NB government: Unilateral as usual
I read this great post by Albert County blogger (a.k.a. The Independent), and in it, Rob explains the importance of holding a referendum on the casino/racino issue:
I believe an issue as transformative and divisive as this deserves a referendum. According to a newsradio phone in poll, 52% of NBers don't want a casino, shouldn't they have a say? Our style of government doesn't allow for referenda very often, as we believe our elected officials should make all the tough decisions for us. However, this is an issue that wasn't even discussed during the last election. I don't think any Liberal party member can claim that the government has a mandate to legitimize gambling in this province.So is Rob crazy to suggest that this issue be taken to the people of NB via a referendum? This blogger definitely doesn't thinks so, especially since our neighbours to the south [Maine] just rejected the proposal by the Passamaquoddy Tribe to build a racino in Washington County via a state wide referendum. Not only that, when asked in what direction they wanted state legislators to go with regards to the promotion of economic development in their region, citizens of the state of Maine marked their ballots with a much more wiser, sustainable and responsible choice:
And you wonder why our province always seems to be heading down the wrong path. Unilateralism my fellow NBers...unilateralism.Maine voters yesterday denied the Passamaquoddy Tribe its wish to build a racino in Washington County, opposed extending legislators' term limits, but approved $134 million worth of bond proposals.
The three bonds that were approved will be used to spur economic development through research and development, help renovate the state's universities and colleges, and fund land conservation work. While voters narrowly approved the R&D and education bonds, the conservation bond won overwhelming support. Voters yesterday also rejected a proposal to extend term limits for legislators from four to six terms, or from eight to 12 years.
16 Comments:
Problem is they don't have anything to offer as an alternative other than the words self-sufficiency! What does that mean to most NBers anyway?
If the gov had decided to spend this money on regional development would you still be demanding a referendum?
Would you demand to have the right to decide where the development dollars were spent?
Would you trust the gov to choose the right kind of development?
I'm not at all sure that another Casino is required or even if there is a need for one but I'm willing to bet that the gov saw this as a no loose investment. They will no doubt place the thing in a tourist spot, perhaps one that has seen its clientelle dwindle in the last few years, and in a Liberal riding no doubt.
The fact is though despite the reservations of some, this is regional development, like it or not.
anon; that could be true, but it shouldn't stop them from going to the ppl regarding a shift in their gambling policy. Something they didn't campaign on.
Short answer kit: No. I wrote a post a few weeks ago on how poor the state of Maine ranks when it comes to the Business Tax Climate Index. It just so happens they rank in the bottom ten out of fifty states.
2007 State Business Tax Climate Index.
So there is no question that I will take no lectures on the economy from them. However, I do admire the fact that they wen to the people first before making a decision with ppls tax money. I said time and time again here that the NB government should have asked the ppl if they are alright with having there taxes raised.
Sorry I meant zip.
nb, do you believe that the people will ever vote to have their taxes raised?
Now personally I think that this could cause the gov to examine cuts within the bureaucracy, but as we all know, it would more likely lead to more potholes in our streets that lead to less people in the Department of highways crew cab.
Sorry...
than lead to less people in the Department of highways crew cab.
If the gov had decided to spend this money on regional development would you still be demanding a referendum?
Actually, why not have a referendum regarding regional development. Regional development at a provincial and federal level have been failures, yet we keep dumping money into the pit. Perhaps we should have a referendum regarding abolishing income/business tax in place of development agencies.
We should have the right to decide where our tax dollars are spent. We are the government. We have, however, ceded our authority to elected officials and unelected experts.
The entire point of my posts is not to oppose the building of a casino. I could care less where they build one, and I might even visit. I strongly oppose my government feeding me a line of bull on the subject. I also see the hypocrisy of a government raising addiction services programs to remedy gambling problem they themselves
are enabling.
Gambling is a vice, just like prostitution, soft drugs, and alcohol. Why are prostitution and alcohol alright for the government to profit from, but not prostitution and soft drugs? I bet legalizing prostitution and dope would bring the tourists back, why not open Victor Boudreau's Dope, Hookers, and Texas Hold Em Emporium on Shediac Island?
I don't think a referendum is the way to go as it begs the question how many other things will people then demand be put before a referendum?
No, we elect our government so that we as individuals don't have to be a part of governance at every stage.
The problem isn't that we have elected our representatives, its that those representatives have been given too much power, too much leeway. "The government is best that governs least"
The way to determine where our taxes are spent is by creating a constrained system that absolutely limits governmental power, taxation and spending authority right from the start.
