benefit or service when they are excluded from receiving it. Consider, for example:

1) complaints about the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Benefit by people whose income level precludes their receiving them;

2) complaints about EI and other benefits by people who have those benefits "clawed back" on their tax returns.

Experience has taught us that universality is essential to the maintenance of broad public support for social benefit programs. Selectivity via means testing, not matter how reasonable, is always a step towards dismantling such programs.

Manfred Schumann makes these points: 1) a key asp...

2009-05-30T07:27:29.656-04:00

Manfred Schumann makes these points:

1) a key aspect of EI is that it is an insurance policy: EI premiums fund EI benefits;

2) insurance policies do not provide long-term solutions;

3) we cannot and ought not change public programs to meet unexpected problems.

Comment (1). The feds claimed that accumulated EI revenues did not constitute a separate fund and, hence, they moved such accumulated EI revenues into general revenues, all of which seems to refute point (1).

Comment (2). The operation of insurance schemes such as private LTD insurance and public workers' compesation insurance seems to refute point (2).

Comment (3). Campbell's opinion piece, which not only argues we ought change EI to meet current unexpected problems, but also suggests a method for doing it, seems to refute point (3).

In general, Schumann's points are all arguable, but they do need arguing and, in the face of the comments above, seem false.

Regardless of the eligibility issues of EI, one of...

2009-05-29T13:11:46.244-04:00

Regardless of the eligibility issues of EI, one of the key aspects is that it is in fact an 'insurance policy' that pays benefits to its participants based on participation levels, as any insurance, and to a predetermined limit much like most insurance. If it is to continue as an insurance 'policy' that pays out when thresholds for payouts are met, it will never provide a benefit of long term solution to extended unemployment situations. There then has to be another program to deal with that scenario, if welfare does not perform that roll. We can not expect EI to magically become the answer to a suddenly mushrooming problem. As Ben says, quick fixes are risky business at best and to be avoided altogether at worst.

EI TOP UP: Sounds like a recipe for two tier incom...

2009-05-29T10:54:27.385-04:00

EI TOP UP: Sounds like a recipe for two tier income assistance. Why should the person whose EI ran out get more money to live on than the person who is just on welfare? Degrees of deserved-ness?

Policies that divide people are never a good thing. Are they not all without work? Why should they be paid differently?
DJO