Conservatives spending priorities don't add up
If you are a fiscal conservative who thought the Conservative plans to raise taxes were bad enough than check
this out
It looks like a Conservative government would also take us back into deficit unless they have spending cuts planned, which they aren't telling us. I am not against spending cuts, but they should at least be upfront about them. Either way those are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, should realize the Conservatives are neither and is why they don't deserve to be elected.
this out
It looks like a Conservative government would also take us back into deficit unless they have spending cuts planned, which they aren't telling us. I am not against spending cuts, but they should at least be upfront about them. Either way those are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, should realize the Conservatives are neither and is why they don't deserve to be elected.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 10:13 PM
7 Comments:
Yeah, that's right. The Liberals claim to be offering more social spending, and more tax cuts,
but its the Conservative's plan that will bring a deficit.
Go figure.
Anonymous, why don't you go check the figures for yourself. The main reason why the Conservatives would put us back into deficit is the GST cut. If they got rid of that and kept everything else, they would have a balanced budget. Actually total spending by the Liberals $26 billion while Conservatives $7.1 billion. For tax cuts it is $58.4 billion, while Liberals $33.4 billion so the totals are Liberals $59.4 billion, while Conservatives $65.5 billion. The overall tax cuts for the Conservatives may be larger, but most comes from the GST as opposed to an income tax cut, whereas the Tories plan to raise income taxes in order to gut the GST. I prefer income tax cuts over GST cuts and most economists agree here including even right wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute. Over five years the Conservative plan would create a $12.4 billion deficit and that is assuming Stephen Harper doesn't follow through on his plan to fix the fiscal imbalance which would cost anywhere from $11 billion to $40 billion, meaning a deficit up to possibly $52.4 billion over five years, of $10 billion a year. Right wing parties don't have a good record at balancing budgets. Just look at the US, Reagan and Bush Sr. ran massive deficits, Clinton ran surpluses, while Bush Jr. is now running massive deficits again.
That would have to mean that the Conference Board of Canada is lying. Given the Liberal record on trust and honesty, I know who I believe.
May I remind you that the Libs lied through their teeth on exactly this issue last time around. Some habits dont die easily.
The biggest threat to balanced budgets is actually a Liberal minority backed up by the NDP.
For example, want to trace the once massive deficits that plagued the federal government? It was the Trudeau minority elected in 72, backed up by David Lewis and the NDP.
And if you think Martin won't throw fiscal caution to save his hide in the future, think again. He's already done it once. He'd be all but certain to do it again in another minority.
And please, enough with the constant references to Bush and US politics. It's apples and oranges.
Yes, Bush has been a fiscal disaster. But Reagan never had a majority in both houses to work with, and had to fund a military buildup to tip the balance in the Cold War. The economic benefit of Reagan's tax cuts, along with the West's defeat of the Soviet Union made the surpluses of the 90s possible.
And giving Clinton all the credit for balancing the budget is revisionist history as well. Aside from what I mentioned above, he was held in check by the Reps for 6 of his 8 years in power. And he won in 96 only by steering firmly to the right.
In fact, Clinton claims that the economic success of the 90s was caused by tax hikes. It would hardly be consistent "mileslunnnism" to argue in favour of that.
The fact is Miles is that this grasping at straws. And you are more than intelligent enough to realize it.
Brandon - I am not suggesting the Conference Board of Canada is lying, I haven't seen their actual numbers. If was simply pointing out that if you add up all The Tory promises, they would go into deficit and this was done using the top economists of the nation.
And unlike you Brandon, I do believe that Martin would not adopt a budget that risked going back into deficit. He may adopt another big spending budget if the economy is strong and we have huge surpluses. Besides at this point it doesn't look too likely the Liberals + NDP will have over 155 seats and unless the Tories collapse like last time around.
In the United States, I agree Reagan isn't totally at fault for the deficits, but lets remember the US nations debt was around $1 trillion when he took power and over $4 trillion by the time he left so the biggest expansion of the debt occurred under his watch. Besides, right now the Republicans control all three branches, presidency, congress, and senate, and they still cannot get a balanced budget. My dad was saying the market has historically performed better under Democrat administrations than Republican, although one could always argue the boom under Democrats were results of previous Republican administrations and vice versa, but this is only partially true.
Miles,
Brandon's point is that Martin will do whatever it takes to stay in power. If that means he'll do another back of the napkin budget to garner NDP (and or Buzz Hargrove's support) he'll do it. How do we know? Because he just did it.
Martin has one singular principle- stay in power at any cost.
Anonymous - one of the conditions he made for the NDP deal was that we not go back into deficit. The only reason he could make such a ridiculous deal is we are awash in surpluses thanks the strong economy. Considering he ran his career as the deficit slayer, he knows if he went back into deficit, he would lose the election, so if he wants to cling to power, thats one sure way to ensure it doesn't happen.
I checked up on the Conference Board and it is true that they will be able to balance the budget, but it involves spending cuts that they aren't telling us about. I am all for spending cuts if appropriate, but they at least tell us what they will cut. At least Mike Harris had the guts to be upfront about his spending cuts, it was called the Common Sense Revolution rather than a Hidden Agenda.
Post a Comment
<< Home