federal Liberal performance as official opposition

[jdobbin]

Oh really? I'd ask for a link supporting your claim but instead I'll provide it to show your unfounded partisan claim.

So to claim that the Conservatives are solely responsible for a bloated bureaucracy is pure partisan drivel. Nice try.

I have given you plenty of links before on Tory spending. It has risen past all its targets and the civil service has grown.

Even the CTF says that Tory spending is higher than the Liberals. You didn't even address that. The size of government under the Tories has grown not declined.

I certainly never said the the civil service didn't grow under the Liberals. I think that is what you call partisan misdirection.

The Tories campaigned on a hard cap on spending and the growth of government. They have blown past those marks.

Edited March 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

I have given you plenty of links before on Tory spending. It has risen past all its targets and the civil service has grown.

I have consistently said I oppose increased program spending.

I certainly never said the the civil service didn't grow under the Liberals. I think that is what you call partisan misdirection.

You said:

Unfortunately, it is the Tories that have been increasing the size of government. Spending is out of control and the size of the civil service has grown.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth but I guess you can't help it.

The Tories campaigned on a hard cap on spending and the growth of government. They have blown past those marks.

Not so. This was not part of their 5 campaign priorities. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

[jdobbin]

I have consistently said I oppose increased program spending.

You said:

Unfortunately, it is the Tories that have been increasing the size of government. Spending is out of control and the size of the civil service has grown.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth but I guess you can't help it.

Not so. This was not part of their 5 campaign priorities. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

The size of the government is growing. Spending is out of control and the size of the civil service is growing. The Tories campaigned on reducing government. They haven't. Are you trying to say that the civil service has shrunk since Harper got into power?

I don't know why you have to resort to insults.

It is in the Conservative election platform. On page 17, it says it will limit spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth. They have broken that promise by a wide margin in every budget. Every newspaper commented on it last week about how they still have a huge spending problem.

http://www.conservative.ca/media/20060113-Platform.pdf

Edited March 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

The size of the government is growing. Spending is out of control and the size of the civil service is growing.

As a Liberal you should applaud this. After all, Liberals are all about big government.

The Tories campaigned on reducing government. They haven't.

They're taking baby steps. Wouldn't want to psyche out Liberal supporters as the shock would be fatal.

Are you trying to say that the civil service has shrunk since Harper got into power?

You know darned well I didn't, I'm saying the Liberals are to blame for the present bloated bureaucracy.

I don't know why you have to resort to insults.

You're way too sensitive. If I have broken any rules, report me.

It is in the Conservative election platform. On page 17, it says it will limit spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth.

Perhaps they have met that target. Do you have evidence that they have not?

They have broken that promise by a wide margin in every budget. Every newspaper commented on it last week about how they still have a huge spending problem.

Compared to the Liberals, perhaps this is an improvement.

Don't you get dizzy from all this spinning?

[jdobbin]

As a Liberal you should applaud this. After all, Liberals are all about big government.

They're taking baby steps. Wouldn't want to psyche out Liberal supporters as the shock would be fatal.

You know darned well I didn't, I'm saying the Liberals are to blame for the present bloated bureaucracy.

You're way too sensitive. If I have broken any rules, report me.

Perhaps they have met that target. Do you have evidence that they have not?

Compared to the Liberals, perhaps this is an improvement.

Don't you get dizzy from all this spinning?

Seems to me that your own link showed that the Liberals had reduced government size in the 1990s. I wish they had kept it under control in Martin's years as PM. The Tories have made no baby steps. They spend like drunken sailors despite saying they wouldn't in their election platform which you ignored. The civil service under the Tories got big pay raises and program spending grown another 15% since.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...d-our-debt.aspx

In their last five years in office, the Liberals ramped up program spending by nearly 50%. Since taking over two years ago, the Conservatives have raised it another 15%.

In just his first two budgets, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has increased spending by more than $25-billion. That seems to me the best place to start looking for money to pay down the debt.

http://www.psacbc.com/2006/07/30/governmen...civil-servants/

The federal government has quietly handed senior government officials and the heads of Crown corporations pay raises and increased bonuses, sounding alarm bells from a tax watchdog and the biggest public service union.

Government executives and deputy ministers, the highest ranking public servants, are in line to get a 2.5-per-cent pay raise.

The chief executives of Crown corporations, such as the CBC and Canada Post, are slated to get three-per-cent raises.

The salary increases will be applied retroactively dating back to April.

