By David Clinton

We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?

Technically, the word “democracy” means “rule of the people”. But we all know that the ability to throw the bums out every few years is a poor substitute for “rule”. And as I’ve already demonstrated, the last set of bums you sent to Ottawa are 19 times more likely than not to simply vote along party lines. So who they are as individuals barely even matters.

This story isn’t new, and it hasn’t even got a decent villain. But it is about a universal weakness inherent in all modern, nation-scale democracies. After all, complex societies governed by hundreds of thousands of public servants who are responsible for spending trillions of dollars can’t realistically account for millions of individual voices. How could you even meaningfully process so many opinions?

Hang on. It’s 2025. These days, meaningfully processing lots of data is what we do. And the challenge of reliably collecting and administrating those opinions is trivial. I’m not suggesting we descend into some hellish form of governance by opinion poll. But I do wonder why we haven’t tried something that’s far more focused, measured, and verifiable: directed revenue spending.

Self-directed income tax payments? Crazy, no? Except that we’ve been doing it in Ontario for at least 60 years. We (sometimes) get to choose which of five school boards – English public, French public, English separate (Catholic), French separate (Catholic), or Protestant separate (Penetanguishene only) – will receive the education portion of our property tax.

Here’s how it could work. A set amount – perhaps 20 percent of the total federal tax you owe – would be considered discretionary. The T1 tax form could include the names of, say, ten spending programs next to numeric boxes. You would enter the percentage of the total discretionary portion of your income tax that you’d like directed to each program with the total of all ten boxes adding up to 100.

The specific programs made available might change from one year to the next. Some might appear only once every few years. That way, the departments responsible for executing the programs wouldn’t have to deal with unpredictable funding. But what’s more important, governments would have ongoing insights into what their constituents actually wanted them to be doing. If they disagreed, a government could up their game and do a better job explaining their preferences. Or it could just give up and follow the will of their taxpayers.

Since there would only be a limited number of pre-set options available, you wouldn’t have to worry about crackpot suggestions (“Nuke Amurika!”) or even reasoned and well-meaning protest campaigns (“Nuke Ottawa!”) taking over. And since everyone who files a tax form has to participate, you won’t have to worry about a small number of squeaky wheels dominating the public discourse.

Why would any governing party go along with such a plan? Well, they almost certainly won’t if that’s any comfort. Nevertheless, in theory at least, they could gain significant political legitimacy were their program preferences to receive overwhelming public support. And if politicians and civil servants truly believed they toil in the service of the people of Canada, they should be curious about what the people of Canada actually want.

What could go wrong?

Well the complexity involved with adding a new layer of constraints to spending planning can’t be lightly dismissed. And there’s always the risk that activists could learn to game the system by shaping mass movements through manipulative online messaging. The fact that wealthy taxpayers will have a disproportionate impact on spending also shouldn’t be ignored. Although, having said that, I’m not convinced that the voices of high-end taxpayers are less valuable than those of the paid lobbyists and PMO influencers who currently get all the attention.

Those are serious considerations. I’m decidedly less concerned about some other possible objections:

• The risk that taxpayers might demonstrate a preference for short term fixes or glamour projects over important long term wonkish needs (like debt servicing) rings hollow. Couldn’t those words just as easily describe the way many government departments already behave?
• Couldn’t taxpayer choices be influenced by dangerous misinformation campaigns? Allowing for the fact the words “misinformation campaign” make me nervous, that’s certainly possible. But I’m aware of no research demonstrating that, as a class, politicians and civil servants are somehow less susceptible to such influences.
• Won’t such a program allow governments to deflect responsibility for their actions? Hah! I spit in your face in rueful disdain! When was the last time any government official actually took responsibility (or even lost a job) over stupid decisions?
• Won’t restricting access to a large segment of funds make it harder to respond to time-sensitive emergencies? There are already plenty of political and policy-based constraints on emergency spending choices. There’s no reason this program couldn’t be structured intelligently enough to prevent appropriate responses to a genuine emergency.

This idea has no more chance of being applied as some of the crazy zero-tax ideas from my previous post. But things certainly aren’t perfect right now, and throwing some fresh ideas into the mix can’t hurt.

  MxM News

Quick Hit:

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has unveiled the Trump administration’s plan to tackle surging egg prices, focusing on chicken repopulation and biosecurity measures while rejecting mandatory vaccines for poultry. The move aims to counter the economic impact of mass culling under the Biden administration’s failed policies.

Key Details:

• The USDA’s $1 billion plan includes biosecurity enhancements, rapid chicken repopulation, deregulation, and increased egg imports.
• Rollins ruled out mandating avian flu vaccines after research showed inefficacy in countries like Mexico.
• The administration is prioritizing securing farms against virus transmission while working on long-term solutions to stabilize egg prices.

Diving Deeper:

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, detailed the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to reducing skyrocketing egg prices, which she attributed to policy failures under former President Joe Biden. Rollins made it clear that President Donald Trump’s administration is focusing on restoring the poultry industry through chicken repopulation, strengthening biosecurity at farms, and removing unnecessary regulations that have stifled industry growth.

Rollins criticized Biden-era policies, noting that while the previous administration recognized the risks of avian flu, it failed to act decisively. “This has been going on now for two years. So it isn’t just regulation and all of the cost input increases and overregulation from the Biden administration, but it’s also not completely addressing the avian bird flu a couple years ago when it first hit,” she said. Under Biden, approximately 160 million chickens were culled, exacerbating supply shortages and sending prices soaring.

To address the crisis, the USDA’s plan includes five key pillars. First, the administration is investing in farm biosecurity, ensuring facilities are properly sealed to prevent virus transmission from wild fowl. Second, the repopulation of poultry flocks is being expedited by removing regulatory roadblocks. Third, the administration is pushing for deregulation in areas such as processing plant operations and California’s Proposition 12, which Rollins called “devastating” to the industry. Fourth, to alleviate immediate supply issues, the U.S. is negotiating egg imports from Turkey and other nations.

The final component of the plan, initially a proposed vaccine initiative, has been scrapped. Rollins stated that studies showed vaccinated poultry in Mexico still contracted avian flu at an alarming rate, making the approach ineffective. “I pulled that off the table,” she declared, adding that the administration is prioritizing research into alternative therapeutic solutions.

In addition to economic recovery efforts, Rollins praised President Trump’s recent address to Congress, highlighting his focus on American farmers and families. She also condemned congressional Democrats for their lack of support for crime victims’ families honored during the speech. “It is stunning,” Rollins said of their refusal to stand during key moments.

Looking ahead, Rollins reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to American farmers, emphasizing that Trump’s trade strategy is centered on protecting agricultural interests. “He is hyper-focused and passionately involved himself… fighting for our farmers, our ranchers, and entire agriculture community,” she said.