Connect with us

Opinion

Conversation with Jordy Smith, about Wards and Gasoline Alley?

Published

9 minute read

From: Jordy Smith
To: gjmarks
Sent: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:02:40 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities and possibles?

Thanks for the thoughts, Garfield:
I’ve been observing and studying to find out what Red Deer needs to do if we are to retain residences and businesses from moving to Gasoline Alley. The main thing I keep on finding is how we need to make our city into a more appealing destination in and of itself. Making the Hazlett Lake area into a district with amenities, shopping, etc, is a fantastic idea and one we should go with.
One thing I noticed regarding the conversation of how to keep businesses from moving to Gasoline Alley is how little of an advantage Red Deer has over it. Think about it, many candidates have said that businesses will come to Red Deer because we are in a prime location between Edmonton and Calgary… but so is Gasoline Alley. Some say we will attract more businesses because we have an airport (which is county owned), or because we may be getting a University, but Gasoline Alley can take advantage of these opportunities as well. The only advantage Red Deer has is through developing more high density destination locations like Hazlett Lake.
What are your thoughts on our ‘advantages’ over Gasoline Alley?

Thanks, Garfield:
As you may know, I am in favour of ward system. I have already written extensively on the subject. Here I will include the short Facebook article I wrote entitled, “A Case for Wards.”

When you hear the word ‘wards’ what do you think? Some people picture prison wards, some think of hospital wards, and many don’t know what to think. In this context, wards are districts city councilors represent at City Hall. Places such as Calgary and Edmonton have 12-14 wards, while other locations such as Red Deer and Lethbridge have none. In the latter examples, these cities have at-large elections where everybody votes for multiple candidates according to the number of seats available. (For example, Red Deer has eight council seats, so each voter selects a maximum of eight people.) Red Deer has always used this at-large system for elections, but I advocate for switching to a ward system.
Wards provide direct representation within the city council. They allow anyone who sees an issue in the city to go to their particular councilor and voice their concern. In this situation, the councilor ensures the person’s, and their district’s, voice is heard. If they don’t represent their community well, their constituents can vote for a new councilor in the next election. In our current system, a person can reach out to some or all of Red Deer’s councilors, but if the issue isn’t prevalent across the entire city, it is unlikely to enter the council meeting. Important neighbourhood issues may take a backseat to other matters in distant parts of the city. This scenario isn’t always a problem in at-large systems, but it often favours certain parts of a city more than others. This issue is especially true when a majority of councillors all live in a similar part of the city. In Red Deer, seven of our eight councillors live on the South-East side of the river; in fact, many of our past councils have had disproportionate representation from the South-East side. A ward system gives each part of Red Deer direct representation and a voice in council decisions.
A ward system facilitates a simplified election process for citizens. We have 29 people running for city council; this is the second highest number of candidates the city has ever had (the most was the 2013 election with 30 candidates). Having 29 candidates means every citizen must research and understand the positions of 29 different people to make an informed decision. The sheer amount of options encourages voters to pick people they know, names they recognize, or randomly selected candidates. These reasons for voting aren’t good for our democratic process because they put popularity ahead of platforms and solutions. In comparison, citizens of Calgary only have to consider, at most, nine councillor candidates; Edmontonians only need to research, at the most, 13. Each Red Deer citizen needs to be aware of over twice as many candidates than the two largest cities in Alberta! Wards simplify the election process for citizens, ensuring the most qualified candidates are selected based on the issues and solutions they bring.
Lastly, wards help prevent underqualified candidates with certain advantages to win elections. It takes a strong campaign for candidates to run successfully, and the at-large system makes it more challenging. In a ward system, every candidate only campaigns within their district; this contrasts an at-large system where a candidate must reach the entire city. The at-large system gives two types of candidates an advantage: incumbents, and those with financial resources. Incumbents are current councilors who are running for another term; their advantage comes from successfully running in previous elections. They already have signs, name recognition, more opportunities to talk with the press, and strong networking connections. None of these are bad, but it makes it difficult for new candidates with great ideas to win against incumbents who have already been on council for two, three, or four terms. Candidates with financial resources also have an advantage; they can mobilize and advertise their campaign to the entire city in a short period. Contrast this with other potentially great candidates who don’t have the resources to bring their message to a city of 100,000. Now, the best financial support comes from interest groups; often they have a particular agenda, so they back the candidate who helps them achieve it. This situation is problematic because it allows candidates to be elected whose interests are tied to their financiers, rather than the city. A candidate who lacks these advantages is unlikely to win, even if they are the best person for the position. Wards make it easier for candidates to run; they don’t require as many resources because they only compete in their ward. The incumbents still have some advantage, but the smaller community creates a more even competition.
Some argue Red Deer is too small to have wards, but cities such as Brandon, Manitoba, and other smaller cities in Ontario have had wards for decades. Others believe ward systems make city council more divisive and less focused on the city as a whole. Red Deer can resolve this concern by adopting a three or four-ward system, each with multiple councillors. This idea gives each ward more representation on the council, and encourages councillors to consider more than just one-eighth of the city when making decisions.
Every city begins with an at-large system. With it, Red Deer has grown to its current size. Our councillors work well with each other, making the city a better place. But Red Deer is facing new challenges, and developing wards is a part of overcoming them.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Follow Author

