Connect with us

Economy

A Fair Deal Includes Energy Security

Published

5 minute read

This article contributed by Josh Andrus, Executive Director of Project Confederation

Energy security.

It’s a concept that has been ignored by many – including our federal government in Ottawa – for far too long.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has suddenly helped the world realize what’s been obvious to many Albertans for a long time – we still need oil and gas!

The same parade of politicians who crusaded to save the world from the threat of “catastrophic” climate change are now coming to the realization that there is a fundamental flaw in the Green New Deal / Leave It In The Ground / Build Back Better strategy.

Energy is the industry that powers every other industry – and as such, a safe supply of affordable, reliable energy is not only good for the domestic economy but also a crucial tool in an increasingly volatile international geopolitical landscape.

Earlier this week, after a big push by our friends at the Alberta Institute, and many other political and non-profit groups, the federal government finally announced that they would ban the importation of Russian oil.

Russia’s aggressive actions, and the related uncertainty, have now driven the price of crude oil over the $115/bbl benchmark.

[Editor’s note: we had to increase that price four times while writing this piece!]

Thankfully, Alberta has a large supply of energy resources, resources that could displace the loss of Russian imports and help keep energy affordable for Canadians.

Of course, it would have been better if our calls had been listened to years ago, and we had the infrastructure in place already!

But, as the saying goes:

The best time to build a pipeline was 20 years ago.

The second-best time is now!

If our politicians had any sense, Keystone XL and Energy East would have been given emergency approval the moment war broke out.

Yet, here we are, a week into a European war, and there’s been nary a whisper from the White House or Rideau Cottage.

If Alberta can’t convince Canada to build a pipeline in the middle of a war in Europe, we’ll surely never get one.

To make matters worse, the pipeline issues aren’t even the only possible problem on the horizon.

In past years, $100+ oil was good for Alberta.

Economic growth explodes, jobs are plentiful, and the pay is phenomenal.

Some of that will surely happen in the coming months, but with this current boom coinciding with major inflationary pressures, there are risks for Alberta too.

High energy prices and the ensuing increase in the cost of living will hurt the rest of the country.

The Rest of Canada will complain that Alberta has it so good, while they struggle to pay their hydro bills.

Will the Rest of Canada decide to start extracting their own plentiful natural resources, currently kept in the ground for nonsensical environmental concerns?

Of course not.

Ottawa will, undoubtedly, devise yet another means of wealth redistribution instead.

Once again, they’ll figure out a way to make Alberta pay for their poor policy choices.

They probably won’t have the gall to call it a “National Energy Program”.

But they might.

Remember, the major issues driving Western alienation are structural deficiencies in Confederation, deficiencies that have only gotten worse in recent decades, not better.

The West is underrepresented in Parliament, the Senate is unelected and ineffective at protecting Provincial rights, the very concept of fairness is undermined in our Constitution via equalization, and the Supreme Court screws the West and protects the rest.

At Project Confederation, our mission is clear:

To build a movement that will reform Confederation and achieve a fairer deal, in whatever legal configuration that may require.

I suspect we’re going to have a lot of work to do in the coming months!

If you’d like to help us with that work, please reach out to us to get involved, or consider making a donation to help fund our efforts.

Regards,

Josh Andrus
Executive Director
Project Confederation

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Artificial Intelligence

Apple bets big on Trump economy with historic $500 billion U.S. investment

Published on

Quick Hit:

Apple is committing a historic $500 billion to the U.S. economy in a sweeping initiative aimed at bolstering American innovation and manufacturing. The investment, announced Monday, includes building an AI server factory in Texas, expanding research and development efforts, and hiring 20,000 workers.

Key Details:

  • Apple’s $500 billion investment will roll out over the next five years, with a focus on artificial intelligence, manufacturing, and workforce development.

  • The company is doubling its Advanced Manufacturing Fund from $5 billion to $10 billion and establishing an Apple Manufacturing Academy in Detroit.

  • President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to credit his administration’s economic policies for the massive investment, stating, “Without which, they wouldn’t be investing ten cents.”

Diving Deeper:

Apple’s unprecedented $500 billion investment marks what the company calls “an extraordinary new chapter in the history of American innovation.” The tech giant plans to establish an advanced AI server manufacturing facility near Houston and significantly expand research and development across several key states, including Michigan, Texas, California, and Arizona.

Apple CEO Tim Cook highlighted the company’s confidence in the U.S. economy, stating, “We’re proud to build on our long-standing U.S. investments with this $500 billion commitment to our country’s future.” He noted that the expansion of Apple’s Advanced Manufacturing Fund and investments in cutting-edge technology will further solidify the company’s role in American innovation.

President Trump was quick to highlight Apple’s announcement as a testament to his administration’s economic policies. In a Truth Social post Monday morning, he wrote:

“APPLE HAS JUST ANNOUNCED A RECORD 500 BILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE REASON, FAITH IN WHAT WE ARE DOING, WITHOUT WHICH, THEY WOULDN’T BE INVESTING TEN CENTS. THANK YOU TIM COOK AND APPLE!!!”

Trump previously hinted at the investment during a White House meeting Friday, revealing that Cook had committed to investing “hundreds of billions of dollars” in the U.S. economy. “That’s what he told me. Now he has to do it,” Trump quipped.

Apple’s expansion will include 20,000 new jobs, with a strong focus on artificial intelligence, silicon engineering, and machine learning. The company also aims to support workforce development through training programs and partnerships with educational institutions.

With Apple’s announcement, the U.S. economy stands to benefit from a major influx of investment into high-tech manufacturing and innovation—further underscoring the tech industry’s continued growth under Trump’s economic agenda.

