Budget
Today, the Conservatives brought down their first budget. I would give the budget a C+ since it was a pretty average budget. It wasn't a great budget as some Conservative supporters say, but neither was it a terrible budget as the Liberals and NDP claim. But anyways since the Bloc Quebecois has promised to support it, it should pass without much difficulty.
Pros
- Affordable Housing trust for low-income families
- Corporate tax cuts from 21 to 19% (not very popular, but necessary to stay competitive in the global economy
- Small Business tax cuts
- Dropping immigration landing fee from $975 to $490
- More infrastructure spending
- More transit spending including the transit tax credit
- The sports tax credit since this will save us money in health care in the long-run as healthier people means fewer people using the health system
- $1.5 billion for farmers
- $400 million for aboriginals (better than nothing, but not honouring the Kelowna Accord will be in the cons
- More money for the military
- More money for the RCMP and border guards
- $104 million for Cancer strategy and cancer control
- More money for health care
- Exemping scholarships from taxation and tax credits for school textbooks
Cons
- GST cut (good politics, bad economics)
- Raising the lower income bracket from 15% to 15.5% (no need for tax hikes under the current economic climate, but especially not one's target at the poor)
- $1,200 Childcare cheques (The Liberal plan was unworkable, but cutting a $1,200 cheque to parents, which is taxable and won't nearly cover the cost of childcare is no solution)
- Tax credits to encourage business to create childcare spaces (tried elsewhere and didn't work)
- Cuts to environmental programs (The environment is one of the last areas we should be cutting. If we had a deficit then I would support cutting here, but not when we have a surplus)
- Cancelling the Kelowna Accords
- lack of funding for research and development (this is necessary to stay competitive globally)
- lack of funding for post-secondary education
- failure to scrap the long gun registry (This is a promise I hope they do keep, since the gun registry has been a complete waste of money and disaster)
On the whole on okay budget. It is definitely one I can live with, but I wouldn't describe it as a great budget. The last great budget we had federally was in 1995 when Paul Martin was finance minister and he made the tough choices necessary to turn around the nation's finances.
Pros
- Affordable Housing trust for low-income families
- Corporate tax cuts from 21 to 19% (not very popular, but necessary to stay competitive in the global economy
- Small Business tax cuts
- Dropping immigration landing fee from $975 to $490
- More infrastructure spending
- More transit spending including the transit tax credit
- The sports tax credit since this will save us money in health care in the long-run as healthier people means fewer people using the health system
- $1.5 billion for farmers
- $400 million for aboriginals (better than nothing, but not honouring the Kelowna Accord will be in the cons
- More money for the military
- More money for the RCMP and border guards
- $104 million for Cancer strategy and cancer control
- More money for health care
- Exemping scholarships from taxation and tax credits for school textbooks
Cons
- GST cut (good politics, bad economics)
- Raising the lower income bracket from 15% to 15.5% (no need for tax hikes under the current economic climate, but especially not one's target at the poor)
- $1,200 Childcare cheques (The Liberal plan was unworkable, but cutting a $1,200 cheque to parents, which is taxable and won't nearly cover the cost of childcare is no solution)
- Tax credits to encourage business to create childcare spaces (tried elsewhere and didn't work)
- Cuts to environmental programs (The environment is one of the last areas we should be cutting. If we had a deficit then I would support cutting here, but not when we have a surplus)
- Cancelling the Kelowna Accords
- lack of funding for research and development (this is necessary to stay competitive globally)
- lack of funding for post-secondary education
- failure to scrap the long gun registry (This is a promise I hope they do keep, since the gun registry has been a complete waste of money and disaster)
On the whole on okay budget. It is definitely one I can live with, but I wouldn't describe it as a great budget. The last great budget we had federally was in 1995 when Paul Martin was finance minister and he made the tough choices necessary to turn around the nation's finances.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:15 PM
35 Comments:
"GST cut (good politics, bad economics)"
How is cutting a tax "bad economics"? Sure it's a consumption tax, but it's a tax cut none-the-less.
GST cut is not bad per se, but when you consider the government has limited resources, it must make choices and the effect of a GST Cut on economic growth is quite limited compared to the effect of an income tax cut. Also many companies will simply raise prices by 1% to offset the GST cut.
Corporate, capital gains, and personal income tax cuts do far more in terms of promoting economic growth than a GST Cut. A GST cut only benefits those who spend while does nothing for those who choose to save or invest. Also with spending at its current levels, increased consumer spending could lead to higher inflation as demand will exceed supply leading to higher prices. If anything a GST cut would have more of a positive effect during a recession than a boom.
