Massive Conservative $85 Billion Dollar Deficit

[Wilber]

There was no complaining in Saskatchewan and Manitoba when they built up reserve funds. There is certainly complaining now that they are being drained and fear about deficits if things aren't brought under control.

I can see that on a local or provincial level because people will see it as their reserve for their benefit and not money likely to be used for projects in or given to other parts of the country. It is money they have control over not the majority of voters in other parts of the country.

I repeat, it is stupid to borrow money to go into deficit. That shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

It is even stupider to pay more in interest on your debt than you are making on your savings.

And yet somehow we have a large deficit now. Where was the cushion?

The cushion is having less debt. If I have $5000 in a savings account earning 1/2% interest but have an outstanding loan of $5000 on which I am paying 5% interest, wouldn't paying off the loan be the smart thing to do? I can always borrow the money back in an emergency.

Where was the Liberals reserve fund when they were in power other than the EI surplus?

[Argus]

Most reserve funds are equal to a half year of government spending. Many provinces have them, some like Saskatchewan and Manitoba are using them this year to avoid deficits.

Please cite these provinces - other than Alberta with its oil money - which had multi-billion dollar reserve funds they are using to avoid deficits.

And your party said there was no rush to act even though it is now shown that we were experiencing a very dramatic drop in the last quarter.

What the Tories said - and I am not a Tory partisan in the way you are a Liberal partisan - was that we should not panic and that they needed to wait and see what the US was going to do with their stimulous package, and with the auto makers. What your party said was "Ahhhhhh! Ahhhhh! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

And Harper supporting Tories here are whining and complaining that because they don't have a minority that they were forced to spend like drunken sailors. Buck up, grow some balls and stop whinging like 10 years old with anger problems and frothy mouthed conspiracy tales about how everyone is out to get you.

Did you steal this line from Oleg? Because it's incomprehensible and doesn't appear to refer to anything in this universe, much less my post.

All this blaming of the Liberals for everything gone wrong is so laughable that it defies belief and it is probably why the latest poll yesterday has the Liberals a point ahead of the Tories.

Where am I "blaming" your party. I'm simply pointing out the sheer, bloody hypocrisy of people who were practically ready to commit mass suicide if they weren't given a massive stimulous package, and are now snivelling about the deficit as if it's all the Tories' fault.

[Argus]

I repeat, it is stupid to borrow money to go into deficit. That shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

Which ignores the fact we were ALREADY in debt by hundreds of billions, and paying interest on every dollar owed, every year. Putting money into a savings account earning 1% when you are paying off debts at a 4% rate is idiotic. Or perhaps you'd have preferred they invest the money? Great way to have lost a big chunk of it.

[jdobbin]

I can see that on a local or provincial level because people will see it as their reserve for their benefit and not money likely to be used for projects in or given to other parts of the country. It is money they have control over not the majority of voters in other parts of the country.

Okay for city and province but not Feds? I'm afraid your reason doesn't wash.

A reserve fund is used to keep the government from falling into deficit not to fund new programming. It is used to cover shortfalls resulting from a downturn.

It is even stupider to pay more in interest on your debt than you are making on your savings.

The savings in most reserve funds did quite well considering they were built up over time and just didn't sit in low interest accounts.

It is stupid to add to the debt. Some provinces might be able to avoid that for the next two years simply because they planned better.

There was no reason to borrow for a downturn that might last two years or so. The Tory plan to be in deficit for several years is against everything Tories believe in and yet here we are again.

The cushion is having less debt. If I have $5000 in a savings account earning 1/2% interest but have an outstanding loan of $5000 on which I am paying 5% interest, wouldn't paying off the loan be the smart thing to do? I can always borrow the money back in an emergency.

And go into deficit for several years as the Tories are doing now. And for some reason the emergency lasts for years.

Where was the Liberals reserve fund when they were in power other than the EI surplus?

Sadly, that is where the Liberals did keep a reserve fund.