Executives and deputy ministers will also receive a 1.1-per-cent increase to what is known as “at-risk pay,” which is an end-of-year bonus. Besides this payment, executives and deputy ministers are eligible for another bonus of between three and five per cent if they earn all their at-risk pay.

The raises are part of a strategy aimed at preventing high-level public servants from jumping to more lucrative positions in private enterprises.

There was no formal public announcement of the increases from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/S....html?id=203779

Worried that the upcoming wave of retirements by Baby Boomers will leave the civil service understaffed, the Tories plan to hire 3,000 new workers in the next few months.

I don't know if you are willfully ignoring the numerous stories on in last week or not.

National Post editorial about the forgotten promise to control spending.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ive-budget.aspx

Overall program spending is up just 3.4% over the previous year; that comes close to meeting the inflation-plus-population-growth target that the Tories once touted but seemed to have forgotten. (As the Canadian Taxpayers Federation reminded us yesterday, the Conservatives' first budget boosted Ottawa's expenditures by 7.5% in fiscal year 2006. In 2007, the figure was 6.85%.)

Spending breezes past Flaherty's mark every time. Read the CTF website for more info on that.

Edited March 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

Seems to me that your own link showed that the Liberals had reduced government size in the 1990s.

Trudeau grew the public service to 282,788 employees in 1977.

"Their number fell from 282,788 in 1977 to 187,187 in 1998-a drop of more than 30 percent. "

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/partners...?printable=True

It would have been shameful if they had not addressed that problem. Too bad they let it mushroom again.

The civil service under the Tories got big pay raises

Good. I think those pay raises are well deserved. High caliber employees are attracted by good benefits.

and program spending grown another 15% since.

Where do you get 15%? This is what I found.

Program spending 06/07 was $188.8B; this is a 9.5% increase over 05/06 program spending which totaled $179.2B.

Program spending 07/08 set at $196.5B which is a 9.65% increase over 06/07.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/brief/briefe.htm

Edited March 8, 2008 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

Trudeau grew the public service to 282,788 employees in 1977.

"Their number fell from 282,788 in 1977 to 187,187 in 1998-a drop of more than 30 percent. "

It would have been shameful if they had not addressed that problem. Too bad they let it mushroom again.

And too bad the Tories have done nothing about it.

Good. I think those pay raises are well deserved. High caliber employees are attracted by good benefits.

If you think so, why do the Tories do it without even having a press release about it. They should be proud. don't you think?

Where do you get 15%? This is what I found.

Program spending 06/07 was $188.8B; this is a 9.5% increase over 05/06 program spending which totaled $179.2B.

Program spending 07/08 set at $196.5B which is a 9.65% increase over 06/07.

I got the 15% from the National Post and CTF. You didn't see the link? This is a 2006 document. Where is the 2007 and 2008 documents.

Edited March 8, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

I got the 15% from the National Post and CTF. You didn't see the link?

No. I went straight to the Budget sites to get the official budget program spending figures.

This is a 2006 document. Where is the 2007 and 2008 documents.

Oops....

You'll find all the numbers for 06/07 and 07/08 program spending here in the 08/09 budget which was recently adopted.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/glance-apercu...ef-bref-eng.asp

The actual program spending for 07/08 was $201.2B, a $12B increase over 06/07 (which was $188.3B).

Spending for 08/09 is set at $208.1B, a $6.9B increase over 07/08 (which was $201.2B)

The annual increases in program spending, both actual and projected, are less than 10%, not 15% as you or your link claim.

[jdobbin]

The actual program spending for 07/08 was $201.2B, a $12B increase over 06/07 (which was $188.3B).

Spending for 08/09 is set at $208.1B, a $6.9B increase over 07/08 (which was $201.2B)

The annual increases in program spending, both actual and projected, are less than 10%, not 15% as you or your link claim.

Here is the CTF files and this is what the National Post says too.

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2515

7.9% in 2006

5.7% in 2007

Both of those over the promise from the Conservative election platform. You'll notice the last year Martin was in, that spending went down.

[August1991]

Trudeau grew the public service to 282,788 employees in 1977.

"Their number fell from 282,788 in 1977 to 187,187 in 1998-a drop of more than 30 percent. "

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/partners...?printable=True

Capricorn, you got that statistic wrong - and that's using the federal government's own statistics. Here's what the link from Treasury Board says:

In 1999, almost half a million people worked for the federal government; this figure includes those working in departments, public enterprises, the armed forces and the RCMP. A little over 40 percent of these employees, primarily those in regular departments, fell under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. Their number fell from 282,788 in 1977 to 187,187 in 1998-a drop of more than 30 percent. This dramatic decrease in the number of federal public service employees accompanied a series of cost-cutting, downsizing and restructuring measures in the 1980s and early 1990s, including the 1994 Program Review exercise (discussed later).

