Libertarian Dialectics

It's not often that you find amongst the Canadian Libertarian Right, the few and the brave that actually read Murray Rothbard or Sam Konkin III. That was until I came on this blog ; Godscopybook the other day with a reference to Rothbard and Dialectical Libertarianism. But alas he does not get it either, falling into that Southern Ontario Libertarianism that loves to rant and rant and rant against their strawman of Socialism.

Of course having not read broadly enough, they mistake Social Democracy, and the Liberal State for Socialism. In this case Godscopybook neo-liberal ideology has failed to even availed himself of a good read of William Godwin's Social Justice. How can you be a "new liberal" or "classical" liberal as the right wing libertarians call themselves, without benefiting from reading the father of Anarchist Utilitarianism. They are not libertarians but neo-liberaltarians.

And this is where the Rand influenced Libertarian Right falls down, they have a narrow focus and a distorted definition of socialism, communism, anarchism and libertarianism. That they lack a historical materialist interpretation of the world is simply a given being they come from the 'disritributive'(prices, value, profit) school of Austrian Economics of Von Mises and Hyaek. Philosophically this German classical economics is of the Schiller school, predating even Hegel, the idealist philosophy of the bourgoies striving to be the artistocracy.

Godscopybook hates the idea of a working class, with true aristorcatic individualistic pretension he rants against class, and class struggle. But empirical reality always comes back and slaps the right wing in the face. There cannot be capitalism without class struggle, it is what makes capitalism function. But of course this is the 'labour' theory of value, of Marx and modern political economy. The autaric capitalism of the idealists, denies labour any value beyond the Hegelian dialectic that the slaves shall serve.

Luckily there were right wing libertarian scholars like Rothbard and Konkin that divorced themselves from the Randian formula long enough to study dialectics. They had read Godwin and laced it well with the Hegelian Anarchist philosophy of Max Stirner. Sam Konkin and I both being from Edmonton, used to coorespond over the years, and his passing last year leaves a hole in the Libertarian Anarchist mileu. What is interesting is that both he and Rothbard refered to themselves as anarchists and as the New Left of the right wing Libertarian movement in the U.S.

And such is the case of Chris Sciabarra, who was influenced in his dialectical thinking by Murray Rothbard on the right and Marxist libertarian Bertell Ollman. For this precious little find I thank godscopybook, and just say, one more step neo-liberaltarian to be a dialectical anarchist.



Chris M. Sciabarra
Chris Matthew Sciabarra has been a Visiting Scholar in the Department of Politics at New York University since 1989. His previous publications include Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (PSP, 1995), Marx, Hayek, and Utopia (SUNY, 1995), and Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (edited with Mimi Reisel Gladstein, PSP, 1999).


A PRIMER ON MURRAY ROTHBARD
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Let me start by saying what this article is not. It is not going to be a place to debate Murray Rothbard’s anarchism. Or his stance on foreign policy. Or his various, changing stances on libertarian strategy. (In fact, all of these stances put together constitute a very small fraction of the totality of his thought.) Suffice it to say, I had and have profound differences with Rothbard. But there comes a point at which it is important to express one’s own appreciation: Murray Rothbard was one of my mentors and made a crucial impact on my own intellectual development. And, quite frankly, he was a teacher to many, many libertarian writers—including those who, today, are among his fiercest critics.

I discuss my own relationship with Rothbard in an essay entitled "How I Became a Libertarian":

While an undergraduate, I met Murray Rothbard. I was a founding member of the NYU Chapter of Students for a Libertarian Society. We got Rothbard to speak before the society several times. I struck up a cordial relationship with Murray, and learned much from my conversations with him. He was a real character, very funny, and quite entertaining as a speaker. When I went into the undergraduate history honors program, Murray gave me indispensable guidance. ... In later years, I don’t think Murray was too thrilled with some of the criticisms I made of his work, but he was always cordial and supportive. I’m only sorry that Murray didn’t live to see my published work on Rand, which greatly interested him, or my Total Freedom, which devotes half of its contents to a discussion of his important legacy.

TOWARD A DIALECTICAL LIBERTARIANISM
Total Freedom
Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism
December | 2000 | 6 x 9 inches
Penn State Press

Philosophy, Philosophy - History
Hardback: $70.00 short | 0-271-02048-2
Paperback: $27.00 short | 0-271-02049-0

Building upon his previous books about Marx, Hayek, and Rand, Total Freedom completes what Lingua Franca has called Sciabarra's "epic scholarly quest" to reclaim dialectics, usually associated with the Marxian left, as a methodology that can revivify libertarian thought. Part One surveys the history of dialectics from the ancient Greeks through the Austrian school of economics. Part Two investigates in detail the work of Murray Rothbard as a leading modern libertarian, in whose thought Sciabarra finds both dialectical and nondialectical elements. Ultimately, Sciabarra aims for a dialectical-libertarian synthesis, highlighting the need (not sufficiently recognized in liberalism) to think of the "totality" of interconnections in a dynamic system as the way to ensure human freedom while avoiding "totalitarianism" (such as resulted from Marxism).



AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL

THE CENTRAL THESES
ABSTRACT FROM NON SERVIAM: NON SERVIAM #17

Contents:

* Editor's Word
* Chris Sciabarra: Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical

Editor's Word

"Stirnerism" exists as a part of many intellectual movements; Anarchists have their Stirnerite fringe, there tend to be some who love Stirner in every libertarian circle, and Stirnerites often hang out with Objectivists, as they are the only other ones who do also speak warmly about selfishness.

Stirnerite thought is, though, a fringe minority view in these movements, and - while acknowledged - is seldom integrated into the dynamics of these movements' rhetoric. The lesson is recognized, but not learned.

When Chris M. Sciabarra told me a year ago about a book he was writing, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, where he sought to establish Rand's intellectual and philosophical roots in Russian dialectical thinking, that immediately struck me as both a profound insight, and an opening for an approach from Objectivism to "Stirnerism".

Of particular interest I find his statement that the dialectical heritage, as taken up by Rand, is one where mere interpretation of the world is not enough. Philosophy must have as its end a praxis. Mapping this back to Germany of one and a half century ago, this fits better into the thoughts of the rebellious young Hegelians than into the "purer" dialectics of the old Hegelians. So I invited Dr. Sciabarra to write a piece for Non Serviam about the central theses of his book, the results of which appear below. And well, as a little sales plug, I can mention that his book will be available this August [1995] from Penn State Press.

Dr. Sciabarra is a Visiting Scholar in the New York University Department of Politics, and has previously authored Marx, Hayek, and Utopia. Have an enjoying read and a good summer! -- Svein Olav Nyberg



LINGUA FRANCA, (September 1999): 45-55.
The Heirs of Ayn Rand: Has Objectivism Gone Subjective?

Scott McLemee

"When Ayn Rand died in 1982, she left devotees squabbling for control of her intellectual empire. Today, the Objectivist movement is threatened not just by its internal schisms but also by its surprising new popularity in the academy. Can the Objectivists save their guru from the professors they despise?"

In the article, McLemee traces the history and significance of the philosophy and movement of Objectivism. He concentrates on what he calls its three successive crises: the first entailing the Rand-Branden schism, and its subsequent detailing in the writings of Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden; the second entailing the Kelley-Peikoff split; and the third brought about by the publication of Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. Sciabarra's book was a grand "challenge to 'proprietary' Objectivism," McLemee writes. A libertarian, Sciabarra was stimulated by Bertell Ollman's work on Marx. As his mentor, Ollman encouraged Sciabarra to examine "the methodological and substantive parallels between Marxian and free-market thought." McLemee observes: "Sciabarra was amazed to find that Ayn Rand, too, was a dialectician. So were other libertarian theorists!" Tracing the integration of dialectics and libertarianism "became an epic scholarly quest" for Sciabarra, a project that led to the publication of his Russian Radical, "which set out a drastic reinterpretation of [Rand's] intellectual development and the structure of her system." With successive printings and thousands of copies sold, the "work acknowledges the importance of free-market economic thought for Rand, as well as her sense of a deep continuity between Objectivism's philosophical anthropology and Aristotle's. But [Sciabarra] insists that Russian culture was the strongest and most pervasive influence on [Rand's] vision, especially the culture of the early twentieth century (extending into the first years of the Communist era) when avant-garde movements like symbolism and futurism joined Hegelian and Nietzschean philosophical currents to generate a cultural renaissance. Sciabarra was particularly intrigued by Rand's enthusiastic memories of having studied classical philosophy with N.O. Lossky -- a titan of Russian thought who sought to overcome dualisms such as materialism / idealism and empiricism / rationalism through a grand system of markedly organicist and teleological bent."

Warren Buffet: U S Capitalism in Crisis

The Berkshire Hathaway Corporation Annual Report 2005

Foreign Currencies
Berkshire owned about $21.4 billion of foreign exchange contracts at yearend, spread among 12 currencies. As I mentioned last year, holdings of this kind are a decided change for us. Before March 2002, neither Berkshire nor I had ever traded in currencies. But the evidence grows that our trade policies will put unremitting pressure on the dollar for many years to come – so since 2002 we’ve heeded that warning in setting our investment course. (As W.C. Fields once said when asked for a handout: “Sorry, son, all my money’s tied up in currency.”)

Be clear on one point: In no way does our thinking about currencies rest on doubts about America. We live in an extraordinarily rich country, the product of a system that values market economics, the rule of law and equality of opportunity. Our economy is far and away the strongest in the world and will continue to be. We are lucky to live here.

But as I argued in a November 10, 2003 article in Fortune, (available at berkshirehathaway.com), our country’s trade practices are weighing down the dollar. The decline in its value has already been substantial, but is nevertheless likely to continue. Without policy changes, currency markets could even become disorderly and generate spillover effects, both political and financial. No one knows whether these problems will materialize. But such a scenario is a far-from-remote possibility that policymakers should be considering now. Their bent, however, is to lean toward not-so-benign neglect: A 318-page Congressional study of the consequences of unremitting trade deficits was published in November 2000 and has been gathering dust ever since. The study was ordered after the deficit hit a then-alarming $263 billion in 1999; by last year it had risen to $618 billion.

