The Economic and Ethical Internet Abuse in Governments and Wasteful Spending

In today's digital age, the misuse of Internet access by employees, whether in corporations or government institutions, poses a significant financial burden. Studies have revealed that the cost of illegal Internet use among 1,000 employees can amount to a staggering $36 million annually in lost productivity, with just one hour of daily unauthorized web surfing. 

These statistics not only sound an alarm for corporations but also raise serious concerns among taxpayers and elected officials. As stewards of public funds, elected representatives have to ensure prudent financial management, yet this persistence of such unnecessary costs and abuses within civil service ranks continues unchecked, lacking appropriate termination procedures. 

The blatant disregard for taxpayer money is a breach of trust by our politicians. It is perplexing how those entrusted with safeguarding public finances allow such misconduct to persist without implementing decisive measures to curb it. 

One glaring example of this issue is the reluctance of governments to disclose the extent of employee Internet abuse. Taxpayer-funded efforts have been expended to argue against disclosing the time civil servants spend on social media, entertainment sites, or attempting to access inappropriate content. 

This lack of transparency is not only wasteful but also undermines the principles of accountability and openness in governance. A recent investigation by The Toronto Star confirms this troubling trend, revealing how taxpayer dollars are squandered while crucial information about public servants' Internet habits remains concealed. Such secrecy contradicts the very essence of public service and democratic governance. 

In matters concerning public service work habits and expenditure of public funds, transparency must always prevail. 

The refusal to disclose civil servants' Internet habits reflects poorly on the integrity of government institutions and erodes public trust. Elected representatives who endorse such practices demonstrate a disregard for their responsibility to serve the public interest. Their actions are antithetical to the principles of open and accountable governance and they must be held accountable by the electorate. 

Taxpayers, who ultimately bear the financial burden of such abuses, deserve better. Citizens must demand accountability and transparency from their elected officials to ensure responsible stewardship of public resources. For further insights into the economic impact of Internet abuse, additional sources such as the article from NDTV underscore the widespread ramifications of this issue. 

Addressing Internet misuse in government and corporate sectors is a matter of financial prudence and a fundamental necessity in upholding democratic values and fostering trust in public institutions. 

The U.S. government's mismanagement of taxpayer funds remains a pressing concern, with staggering figures highlighting the extent of wasteful spending. 

Improper payments, totalling $247 billion in 2022 alone according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), exemplify the magnitude of the issue. Over the past two decades, these erroneous payments have amounted to nearly $2.4 trillion by GAO estimates, a colossal sum that reflects a systemic problem. 

Richard Stern, a budget and spending expert from the Heritage Foundation, emphasizes the gravity of the situation, likening the loss to money casually discarded on a sidewalk. This squandering of taxpayer dollars, Stern asserts, constitutes a form of theft from hardworking Americans, underscoring the need for urgent reform. 

Beyond improper payments, additional reports from entities such as nonprofits and lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, highlight further instances of wasteful expenditure. Examples range from maintaining vacant government buildings for $1.7 billion to inexplicably investing $28 million in forest camouflage uniforms for desert deployment in Afghanistan. 

Duplicated programs compound the issue, as the GAO consistently identifies overlapping initiatives year after year. Critics attribute these problems to systemic flaws in government decision-making processes. 

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, contrasts the private sector's emphasis on efficiency and cost-effectiveness with the federal government's tendency to resort to spending as a primary solution. 

This mindset perpetuates a cycle of wasteful expenditure, undermining efforts to address fiscal responsibility. Despite the GAO's mandate to audit and report on wasteful spending, experts lament its limited capacity to effect meaningful policy changes. Elaine Karmarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, suggests that while the GAO possesses adequate authority, resource constraints hinder its effectiveness. 

The ramifications of government waste extend beyond fiscal concerns, with watchdog groups warning of broader economic implications. Stern underscores the detrimental impact on the economy, attributing factors such as rising inflation and constrained investment to excessive government spending. 