Why is the G.S.T. so important today and when it was introduced you Liberals were screaming blue murder? Either you are for the tax or you're not. Don't keep flip flopping. And the Liberal childcare plan, which you said was unworkable, only affected about 13% of Canadian children. The $1200. childcare allowance does not make up for a national childcare plan but it helps ALL children under 6, not the select 13%. And the Kyoto black hole money pit was scrapped because it didn't work. Our emissions went up instead of down. Lets invest that money in Canada not send it overseas.
failure to scrap the long gun registry
It WILL be scrapped, of that I have no doubt. They'll just wait until the unveiling of the AG's report in two weeks to
cause maximum damage to the Liberals.
Anonymous - I wasn't old enough to vote when the Liberals promised to scrap the GST and besides it was a stupid promise. Thankfully Paul Martin convinced Chretien to break it. And the Liberal daycare plan wasn't workable but $1,200 to each parent will only cover a month's worth of childcare. Whats worse is lower-income families will have most of it clawed back being left with only $300. Parents need help finding real childcare, not $1,200 to blow on beer and popcorn. I agree Kyoto Protocol won't work, but doing nothing about the environment is unacceptable. They need a Made-In-Canada plan and it needs to be costed and included in the budget.
Brandon - Lets quit trying to destroy the Liberals. Instead the Conservatives should focus on good government not playing politics. That is why they should scrap the gun registry now. You may hate the Liberals, but they are a legitimate party.
I agree with you this budget is a C+. We really can't expect more anything more progressive from a minority government.
Not a good budget, not a bad budget, really it's more of a political statement.
I agree with Walter Schulz. The budget is all about a stepping stone to a majority government, not about good economics. I cannot think of any good budget coming out of a minority government except for Joe Clark's 1979 budget (yes I know he raised taxes, but it was necessary to curb double-digit inflation), which he fall on. The reality is any good budget would never pass in a minority government.
Two things Miles
1) You seem to forget how the game is played.
The Liberals spare no tactic to try and annihiliate their competition, no matter how dirty. And you've applauded them all the way through it.
Now they get the slightest dose of their own medicine, and you're whining about it.
Politics is politics. Not to say that Harper has done anything dirty, but all political parties try to crush their opponents.
Just look at how Gordon Campbell tried to annihilate the NDP, and then refused to give them official party status. No less partisan than Harper.
Quite the contrary.
2) I really find it amusing how a self-styled economic conservative would criticise a budget that reduces the rate of spending growth to below economic growth, brings in tighter spending controls, and brings in more tax relief than the past four Liberal budgets combined.
This budget is superior to anything introduced while Martin was PM. I know it, you know it.
The fact that you don't admit that reveals that you're becoming more of a partisan Liberal by the day.
Brandon
1. The Liberals don't try to annihiliate their opponents, they simply point out their flaws. If the truth hurts, tough. The Liberals tell the truth about their opponents and unfortunately too few believe it.
2. I am all for spending cuts and lower taxes. As I mentioned earlier the best budget in the last 20 years was the 1995 budget. However, I don't believe the environment and aboriginal affairs is an area we should be targetting. Instead areas such as culture, corporate subsidies, and bureaucracy in terms of regulation is where we should cut. The budget is better than the NDP budget but worse than the original Liberal budget. Raising income taxes on the poor is not acceptable, neither is scrapping the Kelowan Accord, which I should note Campbell played a lead role in bringing in. Kyoto Protocol may not be achievable, but this is not an excuse to do nothing on the environment file. I've also been consistent that I think Income tax cuts as the Liberals promised should take priority over GST cuts. Even Harper as an economist knows the GST cuts are a bad idea but is doing them to win votes. The Fraser Institute is against them and instead favours income tax cuts, so this is not just Liberal propaganda, it is common sense tax cuts vs. politically expedient tax cuts.
I should also note Brandon if I was a Liberal partisan, I would have given the budget an F, not a C+, so I think I was quite fair here not a Liberal partisan, but rather a fair balanced assessment.
At the minimum, the Liberal Party of Canada should be stripped of it's constitution and disbanded as a result of the criminal activity popularly known as AdScam.
Any other organization which was involved in criminal activity to this degree would be prosecuted vigorously. Instead, we let Mr. Dithers order up a "find any scape-goat so long as it ain't me" judicial review which only asked half of the question that the average layman would ask and now every Liberal in the country wants to say the past is the past.