Charlie and I, it should be emphasized, believe that true trade – that is, the exchange of goods and services with other countries – is enormously beneficial for both us and them. Last year we had $1.15 trillion of such honest-to-God trade and the more of this, the better. But, as noted, our country also purchased an additional $618 billion in goods and services from the rest of the world that was unreciprocated. That is a staggering figure and one that has important consequences.

The balancing item to this one-way pseudo-trade — in economics there is always an offset — is a transfer of wealth from the U.S. to the rest of the world. The transfer may materialize in the form of IOUs our private or governmental institutions give to foreigners, or by way of their assuming ownership of our assets, such as stocks and real estate. In either case, Americans end up owning a reduced portion of our country while non-Americans own a greater part. This force-feeding of American wealth to the rest of the world is now proceeding at the rate of $1.8 billion daily, an increase of 20% since I wrote you last year. Consequently, other countries and their citizens now own a net of about $3 trillion of the U.S. A decade ago their net ownership was negligible.

The mention of trillions numbs most brains. A further source of confusion is that the current account deficit (the sum of three items, the most important by far being the trade deficit) and our national budget deficit are often lumped as “twins.” They are anything but. They have different causes and different consequences.

A budget deficit in no way reduces the portion of the national pie that goes to Americans. As long as other countries and their citizens have no net ownership of the U.S., 100% of our country’s output belongs to our citizens under any budget scenario, even one involving a huge deficit.

As a rich “family” awash in goods, Americans will argue through their legislators as to how government should redistribute the national output – that is who pays taxes and who receives governmental benefits. If “entitlement” promises from an earlier day have to be reexamined, “family members” will angrily debate among themselves as to who feels the pain. Maybe taxes will go up; maybe promises will be modified; maybe more internal debt will be issued. But when the fight is finished, all of the family’s huge pie remains available for its members, however it is divided. No slice must be sent abroad.

Large and persisting current account deficits produce an entirely different result. As time passes, and as claims against us grow, we own less and less of what we produce. In effect, the rest of the world enjoys an ever-growing royalty on American output. Here, we are like a family that consistently overspends its income. As time passes, the family finds that it is working more and more for the “finance company” and less for itself.

Should we continue to run current account deficits comparable to those now prevailing, the net ownership of the U.S. by other countries and their citizens a decade from now will amount to roughly $11 trillion. And, if foreign investors were to earn only 5% on that net holding, we would need to send a net of $.55 trillion of goods and services abroad every year merely to service the U.S. investments then held by foreigners. At that date, a decade out, our GDP would probably total about $18 trillion (assuming low inflation, which is far from a sure thing). Therefore, our U.S. “family” would then be delivering 3% of its annual output to the rest of the world simply as tribute for the overindulgences of the past. In this case, unlike that involving budget deficits, the sons would truly pay for the sins of their fathers.

This annual royalty paid the world – which would not disappear unless the U.S. massively underconsumed and began to run consistent and large trade surpluses – would undoubtedly produce significant political unrest in the U.S. Americans would still be living very well, indeed better than now because of the growth in our economy. But they would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an “Ownership Society” will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a “Sharecropper’s Society.” But that’s precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us.

Many prominent U.S. financial figures, both in and out of government, have stated that our current-account deficits cannot persist. For instance, the minutes of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee of June 29-30, 2004 say: “The staff noted that outsized external deficits could not be sustained indefinitely.” But, despite the constant handwringing by luminaries, they offer no substantive suggestions to tame the burgeoning imbalance.

In the article I wrote for Fortune 16 months ago, I warned that “a gently declining dollar would not provide the answer.” And so far it hasn’t. Yet policymakers continue to hope for a “soft landing,” meanwhile counseling other countries to stimulate (read “inflate”) their economies and Americans to save more. In my view these admonitions miss the mark: There are deep-rooted structural problems that will cause America to continue to run a huge current-account deficit unless trade policies either change materially or the dollar declines by a degree that could prove unsettling to financial markets.

Proponents of the trade status quo are fond of quoting Adam Smith: “What is prudence in the conduct of every family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.”

I agree. Note, however, that Mr. Smith’s statement refers to trade of product for product, not of wealth for product as our country is doing to the tune of $.6 trillion annually. Moreover, I am sure that he would never have suggested that “prudence” consisted of his “family” selling off part of its farm every day in order to finance its overconsumption. Yet that is just what the “great kingdom” called the United States is doing.

If the U.S. was running a $.6 trillion current-account surplus, commentators worldwide would violently condemn our policy, viewing it as an extreme form of “mercantilism” – a long-discredited economic strategy under which countries fostered exports, discouraged imports, and piled up treasure. I would condemn such a policy as well. But, in effect if not in intent, the rest of the world is practicing mercantilism in respect to the U.S., an act made possible by our vast store of assets and our pristine credit history. Indeed, the world would never let any other country use a credit card denominated in its own currency to the insatiable extent we are employing ours. Presently, most foreign investors are sanguine: they may view us as spending junkies, but they know we are rich junkies as well.

Our spendthrift behavior won’t, however, be tolerated indefinitely. And though it’s impossible to forecast just when and how the trade problem will be resolved, it’s improbable that the resolution will foster an increase in the value of our currency relative to that of our trading partners.

We hope the U.S. adopts policies that will quickly and substantially reduce the current-account deficit. True, a prompt solution would likely cause Berkshire to record losses on its foreign-exchange contracts. But Berkshire’s resources remain heavily concentrated in dollar-based assets, and both a strong dollar and a low-inflation environment are very much in our interest.

If you wish to keep abreast of trade and currency matters, read The Financial Times. This London-based paper has long been the leading source for daily international financial news and now has an excellent American edition. Both its reporting and commentary on trade are first-class.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

And, again, our usual caveat: macro-economics is a tough game in which few people, Charlie and I included, have demonstrated skill. We may well turn out to be wrong in our currency judgments. (Indeed, the fact that so many pundits now predict weakness for the dollar makes us uneasy.) If so, our mistake will be very public. The irony is that if we chose the opposite course, leaving all of Berkshire’s assets in dollars even as they declined significantly in value, no one would notice our mistake.

John Maynard Keynes said in his masterful The General Theory: “Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.” (Or, to put it in less elegant terms, lemmings as a class may be derided but never does an individual lemming get criticized.) From a reputational standpoint, Charlie and I run a clear risk with our foreign-exchange commitment. But we believe in managing Berkshire as if we owned 100% of it ourselves. And, were that the case, we would not be following a dollar-only policy.

Blog Freedom or Cyber War

Peace Order and Good Government reports that an Iranian blogger just got 14 years in jail for bloging.

Meanwhile in the USA home of the bloggers, a CNN Poll says most Americans are unfamiliar with blogs. "More than three-quarters of Americans -- 76 percent -- said they use the Internet, but only 26 percent said they were "very familiar" or "somewhat familiar" with blogs.Just 7 percent of adults said they read blogs at least a few times per week, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Forty-eight percent said they never do."

From the blogs online the predominance is from the right, with a minority of left wing sites. This is a specifically American phenomena, a strong libertarian republican right wing that are nerds and geeks. Ayn Rand always did appeal to the geek engineer crowd. But they are still a minority just a vocal and visible one.

And when it comes to freedom of speech even in blogs , what Americans take for granted, the rest of us have to fight for.

But is blogging anything more than a flash in the pan. In the world of the Internet this is the 15 minutes of fame.

As Michael Geist writes in yesterdays Toronto Star Say no to Big Brother plan for Internet

"Notwithstanding the Internet's remarkable potential, there are dark clouds on the horizon. There are some who see a very different Internet. Theirs is an Internet with ubiquitous surveillance featuring real-time capabilities to monitor online activities. It is an Internet that views third party applications such as Vonage's Voice-over-IP service as parasitic. It is an Internet in which virtually all content should come at a price, even when that content has been made freely available. It is an Internet that would seek to cut off subscriber access based on mere allegations of wrongdoing, without due process or oversight from a judge or jury." Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.

And who are these villans, that would create a commercial surrveliance state on the WWW? Well both corporations like Nortel and the State.

The State, whether it is Iranian, American, Turkish, Canadian, the EU or Britain, China, or Russia, is clearly opposed to real free speech that the Internet represents. It will continue to try and restrict the WWW and drive it into commercial only access and intelligence monitoring.

But the web is resilient if nothing else, as the success of WYSIWYG proves. For it is the ability to use java coding and WYSIWYG that eliminates the cumbersome use of HTML for webpages that has given life to blogging. Instant web pages.

And the web has created a cyber dialectic with its own brand of counter intelligence, hacks and hackers. As well as the counter corporate campaigns like those against Nike or in support of stirkes half a world away.

But increased use of the judiciary, laws, and the legislative power of the State
can still restrict access and control to the web.

The increasing commercialization of the web is a serious threat to free speech in its own right. The ability to link to news stories which is a key element in blogging, is being limited as more and more News sites go to subscriber only e commerce. A link like the one above may disappear soon, within seconds, minutes or a day.

Which will simply force more and more blogs to actually archive and keep the stories they comment on rather than relying on links. This is why you wil find actual stories on my blogs rather than just links.

The blog is the revival of what H.P. Lovercraft called the Amatuer Press, and what is now known as the Age of Pulp Fiction 1920-1940. It also coincided with the Surrealist movement in art and literature. As A. J. Leibling said at the time : "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one"

And today with computers and the WWW, bloging and webpages are the Free Press of the cyber age. It is our responbisiblity as (cyber) citizens to keep it so. There is a cyber war going on between Military Intelligence, the State and the Corporations against the citizens on the web, the new Civil Society.

Canada Says No To Star Wars Jr.

John Gibson of FOX Calls Canada Dumb.
Quissling Canadian Ezra Levant Agrees.

Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber Defend the Defenseless

Ezra Levant Watch blog reports:
"Poor Ezra Levant has been driven completely mad by Canada's decision not to sign onto the US missile defense program. Ezra begins robustly and rambunctiously enough; that by not signing up to a missile defense program that doesn't work when Canada has other defense priorities more current than 1964, Canada is reducing its standing in the world, and will end up like once-mighty Belgium. (Belgium again.)"

Oh Ezra you cut me to the quick , nope sorry that was a paper cut.

Our very own right wing quisling Ezra (ranter) Levant is rushing about all verklempt about the failure of Canadians to be, wait, for it, DUMB.

Nope we did not sign on to the Americans Missile Defense system, Star Wars Jr. it’s just another American billion dollar scam to keep the Military Industrial Complex in cash. (1)

Despite unifying the Reform/Alliance Party with the Progressive Conservatives Ezra’s brand of Canadian Republican Lite tossed the baby out with the bath water. The Progressives left a sinking ship and the right got what it wanted, a tired old Tory party no different from your daddy's Tory party. And during the election they looked, well like a bunch of Tories, talk from the right run from the centre.

And the winners in the election were Canadians who got a Minority Government of Liberals who moved left to match the NDP and BQ. Three left parties got the majority of seats in the house. The left opposition in the House of Commons is as strong as Her Majesty's Official Opposition. And so Canadians won.

Stephen Harper and his Tories had to call for tax cuts for ordinary Canadians and not just his corporate pals, call for rollbacks in EI for "workers" as well as employers. Yep he choked on those words but he had to say it, the Left rules.

When faced with an ill timed announcement that we are part of the US missle defense plan the PM finally made a decision, to NOT join Star Wars Jr. No more Mr. Dithers.

And Harper and pals had already flipped flopped on Missile Defense back in September. They dropped missile defense like a hot potato, despite being her majesties loyal opposition, because, wait for it, it didn't seem to work.

Yep two Missile tests, two failures, ah American Technology, no wait they probably outsourced the work, quick alert Lou Dobbs!!!

Only an ideological anachronism like Ezra doesn't get it because the facts don't fit his dogma.

John Gibson at Fox Bashes Canada

When it comes to not supporting Star Wars Jr., he claims we are DUMB. We are dumb to expect the Americans not to be upset because we rejected their offer of a free fully paid for missle defense system whether we wanted it or not. We are dumb for expecting Condeleza Rice to do her job and not be petulant because we don't support Star Wars Jr.

Well those who support Americas FAILED missile defense system are dumber. Dumb American Right Winger, Dumb, Dumb and Dumber, there, I got that off my chest.

John how quickly you forget, that the Axis of Evil you refer to was concocted by CANADIAN David Frum, speech writer for George Jr. Of course you don't forget that fact you just chose to ignore it, like you do with the fact your missle system is a failure. F A I L U R E.

David Frum like Ezra is another Right thinking Canadian and the rest of us are flaming socialists, which is why he ran away from home to be with you.

When it comes to Star Wars Jr., maybe you should have hired Industrial Light and Magic instead of the Pentagon Contractors Association. Hey John can you say DUD. That's what the American Missile Defense system is. Pentagon experts, being boys with toys figure its all about missiles.It was a Republican Presidential Candidate that informed us that America suffered from ED. Now the Pentagon is proving it with its Missile system that is a DUD!

What’cha gonna do John declare a boycott of Canadian Beers, opps sorry we own Coors now. Stop investing in Canadian money markets, nope not at 25 cents on the dollar. The majority of your merchant banks have been sold to Canadian banks. And you already closed the market to our beef, and use illegal taxation on our softwood lumber and steel exports.

Taxation, damn it man, taxation the very cause that created FOX News and the Regan Republicans was tax cuts, damn it man at least be consistent. What hypocrites you talk free trade, talk tax cuts, and what do you do violate the WTO rules every chance you get. You don’t walk that talk.

Taxing softwood lumber is an attack on Canada, tax steel, again illegal, and you attack us, Japan and Europe. Free Trade indeed. And you call us friends and neighbours, sorry neighbors, boy I'd hate to see how you treat your enemies, nope seen that too. Those you don't invade you cuddle. Keep your enemies closer I guess is part of that my enemies enemy foreign policy.

In North America of the three Amigos, Canada is the largest economic engine of trade for US markets. But we are off your radar map. And speaking of radar maps while centralizing all NORAD command under US control, was an arbitrary decision so of course you should pay for it, in more ways than one.

And speaking of NORAD it sort of fell down on the job during 9/11. So NORAD failed, your missile defense system failed, your intelligence agencies failed, twice; before 9/11 and in the build up to the Iraq war. Aren’t you the country with the “Three Strikes” laws?

No John we don’t tremble in fear of North Korea launching missiles at North America, because that’s not what its really about. The reality is that Star Wars Jr. is being set up to defend the US from China. Preparation is being made for when the economic battles and international competition for Imperialist Power end up not as a battle for consumers, but an actual war.

But wait the Republican Right Wing loves China; it’s the new capitalist marketplace. It seems that we all forget that during the Cold War there were 3 super powers. Three, trey, troy, three, and one of them was China. Still is, just quiet about it. She made her peace with Nixon, Nixon of all people. But that put the Republican Right between a rock and a hard place as allies of China against Russia.

The enemy of my enemy, very simple politics you Americans have. I blame it all on football; it’s where Americans get their Leaders and their Military strategy from. Which is why the U.S. supports Pakistan, Russia supported India, and China played them both off, still does, clever. And they still have Tibet. Tibet which was taken over by China the same time as Eastern Europe fell to Stalin. The Chinese play chess, so do the Russians, Americans just point their heads in one direction and charge.

Nope its good old competition in the market place, capitalism is war by other means. This may be a safer conflict for Canadians, then waiting for an American dud missile to drop on us. It’s a calculated risk, but Canadians are known as risk takers, especially if our neighbor is so dumb as to risk all our security with its warmongering and jingoism. Not much we can do about it, just politely smile nod our heads in that knowing way, and move to the other side of the room.

Recently China released an internal Chinese Military Assessment from its Chiefs of Staff written in 1999. The document was ‘leaked’ onto the Internet; nothing gets leaked from China unless the Party wants it leaked, as part of this new shadow war.

It’s about how to destabilize the USA. Not one word about tanks or missiles, it was about using the market to buy up shares, outstanding federal bills of credit, American dollars. Buyout American corporations, get more offshore work, and sell more goods to Wal-Mart. It was a plan to dominate the market. If the 20th Century was Americas, the 21st Century is China's.

China knows that you are a weak Empire, and as she purchases more market share here, it will not be for America's use but for her use. She is creating the Fordist manufacturing culture of prosperity that was once the domain of the USA, Europe, Japan and Korea. What kicked started these post war economies is kick starting China. If China once was a sleeping giant, she has woken up and is on her way to becoming the new capitalist behemoth.

Historically all trade and expansion of the last 500 years was westward, and once you get to the California Coast, it’s off we go westward to China to fulfill Columbus’s dream. So will America’s new cold war be with China? Your fetish for missile defense points in that direction.

Now that’s really DUMB.

Footnotes:

(1) It was a Republican President; Dwight D. Eisenhower who coined the term, Military Industrial Complex, fifty years ago when he warned they were dominating America’s economic, military, judicial and political elites. He was right America has a new ruling class.

NORTEL: Canada's Enron

Is there anyone working at Nortel anymore?

At one time Canadian Telecom giant Nortel had over 100,000 employees, by last year it had cut its workerforce again leaving the company with 30,000 workers. In a decade it has laid off over 70,000 workers. Its cuts to staff have affected its North American manufacturing and R&D operations, while leaving its offshore operations untouched.

It is Canada's version of Enron, it fired seven executives last year after the company faced criminal charges over allegations that they had been cooking the books about Nortels profitability. Nortel has refused to release its books to shareholders for the past three years in a massive cover up, as it's stock continues to crash and burn.

It has been laying off workers since 1995, as it got caught up in Schumpeters famous "Creative Destruction" cycle of; downsize in North America and expand to cheap labour markets like China.

And then thanks to the dot.com crash in 2001 it hit the Wall. Nortel fired one third of its workforce in 2001. It has changed its CEO and CFO who cooked its books to appear profitable in the marketplace. Ain't capitalism wonderful.

And now it is February 2005 and Nortel is again announcing yet another deadline, some time this April, to release its bookeeping and accounting information. Promises, promises, Nortel still has nothing to tell.

Nortel to release 2004 annual results by end of April
Last Updated Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:41:13 EST
CBC News

BRAMPTON, ONTARIO - Nortel will release its delayed 2004 annual results by the end of April, the company said late Monday.

As part of its bi-weekly status update, Nortel also said it would file its unaudited third-quarter financial statements by the end of March.

Nortel also announced it ended 2004 with $3.7 billion US in cash.

The company is also planning to ask for court permission to push back its annual shareholders' meeting for both the 2003 and 2004 years by a month until June 30 at the latest.

The release of the company's results has been repeatedly delayed while it launched a major accounting review.

The accounting review led to the dismissal of several executives, including former chief executive Frank Dunn, who was replaced by current CEO Bill Owens.

On Jan. 11, Nortel released its delayed results for 2003, restating its profit to $434 million US from the initially-reported $732 million US. The company also restated results for 2002 and 2001.

In early February, it released results for the first two quarters of 2004, saying it made $75 million US in the first six months of the year.

Nortel shares closed Monday at a 52-week low of $3.26 on the TSX, down 21 cents.

The Fall of the Nortel House of Cards, 2004

Last year Nortel hosted a meeting for market analysists, and cheerfully predicted it was making a profit, despite evidence to the contrary. And it still had not called a sharholders meeting, or released any real bookkeeping or Accounting details. The CEO and CFO who called the conference were replaced by Nortel as word of its accounting scandal was made public.


Editorials
The new Nortel looks to a bright future
By John Dix
Network World, 02/23/04

Nortel hosted its annual analysts meeting last week in Boston to review what President and CEO Frank Dunn called tremendous 2003 results and to extol the company's position in its key markets.

