Posted at Americas Quarterly online on July 25, 2011
Two separate rail journeys on two separate continents have provided very different learning experiences. Last year, I decided to take Amtrak's Adirondack train from New York to Montréal to observe firsthand the state of passenger rail travel in North America. U.S. President Barack Obama had outlined his vision for high speed rail (HSR), and the Province of Québec had expressed its interest in joining the international connection for the Northeast corridor. I blogged about my experience and was pleasantly surprised to find out that the prospect of HSR was attracting an enthusiastic following.
This year on a visit to Europe, I traveled France’s Train à Grande Vitesse (High Speed Train—TGV) from Paris to Marseille and Paris to London.
I knew the New York to Montréal trip would be long, but 11½ hours was more than I bargained for. The scenery was surely stunning, the price was affordable, but it is ridiculous that in an era of alternative travel the trip was nearly double the time of a car ride and quadruple the time of a commercial flight to the same destination. Crossing the U.S.-Canada border was particularly disconcerting as the train, which was filled to capacity with passengers, stayed immobile for over an hour for individual inspections. And I was told this was a good day.
Earlier this month, it took me just under 2½ hours to travel from Paris to London. The ride is smooth, the respect for on-time scheduling nothing short of spectacular and the comfort clearly surpassing any other form of travel.
We are all familiar with the advantages of HSR: efficient and comfortable transportation; the ability to work on the train using all the latest technologies; and traveling along an infrastructure that substantially reduces the carbon footprint. These realities and more make HSR a convincing case to become the transportation of the future. China has understood this.
It is amazing that North America is still debating the merits of HSR when Europe and Asia have bypassed us completely.
Slow economic growth, the U.S. debt crisis, and ideological divisions in the U.S. Congress about the size and the role of government have stalled the momentum for Obama’s HSR vision. But it should not be the case if developed Western economies are serious about pushing forward with cutting-edge innovation. Investing in HSR is not a short term fiscal expense; rather, it is a wealth-creating sustainable development project for decades to come. HSR is a win-win proposition that has positive environmental and economic benefits for future generations.
The debate is not yet over. It has its proponents in all political parties but also some detractors as well. Some worry about costs; others wish for an economic model with more private-sector involvement. It is fair to have this discourse in a democracy—but at the end of the day, public policy leaders must act not just for the next election but also for future generations.
Comparing my two different rail experiences has convinced me about the better choice.
July 26, 2011
July 14, 2011
What the Debt Debate is Really About
Posted at Americas Quarterly on July 13, 2011
I cannot recall when the issue of raising the United States’ debt ceiling was so contentious. The gridlock has reached fever pitch, despite warnings from economists, financiers and former Treasury officials of the risk the U.S. runs if government intervention is not undertaken. As the world’s strongest economy with the largest reserve currency, a U.S. default would have disastrous consequences on the global financial system.
What is different this time around has a lot to do with how the Republicans have been able to frame the debate around the current deficit numbers (around 9 percent of GDP) and the debt figure now surpassing 90 percent of GDP. As a result, President Obama is locked in a debate about the size and the role of government. The dialogue no longer concerns a balanced budget. Rather, the Republican leadership, under the scrutiny of a vocal and united Tea Party movement, is unable to deliver the kind of compromise solution that could include substantial spending reductions but would also involve new tax revenues.
Looking back on previous battles, we have seen a Republican president like George H.W. Bush raise taxes—at great political cost—to reduce the gap between spending and revenue. A Democratic president like Bill Clinton accepted welfare reform and tax reductions in his effort to streamline government; he left office with balanced and surplus budgets.
In Canada and Québec, the fight for fiscal sanity both in the 1990s and the most recent recession concentrated on careful consideration of the role of government. The mix of two-thirds spending cuts with one-third new revenues, agreed upon in the latest round of debt negotiations, has kept both jurisdictions on course for a balanced budget by 2014. In the process, Canadian lawmakers have not had to encounter an ideological battle about the size and scope of government to the extent that is seen in the U.S.