Of course if we lived in a society that believed in individual freedom accountability and self reliance then Liberal's wouldn't outnumber the liberals by such a huge margin.
As far as gambling, prostitution and drugs being vices, it is my view that the only thing that separates them from industries, occupations and social activities are puritanical moralizing, religious hypocrisy and (yet again) governmental interference in individual liberty.
I think it's a good idea to offer more resolutions/propostions during elections. Not onl;y does it bring out more folks to the ballot box, it gives people a direct link to government and the feeling that the voice and vote is counted.
nb, do you believe that the people will ever vote to have their taxes raised?
No, which is precisely why new Brunswick need a tax advocacy group (other than this blof, lol)to pressure these guys into signing a pre-election pledge not to raise taxes. Something like the CTF did to McGuinty back in '03 i think it was?
Rob:
I think anonymous above said it best. Our system should hold more province wide proposition elections alongside general elections. Who knows, maybe voters would follow politics more in order to be more informed and up-to-date come election day? I mean honestly, with the system we have now (FPTP) and high voter apathy, it couldn't possibly get any worse.
I think we already have casinos. Hundreds of them in the province. They're small, but nearly every bar and restaurant in New Brunswick has one. The Liberal government is merely creating the rules by which they are allowed to continue to exist. That is why it's called a gaming strategy, not a casino strategy. It is about the reallocation of VLTs, legalizing gaming for charitable purposes, and creating destination gaming venues that compete with similar venues in every neighbouring jurisdiction. This is something that should have been done years ago.
And we already had a referendum on VLTs. NBers voted in favour of them even though I did not.
Monctonite.
There are plenty of places in Canada and in the US as well as Switzerland where referenda are held on a regular basis. In Alabama, one of those 'dumb southern states' that canadians love to make fun of, they're last election had ELEVEN ballot propositions on it for people to vote on.
To correct something above, there are literally HUNDREDS of propositions which have raised taxes which people have voted for. In Canada, the only town I've found that has citizens initiatives had its very first vote as one asking whether to raise taxes and it passed by a huge margin.
The point for most direct votes is that each tax increase is tied into something specific in the budget, so it doesn't just 'go into the pot'.
This isn't the first referenda on VLT's in Maine, for about the last decade and a half they have rejected them every three or four years.
But I remember a similar argument with NBT awhile ago about such 'democracy', and I'll say the same to him as he said to me then, which is that the argument above sounds like a case where somebody wants the government to enact legislation that they like because they are afraid that the majority of canadians wouldn't support them.
In fact, its not just canadians, in Maine a group of similar minded 'tax protectors' tried to get referendum passed on a "taxpayer protection act" which failed. Thats' why conservatives have pretty much stopped playing what made them 'progressive' or even 'reform minded', because of the knowledge that they are in the minority. But believing oneself to be right doesn't always jive with the majority view, in fact its often a token of pride (just ask an NDPer)
In Canada its been well over a decade that canadians have been demanding tax breaks, virtually every poll has government services at the top of the list-and taxes is usually fourth or fifth.
So NBT is right to not want such referenda-he knows that his view is not the majority one. Again, of course it comes back to WHOSE taxes, as we've discussed before, the second lowest tax increase, apart from those one step above poverty, were those incomes over $100,000. Plus they got a deduction on their capital gains which probably wiped out any increase on their income taxes anyway. So its a hard sell to set up shop protecting those poor maligned people who are just barely making it on $100,000 a year. Poor souls.
But to direct democracy, you need a mechanism to FORCE such referenda, because no government in this hemisphere is simply going to offer them on anything substantive, and when they do, as in NB's case with the VLT's, they don't even enact their own laws with regard to spending, which makes the whole thing moot. If you only let people see one side of an argument, then you can't be surprised what they choose. NB had a history of polling which had it close to Maine's, and right after the referendum, a prominent Saint John public relations firm was bragging on its web site about its ability to shift consensus for clients-who in this case was the VLT owners (though it barely passed).
So thats a little sneeky, although its somewhat irrelevant, to want to IMPOSE a 'taxpayers protection act', which is well known to be opposed by most people.
My past record is crystal clear on the use of referendums. Anybody who tuned in here during the Ontario election and referendum on MMP should know that.
Moreover, I am on record on this blog as being critical of the Graham government for shelving the referendum on electoral reform. Not sure how that makes me against (or willing to manipulate) such a measure?
See Democratic reform.
zip,
“… but I'm willing to bet that the gov saw this as a no lose investment.”