While we weren't invited to the general morning session, we had the opportunity to meet with Dunn and many of his top lieutenants. To a person they were brimming with enthusiasm about future prospects.

All of which might seem strange given Nortel finished 2003 with sales of $9.8 billion, down 7% compared with 2002. But considering the recent past, that amounts to a great stabilization. Nortel sales crested in 2000 when the company topped the $30 billion mark, and then plummeted 37% in 2001 and another 40% in 2002. Seven percent is a relative dip.

Dunn says of last year the whole market was down and points to fourth-quarter sequential growth of 25% as a sign that Nortel is on the right track. "Business momentum is up," he says. "Progress is about all the things we've done. All the contracts we've signed. We're taking share. It will take time for our gains to be reflected in the numbers."

The company has been fundamentally overhauled. Two out of three employees are gone and Nortel is currently finalizing a contract that will result in it exiting the manufacturing business all together. In the new company, one out of every three employees is in research and development.

By August of last year, the sh** hit the fan and Nortel once again used its tried and true way of dealing with its fiscal crisis and criminal investigation, wait for it.....Lay offs.

"Nortel Networks Corp., the focus of criminal and regulatory accounting probes as it prepares to restate several years of financial results, issued a long statement Thursday in which it released results for the first half of the year; announced that it had cut 3,500 jobs, or 10 percent of its workforce; and reported new measures to enhance corporate governance and ethics.

The layoffs included the “termination for cause of seven finance executives.” according to the company announcement. " CFO Magazine, August 204
Nortel restructures, cuts 3,500 more employees
Has also fired seven more execs due to financial problems reported in March

By Robert Keenan, TechBuilder.org
Thu. Aug. 19, 2004

In an announcement Thursday (Aug. 19), the Ottawa-based company released new details into its restated first and second quarter earnings for 2004. It also announced plans to restructure into two operations and cut an additional 3,500 employees from its worldwide work force.

Nortel has retrenched on the financial front since announcing accounting irregularities in March. They led to the ouster of three executives, including the company's CEO and chief financial officer. Seven other executives have since been fired due to the financial problems reported in March, said William Owens, president and CEO of Nortel.

"We have terminated with cause seven business unit execs with financial responsibility," Owens said Thursday. "We will seek to reap the bonuses handed out to the 10 executives that were terminated," he added.

Earlier financial problems have also forced Nortel to restate its 2003 results and first and second quarter results for 2004. According to Owens, the company saw an approximately 50-percent reduction in 2003 net earnings. The company also reported unaudited revenue totals of $2.5 million for the first quarter of 2004 and $2.6 million for the second quarter of 2004. In both quarters, wireless network sales accounted for 51 percent of revenues
More layoffs are also expected. In today's announcement, Nortel said it would cut an additional 3,500 workers worldwide. Coupled with the 2,500 employees being shipped to Flextronics in an outsourcing deal announced in July, Nortel's total employee count will drop from 36,000 to 30,000 employees worldwide. In its heyday, Nortel had approximately 100,000 employees.

Owens said North America will be the hardest hit by the reductions, with few changes coming in markets like China, the rest of Asia and Latin America.
Nortel's layoffs could yield between $450 million and $500 million in spending reductions, thus allowing it to reduce its operational expenses to under 35 percent of its total by the end of 2005.

Nortel's latest financial results are based on unaudited figures and, according to the company, are subject to change. Nortel expects to complete its financial restatement process by the end of September.


Nortel's Annus Horribilus

Nortel's Crash and Burn Began in 2001 and it has been cooking the books ever since, and laying off workers, to make up for its shortfalls. But a revolving door of CEO's and CFO's was about to begin, with golden hankshakes for some and trinkle down economics of golden showers for the rest of the workers.

Nortel layoffs, losses have industry asking: What's next?
By Jim Duffy, Tim Greene and Phil Hochmuth
Network World, 10/08/01
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO - When Nortel is finished with its latest round of layoffs, divestitures, facility closings and management shakeups, the vendor will hardly resemble the company that it once was.
Nortel, which last week announced plans to fire up to 20,000 more people, shutter more "noncore" operations and replace its CEO with its CFO, is streamlining its business again after warning of another multibillion-dollar quarterly loss. It will now focus on three areas - long-haul optical, metropolitan and wireless networks - instead of the five it targeted just three months ago. Two IP-related areas having been dropped from the ranks.

The Globe and Mail reported at the time:

"With 10,000 layoffs announced for the global work force of Brampton, Ont.-based Nortel Networks Corp., there is plenty of talent on the loose.

With competitors closing in, recruitment specialists following the Nortel situation say the company's major challenge is to retain the top-level employees it wants to keep. Mr. Moore says he will not raid -- he is looking for free agents. Others will not be as gentlemanly.

Alan Kearns co-founder of TalentLab.com, a high-tech search firm based in Kanata, Ont., says fallout from the layoffs -- especially Nortel's falling stock price -- could have serious implications for the key employees it needs to hold.

"There are a number of people with stock options that were worth a whole lot of money six months ago and now they are not," Mr. Kearns says. "They are asking 'Why should I stay here? My golden handcuffs are no longer.'

"So far, Nortel has not come up with a good response."

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto Monday, Nortel chief executive officer John Roth made little reference to the impact of Nortel's "work force correction" on employees, except to note that his company wanted to avoid the exodus of key talent suffered by rival Lucent Technologies Inc.

An aggressive recruiter in boom times, Nortel has long prided itself on being an "employer of choice," providing healthy pay, flex time and top-of-the-line perks. The company is tight-lipped about its severance packages and is equally reluctant to discuss how it will retain, and selectively hire, the employees it still needs to be a world-leading company."

As CAW Economist Jim Stafford wrote:

New Economy, Same Old Pink Slips
When the going gets tough, the bosses look after themselves

Now it is announced that Nortel Networks is laying off 30,000 workers, one-third of its workforce. These displaced computer nerds and internet wizards are learning a hard lesson. They may work in the new economy, but their lay-off notices come in the same colour: pink.

Apparently it doesn't matter how smart you are, or how up-to-date your "human capital." Whether you work in the new economy or the old economy, you stand a good chance of being shown the exit when your employer's bottom line starts to bleed. What new skills will the career counselors suggest for the laid-off Nortel workers? I thought they had the new skills.

To be sure, there are some important differences between the layoffs at Nortel and those at General Motors. The Nortel workers got canned a lot quicker. And since most were not union members, their severance packages were a lot stingier. So much being ahead of the knowledge curve.

But for the most part, the Nortel layoffs reinforce my long-standing suspicion that the "new economy" looks a lot like the "old economy."

For example, both old-economy and new-economy firms can lose incredible amounts of money. Nortel is warning of an incredible $19.2 billion (U.S.) loss for its second quarter. That's one of the worst quarterly losses in corporate history (world corporate history, not Canadian corporate history). Coincidentally, only General Motors ever lost more in a single three-month period, with its $21 billion (U.S.) write-down in the first quarter of 1992.

Meanwhile, Nortel employees--like the GM workers before them--are finding out that when the going gets tough, the bosses look after themselves. Nortel CEO John Roth topped last week's Report on Business survey of Canadian executive compensation, taking home a cool $71 million in 2000. His company, meanwhile, placed dead last in RoB's list of the most profitable Canadian companies, posting a $3 billion loss. (That's a lot of red ink, but it's small change compared to the gargantuan loss Nortel will book this year.)

To be sure, much of Roth's compensation last year consisted of stock option gains, and any Nortel shares that Roth subsequently kept are now worth a fraction of their former value. Nevertheless, even as Nortel crashed and burned, Roth took home enough old-fashioned money--the kind printed by the Mint, not by Nortel's treasury--to keep him in good plonck for his golden years. Roth made $20 million in cash salary and bonuses over the past 3 years. Unlike his 30,000 laid-off workers, he's not losing sleep over how to pay the mortgage.

In their commitment to looking after their own, Nortel's executives are carrying on a long and honourable tradition pioneered years ago by old-economy companies. Indeed, perhaps the biggest difference is merely the extravagance with which new-economy executives are rewarded, even as workers lose their jobs and shareholders lose hundreds of billions of dollars. For instance, former GM CEO Robert Stempel took home a mere $3 million (U.S.) in cash salary and bonuses in the 3 years prior to his forced 1992 retirement. So despite the dot-com meltdown, perhaps microchips are still better than cars--for senior executives, anyway.

Meanwhile, compared to the bleak 1990s, GM now looks like a veritable hot prospect. Its shares are up 20 percent so far this year, a breath of old-economy fresh air for stock markets staggered by the high-tech meltdown. It was if once the company hit bottom in 1992, it had nowhere to go but up.

Perhaps this same principle can give hope to Nortel's beleaguered shareholders. The worst is surely behind them. And think of what could happen on the way back up. Indeed, a newly-discovered mathematical theorem--we might call it "Roth's Law"--proves that reported percentage changes look bigger when something is growing, than when it is shrinking. Nortel shares have lost 90 percent of their value, falling from $125 to $13. Suppose they now bounce back to $26. (Some might call this the "dead cat" bounce.) That's a 100 percent gain. Sure, you're still out by almost $100 a share. But a gain of 100 percent, after a loss of only 90 percent, might make you feel better.

And if you believe that, I've got some shares in an Indonesian gold mine that might interest you.

Facts from the Fringe #39
by Jim Stanford
July 2, 2001

Past editions of Facts from the Fringe.
If you would like to subscribe to the e-mail distribution list,
just write back to stanford@caw.ca.

Government Denies Alberta Families Public Day Care

On the heels of the Federal Government announcement in it's Budget 2005 that Alberta was entitled to $70 million dollars for public day care this year, for a total of $500 million dollars over the next five years which would include expanding spaces and possible wage increases to underpaid staff, all money from one source us, Alberta taxpayers.

