Through the past decade, Global Affairs Canada (GAC) awarded grants worth around 31 billion dollars to the International Development Assistance Program (formerly known as CIDA).
Kent, as a senior, my income (and, hence, my taxes) are reduced. You note that you don't feel overtaxed. I, however, consider the (lack of) quality of government spending and, based on quality as compared to amounts expended, I feel that every individual in Canada is over taxed.
Put differently, we are paying for things that are not provided and the government simply gives no evidence of caring.
Your point of view is different than mine but certainly valid.
Another way for me to express my view is that I can afford to pay my tax and i have never considered emigrating due to the tax burden. However, our governments wasting oir money on stupid programs, lousy employees and ridiculous pensions for civil servants really makes me furious.
With our current PM almost daily announcing some new multi billion dollar spend where do we find the billions that apparently disappear into this pit? Does anyone in power have any respect for the poor tax payer who is ultimately the source of these dollars or will be paying for the debt incurred by spending money that we don’t have?
It’s fine to attempt to attach some sense of fiscal responsibility to these folk but it’s quite likely that your generosity of thought is wrong as they are in a system which essentially rewards spending and bases future budgets on current spends.
I will agree that many managers worry about expenditures and waste but then I see ever so many programs - oh, Phoenix Pay system, ArriveCan, WE Charity, yada, yada, yada - and I simply know that those diligent folk are distressingly rare.
I agree that there are some simply outstanding folks within the Public Service who take incredibly seriously the word "Service" but I believe fully that for ever so many it is simply a job and the idea of "Service" is simply a word.
In my life before retirement I as a CPA in public practice and had to deal with CRA on a routine basis. I can report that I was / am aware of so many stereotypes about the folks at CRA but I can further report that so, so, so many of the folks there really went out of their way to assist; that is, they really understood the work "Service" in Public Service and completely belied the stereotypes.
On the other hand, on the other hand .... I absolutely met and was required to deal with Joe and Josephine Stereotype and it very much distressed me as those folks a) really made the work of the good folk seem the exception (it wasn't, but it felt like it some days); and b) their actions meant that I had to work much harder to ensure my clients were properly served.
I can further report that I found that same dichotomy in dealing with other aspects of the government. The yin and the yang, shall we say. Certainly the one side sours folks and makes many people (incorrectly) assume all public servants are not as diligent as they should be.
Sir, you ask, "Is there anyone in the department who’s reviewing the results, auditing the processes, and watching the spending for the foreign research programs we’re paying for?"
A provocative question to be sure. Given my (completely lay) experience in seeing results of other government programs I offer my terrifically skilled [apparently at least as skilled as the authors of the papers cited] analysis: No.
You asked a very necessary question that our government simply doesn't ever think to ask and, certainly, doesn't want to consider the consequences of an answer. Any answer.
There is no "correct way" of doing the "wrong thing". There is no virtue attached to activities funded at gun point. Those who would argue that such expenditures are worthy are free to lavish all they want on the NGOs involved but nothing funded by the state involves free will other than at the level of one's choice in remaining under the jurisdiction of the state that masquerades as having the consent of the governed while increasingly removing all options from them. Personally, I would favor the funding of NGOs supplying arms to the sub-Saharan Christians that are being murdered daily by the Islamists but I wouldn't advocate the Canadian state be involved for the above reasons as well as the risk and likelihood of them arming the wrong side.
I have been paying my fair share of taxes for decades. I don't feel overtaxed, but I know we Canadian taxpayers are poorly served.
Kent, as a senior, my income (and, hence, my taxes) are reduced. You note that you don't feel overtaxed. I, however, consider the (lack of) quality of government spending and, based on quality as compared to amounts expended, I feel that every individual in Canada is over taxed.
Put differently, we are paying for things that are not provided and the government simply gives no evidence of caring.
Your point of view is different than mine but certainly valid.
Another way for me to express my view is that I can afford to pay my tax and i have never considered emigrating due to the tax burden. However, our governments wasting oir money on stupid programs, lousy employees and ridiculous pensions for civil servants really makes me furious.
With our current PM almost daily announcing some new multi billion dollar spend where do we find the billions that apparently disappear into this pit? Does anyone in power have any respect for the poor tax payer who is ultimately the source of these dollars or will be paying for the debt incurred by spending money that we don’t have?
I actually think that most managers in the civil service do care about wasting money. But Global Affairs Canada has always seemed to be the exception.
It’s fine to attempt to attach some sense of fiscal responsibility to these folk but it’s quite likely that your generosity of thought is wrong as they are in a system which essentially rewards spending and bases future budgets on current spends.
I will agree that many managers worry about expenditures and waste but then I see ever so many programs - oh, Phoenix Pay system, ArriveCan, WE Charity, yada, yada, yada - and I simply know that those diligent folk are distressingly rare.
There certainly are notable exceptions (one way or the other)...
I agree that there are some simply outstanding folks within the Public Service who take incredibly seriously the word "Service" but I believe fully that for ever so many it is simply a job and the idea of "Service" is simply a word.
In my life before retirement I as a CPA in public practice and had to deal with CRA on a routine basis. I can report that I was / am aware of so many stereotypes about the folks at CRA but I can further report that so, so, so many of the folks there really went out of their way to assist; that is, they really understood the work "Service" in Public Service and completely belied the stereotypes.
On the other hand, on the other hand .... I absolutely met and was required to deal with Joe and Josephine Stereotype and it very much distressed me as those folks a) really made the work of the good folk seem the exception (it wasn't, but it felt like it some days); and b) their actions meant that I had to work much harder to ensure my clients were properly served.
I can further report that I found that same dichotomy in dealing with other aspects of the government. The yin and the yang, shall we say. Certainly the one side sours folks and makes many people (incorrectly) assume all public servants are not as diligent as they should be.
Sir, you ask, "Is there anyone in the department who’s reviewing the results, auditing the processes, and watching the spending for the foreign research programs we’re paying for?"
A provocative question to be sure. Given my (completely lay) experience in seeing results of other government programs I offer my terrifically skilled [apparently at least as skilled as the authors of the papers cited] analysis: No.
You asked a very necessary question that our government simply doesn't ever think to ask and, certainly, doesn't want to consider the consequences of an answer. Any answer.
As always, Sir, well done
There is no "correct way" of doing the "wrong thing". There is no virtue attached to activities funded at gun point. Those who would argue that such expenditures are worthy are free to lavish all they want on the NGOs involved but nothing funded by the state involves free will other than at the level of one's choice in remaining under the jurisdiction of the state that masquerades as having the consent of the governed while increasingly removing all options from them. Personally, I would favor the funding of NGOs supplying arms to the sub-Saharan Christians that are being murdered daily by the Islamists but I wouldn't advocate the Canadian state be involved for the above reasons as well as the risk and likelihood of them arming the wrong side.