conflict

Col. Douglas Macgregor: US is ‘facing disaster’ as it funds overseas wars while bankrupt

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

“We have a government that consists of 525 lobbyists – and that’s why we have the policies we have.”

Following the news that the U.S. Congress has finally approved $95 billion in “aid” to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor has returned to ask the difficult question – why is the U.S. funding wars when it is bankrupt?

In an April 21 video interview with U.K. member of Parliament George Galloway, Macgregor gave a blunt and shocking answer.

“We have a government that consists of 525 lobbyists – and that’s why we have the policies we have.”

His full remarks open the video with a searing assessment of the level of corruption in the United States government:

I would currently say that we have a government that consists of 525 lobbyists as opposed to representatives – people who are all busy lobbying for money with which they can line their pockets. Now some of them are just ignorant … some are destructive … but all of them, I’m afraid, with very few exceptions, are bought men.

The U.S. is facing disaster, says Macgregor. With the national debt at over $34 trillion, and the total U.S. debt including households and corporations at almost $100 trillion, the economic situation is just one dimension of the disaster of debt and corruption he says has financed the capture of the political system.

His startling description of a blackmailed captive political class would account for why such an indebted nation is so keen to hand over so much money to fund foreign wars. After six months of wrangling, the House voted to approve $95 billion in lethal and non-lethal aid. $60 billion goes to Ukraine, $26 billion to Israel, and the rest is allotted to future flashpoint Taiwan.

With Macgregor and others saying there is no public support for these measures, how is this level of spending possible?

Washington, D.C. ‘a large Epstein Island’

Epstein Island, as you know, is the place where people were set up with underage girls, and it looks like enough of them have been involved in it that they’re all they’re all blackmailed.

Macgregor notes he is not the only one to reach this conclusion:

That was Tucker Carlson’s most recent allegation – that people on the Hill who lead sadly bizarre lives are blackmailed.

Macgregor is referring to this April 3 interview between Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, in which Carlson asks why Speaker Mike Johnson seems “completely disconnected from what we want.” The video below shows a brief excerpt from the interview.

Carlson observed the striking difference between Mike Johnson’s principles and his actions:

Mike Johnson has made a complete departure of who he is and what he stands for – and to the point where people are literally asking, ‘Is he blackmailed?’

Carlson also noted that “70 percent of Americans … and the majority of Republicans do not support funding Ukraine.”

Macgregor’s Epstein Island thesis may explain the mystifying personality change in Mike Johnson. Macgregor went on to conclude:

If that’s the case [the elected representatives] could be compelled to vote in whatever direction the very wealthy and powerful oligarchs in the United States [desire].

We are used to hearing “mogul,” “scion,” or even “philanthropist” to describe the billionaires in the West with state-level influence. This is the reason for Macgregor’s use of the term “oligarch” – usually reserved for the same class of people in enemy nations.

I say oligarch because someone who’s a billionaire hedge fund manager can just as easily buy policy outcomes as an oligarch in Russia or Ukraine.

Macgregor sees this sponsorship of politics as the root of the crisis in America.

I think that’s our biggest problem.  The only way that it will end is with some form of financial collapse – which many of us think is going to happen.

Macgregor points out that the vaunted GDP – the Gross Domestic Product by which the size and health of the economy is measured – “is an illusion.”