Alberta Government Children's Services Minister Heather Forsyth still refuses to accept the money if it doesn't go to for profit day cares. Once again this government is cutting its nose to spite it's face.

As of today it has been reported in the news that a private day care operator left another of the children in their care to wander off unsupervised. In Montreal a private day care operator was charged with abusing two children in her care.

So despite the evidence that for profit day care is about business not child care or child development, Alberta being the bastion of Republican ideology in Canada, continues to insist that funds go to these profiteers.

"The program should offer parents choice and flexibility, whether it's not-for-profit or for-profit, whether they choose to a day care or day home," said Forsyth.

The Alberta government insists on short changing Alberta families as I point out in the the IWW Family Day Press Release, Alberta Families say: Show Us the Money, Ralph

"Alberta Families deserve their share of the Federal Day Care fund, they paid for it they want it and need it. The Klein government’s insistence on using taxpayer money to benefit private for profit day cares denies Alberta families access to affordable public day care. It also denies day care workers a Living Wage. Currently many child care workers in Alberta make barely above the minimum wage of $5.90 an hour. Parents are forced to work shift work in order to take care of their children at home, due to the lack of public day care spaces. Parents working two jobs each, just to make ends meet are being left out of the “Alberta Advantage”.

Alberta has the lowest use of public day care in Canada, because the Alberta Government has allowed private for profit day care centres and baby sitting services to access funds earmarked for public day care. Alberta families are paying for someone to profit off their plight and without access to Federal funds, they will be paying twice for the privilege of having no access to public day care.

Alberta Families deserve their share of the Federal Day Care fund, they paid for it they want it and need it. The Klein government’s insistence on using taxpayer money to benefit private for profit day cares denies Alberta families access to affordable public day care. It also denies day care workers a Living Wage. Currently many child care workers in Alberta make barely above the minimum wage of $5.90 an hour. Parents are forced to work shift work in order to take care of their children at home, due to the lack of public day care spaces. Parents working two jobs each, just to make ends meet are being left out of the “Alberta Advantage”.

Alberta has the lowest use of public day care in Canada, because the Alberta Government has allowed private for profit day care centres and baby sitting services to access funds earmarked for public day care. Alberta families are paying for someone to profit off their plight and without access to Federal funds, they will be paying twice for the privilege of having no access to public day care."

Forsyth and the Government continue to push their privatization ideology despite facts to the contrary. The fact is that all of the incidence of child abuse in day cares in the province have occured in for profit day cares. And still she insists on funding them at the expense of a good public day care system.

Private for profit day care is not about child development it's about profit. The Alberta government loves to spend public money on caring for millionares rather than public day care.

"Reporter Laurie Monsebraaten profiled one of Australia's richest men in the Toronto Star this week. What's the secret to Canadian-born Eddy Groves' success? Child care. Or more accurately, a government that invested heavily in child care and allowed commercial operators access to public cash. "
Big box child care: how to become a millionaire


DAY CARE SHUT DOWN AFTER 2ND BABY LEFT ALONE
Last Updated Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:26:44 EST
CBC News

EDMONTON - An Edmonton day care that left an infant locked inside alone in the dark has been ordered shut down after another toddler was found unwatched in a playground.

The Alberta Ministry of Children's Services took the rare step of immediately removing the licence for the Bearspaw Day Care Centre, said Ron Bos, a spokesman for Edmonton Child and Family Services.

A 20-month-old child was left alone in an outdoor playground on Wednesday, Bos told the Canadian Press.

"It was a second incident regarding a lack of supervision and putting a child at imminent risk in the past month, so we felt we had no choice but to issue a stop order and immediately close the day-care centre."

The centre came under public scrutiny on Jan. 27, when a six-month-old boy was locked up alone for about three hours after staff went home for the night.

A provincial probe found the day care didn't have parents sign their children in and out as required under government regulations. It banned the centre from caring for children under 19 months of age.

The second incident surfaced after a man heard the child crying in the yard and took him into the day care, then called child services, who investigated.

The owner of the day care, Bonita Berezanski, declined comment Thursday.

However, a parent who has been leaving her 18-month-old child at the day care for six months was disappointed by the news.

"It was about three to five minutes before they realized the little guy wasn't there," Amanda Hall, who was there when the latest incident occurred, told the Canadian Press.

"This centre is great. –It's sad that we have to say goodbye to the people who love our children." The province has issued stop orders to only two other licensed day cares in the province.

The centre has 14 days to appeal the decision.

In the meantime, Bos said the 36 families who had children in the day care were contacted and given a letter explaining the reasons for the closure.




STRIKE 2: DAY CARE'S OUT
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES CLOSES CENTRE AFTER 20-MONTH-OLD LEFT OUT IN COLD

Mike Sadava
The Edmonton Journal

February 25, 2005

EDMONTON - An Edmonton day-care centre that locked a baby inside after hours last month and left a toddler outside on Wednesday has been closed by the province.

The Bear's Paw Day Care Centre was permanently shut down Thursday by Child and Family Services after a 20-month-old toddler was left unsupervised in an outdoor play area Wednesday morning.

A worker in an apartment building overlooking the play area apparently heard the toddler crying and eventually took the child inside the centre.

It was a sunny, spring-like day, and the child was unharmed.

A month ago, the same day care, located in a strip mall near 105th Street and 19th Avenue, had its baby room shut down by Child and Family Services after staff locked up for the night, leaving an infant in a crib for three hours.

On Wednesday, six children aged 20 months to three years were playing in the fenced outdoor area that includes several slides and small play houses.

The children were supervised by three staff members, said Ron Bos, Edmonton spokesman for Child and Family Services. When it came time to take the children back inside, the 20-month-old was somehow left behind, he said.

Paul Kovacs, the worker in the next-door apartment building, heard crying. He initially thought it was coming from one of the suites and went back to work, but still heard the crying and discovered it was coming from the day care's play area. He went down to investigate.

"He had no gloves, one boot was already off. If I hadn't come out here, who knows how long it would've been until they came out here and found the kid."

Kovacs estimated he heard the crying for about 30 minutes.

Bos said the "stop order" means the day care is shut down permanently. The fact that this is the second incident had a major impact on the decision, he said.

"To us, they're one and the same, leaving a child unattended and at imminent risk," Bos said. "Considering that, relatively speaking, they happened back to back plays a huge part in it, because we did put measures in place and ordered the day care to follow those measures.

"It doesn't stop them from applying for another licence somewhere down the road, but their track record would come into play."

Only two other stop orders have been issued in the Edmonton region over the past 20 years, Bos said.

The owner of the Bear's Paw centre, Bonita Berezanski, has a separate licence to run an out-of-school care program for school-aged children in the same building. That operation is not affected by the stop order and can remain open, he said.

The 36 families affected by the closure were contacted by Children's Services on Thursday.

Most parents interviewed after picking up their youngsters from the centre were sympathetic to the owners.

"The staff have been kind to these children, and we're all guilty of making mistakes," said Amanda Hall, who had a two-year-old at the centre.

She was dropping her child off and signing some papers around the time the toddler was found. She estimated the child was alone for three to five minutes.

"It's sad that we're losing the people who love our kids," said Hall, who had already found a space for her two-year-old in another day-care centre.

Fannie Very, whose twin three-year-old girls had been going to Bear's Paw for two months, said she didn't think the centre should be closed down.

"I have no child care as of now," said Very, who works at a call centre. "I have a full-time job I've been struggling to keep because of child-care issues."

She acknowledged that she would be angry if her child was left outside.

Bos said parents picking up children Thursday were given a list of day cares and a letter explaining that Bear's Paw was closed. "We know there are 36 families under stress, but given the circumstances, we felt we didn't have a choice."

Berezanski and staff at the centre declined to be interviewed.

© The Edmonton Journal 2005

PRIVATE DAY CARE OPERATOR GUILTY OF ABUSING TWO BABIES

Canadian Press

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

MONTREAL (CP) -- A day-care operator was found guilty Wednesday of two counts of aggravated assault after two babies in her care suffered skull fractures.

Cathy Matteau, 23, has yet to be sentenced.

The babies suffered their injuries within a week of each other and only days after starting at Matteau's at-home day care in early March 2003.

The six-month-old infant ended up with a skull fracture. The 11-month-old had a similar fracture, along with six smashed vertebrae, and showed signs of shaken-baby syndrome.

In a videotaped statement Matteau gave to police after her arrest in 2003, Matteau suggested the babies might have been "pitched against a wall.''

Dr. Dominique Marton, a child abuse expert, testified last week the babies probably had their heads banged against a hard, flat surface, like a wall, floor or ceiling.
© Canadian Press 2005

ALBERTA MAY REJECT FEDERAL DAY-CARE FUNDS
$5 BILLION PLEDGED, BUT PROVINCE WANTS PARENTS TO HAVE CHOICES

James Baxter

The Edmonton Journal; with files from CanWest News Service, and The Canadian Press.

February 24, 2005

EDMONTON - The Martin government pledged $5 billion over five years for a national child- care program Wednesday, but Alberta is prepared to forgo its share if it comes with too many strings attached.

Children's Services Minister Heather Forsyth said there was little new in the budget to help end the federal-provincial standoff over Social Services Minister Ken Dryden's push to create a national child-care program.

She said the provinces were expecting the budget would offer a blueprint for the next round of negotiations, but their concerns went largely unaddressed.

Instead, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale announced that an initial payment of $700 million will be paid into a third-party trust from which provinces and territories can draw on a per-capita basis in the coming two years as provinces develop their respective child-care systems.

"I think it's good that we're getting some clarity on the federal government's funding commitment," said Forsyth, who was reached at a conference in Victoria.

"However, we still believe we have a long way to go. We're not sure that the money is coming to Alberta."

Forsyth did not rule out that Alberta could walk away from its share of the funding, an estimated $70 million this year and $500 million over the next five years, if it comes with onerous restrictions.

At the top of Forsyth's concerns is any system that requires funds be spent on accredited day-care programs, rather than giving individual parents the choice to use the money to raise their children however they see fit.