This isn't about politics, Miles. It's about justice- something which Liberals know nothing about but evidently wish to avoid.
Anonymous - some individuals in the Liberals did some illegal things and they are being properly punished.
But more importantly I believe in democracy and in 103 ridings or 1/3 of the ridings, a greter number of people wanted the Liberals to form government than any other party. 30% voted Liberals so you are essentially saying we should say the Hell with their values, the Hell with their principles, the Hell with the party they want, and just disband them because you personally dislike them. No that is undemocratic. The Liberals have the right to exist whether you like them or not. It is only the Canadian public, not any one individual who has the power to disband the Liberals.
Like I said, no interest in justice.
You believe in democracy, Miles? What are you doing with the Liberals then? They don't believe in democracy- they believe in socialism but democracy has kept them from their desire for autocratic rule.
Chretien and Martin were in AdScam (aka the tip of the iceberg) up to their armpits. If they weren't, then they're incompetent and yet, they were our Prime Ministers for more than a decade. Are they going to jail for the criminal acts committed in their names anytime soon? Mind if I don't hold my breath waiting??
Miles, what would it take to convince you that the Liberal Party of Canada is endemically corrupt? Where's the line in the sand for an "acceptable" amount of criminal behaviour? At what point should a political party in Canada be declared unfit to run? Please- I'd like to see your definitions.
I know Trudeau wrote some pretty flawed crap into the Constitution which he shoved down our collective throats but I didn't realize he enshrined the Right for criminal organizations to exist in there.
Does that mean all criminal organizations have that same Right? That would explain why the Liberals were so ineffective at bringing justice to the Asian Triads, the bikers, the Mafia and others.
Anonymous - If you actually had something intelligent to say rather than over the top arguments you might actually convince some people
1. The Liberals are not a criminal organization. If one staff member at a firm commits a crime, that doesn't make the whole firm guilty. The reality is Gomery exonerated Martin and there is not one shred of evidence to suggest Martin was guilty. If you don't like the Liberals, fine don't vote for them, but at least respect the right of those who do support a Liberal Canada to vote for them.
2. Liberals are not Socialists, the NDP are. Socialism has led to a weak economy wherever tried. If the Liberals were socialists we wouldn't have a strong economy and a balanced budget. I myself am centre-right, although some Liberals are centre-left too.
You avoided my questions, Miles. Is that what you mean by demonstrating intelligence?
Gomery's enquiry was designed by Martin to exonerate Martin and, strangely enough, that's exactly what it did. Go figure. Even so, Gomery accidently turned up more crud than Martin expected.
Anonymous - You just hate everything about the Liberals and don't bother to look at the facts. The Gomery Inquiry was created under a minority government and even gave the Bloc Quebecois and Conservatives full witness standings. The terms of references allowed a full investigation. Jean Chretien had the finger pointed at him.
Besides common sense dictates Martin and Chretien didn't get along very well and that Chretien likely wouldn't expose something like this to Martin as it would've only led to his earlier departure. The fact he resigned just before the adscam bombshell was dropped suggests Martin was left with the mess Chretien created to cleanup.
"The Liberals don't try to annihiliate their opponents."
Riiiight. And how many seats was Martin supposed to win? 200? 250?
Give me a break.
Martin was suppose to win 200 and 250 seats because prior to adscam he was extremely popular. There is nothing wrong with being extremely popular. For example Campbell won 77 seats fair and square. Now at the same time I think his decision to deny the NDP official opposition status was rather petty since no other commonwealth jurisdiction has been without an official opposition. Even Frank McKenna created an official opposition with a shadow cabinet within his own party back in 1987 when he won every seat in New Brunswick. Also the right being divided is the right's fault, not the Liberals' problem.
You still avoided my questions, Miles. At bit uncomfortable with the answers perhaps? How about if I list them without partisan names?
1- What would it take to convince you a political party is endemically corrupt?
2- Where do you draw the "line in the sand" as an acceptable amount of criminal behaviour by members of a political party on behalf of that party?
3- At what point should a political party in Canada be declared unfit to run candidates?
Perhaps I should supply your answers too? I bet I can guess pretty close.
Anonymous
1. The prime-minister would have to be caught red handed. Even though corruption is a negative I don't vote on one issue, I vote on many. Voting to mindlessly throw out a government without looking at the alternatives is how you end up in trouble.
2. A lot depends on who the opponents are. If someone like Joe Clark was the Liberal opponent, I would say they have crossed the line. If Stockwell Day was their opponent, Paul Martin would have to commit murder before I would draw the line in the sand and even then I still wouldn't vote for Stockwell Day.