“We are currently living on income that is close to 50% of government income,” he said, pointing out that the U.S. is living not only on borrowed money, but also on borrowed time.

“This can’t go on forever. We just don’t know when it’s going to happen but something is going to come along and tip us over,” he warned. “When that happens there will be an opportunity to clean house and hopefully start over – and put an end to this unnecessary overseas empire.”

The domestic crisis is largely ignored, said Macgregor, by a political elite which “acts as if it is still 1991.”

This crisis, which includes that on the U.S. border, and a breakdown in law and order so severe that Elon Musk called for crime to be made illegal again, is one which sees no explanation at all as to why actions are taken to make everything worse.

As Carlson pointed out, no one in power ever really explains why they are taking these decisions, as their policies fuel an expanding global and domestic catastrophe.

Since Joe Biden became president, the U.S. government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting an undeclared war against Russia.

No one in all of that time has explained really the purpose of this war, why it would benefit the United States or the world.

Yet the war in Ukraine is not the only one being funded. The genocide in Gaza simply could not continue without a constant supply of U.S. arms – and money. Carlson added that “ethnic and religious” reasons play a part, but that even these fall short of a convincing reason.

Clearly, at least some policy makers are motivated by ethnic and religious hatred. That’s probably part of the real reason. But officially, no one has told us why we are doing this.

Ukraine war – and NATO – lost?

Regardless of the dark motives for the wars, Macgregor considers the one in Ukraine lost, and the money will make no difference to Russia’s post-war plans. He thinks this defeat will break the NATO alliance, with the Europeans breaking away to forge a different future.

I think even the Europeans, who were even more misguided and utterly confused than much of the American population, are going to realize that there’s no future in this relationship between us and them.

He says the European allies will see “that they too have to save themselves – that they’ll have to chart a new destiny for themselves. So I think that’ll be the end of NATO.”

With a dissolving military alliance abroad, Macgregor turned to the question of Israel. Why has the Biden administration changed its initial tune of “unconditional support” for Benjamin Netanyahu?

Until recently it was unconditional support for Israel. I think the reality has begun to set in with some of the senior people behind the scenes that are instructing Biden and controlling the Congress, that there’s a very real potential for a major war that would draw in Russia and China – and other countries – and could frankly destroy Israel and fatally harm us.

So now I think there’s a sense of helplessness, and that helplessness leads to pleas for cooperation with Mr. Netanyahu.

Macgregor warns that though it is “a good thing” that Netanyahu “did not get his war with Iran,” he counsels that this “doesn’t end the probability of a future war with Iran,” as Netanyahu “continues to enjoy unconditional support [from the U.S. government] for this program of mass expulsion and murder in Gaza.”

‘You’ve got to save yourselves’

With politics controlled by a “donor class” that effectively dictates spending, Macgregor warns against the desperate belief in some national savior.

“I’m one of these people that really dislikes the notion that any one candidate is going to rescue us,” he said, addressing the idea that some “Napoleon” may emerge to save America.

I keep telling people: stop talking about Donald Trump or RFK Jr. or anybody else saving us.

You’ve got to save yourselves.

He thinks this message is getting through – “but we’ve got a long way to go”. Most Americans are “too busy trying to put food on the table,” he adds, with others sadly taking in “the usual nonsense from the mainstream media.”

He thinks perhaps a third of Americans have awoken to the gravity of the situation:

Right now perhaps a third fully understand what’s happening in the country and the dangers abroad- but that’s about it.

Macgregor, a retired US Army colonel, makes an impressive summary of nuclear capabilities in the Middle East, mentioning the widely held assessment of Iran as a “threshold” nation. His appraisal is that the dangers of war are misunderstood, or even ignored, by a political management that is out of its depth and disconnected from contemporary reality.

Speaking of President Biden, he said “we’re dealing with someone now who is eminently incapable of coping with the reality of what you and I have been discussing,” before going on to note that those behind the president are less incapacitated, but deluded.

However, there are others behind Biden who are not total fools. They … are simply amateurs.

He says their assessment is of a reality that no longer exists – and whose God-given rights and way of life their policies are destroying.

They’ve been playing at everything as though America is still what it was in 1991: they are ignoring the open borders which they have deliberately created to dilute our population and essentially erase the American culture and national identity.

Macgregor says they are responsible for the chaos inside what were America’s borders.