"There's never that kind of agreement, where we're talking that kind of money, that there's no strings attached. Never. Trust me," she said. "I think those are some of the things that we have to hammer out."

Forsyth said she is disappointed that the federal government refuses to look at other measures to ease the burden on stay-at-home parents. She said what she hears most is a request for tax relief for parents who choose to raise their own children.

"That was never discussed at the (Vancouver) meeting," she said. "It wasn't even considered or talked about at the table and Minister Dryden made that very, very clear. We're talking about a national day care (program) in this particular funding model."

Child-care advocates cheered the budget announcement and said Forsyth should use the funds to bolster child care centres.

"I am pretty confident that the (Alberta) government has a strong idea of what is needed here to develop quality child care and will look at it carefully and consider the issues," said Sherrill Brown, who chairs the Alberta Child Care Network Association.

"I know (we) believe that it is child care's turn and that we need to be putting that money into child-care programs in order to support them so that we can support families."

"I would hope Alberta would use the funding for licensed child-care programs," said Tanya Szarko, spokeswoman for the Day Care Society of Alberta, adding that the federal government should require commitments from the provinces to invest in child care. "There needs to be a clear standard on where funds are going."

Barbara Coyle, executive director of the Canadian Child Care Federation, voiced concern that the first $700 million appears to have been doled out without sufficient conditions.

"One concern we have is that the first $700 million is flowing without strings attached, which is going to mean that we're going to have to work even more closely and vigilantly with the provinces and territories to ensure that the money is tied to (the proposed child-care program's) principles," she said.

Dryden and the ministers will meet again in the next few weeks.

© The Edmonton Journal 2005

$5 BILLION PUT INTO DAY CARE DESPITE LACK OF SPENDING PLAN
ALBERTA UNSURE WHAT TO DO WITH CASH

Michelle Lang
Calgary Herald; with files from CanWest News Service

Thursday, February 24, 2005


Calgary day cares aren't banking on their share of a $700-million cheque for national child care in the federal budget, saying they need details on the proposed program and how funds will be spent.

Wednesday's budget allocated cash for a much-anticipated Canada-wide child care program -- $5 billion over five years, including $700 million for the provinces to spend in 2005.

Yet, without an agreement on the national child care initiative, which Ottawa unsuccessfully tried to broker with provinces earlier this month, the budget was short on details about the proposed program.

Local day cares -- and even Alberta politicians -- were left with unanswered questions about how the budgeted cash will be spent.

"I'm very excited about idea of the national program," said Tanya Szarko, spokeswoman for the Day Care Society of Alberta.

"But there needs to be a clear standard on where funds are going.

I wouldn't want to see funds allocated to unlicensed programs."

Despite some criticism, child care advocates also praised federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's budget for following through on Ottawa's pledge to allocate $5 billion in funds for the proposed program over five years.

In 2005, while federal-provincial negotiations on the program continue, $700 million will be available to the provinces on a per-capita basis "as they require." The money will be paid into a third-party trust.

It isn't clear how Alberta will spend its share of the cash. Alberta Children's Services Minister Heather Forsyth said she needs clarification from federal Social Development Minister Ken Dryden about how the $700 million can be spent.

"We need to understand how they see the money flowing," she said.

Earlier this month, Forsyth refused to sign on to Dryden's national childcare proposal during federal-provincial talks in Vancouver, saying the initiative should be more flexible in allowing parents to choose the type of day care they prefer. Forsyth also wanted guarantees Ottawa will fund the national program after its five-year commitment.

On Wednesday, she said her position hadn't changed.

"The program should offer parents choice and flexibility, whether it's not-for-profit or for-profit, whether they choose to a day care or day home," said Forsyth.

Some in Calgary's day care community agreed the cash should simply be handed over to lower- and middle-income families to subsidize child care costs at licensed facilities.

Georgina Leimert of Mount Royal Day Care suggested some funds might also go to upgrading day cares and paying for more staff training.

Leimert said it shouldn't pay for parents to stay at home and take care of their children themselves.

"I'm wondering where is this money supposed to go," she said. "The government hasn't said."

The $5-billion child-care investment also includes $100 million to develop early childhood programs on First Nations reserves. Moreover, government proposed $120 million over five years to improve an existing on-reserve special education program for First Nations children.

While child-care initiatives made headlines in Wednesday's budget, the spotlight was off of health care.

The budget did, however, outline the payment plan for the $41-billion health-care accord Ottawa and the provinces reached last fall.

Federal cash transfers will rise from $16.3 billion this year to $19.6 billion next year, Goodale said.

After that, transfers will escalate by six per cent annually until they reach $30.5 billion in 2013-14.

© The Calgary Herald 2005

February 24, 2005
FORSYTH LETTING PARENTS DOWN - CUPE

TURNING AWAY DAYCARE FUNDS ‘A CRIME’ AGAINST WORKING PARENTS

CALGARY - Turning away from $500 million in daycare funding for Alberta would leave Alberta parents in a lurch. That was the opinion of D'Arcy Lanovaz, Alberta President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).

Lanovaz was responding to media reports that Children's Services Minister Heather Forsyth might turn down federal day care funds if the money has to go to accredited day care centres. Alberta's share of the funding would be approximately $500 million over five years.

"What the minister is saying is that unless the government does what she wants, Alberta parents get left out in the cold," said Lanovaz. "Turning your back on that kind of support doesn't make sense - it's a crime against working parents."

"The provincial government likes to talk about 'choice' for parents, but what kind of choice do parents have when the government turns its back on funding for more and better daycare spaces," said Lanovaz. "All Forsyth is doing is taking choices away."

Lanovaz said that the federal government promised a national childcare program, and that CUPE supports a system geared towards non-profit care.

"Study after study, including a recent study by the University of Toronto, shows that non-profit day care centres provide the highest quality care on almost any factor you measure," said Lanovaz.

"Why is the provincial government against quality child care?"

-30-

The Wild West Buyout

Crony Capitalism Alberta Style

Controversy swirls around the Alberta Legislature this week while our Fuehrer, Herr Klein is off vacationing. Isn't that always the way it is in Alberta, shit happens and the Premier is off not available for a media scrum almost like it’s planned.

This week the shit hit the fan when it was revealed that the Dark Prince of Privatization, the Premiers old drinking buddy[1], Steve West[2] was given a golden handshake of $180,000. A buyout for having been dismissed as Klein’s Chief of Staff two days after the Election debacle which saw Alberta’s One Party State reduced to an overwhelming majority of only 61 Tories from 74.

The question that has to be asked is what the hell are the taxpayers of Alberta paying Steve West for, when he was essentially running the Tory campaign. Shouldn’t the Alberta Progressive Conservative Association INC. pay their own bills? Concerned Alberta taxpayers want to know.

Only in his post for six months he spent most of that time doing electioneering for the Party of Alberta. Dismissed unceremoniously by a haggard querulous Klein he has been replaced by another Klein drinking buddy[3] and former waiter; Rod Love[4], the man who made Klein Mayor of Calgary and Premier of Alberta. If Love is Klein’s Richealu, West was his Dr. Gobblels.

“West had earned the nickname Dr. No after pulling colour televisions out of provincial jails, chopping government jobs, launching electrical deregulation and privatizing liquor stores, vehicle registries and parks. Klein said he needed a "tough taskmaster" like West in his office. But two days after the Nov. 22 election, a news release announced that West was leaving because his work was done and he wanted to return to the private sector. Although it was painted as a voluntary move, political observers have suggested West was dumped because the Tories lost seats in the election.” Macleans

West like Love had been retried from Politics when he took the job as Chief of Staff for Klein in the spring of 2004. He replaced Peter Elzinga who had stepped down to become a paid lobbyist for Suncour which was suing the provincial government, his former employer! The cronyism of the Klein government knows no bounds. And they lie about it, with perfect aplomb.

Even this week in a story about West’s golden hand shake CBC news reported that ”West was hired as Klein's chief of staff last spring when Peter Elzinga left to donate a kidney to a friend.” How humanitarian of him.

As political observer Rich Vivone says: “how the story is spun is more important than the story being told. Nobody spins as well as these guys.” Spin is polite terminology for political lies. Like the debt and deficit lie, the lies about electrical deregulation they lie well to cover their obvious cronyism.

West had been formerly the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Minister of Resources, Minister of Transportation and Public Works and had a stint as Provincial Treasurer.

As Alberta's Minister of Municipal Affairs, Steve West, known as the dark lord of privatization, made sure everything in his prevue was for sale. He oversaw the privatization of; the provincial Liquor Board the ALCB, our provincially funded public radio and TV stations; CKUA and ACCESS TV, as well as the Public Works department which was responsible for Highway Construction and Maintenance in Alberta.

He slashed government workers jobs replacing them with contract workers; he froze wages and benefits for those lucky enough to remain. He was Klein’s unfailing hatchet man.

"It is important to contrast this to Steve West's treatment of other people," Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said. "When he was a cabinet minister, Steve West turfed 900 ALCB (the former Alberta Liquor Control Board) employees without any severance whatsoever and it did not matter how long they worked. They were gone without sympathy, without respect, without dignity."

As one writer said of West at the time:

“In the real world, privatization isn't about money, it's about principles. Alberta's own Steve West set a tough benchmark when he cost Albertans billions of dollars by selling off government-owned land during a recession simply because it was there. Today, Steve West may not be admired for his intelligence, his concern for the public purse, or God forbid, even his business sense, but he is admired for his unwavering belief in privatization.”

West and Klein used the debt and deficit hysteria of the 1990’s to create what is now known as the Klein Revolution; the privatization and outsourcing of government services, and cuts to services to the average Albertan.

In reality the provincial fiscal shortfall which caused the temporary deficit of 1993-1994 was the result of Alberta’s already low tax base for business and its royalty holiday to the oil industry. And though it did have a debt problem, as did many governments and corporations during this period, that debt will now be paid off next year due to surpluses produced by the rising cost of oil.

