Raise the Hammer

Grassroots, transfers reflect OAS benefits, spousal benefits, health and welfare (to the provinces), children's benefits and other (whatever that means).

The children's benefit, as an example, grew 21.7% from Mar 2006 to Mar 2007.

This payment, intended to help low income families, appears completely appropriate for a caring and just nation.

However, what if that money was better left in the hands of the private sector, resulting in higher paying jobs for workers.

I think most people would rather take a high paying , high productivity job over a cheque from the government.

Unfortunately, nobody ever frames the argument in this manner. People seem to think that government can give them money, while not realizing that diminishing the private sector will result in a less robust private sector and reduced job prospects.

Since 2005, public sector employment has grown at 2% per year, double the rate of population growth.

These jobs, which are well paying jobs, take workers from the private sector and have them work at tasks that are not measured by what they produce in output. There is no way of knowing how productive these workers are, because there is no measurable output, since there are no prices for goods the government produces, they are simply given away.

Think about public school teachers for a moment, how much has their productivity increased over the years? I would argue that they have become less productive. If it now takes one teacher for every 25 students, whereas they used to be able to teach 30 or more, something is wrong.

If publicly delivered education was abolished and replaced by education vouchers, parents could choose amongst any number of competing schools. This competition for voucher money would ensure that schools that produced the highest quality education, in the most cost effective manner, would rise to the top.

Moreover, in order to produce more output with less input, schools would likely utilize much more technology than they do today. This is a good thing and it is also the reason why most of us don't live and work on a farm.

If government's job is to ensure that people have a fair chance in life to get ahead, then I can accept that.

However, this does not mean that government needs to monopolize large segments of the economy (health, education. If government truly is doing a great job, as they say they are, then competition should not be an issue.