Pacific Stimulus: Allocations for July

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It would be interesting to look into the feasibility of equalization payments between the regions. I don't know where I'd stand on that myself, but it could be worth discussing. The pro-region side of me wonders how fair it would be to force the "have" provinces regions to pay the bills of the "have-not" regions, but that same side of me also sees that these payments could be a real boon to struggling areas of the country. Plus, we'd essentially be keeping the feds "out of it," other than relying on them as overseers of the transfers. Hmm...

As for the Pacific stimulus, my plan will be to follow the law and work with the committee to come up with a proposal that will stretch this money as far as possible for the people of the region. Maybe there's merit in discontinuing the stimulus after we've made good on our current commitments, but my take now is that we've already promised two more installments of the stimulus. Yes, the Pacific has made progress, but all recent, private investments in the region have been made with the knowledge that more federal money is on its way. To cut it off could send people running scared, no? That's not what we want in the midst of a fragile recovery.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yeah, I do believe these are two very different conversations, and at present we have a job to do for the Pacific, whether we believe the Pacific should exist as its own region or not.

Governor, I'll read over things and bring forward some suggestions when I'm home and at a computer. Could I ask you to send a message to the Speaker of the Pacfic Council to see if he plans on making an appearance?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm going through it now. I hope you don't mind me making a few changes to the wording of things, but right now some of the clauses are a little unclear (I think it's mostly due to the language barrier: Where you say "commission," the word "grant" is probably less confusing).

Actually, on second thought, I'll wait until we've talked more about what we want to do in a broad sense. Because right now, I'm kind of wondering if it's the best idea to create all these job creation commissions. I mean, that's basically all that sections 1 and 2 do. Right now, it seems like we're funding a lot of bureaucracy just so we don't have to deal with the specifics ourselves. Wouldn't it be better to actually say outright what kind of green jobs we want to create?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hey, don't worry about it haha. I hope I didn't offend you by saying it, but it for clarity's sake some of the terms could probably be dumbed down a bit.

Re: A proposal without the bureaucracy, don't feel like you have to do all of it anew on your own. If you want to brainstorm here, I'm up for it. For example, if we're talking about specific green projects, I think it would be worth delineating grants for the manufacturing of green vehicles. We could give money to smaller electric car companies so that they can expand their operations and hire more people. I'd also look into helping private bus companies purchase more fuel efficient buses for operation along routes in the region. Savings on fuel could free up money for these companies to expand coverage and grow their businesses.

So if we changed section 1 from "Environmental Workstations" to "Green Jobs," we could have a subsection on vehicles. What are some other green jobs we could help fund? I would support giving farmers grants to set up solar panels on their property. In rural Ontario, farmers have the option to sell back extra power to the grid and it ends up supplementing their incomes quite nicely. This idea would also fold into rural development.

On rural development, I wrote a pretty long paper on agritourism just last year. Although large, corporatized agritourism isn't great, when a collection of smaller farms diversify into agritourism, there are primary economic benefits for the farmers as well as secondary economic benefits for local communities. The tourist business may create jobs on the farms, and by bringing more visitors to the area, it also boosts sales in nearby towns (which can in turn create more jobs). Another benefit is that the educational experience of being on the land and seeing where food comes from often encourages visitors to be "responsible consumers" at home in the city. Maybe they will be more likely to check out their neighbourhood farmers' market and support local farmers.

You can really see how rural development and green jobs play off of each other. It's kinda cool.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Just checking in to say I'll get something up in writing tomorrow!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry, I spent the weekend away from home and I thought I'd have WiFi. I was wrong.

I will have something up tonight for sure. My post will include a new section 2 as discussed and a slight simplification of the other sections. I think we should aim to have something signed by Wednesday (and I think it's doable).

One question I have about section 1(1i)... what do you mean by edifices? To be honest, I don't really understand that entire clause. It tasks companies with some sort of job but doesn't say anything about money or what will compel these companies to want to follow along. Just want some clarification.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Okay, better late than never! I made a few changes to the wording, but pretty much everything carried over. I attempted to track the changes I made with green text and strikethroughs, but it was really difficult to code for the forum. If you are disappointed with anything, please let me know.

One change you will notice is that I actually specified dollar amounts for specific programs. Let me know if you think any of the numbers need changing.

I also eliminated the last section that set aside a whopping $2 billion for the continuance of programs outlined in the first stimulus. The way I see it is that we "gave enough" already for those programs, and we can assume that the money was sufficient and well-spent. Instead of that last section, I put the money towards a Pacific Student Work Experience Program, which is modeled after a federal program in Canada. If you don't like it, no worries... but we just have to keep in mind that we're running out of time (and I know it's totally my fault). You can read more about the Canadian program here.

To make things easier, everything that I've added is in green.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing I didn't include was Superique's suggestion on burning methane (?). I really don't know anything about the science of it and couldn't figure out how to turn it into a program for the stimulus. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, be my guest.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I realize I also missed adding in stuff for recycling programs.

As for money for research on hydrogen engines, I think that probably is better left to the federal government. The point of this stimulus is to jump-start the Pacific's economy. The last stimulus put quite a bit of money into research and other social programs that didn't necessarily create jobs. I think it's time for a stimulus that can accomplish positive social ends while immediately creating jobs and helping people put money in their pockets. I think the stimulus package above accomplishes those goals and strikes a good balance.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hey, we got a bit of time. If you can draft something up quick I'm totally open to it! I think it would be a good addition.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yeah, I was hoping Superique would put something together, but at this rate I think we gotta just get it signed. If I'm SoIA for the next stimulus I'll make sure recycling programs get in there.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think it's basically the law of the land, now! Congrats!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You must be logged in to read this quote.