As large surpluses continued to pile up, I believed that money should have gone to four areas: debt payment, restoring funding to areas that had been starved of cash through the 1990s, an income tax and a reserve fund. The Liberals did three of the the four.

The Tories have done three of the four as well except they did it in a huge way and now there is nothing left over except to tip into deficit.

And now we are told by some that it is better to go into deficit than to have a reserve fund to hold the line for the two or so years where shortfalls might happen.

I dunno: Several years of deficits with no plan to end them or a reserve fund to cover the shortfall and keep the country out of deficit.

For most fiscal conservatives it is a no brainer. Is it any wonder why Harper's decision to go into deficit is causing some on the right to consider a new political party?

[jdobbin]

Which ignores the fact we were ALREADY in debt by hundreds of billions, and paying interest on every dollar owed, every year. Putting money into a savings account earning 1% when you are paying off debts at a 4% rate is idiotic. Or perhaps you'd have preferred they invest the money? Great way to have lost a big chunk of it.

Money was not put away at 1%. It was built up over time at variety of rates during better times with better interest rates.

Even banks tell people to have some cash on hand to cover shortfalls even when they have debt to repay. You think it is idiotic to keep money in the bank for such shortfalls?

[jdobbin]

Please cite these provinces - other than Alberta with its oil money - which had multi-billion dollar reserve funds they are using to avoid deficits.

Please keep up here. I said Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

In Manitoba:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...t-39960302.html

Doer said his government will tap into its fiscal stabilization fund which sits at a $818 million.

In Saskatchewan:

The Saskatchewan government is staying in the black with some help from its rainy-day fund.The province's third-quarter fiscal update predicts a budget surplus for 2008-09 of $2.3-billion.

What the Tories said - and I am not a Tory partisan in the way you are a Liberal partisan

Please. Once again your frothy mouthed anger and lashing out is getting the better of you.

- was that we should not panic and that they needed to wait and see what the US was going to do with their stimulous package, and with the auto makers. What your party said was "Ahhhhhh! Ahhhhh! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Actually, it was a lot of people who were saying that Canada should act since credit was tightening up fast. The GDP and GDI reports from the last quarter of last year showed that.

The "What me worry?" attitude of the Tories certainly has gone over well.

Did you steal this line from Oleg? Because it's incomprehensible and doesn't appear to refer to anything in this universe, much less my post.

Was I referring to you? Think I was saying those on the right in general.

Where am I "blaming" your party. I'm simply pointing out the sheer, bloody hypocrisy of people who were practically ready to commit mass suicide if they weren't given a massive stimulous package, and are now snivelling about the deficit as if it's all the Tories' fault.

It is the Conservatives fault. They have done nothing to curb their spending since 2006, they had no reserve to tap to avoid deficit like Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

[Keepitsimple]

Money was not put away at 1%. It was built up over time at variety of rates during better times with better interest rates.

Even banks tell people to have some cash on hand to cover shortfalls even when they have debt to repay. You think it is idiotic to keep money in the bank for such shortfalls?

You're peeing into the wind on this one. What's a reasonable amount to have as a reserve without resorting to over-taxation? $3 billion - $4 billion? I think Flaherty budgeted $2 billion in his first two budgets as a reserve. We are looking at $60 billion of stimulus over two years so to talk about reserve funds is nothing but political malarkey.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

You're peeing into the wind on this one. What's a reasonable amount to have as a reserve without resorting to over-taxation? $3 billion - $4 billion? I think Flaherty budgeted $2 billion in his first two budgets as a reserve. We are looking at $60 billion of stimulus over two years so to talk about reserve funds is nothing but political malarkey.

Actually, I've said spending cuts and a reserve. As for $2 billion for a reserve: That is fairly small considering that is what some provinces have in their fiscal stabilization.

I was never of the opinion that a stimulus package had to be a deficit proposition. Had the Tories reined in their spending from 2006 and used surpluses to pay debt, fund a reserve and cut income taxes, we could have come out of this a lot better. Instead they cut taxes and spent more and most of this when times were good.