As taxpayer dollars are squandered, the potential for economic growth is stifled, compromising future prospects and eroding confidence in government stewardship. Addressing wasteful spending demands concerted efforts to enhance accountability, streamline processes, and prioritize efficiency. 

Only through comprehensive reforms can the government fulfill its duty to taxpayers and safeguard the nation's financial well-being. 

In Canada for example, During the pandemic, the federal government allocated a substantial portion of taxpayer funds towards bolstering the economy through expansive programs such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). 

Regrettably, a significant portion of this expenditure was marred by mismanagement, poor targeting, wastefulness, or outright excessiveness, saddling Canadians with the enduring burden of fiscal waste. Estimates reveal that out of nearly $82 billion in COVID-related spending, approximately 27 percent—equivalent to $22.3 billion—was misallocated. This included disbursements of up to $11.8 billion in CERB payments to eligible dependents (ages 15 to 24) residing in households with an annual income exceeding $100,000, as well as an additional $7.0 billion in CERB payments to eligible spouses in similar financial circumstances. 

Moreover, the auditor general (AG) highlighted significant fiscal mismanagement during the pandemic. Ineligible individuals received $4.6 billion in CERB payments and other benefits, while another $27.4 billion in COVID spending warrants further investigation. 

Notably, overpayment recipients included prisoners, deceased individuals, and children ineligible for benefits, alongside thousands of employers who received CEWS payments without demonstrating the requisite revenue decline. Beyond misallocation, income support payments often exceeded the necessary levels to restore individuals' income. 

The AG's findings indicated that the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) could render recipients financially better off than if they were employed, presenting a disincentive to work during a period of increasing labour demand. 

Notably, government spending during COVID-19 resulted in an increase in after-tax income across all income brackets, exacerbating the issue of fiscal inefficiency. As the full extent of government waste becomes apparent, the burden on taxpayers continues to mount. A recent analysis by the Fraser Institute revealed that at least 25 percent ($89.9 billion) of the estimated $359.7 billion in federal COVID spending was squandered. 

This expenditure, financed through borrowing, will incur substantial debt interest costs, totalling an estimated $21.1 billion over the next decade. Ultimately, the total cost of federal COVID-19 fiscal waste is projected to reach approximately $111.0 billion by 2032/33. In essence, Canada witnessed the squandering of billions in taxpayer funds during its COVID response, with taxpayers poised to bear the repercussions for years to come. 

Governments must prioritize effective, targeted, and meticulously managed spending to mitigate the adverse effects of fiscal mismanagement on the economy and taxpayers.

Echoes of History: Manipulation, Division, and the Fight for Freedom

 

North America's young people, hailing from Canada and the USA, find themselves unwittingly caught in a complex web of influence. Academia, political operatives, and the strategic use of censorship via social media algorithms are all players in this grand scheme to sway world politics.

 

This manipulation of the education system and the reminiscent tactics of totalitarian regimes from the past, like the Fascists and Nazis of the 20th century, are sadly nothing new. We mustn't forget the lessons of history, particularly the events leading to the tragic conflicts of the 1930s.

 

Present-day political parties, especially in the wake of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, seem more focused on maintaining power than truly serving the people. Fear, coercion, and manipulation tactics dominate, reminiscent of darker times in history.

 

Today's media landscape often feels like a battleground for competing ideologies, with one side promoting a vision of progressive liberalism while the other advocates for a socialist world order. However, beneath the rhetoric lies a dangerous game of deception.

 

The rise of cancel culture, championed by various groups like BLM, MeToo, and Antifa, further divides society along ideological lines. These movements, often amplified by sympathetic media outlets, breed animosity and distrust among different segments of the population.

 

The disturbing scenes of looting and violence witnessed in 2020 and beyond reflect a society on the brink. Ordinary people, driven by a sense of entitlement and fueled by organized pressure groups, wreak havoc on their own communities, all in the name of justice.