The federal public service may have downsized but that doesn't mean that there were fewer people employed by the federal government. In fact, many people are paid with federal tax money but they are not subject to Public Service Commission rules. Statistics on the size of the federal "civil service" are almost meaningless now - just like statistics on the federal budget deficit or surplus.

By and large, federal government spending has steadily increased over the past century. As the quote above states, about half a million people work for the federal government but only about 60% of them are considered "federal civil servants".

Seems to me that your own link showed that the Liberals had reduced government size in the 1990s. I wish they had kept it under control in Martin's years as PM. The Tories have made no baby steps. They spend like drunken sailors despite saying they wouldn't in their election platform which you ignored. The civil service under the Tories got big pay raises and program spending grown another 15% since.

You make this argument often Dobbin. The Liberals under Chretien/Martin in the mid 1990s cut government spending but then it grew again once Martin became PM and has grown since Harper was elected.

Frankly, I think it grew even under PM Chretien in the 1990s although creative accounting suggested otherwise. (In the 1990s, there were cash-outs of federal employees who were then brought back on contract - so-called double dipping.)

----

This is a problem around the world. Governments get bigger. They have more and more employees who accomplish less and less. The employees are hired on increasingly complex and diverse terms and contracts in increasingly arcane arm's liength NGOs.

The broader the jurisdiction, the more this seems to be true. The UN administration is an absolute mess and the EU is well on its way to becoming this. Small town governments can be bureaucratic but don't grow endlessly. They are usually effective.

Starving the beast by cutting taxes, as has been tried in the US, doesn't seem to work. (That's what the Tories are hoping will happen with TFSAs.)

Ultimately, it's far easier for a politician to say yes. It's hard to say no. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin and now Harper are all guilty. Clearly though, this cannot continue. Government spending cannot continue to rise faster than general economic growth.

Edited March 8, 2008 by August1991

[scribblet]

wrong thread...

Edited March 8, 2008 by scriblett

[capricorn]

Here is the CTF files and this is what the National Post says too.

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2515

7.9% in 2006

5.7% in 2007

Both of those over the promise from the Conservative election platform.

As I have consistently said, I want program spending cuts and denounce those program spending increases.

You'll notice the last year Martin was in, that spending went down.

How generous of our Liberal PM to cut spending by $1.2B the year after the Liberals increased it by $22B. That's from you link BTW.

[jdobbin]

As I have consistently said, I want program spending cuts and denounce those program spending increases.

Keep denouncing. As soon as an election is called, the spending announcements are going to fly. The CTF has a long list in their website of Tory spending announcements already.

How generous of our Liberal PM to cut spending by $1.2B the year after the Liberals increased it by $22B. That's from you link BTW.

At least it was a cut. Flaherty has increased it every year.

[capricorn]

Capricorn, you got that statistic wrong - and that's using the federal government's own statistics.

I limited my comments to that part of the public service bureaucracy primarily because Dobbin's link on pay increases was a press release issued by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It's interesting to note in that release, the PSAC did not oppose the wage increases but criticized a perceived secrecy on the part of the government. The PSAC would like to be advised every time someone at Treasury Board burps. That's the nature of the beast.

The federal public service may have downsized but that doesn't mean that there were fewer people employed by the federal government. In fact, many people are paid with federal tax money but they are not subject to Public Service Commission rules. Statistics on the size of the federal "civil service" are almost meaningless now - just like statistics on the federal budget deficit or surplus.

By and large, federal government spending has steadily increased over the past century. As the quote above states, about half a million people work for the federal government but only about 60% of them are considered "federal civil servants".

Frankly, I think it grew even under PM Chretien in the 1990s although creative accounting suggested otherwise. (In the 1990s, there were cash-outs of federal employees who were then brought back on contract - so-called double dipping.)

All excellent points August.

Personally, I agree with the changes to the employment rules in the PS. It's a lot easier to get rid of incompetent employees who are hired on a term or contract basis than as permanent employees. Once they're in on a permanent basis it's virtually cash for life, regardless of performance. I know from experience. I was a middle manager in the PS for years with upwards of 25 employees and was stuck with some unproductive and lazy employees who had permanent status. It's a killer for morale among the group. The frustration of dealing with these losers drove me out of management and supervision, and into an operational job.