All sides concede that the current U.S. budget imbalance has much to do with entitlement programs. Both political parties acknowledge this much—to varying degrees—but the differences occur with the solutions. Here, the Republicans are proposing drastic cuts and/or reforms that would greatly modify existing social programs. They argue that no new taxes should be added, making it essentially an effort to reduce the size and role of the U.S. government.
We are far from the era of Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes—where all ideas were on the table.
The Democrats see the problem as a need to reform existing programs, but not put at risk the fundamentals of those programs. Examples of such fundamentals include: universal coverage along with government control of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They also argue that the ballooning deficit occurred principally under George W. Bush’s watch—cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans (from 39 percent to 36 percent) and executing two unfinanced wars and a drug prescription program which was principally unpaid for.
Democrats concede that the Obama stimulus may have added to the deficit—but that it was needed due to a slow recovery caused by a persistently high unemployment rate. So they propose to end the Bush tax cuts, wind down the wars, cut some defense spending, and do tax reform to raise revenue.
The next few weeks will amplify the current showdown as the August 2 deadline nears. Most serious observers agree that a deal to raise the debt ceiling—thus avoiding default—will be struck soon. What will remain, however, will be the ideological battle about the size and the role of government. To varying degrees, this has been the classic argument over the centuries in this country—and it will likely define the 2012 election cycle. It may still be “the economy, stupid,” but the solutions will have more to do with what kind of government Americans want than with how the economy actually performs.
I cannot recall when the issue of raising the United States’ debt ceiling was so contentious. The gridlock has reached fever pitch, despite warnings from economists, financiers and former Treasury officials of the risk the U.S. runs if government intervention is not undertaken. As the world’s strongest economy with the largest reserve currency, a U.S. default would have disastrous consequences on the global financial system.
What is different this time around has a lot to do with how the Republicans have been able to frame the debate around the current deficit numbers (around 9 percent of GDP) and the debt figure now surpassing 90 percent of GDP. As a result, President Obama is locked in a debate about the size and the role of government. The dialogue no longer concerns a balanced budget. Rather, the Republican leadership, under the scrutiny of a vocal and united Tea Party movement, is unable to deliver the kind of compromise solution that could include substantial spending reductions but would also involve new tax revenues.
Looking back on previous battles, we have seen a Republican president like George H.W. Bush raise taxes—at great political cost—to reduce the gap between spending and revenue. A Democratic president like Bill Clinton accepted welfare reform and tax reductions in his effort to streamline government; he left office with balanced and surplus budgets.
In Canada and Québec, the fight for fiscal sanity both in the 1990s and the most recent recession concentrated on careful consideration of the role of government. The mix of two-thirds spending cuts with one-third new revenues, agreed upon in the latest round of debt negotiations, has kept both jurisdictions on course for a balanced budget by 2014. In the process, Canadian lawmakers have not had to encounter an ideological battle about the size and scope of government to the extent that is seen in the U.S.
All sides concede that the current U.S. budget imbalance has much to do with entitlement programs. Both political parties acknowledge this much—to varying degrees—but the differences occur with the solutions. Here, the Republicans are proposing drastic cuts and/or reforms that would greatly modify existing social programs. They argue that no new taxes should be added, making it essentially an effort to reduce the size and role of the U.S. government.
We are far from the era of Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes—where all ideas were on the table.
The Democrats see the problem as a need to reform existing programs, but not put at risk the fundamentals of those programs. Examples of such fundamentals include: universal coverage along with government control of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They also argue that the ballooning deficit occurred principally under George W. Bush’s watch—cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans (from 39 percent to 36 percent) and executing two unfinanced wars and a drug prescription program which was principally unpaid for.
Democrats concede that the Obama stimulus may have added to the deficit—but that it was needed due to a slow recovery caused by a persistently high unemployment rate. So they propose to end the Bush tax cuts, wind down the wars, cut some defense spending, and do tax reform to raise revenue.