 

It's alarming to witness the silence of elected officials in the face of such turmoil. History has shown us that complacency only emboldens those seeking to sow discord and division.

 

Calls to defund the police and the proliferation of hate-fueled ideologies only serve to escalate tensions. The right to express dissenting opinions without fear of retribution is a cornerstone of democracy, yet it seems increasingly under threat.

 

Despite the dominance of social media giants, individuals still possess the power to shape the narrative. The rights of users must be upheld, even in the face of corporate interests and political agendas.

 

Regarding vaccine procurement, it's essential to separate fact from fiction. While criticism may be warranted, it's crucial to acknowledge the efforts made by previous administrations to secure vaccine doses for the population.

 

In these tumultuous times, we must remain vigilant and vocal in defence of our freedoms and principles. History may be repeating itself, but it's not too late to alter the course of events.

Constitutional law -- Validity of legislation -- Provincial legislation on insolvency -- Ultra vires.

In 1981, I found myself, along with my solicitor the late W. Ross Hitch on my behalf, embroiled in a legal battle that would ultimately reveal a troubling abuse of power by the Ontario Legislature. Through the passage of legislation, the government effectively froze and seized all my assets, an action that was later determined to be illegal. Despite the clear violation of my rights, rectifying this injustice came at an exorbitant cost, nearly reaching one million dollars in legal fees.

Throughout the ordeal, it became evident that the elected representatives, spanning various political parties, had acted unlawfully. Despite their sworn duty to uphold the law and serve the people, they failed to do so, instead choosing to wield their power in a manner that trampled on my rights.

Years have passed since those events unfolded, yet not a single member of the legislature or political party involved has extended an apology for their egregious misconduct. Their refusal to acknowledge their wrongdoing serves as a stark reminder of the impunity with which those in positions of authority can act and the enduring consequences faced by those who dare to challenge their abuses of power.

Here is the summarized detail:

In the case of Hitch et al. v. Clarkson Co. Ltd. et al., the applicants were involved in a legal dispute regarding the sale of properties owned by a cooperative corporation, Co-operative Health Services of Ontario (Co-op). The liquidator of Co-op, Clarkson Company Limited (Clarkson), claimed an interest in the proceeds of the sale. However, an agreement was reached between the liquidator and the applicants for the distribution of the proceeds, subject to certain conditions.

Subsequently, the Legislature of Ontario enacted the Co-operative Health Services of Ontario Assets Protection Act, 1981, which aimed to preserve the funds from sale until all matters related to the distribution of the Co-op's assets were determined. This Act directly interfered with the agreement between the liquidator and the applicants by imposing restrictions on the distribution of the funds.

The applicants challenged the Act, arguing that it was ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Ontario Legislature as it intruded into federal jurisdiction over insolvency matters. The Court agreed, stating that the Act infringed on the administration of the insolvent's estate and attempted to supplement federal insolvency legislation, which was beyond the province's authority.

Therefore, the Act was deemed invalid, and the applicants' challenge was successful.

PS 

Conceivably, if there had been internet crowdfunding availability at the time, one could have continued a lawsuit against all members of the legislature, their respective political parties and leaders, for Breach of Trust, Dereliction of Duty, and neglect of official duty for an improper and ultra vires purpose under criminal and civil laws.

As citizens, we all unfortunately over the years continue to witness that our elected officials and their political party leaders and others in government seem never to be held accountable or liable for such actions!

 

Hitch et al. v. Clarkson Co. Ltd. et al.;

Attorney-General for Ontario (Intervenant)

(1982), 35 O.R. (2d) 252

ONTARIO HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CALLAGHAN J. 16TH OCTOBER 1981

Constitutional law -- Validity of legislation -- Provincial legislation on insolvency -- Ultra vires.

Document @ https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1741/1981canlii1741.html

 

Harvard Failing Faster Than The Roman Empire

A crushing cancel culture, accusations of plagiarism, protests on campus, lawsuits, Congressional investigations, and big-dollar donors running for the door. Inside the campus turmoil, where the Emperor Charles has no clothes.

