By David Clinton

Shaping Government Spending Choices to Reflect Taxpayer Preferences

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.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum held a joint appearance in south Louisiana Thursday to tout the restart of the growth of America’s liquefied natural gas(LNG) industry.

The event celebrated the kickoff of a planned $18 billion expansion of the existing Plaquemines Parrish LNG export facility operated by Venture Global. It also served to symbolize the end of what was frankly one of the dumbest policy actions ever invoked by executive order – then-President Joe Biden’s “pause” on permitting for new LNG export infrastructure.

Reversed by President Donald Trump on day 1 of his second term in office, Biden invoked the year-long pause in January 2024 on the flimsiest of pretenses, a preposterous claim by anti-natural gas activist researchers that US LNG emissions exceed those of coal-fired power plants. Worse, that claim was not made in findings of a peer-reviewed scientific study, but in an early “preview” of a study that fell apart on close inspection.

The unpleasant task of defending this dumb policy action fell largely on the shoulders of Biden’s hapless Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, who assured the attendees of the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston in March 2024 that the “pause” would be “in the rearview mirror” when they met again in 2025. That prediction turned out to be accurate, but not due to any action taken by her or Biden. Instead, Granholm did her best to hype the Department of Energy’s(DOE) own study when it was released in November, making claims about its findings in a letter leaked to The New York Times the day before that turned out to not be accurate.

Even more concerning, Democrat nominee Kamala Harris consistently supported the pause and concerns increased throughout the campaign that, if elected, she would most likely move to turn the pause into permanent policy, thus ending America’s dominant position in the global LNG export business. But voters had different ideas, choosing instead to elect Trump for a second time in November, bringing his plans for American Energy Dominance along with him.

Burgum, who chairs Trump’s newly-created American Energy Dominance Council in which Wright also participates, told workers and executives assembled for Thursday’s event that, “One of our pathways to energy dominance is just unleashing the incredible resources that we have in this country: getting the red tape, getting the federal government off the back of the worker, off the back of companies.”

In an interview from the Venture Global site with Will Cain on Fox News, Wright, pointing to an LNG tanker behind him, said, “In less than 24 hours it’ll be loaded and sailing back to Germany; 100,000 homes in Europe can be heated and supplied with gas for a full year just in that one tanker behind us. This is unleashing American energy to the benefit of Americans and to the benefit of our friends and allies abroad. This is the way to peace.”

And so, Biden’s absurd pause comes to a richly-deserved end. Again, this entire fake controversy had zero basis in fact or real science. That’s how close America came to losing what has been one of its major growth industries of the last decade.

It is almost unimaginable that this could have happened in the United States of America, with its supposed system of checks and balances. But, as Elon Musk’s DOGE operation is revealing on a daily basis, so much of Biden’s administration appears to have been built on a foundation of a complex web of scams and money laundering schemes, with his energy and climate policies playing a leading role. This LNG pause episode almost pales in comparison to some of the multi-billion-dollar grants handed out by both DOE and the EPA in the administration’s final months.

But it’s all in Granholm’s imagined rearview mirror now, as is Granholm herself. America’s LNG industry is back, poised for rapid expansion and ready to resume its place as the dominant player in the global market.

Elections do matter.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.