3. I believe any party should have the right to run candidates. If you don't feel they are fit to run candidates, don't vote for them. If no one votes for them they will stop running candidates.
1- Jean Chretien was caught red-handed, yet you support the Liberal Party. Ergo....?
What does voting on many issues have to do with corruption? If a politician's stated policies matched yours exactly except he/she routinely commits fraud, you'll still vote for that politician?
2- I have to confess, I didn't expect this answer. You frighten me.
So you're okay with criminal behaviour on behalf of political parties? Well, you're definitely with the right political party now!
3- So you have no problem if the SkinHeads forming a party whose policies call for white supremacy and violence against all others?
How about a Muslim party whose policies call for conversion of all Christians to the worship of Islam (by the sword if necessary) an end to secular government and mandatory sharia law for all Canadians?
1. Chretien was not caught red handed rather he was slammed for turning a blind eye, so a different story. Besides Martin and Chretien were rivals and last election Paul Martin, not Jean Chretien was the Liberal leader. Certainly I would prefer not to vote for a corrupt party, but I am not going to vote for a party whose policies are totally out of line with my values.
2. I am not okay with criminal behavior, but in elections one has to make choices. If one doesn't like any of the choices, then you choose the lesser of the evils. I would take Paul Martin any day over Stephen Harper. I would take even Alfonso Gagliano as PM over Stockwell Day.
3. The two types of parties you mention are absolutely dispicable parties, but I suspect neither would get very many votes. Democracy is about allowing all parties to run and if a party is so out of touch with mainstream Canadians they won't get many votes. Besides those are extreme examples. Those types of parties would probably get 0.01% of the popular vote, not 30%. What you are essentially saying is that the 30% who supported the Liberal vision shouldn't have the option of voting for them. How undemocratic.
3.
1- Chretien was the PM when Sheila Fraser started blowing the whistle but he suppressed the report until he could safely retire. Proving Chretien did more than turn a blind eye would be all but impossible as the parties involved all knew better than to implicate the boss. Regardless, I suspect you would find a way to overlook a smoking gun in Chretien's hand or a bloody knife in Martin's hand...
2- You're absolutely okay with criminal behaviour. You willingly blur the line between right and wrong because you believe you understand the motivations of the politicos who cross that line and you empathize with them. You hope if you found yourself in the same situation, you would make a non-criminal choice but you cannot be sure. You are a typical Liberal; flexible values and all.
3- While the SkinHead wouldn't attract many voters, you're wrong about the second example. I hope such a party doesn't materialize.
When did I ever speak of taking away individual voting rights? In Canada, we vote for the individual MP, not the party. Chretien used the party system like a blunt instrument to beat MPs into submission. Martin wasn't much better, just less decisive. Trudeau, at least, had finesse but he wasn't above being brutal. War Measures Act, anyone?
Contrary to your belief, I don't hate Liberals. The party attracts a dedicated group of well-meaning and well-intentioned Canadians who want Canada to be a model society. How could anyone hate such people?
Unfortunately, the core of your apple is full of worms like Chretien, Martin and the Liberal demagogue, Trudeau.
You think the Liberals aren't socialists? Look at the results of Liberal rule and their stated goals. Textbook socialism from the growing Nanny state, supported by burgeoning taxation, to the erosion of individual rights (especially property rights) as well as the systematic downsizing and underfunding of the Armed Forces and the RCMP.
Yet you claim Liberal values are Canadian values. Look at the last election. Suddenly, the Liberals (and the Dippers for that matter) were all for "law & order" and supporting the troops. Contrast that to their actions while in power. Is the example too subtle for you?
Maybe you're right... we should let the electorate devastate the Liberals once they've seen through all of the lies which Chretien and Martin spewed about Conservatives. Perhaps the old saying about actions speaking louder than words may resonate across Canada.
1. I think Chretien did some unethical things, but I am not sure that he broke the law. Lets remember under the justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty
2. I am not okay with criminal behavior. I am simply saying one should not reject a party simply because they have a few bad apples
3. Glad to hear you don't hate all Liberals. Also getting elected as an Independent is very difficult. I agree Chretien was too strict in party discipline, but Martin allowed more free votes than any of the other three parties.
As for claiming Liberals are socialists, I wouldn't call balanced budgets, spending cuts, tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, privatization of some crown corporations as left wing. The size of our state is not as big as most European countries who are more socialistic. And as for property rights, according to the Heritage Foundation, our property rights are quite strong, when compared to other countries. Under their economic freedom indexes, property rights got a 1, which is the highest score.