Rewrite of an article by  JON KELLER Titled Why Harvard University Is Failing at Everything

 In the early days of Claudine Gay's Harvard presidency, she faced a Congressional inquiry on rising campus antisemitism. 

This came amidst turmoil following an attack on Israel. Gay's responses, including her stance on calls for genocide, sparked controversy and international criticism. 

Despite Harvard's prestigious history, recent events have exposed flaws in its administration and academic standards. Grade inflation, leadership controversies, and declining rankings have tarnished its reputation. Moreover, the campus environment has become tense, alienating students and alumni. 

Harvard's missteps raise questions not just about its own value, but also about the broader purpose of higher education. As Harvard grapples with its identity and legacy, it confronts challenges to its once-unquestioned status.

Harvard, with its vast endowment of $50.7 billion, faces growing scrutiny and challenges. Despite its wealth, Harvard's academic progress and leadership have been questioned. The Allston campus project, initiated 18 years ago, has lagged behind MIT's biotech advancements in Kendall Square. 

This delay has led to a brain drain, with prominent scientists like Stuart Schreiber departing for better opportunities. Similarly, Harvard's Kennedy School, once known for producing public-sector leaders, now sees a significant portion of its graduates entering the private sector. Concerns about government skepticism among students and controversies over faculty dismissals further tarnish Harvard's reputation.

Grade inflation is rampant, with 79% of undergraduates receiving A grades in recent years. The campus environment fosters political intolerance, with conservative voices often marginalized. Harvard's handling of the Israel/Hamas conflict has resulted in legal complaints alleging discrimination and harassment. Additionally, infrastructure issues, such as heating and housing problems, have plagued student life.

These challenges raise questions about Harvard's ability to maintain its academic excellence and reputation in the face of evolving realities and increasing criticism.

Students and parents are increasingly critical of Harvard's campus conditions despite its immense wealth. Maintenance issues persist, with reports of peeling paint and disruptive renovations. Graduate students faced water shortages and damaged property, with Harvard officials offering inadequate compensation.

Harvard Square, an extension of the campus, suffers from neglect, contrasting with Boston University's efforts to revitalize its surroundings. The recent loss of major donors, like Tim Day, reflects dissatisfaction with Harvard's direction, particularly regarding diversity initiatives and responses to campus issues.

The university's endowment team's underperformance compounds financial challenges, prompting calls for reform from CFO Ritu Kalra. Concerns about antisemitism on campus persist, with Rabbi David Wolpe resigning from an advisory committee due to perceived inaction. Interim President Alan Garber's appointment of Professor Derek Penslar to address antisemitism further fuels controversy.

Criticism extends beyond Jewish concerns, with Professor Danielle Allen condemning disruptive protests as violations of university norms. Harvard's failure to address these issues raises doubts about its commitment to campus improvement and academic excellence.

Harvard is facing a multitude of challenges, including declining prestige, financial strain, discontent among students and faculty, and loss of support from alumni and donors. Despite these issues, there appears to be a lack of recognition among Harvard's leadership regarding the severity of the situation and how to address it.

In response to criticism, former Harvard President Claudine Gay attributed her resignation to external "demagogues" undermining the university's core values. However, Harvard's reliance on outside influences is not new, with significant funding from foreign governments contributing to concerns about intolerance and free expression on campus.

Transparency and openness are suggested remedies for Harvard's woes. The university's communication strategy has been criticized for its lack of engagement, hindering efforts to address internal and external challenges effectively.

Calls for change emphasize the need for humility, openness to diverse perspectives, and a proactive approach to addressing criticism. Harvard's failure to uphold its founding principles of excellence and truth raises questions about its future and relevance in academia.

