pie’s earning power; that governmentfueledninflation has pressured wivesnand mothers to go out to work; thatnparents have been told that they mustnpay the government to provide “daycare”ncenters. Now, the same governmentnis telling parents that it willnassume stewardship of the children;nand finally, that parents must contributento the upkeep of foreign governmentsnembracing similar policiesnabroad.nFront and center in the state’s assumptionnof stewardship are thenschools, and it is only natural that theynshould exemplify the state’s encroachment.nDavid Hillen, who heads thenEnglish department in an Ontario highnschool, wrote (in The Idler, November/Decembern1990) that “It is hard tonexaggerate the all-pervasiveness of politicsnin education. . . . The politicalnwill to monitor and control the educationnsystem in some kind of total,nquasi-totalitarian way has a long historynin Ontario. It seems to be gainingnmomentum again. . . . The power ofn44/CHRONICLESnLIBERAL ARTSnJOHN C. CALHOUN ON WARnthe collective dominates.” Boostingnthis collective are the governmentfundedn”women’s groups,” whosenagendas are openly socialist.nFor them and the rest of the Canadiannleft, universal government-fundedndaycare is a rallying cry. Child-carenadvocates are calling for a program tonraise the number of children cared fornfrom the government’s presently projectedn200,000 to one million by 1999.nWhen Health and Welfare MinisternPerrin Beatty warned “there won’t benlarge amounts of money for new programs,”nand that the governmentnwould look instead toward privatesectorninvolvement in social policy,nJanet Davis, president of the OntarionCoalition for Better Child Care,ncharged that this would “replicate thenAmerican market-oriented model. Wendon’t want the private sector to providenthe services. . . . How can you embarknon a major new social program if thendeficit is still the number one priority?”nIn fact it is the deficit that offersnrelief from the state intervention thatn”A bullying menacing system has everything to condemnnand nothing to recommend it—in expense it is almost asnconsiderable as war—it excites contempt abroad, and destroysnconfidence here. Menaces are serious things, and, if wenexpect any good from them, they ought to be resorted to withnas much caution and seriousness as war itself; and should, ifnnot successful, be invariably followed by it.”n— House of Representatives, December 12, 1811n”War, in this country, ought never to be resorted to but whennit is clearly justifiable and necessary; so much so, as not tonrequire the aid of logic to convince our reason nor the ardornof eloquence to inflame our passions. There are manynreasons why this country should never resort to war but forncauses the most urgent and necessary. It is sufficient that,nunder a government like ours, none but such will justify it innthe eye of the nation.”n— House of Representatives, December 12, 1811n”This business of war was a serious one. War created thenmeans of its own continuance. It called into being mightyninfluences which were interested in carrying it on; and fewnnations ever terminated war, so long as they possessed thenmeans of carrying it on.”n— Senate, January 5, 1848nnncaused it. Canada’s total debt is almostndouble, per capita, that of America.nPerforce, Ottawa is obliged to cut backnon transfer payments to the provinces,nwhich in turn are cutting back onntransfers to municipalities that werengetting, on average, about half theirnrevenues from the other two levels ofngovernment. Municipalities are wherenthe buck stops. Unlike the other twonlevels, they can borrow only for capitalnprojects. Their budgets must be balanced,nand their ability to do that isnpressed three ways: by declining transfers,nby their own recession-starvednrevenues, and by provincial governmentsnshifting responsibilities ontonthem while dreaming up new programsnthat municipalities have to paynfor.nThis has led to dramatic increases innthe property taxes that are municipalities’nchief source of revenue. In southwesternnOntario, when some businessnenterprises were faced with increases ofnas much as 100 percent, they revoltedn— not by refusing to pay the taxes, butnby threatening to withhold the businessnportion until taxes were either reducednor frozen at 1990 levels. Groups arenspreading across the province dedicatednto forcing accountability upon theirnlocal councils. George Lansens, a pioneernof the movement who employsnabout ninety people in three engineeringnplants near Windsor, told me thatnhe’s not in the solving business; thenpurpose of the freeze is to get politicians’nattention and to force them to donthe job they’re elected for, namely tondecide, from a finite amount of taxnrevenue, how it is to be allocated.nThe focus of these groups is notndaycare but the related issue of educationnspending—which amounts to asnmuch as 70 percent of the property taxnin some places. This argues a need forna different way of funding publicnschools, but also for more local controlnof an education system that is now runnby remote bureaucrats. David Hillennpromotes funding through a vouchernsystem, “thus effectively giving thenclient control over the educationalnservice sought.” His and Mr. Lansens’nresistance is one of the few signs innCanada of a renewed interest in federalism.nFreelance writer Kenneth McDonaldnlives in Toronto.n