The push to privatize was Steve West’s ideological conviction, not because there was any fiscal need to or benefit from doing so. Even their right wing supporters have acknowledged this.

“The province has run budget surpluses every year since 1994-95 and is rapidly paying down its net debt; this year, buoyed by surging oil and gas revenues, it is expected to post a surplus of at least $5 billion. This string of budget surpluses and the related drop in its stock of outstanding public debt have given Alberta a great deal of fiscal manoeuvring room.” Fraser Institute, 2001

As provincial Treasurer in 2000, West oversaw the shifting of the tax burden from Alberta business to the average Albertan. He declared the creation of a provincial ‘flat tax’ of 10.5 % for Albertans, another ideological solution to buoy up capitalism in the province, in order to sell the huge corporate tax cuts the government was making.

That year there was a tax shortfall, which forced the government to make it an 11% flat tax, and to again cut services for Albertans while business laughed all the way to the bank.

As the right wing think tank the Fraser Institute, cheerfully reported at the time;

“by 2004 the general corporate tax rate in Alberta will be less than half of the rates levied in the other three Western provinces;

• its corporate tax rate on manufacturing and processing income will also be less than half of the comparable BC and Manitoba rates, and considerably lower than the (variable) rates charged in Saskatchewan;

• Alberta’s small business tax rate will be the lowest in the country; and,

• Alberta will continue to enjoy other important business tax advantages over BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, notably in the sales tax on business inputs (Alberta does not have a sales tax), the capital tax (Alberta doesn’t impose one on non-financial enterprises, and intends to remove its capital tax on financial institutions next year), and fuel taxes.

Taxes on business in the other provinces were noticeably higher even before the unveiling of Alberta’s tax cut plan. With Alberta’s proposed reforms, the disparities in overall business tax burdens will widen dramatically— unless the other provinces respond.”

West’s most successful privatization effort benefited privately owned Trans Alta Utilities, a company where the Alberta Government has historically put to pasture its retired cabinet ministers[5]. On their behalf he convinced Klein to deregulate electricity in the province.

“Privatization in Alberta was all but dormant until Klein realized he was in danger of being exposed as the neo-liberal he really is. Everything that could be usefully privatized – liquor stores and registry offices – had been, but the ideologue Steve West was able to convince Klein that Alberta’s stable electricity industry needed to be deregulated,” wrote columnist, Hamish MacAulay at the time.

The deregulation of electricity was controversial at the time, being opposed by both public utilities like the City of Edmonton’s EPCOR and private utilities like Tory Bag Man Ron Southern’s ATCO. Even business opposed the idea of deregulation, as much as the socialist NDP did.

So far deregulation has cost Alberta consumers millions in increased costs, has not produced infrastructure expansion(5) but has allowed Trans Alta to market electricity across Canada and into the U.S. which was its purpose all along.

A Calgary CIPS forum in the fall of 2001 on how the electrical industry in Alberta has experienced significant changes in the form of deregulation "Alberta is leading Canada and many other countries in this area. Dawn Farrell, Executive Vice President, Corporate Development at TransAlta Utilities, will discuss this question, based on her extensive experiences in the industry. Dawn will discuss how TransAlta re-invented itself within the Alberta context, what strategic decisions were made and why, and how, in hindsight, all of these decisions were the right ones.[6] “

Deregulation may have been right for TransAlta but for the rest of the us, “Deregulating the electricity market cost Albertans $3 billion. Alberta started selling off its energy interests in 1998. In the aftermath of that move, prices tripled.”

So who benefited from this Wild West scheme, besides TransAlta? Ironically it wasn’t the private sector as he had hoped, but the public utilities.

“Jaccard, former chair of the B.C. Utilities Commission and an adviser to governments in Asia, Europe and South America with respect to electricity deregulation, says in his commentary on the Alberta electricity scene that from the very beginning Alberta's plans to introduce a competitive power market had problems. After all, nothing is perfect and maybe it's progress, not perfection that counts in the long run.

That observation will, unfortunately, be of little solace to the hundreds of industrial, commercial and business power consumers who warned then-energy minister Mike Cardinal and his predecessor, Steve West, the energy minister/godfather of deregulation, that the government's plan to move to a competitive market on Jan. 1, 2001 was problematic. Electricity consumers, after all, are the ones footing the electricity bill and in those areas of Canada where low electricity rates have historically been used to attract and stimulate large industry, their fears are real.

As Jaccard points out, there were signs of impending problems with Alberta's deregulation as early as August 2000, when the government's much-touted power auction raised a mere $1 billion instead of the $3 billion to $4 billion that had been projected by industry observers.

In addition, the auction attracted only a handful of bidders, with the result that two Alberta-based, municipally owned utilities, Epcor and Enmax, were able to capture the bulk of the generation available after a number of higher-profile American energy traders dropped out of the process.

Almost one-third of the available generation did not attract bids (although a good portion sold at a second auction, adding a further $1 billion to the pool of funds available to Albertans) and an important chunk of the province's power remains inexplicably under government control to this day.

Of greater interest -- for both taxpayers and ratepayers -- is Jaccard's pricing analysis that shows most purchasers of generation (Epcor and Enmax among them) paid so little at the auction that they will most likely pay off their initial investment in just one year.

That will leave those companies free to "earn substantial profits for the remaining life of the power purchase agreements, some of which last for close to 20 years", he claims.

That suggests the government -- in its eagerness to proceed with deregulation -- sold off generation too cheaply.

Enmax, for instance, is expected to report net profits of some $250 million for the last year -- compared to $44 million in 2000.

"When distribution and other costs are added to the wholesale prices and the rebate, Alberta's net residential rates for 2001 were about 12 cents per kilowatt hour, giving the province the dubious distinction of jumping from one of the lowest to the highest electricity rates in the country," Jaccard says.” The Electricity Forum

So why are we paying Mr. West, Dr No, Dr. Death, anything since his privatization schemes have cost Alberta public sector workers their jobs and Alberta consumers millions in extra electrical costs?

“A spokesperson in Klein's office said West had been working in the lucrative private sector when he came to work for the premier.”

While Klein was away he left his cabinet Ministers to fend off the press. An obviously embarrassed Iris Evans said; "This was a contractual obligation and as such they paid it out. Do I think that settlement is significant? Yes, it is significant. But I'm not necessarily saying it is out of line with what you would get in the private sector."

Once he was out of government he became a paid insider lobbyist for business interests in the province including the Hotel Owners Association, of Alberta. Again the cronyism of this government and its ex cabinet ministers knows no limits. How does being a lobbyist/consultant to the Government qualify as a private sector job, though it is obviously lucrative.

And after his return to his recent position in the government he negotiated his own contract and pay out! Nice work if you can get it. Remember this is the guy that broke union contracts and fired staff with NO severance packages.

And when we are talking about the private sector, what exactly are we referring to here, a job a MacDonalds, probably not. Even in the private sector the payouts to top executives are limited to what they would be earning. Since Dr. West didn’t earn Albertans anything, the question is why are WE paying him instead of the Tory Party which hired him?

Cronyism Abounds in the Klein Reichstadt

Prior to the provincial election last fall you could practically hear the crash and fall of the office chairs as Tory cabinet ministers rushed out of their offices to collect huge severance packages.

As the NDP pointed out during the election on their Platinum Handshake web site:

“Energy Minister Murray Smith is not just responsible for your power bills doubling – he was indeed the architect of the energy deregulation disaster.

But now, Smith is grazing the greener pastures of plum patronage on your dime. Smith is in line for a sweet gig at Alberta’s spankin’-new Washington trade office. He’s retiring from politics, so will receive about $350,000 in severance just for quitting his job. In addition, he’ll be appointed the head Washington trade office with a cool $450,000 salary, living allowance, and benefits package.

The irony is that Murray Smith shut down a bunch of trade offices in 1995, when he was Economic Development Minister. The reason? The offices had become places where Tory cronies died and went to patronage heaven, and had become a symbol of the wastefulness of Premier Don Getty’s Tory government.”

Mr. Smith was not alone, as an Edmonton Journal Editorial pointed out, he was joined by:

“Cabinet ministers Stan Woloshyn, Halvar Jonson and Pat Nelson are all in line for a "transition allowance" of about $500,000 after announcing they won't be running in the next provincial election. Lorne Taylor will receive about $375,000.”

And Premier Klein will get a big fat pay out of half a million dollars when he leaves.

“While a premier's-office spokeswoman says the severance payments are intended to compensate MLAs in lieu of a pension, the government already contributes to an MLA's retirement savings by paying him or her half the maximum allowable RRSP contribution ($7,750 this year) to put into a retirement fund -- money that does not have to be matched by the member. An MLA like Jonson, elected before 1989, also receives pension benefits under the old plan eliminated by Klein in 1993.

The premier made the changes just before the 1993 election, in response to widespread voter concerns about generous pensions and practices such as double dipping, in which former Alberta cabinet ministers drew pension benefits while still sitting as MLAs. The bill effectively ended the formal pension plan for MLAs elected after 1989.

During the subsequent election, Klein told disgruntled voters that 35 MLAs, including himself, would receive "no pension whatsoever." Yet all these MLAs receive an RRSP allowance each year and a severance payout upon retirement. Klein will be eligible for a severance package of more than $500,000 if he retires before the next election.”

Total cost for taxpayers for rats jumping ship $5 million. Let’s remember this is the same government that fired workers and gave them no severance. Something Herr Klein should remember when he gives his pal $180,000 after firing him.

But in Alberta it’s the workers who get the goose, while those giving the goose get the golden egg.

KLEIN AIDE CONDEMNED FOR $180K SEVERANCE

Lorraine Turchansky

Canadian Press

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

EDMONTON (CP) - The man who once presided over the firing of hundreds of Alberta civil servants was condemned Wednesday as a hypocrite for taking a $180,000 severance package after six months of work in the premier's office.

Steve West, who was a cabinet minister in the days of massive cost-cutting by the Conservatives in the 1990s, returned as Premier Ralph Klein's chief of staff in February 2004.