In addition,

Harvard helped Nazi Germany improve its image in the West

The profound impact of Nazi policies on German academia during the 1930s, highlighted the systematic suppression of dissenting voices, particularly targeting Jewish scholars and those with left-leaning ideologies. It elucidated the coercive tactics employed by the Nazis to enforce ideological conformity within universities, such as the expulsion of Jewish faculty and the appointment of Nazi commissars to enforce compliance.

The account of Peter Drucker's experience at Frankfurt University poignantly illustrates the moral dilemmas faced by intellectuals in the face of totalitarianism. Drucker's decision to leave Germany underscores the chilling effect of Nazi control over academic institutions and the erosion of academic freedom.

Furthermore, the contrasting responses of intellectuals like Martin Heidegger demonstrate the complex interplay between ideology, opportunism, and moral compromise. Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazi regime exemplifies the betrayal of intellectual integrity in exchange for personal gain and ideological alignment.

The expulsion of renowned scholars like Albert Einstein symbolizes the devastating brain drain inflicted upon German academia by Nazi persecution, leading to the loss of invaluable intellectual capital and the disruption of scientific progress.

Research into Harvard's collaboration with Nazi Germany gains significance amid current debates on campus antisemitism framed as freedom of speech. Historians note Harvard's historical ties to Nazi Germany, indicating a pattern of reluctance to condemn evil regimes.

Harvard's recent controversies, including the resignation of President Claudine Gay and criticism for her response to calls for genocide against Jewish students, echo past instances of repressed antisemitism. Notably, Harvard's retention of a fellowship named after a top Nazi industrialist raises concerns about the university's response to antisemitism in light of substantial donations from Mideast regimes.

Harvard's history includes welcoming a top Nazi official, Ernst Hanfstaengl, in 1934, highlighting the university's complicity with the Nazi regime. Despite protests from students, Harvard administrators and alumni embraced Hanfstaengl, reflecting a pattern of insensitivity to antisemitic sentiments.

The legacy of Harvard's past leaders, such as A. Lawrence Lowell, who proposed quotas on Jewish student admissions, underscores the university's history of discrimination. Medoff suggests that Harvard's actions, like sending delegates to Nazi-controlled universities, illustrate a troubling pattern of support for oppressive regimes.

Also, Harvard's historical entanglements with Nazi Germany raise serious pertinent questions about its commitment to combating antisemitism and upholding democratic values.

Historian Stephen Norwood's book, "The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses," reveals Harvard's contribution to Nazi Germany's image rehabilitation efforts in the West. According to Norwood, Harvard's administration and student leaders provided significant support to the Hitler regime during its persecution of Jews and military expansion.

Norwood criticizes Harvard's president at the time, James B. Conant, for not only remaining silent on antisemitism but actively collaborating with it. Conant allowed Nazi symbols on campus, including a wreath bearing the swastika placed in a Harvard chapel by Germany's top diplomat in Boston. Additionally, Harvard's policies during the 1930s restricted Jewish refugees, particularly Jewish professors, from seeking refuge at the university.

Conant's belated condemnation of Nazism after the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938 contrasts with his earlier actions. Despite Harvard's later rebuttal, Norwood provides evidence of Conant's efforts to foster friendly relationships with Nazi university leaders, even as they purged Jewish faculty and promoted antisemitic racial science.

Norwood's research also highlights other Harvard affiliates who sympathized with Hitler's regime, such as Dean Roscoe Pound of Harvard Law School, who praised Hitler's leadership during a visit to Germany.

Norwood emphasizes the role of American university presidents during this period, arguing that Harvard's choices were not inevitable, as demonstrated by the actions of other institutions like Williams College and British universities, which took stands against Nazi collaboration.

In conclusion, Norwood's book calls attention to the university's complicity with Nazism, urging a reassessment of Harvard’s historical legacy of “Everyone shall consider as the main end of his life and studies, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life,” and its original motto “Veritas”, adopted by Harvard's in 1643, which is Latin for “truth,”!

Source:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2024/02/27/harvard-failure-2024/