I am not saying Liberal values as in the party itself are Canadian values. My point is most Canadians are in or close to the centre where the Liberals are. From time to time they will elect parties on the right or the left, but over the long-run parties near the centre are the most successful.
The Liberals tell the truth about their opponents and unfortunately too few believe it.
Likely because nothing else they say has proven to be even remotely near the truth. Why then, would anyone believe what teh ongenital liars have to say about others?
Sheesh.
Paul Martin has been invited publicly to state which Liberal candidates received dirty kick back money and he has refused to answer. Anyone who claims to believe in democracy should be sickened. It's little better than obstruction of justice.
On the non-confidence motion that the Liberals lost in the House last spring, Paul Martin completely ignored constitutional convention, the very cornerstone of our democrcy, which required that he call a binding non-confidence vote within 48 hours and dilly-dallied for a week until he could pay Belinda Stronach's ransom.
The Liberals preach one thing, but in action prove that they are hateful and dismissive of real democracy.
We're still interested in your factual answer to the question of which Liberal candidates received dirty kick-back money.
We're sure that you don't personally know, but as you praise Liberal values as ones you would like to see the world copy, we would be interested in copies of your communications with Liberal HQ inquiring as to the facts.
Kick-back money was paid to Liberal candiates - this is proven fact. To whom? We're sure that you have investigated. enlighten us, progressive one.
We're still interested in your factual answer to the question of which Liberal candidates received dirty kick-back money.
We're sure that you don't personally know, but as you praise Liberal, values as ones you would like to see the world copy, we would be interested in copies of your communications with Liberal HQ inquiring as to the facts.
Kick-back money was paid to Liberal candiates - this is proven fact. To whom? We're sure that you have investigated. enlighten us, progressive one.
Anonymous - Until a Liberal candidate is brought to trial I don't think we need to make these wild allegations. You just hate the Liberals period and are interested in smearing them however badly you can. You forget about all the good things the Liberals did in power, like balance the budget, turn around the economy, same-sex marriage, abstain from the Iraq War and BMD. The good done by the Liberals far outweighs the bad done by them. I am proud of what they've done for Canada and so should all other Canadians. As Bono and Kofi Annan both said "The World needs more of Canada" and I fully agree here.
Needless to say, Miles, you have more than one person posting anonymously.
I don't hate all Liberals but I certainly don't agree they've done more good than harm; reality is quite the opposite.
The Liberal pedagogue, Trudeau, left Canada almost bankrupt, financially & morally.
Brian Mulroney cleaned up Trudeau's mess and set Canada on a course of economic success. For his efforts, Mulroney was vilified by the Liberals. Unfortunately, Mulroney's ego made him an easy target.
As much as you'd like to sweep it all under the carpet, Chretien is so crooked, he could sleep in a circular staircase in perfect comfort. Martin isn't much better.
Any good done by the Liberals was done by the grassroots folks at the local riding association level because your leadership are corrupt through and through.
Incidentally, your line "you just hate Liberals and want to smear the party" is getting a little tired. It reminds me of an old movie...
"It's so because I said it was so. No further evidence is necessary. Ignore the man behind the screen."
Actually I agree that Trudeau left Canada in a mess and agree Mulroney helped begin the turn around. But I believe the Martin/Chretien government's decision not to revert to the Trudeau big government era, but continue the small but focused government is why they were successful. Lets remember I am a Blue Liberal and a former Progressive Conservative. My problem with the current Conservatives if the fact they are Reform dominated.
Miles' problem with the current Conservatives is the fact they are Reform dominated.
I absolutely agree. Things were so much better before the Conservatives let the niggers, er Albertans, take over.
Mirror Miles - look in one some day.
It is not a matter of whether a party is Alberta dominated, Quebec dominated, or Ontario dominated. I don't care where the politicians come from, I care about their ideas. I think Ralph Klein is a great premier and he is an Albertan. Likewise I think Bob Rae was a horrible premier and so was Jacques Parizeau.
My beef with the Reform Party is their far right ideology. It doesn't matter how you spin it, I will never support their extreme right wing policies, plain and simple.
So you admit you're intolerant of the viewpoints of others?
I am intolerant of extreme views on either the far left or far right. Now that doesn't mean I hate all people who voted Reform since not all or even the majority were extremists. But I dislike extremists from either side. And I should note I dislike their views, not them as people. Some of the commies when I went to SFU were actually very nice people, just had rather twisted political views.
Post a Comment
<< Home