The next few weeks will amplify the current showdown as the August 2 deadline nears. Most serious observers agree that a deal to raise the debt ceiling—thus avoiding default—will be struck soon. What will remain, however, will be the ideological battle about the size and the role of government. To varying degrees, this has been the classic argument over the centuries in this country—and it will likely define the 2012 election cycle. It may still be “the economy, stupid,” but the solutions will have more to do with what kind of government Americans want than with how the economy actually performs.
Publié par
John Parisella
July 13, 2011
Joining Forces for Better Results
With the political climate in various parts of the world often the result of division and partisanship, it is rare that we can hold up to the light the cooperation and concerted efforts meant to improve the lot of society. Often, conflicts exist within organizations and between competing jurisdictions that do little to advance the issues or create positive results.
However, just recently, I was able to observe the advantages of ministries working together and combining forces. At the annual 2011 BIO International Convention held in Washington, the largest of its kind in the world, the Québec government sent Minister of Economic Development Clément Gignac along with Minister of Health Yves Bolduc to meet with key players in the sector.
Both ministers worked in tandem and presented the advantages of investing and growing existing enterprises in Québec. They emphasized that with 350 businesses employing 26,000 people as well as four medical faculties (at Montréal, McGill, Laval and Sherbrooke universities) and research groups in personalized medicine, Québec represents a unique environment for innovation and creativity in the sector. It was very encouraging to see ministers sharing the spotlight, rather than competing for it.
Later in the conference, Minister Gignac published a report along with Ontario Minister of Research and Innovation Glen Murray to show how both provinces are working together to promote a life sciences activity pole to improve commerce and promote prosperity. It showed how two provinces chose to combine their competitive advantages to create opportunity rather than promote division and a win-lose dynamic.
In a former life as a chief of staff, I recall that a good portion of my activity had to do with arbitrating interdepartmental turf wars. In North America, where countries are federations, conflicts between the federated states sometimes become the order of the day. While the absence of confrontation is not necessarily a recipe for success, finding common ground can often lead to progress.
I chose the two above examples, modest as they may appear, to illustrate the advantages of joining forces. Québec and all our sister provinces are often able to speak with a common voice. My province has also worked with U.S. northeast states to do likewise. In a world where polarization and partisanship make headlines, it was refreshing to see two ministers of the same government break down silos, and witness two ministers from arguably competing jurisdictions work together to strengthen each other’s assets. There is a lesson to be learned – joining forces makes for better government and produces more effective results.
However, just recently, I was able to observe the advantages of ministries working together and combining forces. At the annual 2011 BIO International Convention held in Washington, the largest of its kind in the world, the Québec government sent Minister of Economic Development Clément Gignac along with Minister of Health Yves Bolduc to meet with key players in the sector.
Both ministers worked in tandem and presented the advantages of investing and growing existing enterprises in Québec. They emphasized that with 350 businesses employing 26,000 people as well as four medical faculties (at Montréal, McGill, Laval and Sherbrooke universities) and research groups in personalized medicine, Québec represents a unique environment for innovation and creativity in the sector. It was very encouraging to see ministers sharing the spotlight, rather than competing for it.
Later in the conference, Minister Gignac published a report along with Ontario Minister of Research and Innovation Glen Murray to show how both provinces are working together to promote a life sciences activity pole to improve commerce and promote prosperity. It showed how two provinces chose to combine their competitive advantages to create opportunity rather than promote division and a win-lose dynamic.
In a former life as a chief of staff, I recall that a good portion of my activity had to do with arbitrating interdepartmental turf wars. In North America, where countries are federations, conflicts between the federated states sometimes become the order of the day. While the absence of confrontation is not necessarily a recipe for success, finding common ground can often lead to progress.
I chose the two above examples, modest as they may appear, to illustrate the advantages of joining forces. Québec and all our sister provinces are often able to speak with a common voice. My province has also worked with U.S. northeast states to do likewise. In a world where polarization and partisanship make headlines, it was refreshing to see two ministers of the same government break down silos, and witness two ministers from arguably competing jurisdictions work together to strengthen each other’s assets. There is a lesson to be learned – joining forces makes for better government and produces more effective results.