West had earned the nickname Dr. No after pulling colour televisions out of provincial jails, chopping government jobs, launching electrical deregulation and privatizing liquor stores, vehicle registries and parks. Klein said he needed a "tough taskmaster" like West in his office.

But two days after the Nov. 22 election, a news release announced that West was leaving because his work was done and he wanted to return to the private sector.

Although it was painted as a voluntary move, political observers have suggested West was dumped because the Tories lost seats in the election.

"Steve West boasted of terminating hundreds and in some cases thousands of employees, many of whom never got any severance," fumed Liberal Opposition Leader Kevin Taft. "It's just outrageous. It's completely morally bankrupt."

Taft called on West to refuse to take the money on ethical grounds.

West was not available for comment.

NDP Leader Brian Mason called the payout "hypocritical in the extreme."

He suggested that if West is so fond of working in the private sector, he should take a severance package in line with that sector. Most corporate managers, he noted, get a month's pay for each year worked, so that would put West's buyout at two weeks.

Instead, his severance totalled more than his annual salary, which is believed to be in the range of $113,000-$152,000.

Klein is on vacation and was not available for comment. Deputy premier Shirley McClellan said she wasn't prepared to talk about the West contract because it was none of her business.

Taft recently fired his own chief of staff, which is also a taxpayer-funded position. That severance was still being negotiated, "but it's well within what you would expect normally," he said, possibly a month or two's pay.

Dan MacLennan, who heads the union that represents Alberta government employees, said he didn't blame West personally for seeking the best possible deal for himself. In fact, he said he wished his negotiators could get those kinds of deals.

"We're bargaining with the government today and there's not a lot of money for change right now, so when the members see $180,000 for someone, they'd like to know how that bargaining worked compared to ours," said MacLennan.

© The Canadian Press 200

WEST DEFENDS HIS PACKAGE

Broadcast News

Thursday, February 17, 2005

EDMONTON -- A former chief of staff for Alberta Premier Ralph Klein is defending his large severance package.

The premier's office confirmed earlier this week that Steve West was paid $180,000 more than his annual salary -- after working only six months.

West says the money was equivalent to one year's salary, plus a payout of his benefits.

He says what he received was less than half of what he was making in the private sector over the past four years.

West received $119,000 four years ago when he retired as a member of the Alberta legislature.

He's also entitled to a member's pension of more than $27,000 a year, which he's not yet collecting.

The NDP has said the province should take its cue from the private sector when it comes to paying severance to managers.

The going rate for corporations is one month's pay for a year worked.

Watchdog says former minister's image as a 'tax warrior' is tarnished

By PABLO FERNANDEZ, CALGARY SUN

The lucrative severance package given Steve West for six months of work tarnishes a reputation he built as a "tax warrior," said a spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation yesterday. West, a former provincial government minister, was given $180,000 in severance after serving -- for only six months -- as Premier Ralph Klein's chief of staff.

Federation spokesman David MacLean called it ironic that a politician who did so much to hold the public service accountable and to cut government spending, ended up as a bureaucrat who took home "an obscene" amount of cash for very little work.

"He was so tough on spending and expected so much from government and bureaucrats and now he himself is on the receiving end of a huge lump of taxpayer money," said MacLean.

"He led the charge and gained a reputation as a friend of taxpayers ... this tarnishes that reputation."

West's approach was considered the epitome of conservatism during Klein's early years as premier and is responsible for the privatization of liquor stores and registries in the province.

West's severance package shows just how far the Klein government has strayed from its promise to be a fiscally-conservative administration, said MacLean.

"This government has drifted far from what got them there in the first place -- fiscal conservatism and respect for taxpayers' dollars," said MacLean.

Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft demanded West give the money back.

Taft said that under West's watch, transportation and utilities workers, as well as Alberta Liquor Control Board employees, were let go in the 1990s without one dollar in severance.

Earlier in the week, the government justified their actions by saying the severance package was likely part of a contract signed to lure West from the private sector to public office.

But with the number of bright people in Alberta willing and qualified to do the job, and considering the typically short career spans of chiefs of staff, a severance package of that magnitude is never prudent, said MacLean.

West did not return calls.

Alberta's Klein appoints new 24-member cabinet

Wed. Nov. 24 2004 Canadian Press

EDMONTON — Alberta Premier Ralph Klein went back to the future Wednesday, snaring former adviser and friend Rod Love to be his chief of staff for his final term.

The premier announced the move as he rolled out a new 24-member cabinet that brings together a mix of old and new faces.

Love, who was Klein's closest adviser for nearly two decades and ran his campaigns for mayor, Tory leader and premier, replaces Steve West, who is heading back to the private sector.

Love left Klein's office in 1998 to begin a private consulting business. He also did a short stint as chief of staff for former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day.

Before Monday's Alberta election, he mused that his years with Klein had been special.

"I had a great run with him -- 19 years,'' he said. "Everything I have got in this world I owe to him.''

The Tories won the Monday vote, capturing 61 seats in the 83-seat legislature. But the victory party was subdued as opposition members reclaimed a number of Tory seats in Edmonton and even won in Klein's hometown of Calgary.

Klein said West served him well in a transition period after Love's successor, Peter Elzinga, stepped down last April.

"I am very pleased to welcome Rod back to my staff,'' he said. "With a new mandate for our government and a very important social agenda ahead for Alberta, having Rod as my chief of staff will bring proven experience to my office team.''

Alberta shifts entire $1.5 billion cost of new power lines onto consumers

EDMONTON (CP) -- Alberta consumers are on the hook to pay the entire $1.5-billion cost of building new power lines, the province's energy minister confirmed Friday.
Greg Melchin said the province rejected a 2002 Energy and Utilities Board ruling that consumers and generators should each pay half the cost of new transmission lines.
The move has outraged consumer groups and the opposition, who say electricity customers are getting a raw deal.
But Melchin defended the decision by his predecessor, Murray Smith, to overrule the EUB.
"It wouldn't be in Albertans' interests to see the generators lose money year after year, or else we'll have no generation, we'll have no electricity at all," said the minister.
The gravity of this policy decision only became clear last month, when a report by the Alberta Electric System Operator pegged the total cost of upgrading the province's power lines at $1.5 billion.
The Consumers Association of Canada said this will mean added charges on power bills for Alberta consumers once construction of the new power lines begins.
"In many respects the generators want all of the juice and none of the pulp," said Jim Wachowich, who speaks on Alberta electricity issues for the Consumers Association.
Premier Ralph Klein had said previously that he did not support the idea of consumers paying the entire cost of new power lines.
But premier's office spokesman Jerry Bellikka said the policy shift was done for transparency.
If generators had to pay for half the cost of new power lines, they would simply pass the cost on to consumers' on the power bills anyway, said Bellikka.
But Wachowich said there's no guarantee that power generators would have had the opportunity to pass on the costs.
"If a generator went out of business or was forced to sell power cheaper than it had forecast, then consumers would not see these costs on their bill," he said.
Opposition Liberal energy critic Hugh MacDonald says Albertans are already paying some of the highest power bills in Canada and this will drive costs even higher.
"Electricity consumers in this province have been sold down the river by their government and they're going to have another add-on to their bill," said MacDonald. "This is flawed ideology."
Energy Department spokeswoman Donna McColl said when consumers start paying the cost of the new power lines in five years, the average power bill will increase by about $2 per month.
But MacDonald said department estimates have been inaccurate in the past. He pointed out Albertans were promised lower power rates under industry deregulation, but instead saw their electricity bills soar.
"How can you rely on the government's word? We have seen bills go higher and the credibility of this government on electricity deregulation go lower. They should tell us what the true costs are."

---

[1] “Alberta, however, has a precedent. In 1992, when Gettywas Premier, Solicitor General Steve West embarrassedthe Conservative government by being involved in an altercationin a bar. It was personal, in public, and involvedliquor. When the Legislature opened some weeks later, West swore that he would not touch liquor again as long as he held public office. “ Rich Vivone

[2] “Ashley Geddes, a colleague at The Edmonton Journal, had to wait a year to get a story in print in the early '90s about cabinet minister Steve West's shenanigans in local bars. References to West's sometime drinking buddy of the day, Klein, were removed.” Mark Lisac

[3] Klein’s drinking habits have a long public history.

The stories of Klein and alcohol are endless. He drank openly as Mayor of Calgary in the 1980s. He made the St. Louis Hotel in Calgary a national institution. He drinks with reporters. When he decided to contest the Conservative Party leadership in 1992, he was asked about the drinking. His response: a guy can change. He didn’t.

[4] Love’s batting average on creating right wing party leaders is high. He also worked to get Stockwell Day elected leader of the Federal Alliance Party, ok Day was a screw up but hey that’s not Love’s fault. He went on to organize Stephen Harpers coronation as both Alliance Leader and then Leader of the newly merged Alliance/PC party.

[5] LOUIS D. HYNDMAN

Director since 1986 and resident of Edmonton, AB. He is a senior partner of the law firm Field LLP. Mr. Hyndman is a director of Canadian Urban Ltd., Clarke Inc., EllisDon Inc., Enbridge Inc., Melcor Developments Ltd. and Meloche Monnex Inc. He held several ministerial appointments before serving as Provincial Treasurer of Alberta from 1979 to 1986. Mr. Hyndman is a member of the Order of Canada and a trustee of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.

[6] DAWN FARRELL began her career at TransAlta in 1985 as a Forecast Analyst. Over the last 15 years, she has held a number of positions including Supervisor of Forecasting and Market Research, Vice President ofBusiness Development, and Executive Vice President, Independent Power Projects. Currently Executive VicePresident Corporate Development, Dawn is responsible for identifying and developing opportunities in newtechnologies, eCommerce, and Mergers and Acquisition activities. Outside of TransAlta, Dawn is a Director forMount Royal College Board of Governance, Vice Chair of the Mount Royal College Foundation, and a Member of the Calgary Foundation Investment Committee.

Alberta
Canada
del.Canada
Politics
del.politics
political