They are the ones who are releasing criminals onto the street by destroying the justice system. They’ve ruined the armed forces in terms of morale and capability – it’s at an all-time low.

This toxic combination makes for a bleak prognosis from the retired colonel.

So you add that to the equation and the only thing I can see ahead for the United States right now is total disaster.

Yet Macgregor does not simply pronounce doom. He is trying to mobilize Americans in defense of their nation under God.

Macgregor is the CEO of Our Country, Our Choice – an organization which stresses the centrality of God, family, and country to the American success story whose passing he laments in detail.

Its founder, RJ, describes himself as a “devoted Christian” appalled at the theft of liberties under lockdown and shocked into action by the chaos flowing from the Biden administration.

“We’re driven by an unwavering commitment to protect what matters most: our faith, our loved ones, and the land we call home,” says the founding father-of-four, describing why he created OCOC in 2021 himself. “As I witnessed America’s trajectory under the Biden administration, it became increasingly chaotic and disheartening.”

He tells how he was moved to do so:

I reached a breaking point, realizing that the responsibility of reclaiming our country and defeating the deep state ultimately rests with us, the American people. No one else will step up. So, I made a bold decision, risking everything I had, and founded Our Country Our Choice.

His message to the American people is that they can take back their country and their politics from a class determined to destroy them.

It is one which Macgregor is determined to spread. There is hope amidst this desolation, says Macgregor, who believes that it lies with the American people themselves, and the defense of their God-given rights.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta government should create flat 8% personal and business income tax rate in Alberta

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

If the Smith government reversed the 2015 personal income tax rate increases and instituted a flat 8 per cent tax rate, it would help restore Alberta’s position as one of the lowest tax jurisdictions in North America

Over the past decade, Alberta has gone from one of the most competitive tax jurisdictions in North America to one of the least competitive. And while the Smith government has promised to create a new 8 per cent tax bracket on personal income below $60,000, it simply isn’t enough to restore Alberta’s tax competitiveness. Instead, the government should institute a flat 8 per cent personal and business income tax rate.

Back in 2014, Alberta had a single 10 per cent personal and business income tax rate. As a result, it had the lowest top combined (federal and provincial/state) personal income tax rate and business income tax rate in North America. This was a powerful advantage that made Alberta an attractive place to start a business, work and invest.

In 2015, however, the provincial NDP government replaced the single personal income tax rate of 10 percent with a five-bracket system including a top rate of 15 per cent, so today Alberta has the 10th-highest personal income tax rate in North America. The government also increased Alberta’s 10 per cent business income tax rate to 12 per cent (although in 2019 the Kenney government began reducing the rate to today’s 8 per cent).

If the Smith government reversed the 2015 personal income tax rate increases and instituted a flat 8 per cent tax rate, it would help restore Alberta’s position as one of the lowest tax jurisdictions in North America, all while saving Alberta taxpayers $1,573 (on average) annually.

And a truly integrated flat tax system would not only apply a uniform tax 8 per cent rate to all sources of income (including personal and business), it would eliminate tax credits, deductions and exemptions, which reduce the cost of investments in certain areas, increasing the relative cost of investment in others. As a result, resources may go to areas where they are not most productive, leading to a less efficient allocation of resources than if these tax incentives did not exist.

Put differently, tax incentives can artificially change the relative attractiveness of goods and services leading to sub-optimal allocation. A flat tax system would not only improve tax efficiency by reducing these tax-based economic distortions, it would also reduce administration costs (expenses incurred by governments due to tax collection and enforcement regulations) and compliance costs (expenses incurred by individuals and businesses to comply with tax regulations).

Finally, a flat tax system would also help avoid negative incentives that come with a progressive marginal tax system. Currently, Albertans are taxed at higher rates as their income increases, which can discourage additional work, savings and investment. A flat tax system would maintain “progressivity” as the proportion of taxes paid would still increase with income, but minimize the disincentive to work more and earn more (increasing savings and investment) because Albertans would face the same tax rate regardless of how their income increases. In sum, flat tax systems encourage stronger economic growth, higher tax revenues and a more robust economy.

To stimulate strong economic growth and leave more money in the pockets of Albertans, the Smith government should go beyond its current commitment to create a new tax bracket on income under $60,000 and institute a flat 8 per cent personal and business income tax rate.

Continue Reading

Trending

X