Continue Reading

Business

Americans Say Government Is Corrupt and Inefficient but Are Lukewarm About DOGE

Published on

Democrats seem willing to tolerate a lot to get a larger government, but Republicans aren’t much better

Americans think government is wasteful when it’s not outright fraudulent and abusive. That should create a welcoming environment for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its mission to cut fat out of federal agencies on the way to (hopefully) reducing the state and balancing the budget. But support for DOGE is lukewarm. Unsurprisingly in these politically fractured times, cost-cutting efforts are a lot more popular with Republicans than Democrats, but polling suggests the division isn’t just one of partisanship. The DOGE is running up against fundamental disagreements over the role of government and the people who staff it—and the price people are willing to pay for a less-obnoxious government.

Corrupt and Inefficient Government, but Iffy Support for DOGE

Last year, Pew Research polling found that 56 percent of Americans say government is “almost always wasteful and inefficient.” The Babbie Centre at Chapman University reported that “nearly 2/3 of Americans fear that our government is run by corrupt officials.” And last month, A.P.-NORC researchers found 70 percent of Americans believe corruption is a major problem in the federal government, 65 percent say the same of inefficiency, and 59 percent see red tape—including regulations and bureaucracy—as a major problem.

Yet DOGE draws just a 39 percent “favorable” rating in the latest The Economist/YouGov poll, a bare three points ahead of “unfavorable” at 36 percent (25 percent picked “don’t know”). A poll this month from Trafalgar Group found 49 percent approving of the cost-cutting efforts of DOGE and Elon Musk, with 44 percent disapproving (7 percent were undecided). That’s more support than opposition in both cases, but you’d expect greater enthusiasm from a public that overwhelmingly considers government to be corrupt and wasteful (with plenty of evidence to support that position).

Part of the explanation, of course, is partisanship. Anything done by officials from one of the major parties is bound to be booed by the opposition, no matter what. As Gallup’s Jeffrey M. Jones pointed out in 2022, “generally speaking, Republicans and Democrats are more inclined to say the government has too much power when the president is from the other party, and less inclined when a president from their own party is in the White House.” That tribalism likely extends to cutting government as well, even if the cuts apply to agencies controlled for the moment by political enemies. Sure enough, both Trafalgar and The Economist/YouGov found far greater support for DOGE among Republicans than among Democrats (independents split the difference).

Democrats Want More Government, Flaws and All

But there are also real differences in attitudes toward the role of the state. The same Pew poll that reported widespread belief in the wastefulness and inefficiency of government also found that 49 percent of respondents “would prefer a smaller government providing fewer services” while 48 percent “would rather have a bigger government providing more services.” And the partisan divide here isn’t just tribal, it’s ideological. Despite fluctuations depending on who is in power, Republicans have overwhelmingly favored a smaller government providing fewer services since polling on the issue began in 1976 (support for bigger government peaked among them at about one-third in 1988 and 2004). Democratic support for larger, more active government grew from 49 percent in 1976 to 74 percent now.

Democrats in the A.P.-NORC poll were just slightly kinder than Republicans in their opinions on government corruption, efficiency, and red tape; majorities agree the federal government is corrupt and inefficient, while a 47 percent plurality says that red tape is a major problem. Given the overwhelming belief that government is corrupt and wasteful, but iffy support for DOGE, it’s fair to conclude that at least some Democrats are willing to put up with those concerns as the price of a larger state.

Partisan disagreement over the role of government also applies to trust in the people who staff the federal bureaucracy. These are the people the Trump administration offered buyouts and seeks to reduce in numbermuch like the Clinton administration did in the 1990s. Support for reducing the federal workforce depends, to a large extent, on agreement that those workers are part of the problem—or at least that we’d be better off with fewer of them. That’s not a universal opinion.

“Just 38% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents express a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in federal career employees,” Pew Research noted last week. That’s down 10 points from 2018. “In contrast, 72% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they have confidence in career government employees – 7 points higher than in 2022, but on par with 2018 levels.”

So, if we’re to believe what members of the public tell researchers, majorities of Americans across partisan divides think the federal government is corrupt and inefficient. But a fair number of those who hold this position—Democrats, in particular—are confident that the people employed by the federal government aren’t responsible for that corruption and efficiency. Those problems appear from somewhere, perhaps as a miasma emanating from the swamp that D.C. was in years past. Also, many of those concerned that corruption and inefficiency plague the government are willing to put up with those handicaps so that the corrupt and inefficient government can play a larger role in our lives.

Republicans Also Want Their Expensive Goodies

Of course, consistency and logic aren’t necessarily common features of public opinion. As I’ve noted before, Republicans and Democrats may disagree when it comes to broad philosophical statements about the size and role of government, but when it comes to specifics, there’s more that unites them than divides them. Majorities of partisans of both parties as well as of independents want more federal spending on Social Security, Education, and Medicare, according to A.P.-NORC. A majority of Democrats also want more to be spent on Medicaid and assistance to the poor, while a majority of Republicans similarly want more dedicated to border security and the military.

Social Security is almost a quarter of federal spending all by itself, while Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care are slightly more, by the Cato Institute’s reckoning. National defense is about 13 percent, as is income security, with interest on federal debt right behind. DOGE faces quite an uphill battle to succeed in its mission to slash the size and cost of federal government.

DOGE faces obstacles from Democrats who recognize that the government is corrupt and inefficient but want more of it anyway. It also faces a challenge in Republicans and independents who say they want less government but don’t want to surrender their favorite boondoggles.

Americans are lukewarm about DOGE because they’re torn about its mission. Sure, they have a low opinion of the federal government, but they might be willing to put up with its deep flaws so long as it delivers their goodies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X