Nice pun on the ‘willing to bet’ part. The good citizens of Prince Edward Island may disagree. The taxpayers of PEI operate what someone later refers to as a similar venue in a neighbouring jurisdiction, also had a ‘no lose’ casino. Guess what, it is losing money. Government is not really known for predicting the future, or picking winning businesses. Business is not that good at predicting winners, how can we expect politicians to be good at it?
“They will no doubt place the thing in a tourist spot, perhaps one that has seen its clientele dwindle in the last few years … ”
All true, just like PEI. Please see my previous point.
rob,
“Victor Boudreau's Dope, Hookers, and Texas Hold Em Emporium on Shediac Island?”
I love that!
Anonymous
“That is why it's called a gaming strategy, not a casino strategy. It is about the reallocation of VLTs, legalizing gaming for charitable purposes, and creating destination gaming venues that compete with similar venues in every neighbouring jurisdiction.”
Will the honourable member from … please stand up? That is completely a talking point from the Liberal party. But it is well written, so it is more likely a staffer.
“Gaming”? It is called GAMBLING. Gaming is done by the nerdy guys who stay up all night playing video games instead of going out and drinking beer like the other frat boys. They have really cool computers with speedy graphic cards, fast processors and fancy skateboarding stickers all over the towers. They most likely built their own computer from parts, because they know how to do that stuff. If you are going to talk about gambling, at least have the courage to call it what it is.
“Reallocation of VLTs”? So you take them from the mom & pop restaurants and put them in a casino so the government can keep all the money. Sounds like maybe you should say ‘we will nationalize a portion of the VLTs currently in private business and put them in our business because we deserve the cash’. But that would stray too far from the talking point gobbly d gook.
“Legalizing gaming for charitable purposes”, so are you confirming you will not send in the RCMP to St Dunstan’s to arrest the bingo caller?
“destination gaming venues”? You can say casino, I would guess the minors are not reading a political blog.
“similar venues in every neighbouring jurisdiction.” Did your mother not tell you that just because your friends jump off abridge does not make it a good idea?
As to referenda, we are a representative democracy (I think) and we expect our leadership to make informed decisions on our behalf. This is what Premier Graham is doing. He has decided gambling is good for the coffers, lets get some cash. We elected him to use his judgement and he is doing just that.
I do not know if more referenda will drive voter participation, but I cannot see how it could have a big effect. If you do not care enough to vote on all the issues, I cannot see how one issue will create a stampede to the polls. But I do not see a down side to it, as long as it is tied in with other elections (like the VLT question during a municipal election) so it does not just cost more money for the same result.
RS
Thats a common misconception that underlies a larger problem, we do NOT have a 'representative' government, we have what the crown gave us in the 1800' s, which is a system of 'responsible government'.
That meant that we could elect leaders instead of having the LG simply pick them. Ironically, back in those early days the elected officials WERE more representative because there was only one party. Of course they only represented the business class because hardly anybody could vote.
Now its far different, your 'representatives' represent their party to you, not you to their party (otherwise they'd be independant). Of course you can run as an independant and if every riding elected an independant then they wouldn't represent a party, however, the electoral system is carefully designed to ensure that that doesn't happen.
So again, the only way to have referenda is to have Citizens Initiatives, like Maine does, so that these things can be voted on. A CI means that if a group gets enough signatures of people who want to challenge a policy then it must be put to a vote or else the legislature has the option of implementing it. That doesn't exist anywhere in Canada for the above reasons, but americans have them available at local levels, which in most of the US is very democratic, and half of the states have CI available and frequent referenda.
Again, we never hear about that for many reasons, one is that the US doesn't like to know it has some grassroots movements. You'll notice that when Afghanistan and Iraq's governments were set up to be 'democratic' they looked nothing like the US government, in fact Afghanistan doesn't even have a 'local' level of government.
And just follow any american election, the canadian press had NO stories on the hundreds of referenda which were voted on at the last elections last year. Once again, the least thing the canadian government wants, or the US for that matter, is people to get it into their heads that they can make their own decisions without them.
As for the casino I quite agree with the above, this is an attempt to do what should have been done initially. NB was the first province to legalize that form of gambling and made some big mistakes. Now, the former criminals who became millionaires are the status quo, they will make money from the machines, while there is no way that the government can simply allow VLT's to remain in bars and expect any kind of profit from a racino.
Such casino's become a tourist draw because they are unique, like in ontario. However, notice the article in the paper about how first nations are being cut out of the loop.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home