Publié par
John Parisella
July 5, 2011
Why Americans Have Reason to Be Hopeful
Posted at Maclean's on July 4, 2011
On July 4, Americans rightly celebrate their country’s accomplishments since 1776. While living in the United States and witnessing the countless debates on cable news networks, it is tempting to think that America’s best days are behind it, that the American dream is slowly fading away. But we should think again.
America is known for its inherent optimism, its belief in exceptionalism, and its committment to liberty. When the Thirteen Colonies decided to declare independence from the greatest power of the day (Great Britain), the revolutionary ideas held by the Founding Fathers were imbedded deep into the identity of the country, as was the notion that revolution had been the correct and noble choice.
Now, some 235 years later, the attachment to the ideals of revolution remain as vital and strong as ever. With the debt ceiling debate likely to reach a crescendo in the next few weeks, the central question has become whether the American dream will play as vital a role in the lives of future generations. The slow recovery, the rising deficit, and the growing weight of the national debt have polarized the political debate around the role and size of government.
The additional burden of two seemingly endless wars and a NATO-led operation in Libya has only added to the tide of pessimism. Political dialogue in Washington has gone quiet and there are doubts it can be made to be meaningful again.
Yet, a closer look at where America currently stands suggests the American dream is far from over. Yes, the political climate is polarized, but there is still a free flow of ideas, quite possibly greater than in any other nation in the world. The 2012 election cycle is beginning and the marketplace of ideas will be open to the American voter. If history is an indicator, America will gradually tackle the problems and the issues facing them.
Americans are right to be optimistic. They should be heartened by the innovation and technology that has come from their country and for which it remains the world leader. They should be encouraged by respected educators like Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children Zone, pushing for educational reforms and innovation. The current debate about entitlement reform is mostly about keeping the programs going, not eliminating them. The discourse around defense and conflict in the world revolves around making the world safer and less prone to new conflicts, not isolation and resignation.
True, the approaches and the views differ, but the fundamentals revolve around keeping the American dream alive. This is why our neighbours and friends to the south have every reason to celebrate. Happy Fourth of July.
On July 4, Americans rightly celebrate their country’s accomplishments since 1776. While living in the United States and witnessing the countless debates on cable news networks, it is tempting to think that America’s best days are behind it, that the American dream is slowly fading away. But we should think again.
America is known for its inherent optimism, its belief in exceptionalism, and its committment to liberty. When the Thirteen Colonies decided to declare independence from the greatest power of the day (Great Britain), the revolutionary ideas held by the Founding Fathers were imbedded deep into the identity of the country, as was the notion that revolution had been the correct and noble choice.
Now, some 235 years later, the attachment to the ideals of revolution remain as vital and strong as ever. With the debt ceiling debate likely to reach a crescendo in the next few weeks, the central question has become whether the American dream will play as vital a role in the lives of future generations. The slow recovery, the rising deficit, and the growing weight of the national debt have polarized the political debate around the role and size of government.
The additional burden of two seemingly endless wars and a NATO-led operation in Libya has only added to the tide of pessimism. Political dialogue in Washington has gone quiet and there are doubts it can be made to be meaningful again.
Yet, a closer look at where America currently stands suggests the American dream is far from over. Yes, the political climate is polarized, but there is still a free flow of ideas, quite possibly greater than in any other nation in the world. The 2012 election cycle is beginning and the marketplace of ideas will be open to the American voter. If history is an indicator, America will gradually tackle the problems and the issues facing them.
Americans are right to be optimistic. They should be heartened by the innovation and technology that has come from their country and for which it remains the world leader. They should be encouraged by respected educators like Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children Zone, pushing for educational reforms and innovation. The current debate about entitlement reform is mostly about keeping the programs going, not eliminating them. The discourse around defense and conflict in the world revolves around making the world safer and less prone to new conflicts, not isolation and resignation.
True, the approaches and the views differ, but the fundamentals revolve around keeping the American dream alive. This is why our neighbours and friends to the south have every reason to celebrate. Happy Fourth of July.
Publié par
John Parisella
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