It is pure malarkey to say that fiscal stabilization can't keep a jurisdiction out of deficit.

[Wilber]

The savings in most reserve funds did quite well considering they were built up over time and just didn't sit in low interest accounts.

It is stupid to add to the debt. Some provinces might be able to avoid that for the next two years simply because they planned better.

There was no reason to borrow for a downturn that might last two years or so. The Tory plan to be in deficit for several years is against everything Tories believe in and yet here we are again.

What were these funds invested in and how are they faring in the present melt down?

Between the beginning of 2006 and the end of 2007 the bank rate was in the mid 4% range. By retiring say 30B in debt during that period instead of renewing it at that rate, the government can now re borrow it at 1.25% or less at todays rates thereby saving 3% interest on debt it would still otherwise be carrying. The difference comes to 90 million per year in interest saved on that 30B in debt.

[jdobbin]

What were these funds invested in and how are they faring in the present melt down?

My understanding was that it was in higher rated provincial bonds.

Between the beginning of 2006 and the end of 2007 the bank rate was in the mid 4% range. By retiring say 30B in debt during that period instead of renewing it at that rate, the government can now re borrow it at 1.25% or less at todays rates thereby saving 3% interest on debt it would still otherwise be carrying. The difference comes to 90 million per year in interest saved on that 30B in debt.

If only the deficit was one year. The interest rates will rise and debt interest will start to take a bigger bite. This is what the problem was in the 1980s.

Fiscal stabilization was set up to guard against this and avoid inflation from paying debt too quickly. And yes inflation rises as a result. The best course of action is a steady rate payment and finances at had to handle downturns.

[normanchateau]

Looks like the slimy Harper has found a place to save a few dollars...cutting the budget of the budget watchdog:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1111410.html

[madmax]

The deficit is $34 billion. That's bad enough. No need to exaggerate it.

OK.

westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/01/85-billion-deficit-the-canadian-budget.html -

From Rueters "UPDATE 1-Canada budget sees C$85 billion deficit"

CP24- Harper budget sending Canada into $85 billion deficit - CTV ...

OTTAWA, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The government of Canada predicted on Tuesday budget deficits totaling C$85 billion

Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit - Federal

finance.sympatico.msn.ca/budget/article.aspx?cp-documentID=17204766

reportonbusiness.com: globeinvestor.com - Canada budget sees C$85 ...

CTV.ca | Federal budget forecasts massive $85B deficit

The Telegram - St. John’s, NL: Local News | Update: Harper budget ...Update: Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit Breaking News print this article. BY BRUCE CHEADLE The Canadian Press—

globeandmail.com: Ignatieff to call for changes to budget... support the minority Conservatives' budget, which pledges $40-billion in spending to fight the recession and a deficit of $85-billion

Tuesday's News Recap: Canadian Deficit of $85B www.economicnews.ca/cepnews/wire/article/219575

$85 billion deficit forecasted | TopNews United StatesThe federal budget tabled by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty showcased $85 billion deficit

The Prince Albert Daily Herald: News | BUDGET '09: Harper budget ...BUDGET '09: Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit Breaking News print this article. OTTAWA BY BRUCE CHEADLE The Canadian Press ...

View topic - Harper budget sending Canada $85B into deficit ...Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit 1 hour ago. OTTAWA — Down periscope! The Conservative government dove for economic and political cover ...

www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=111595&sid=70e338645bacdd9027e45cfeb9e76aa8 - 9

Edited March 15, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

I was. I still do. Income tax cuts get far more stimulus than GST cuts.

That is a theory.

[normanchateau]

OK.

westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/01/85-billion-deficit-the-canadian-budget.html -

From Rueters "UPDATE 1-Canada budget sees C$85 billion deficit"

CP24- Harper budget sending Canada into $85 billion deficit - CTV ...

OTTAWA, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The government of Canada predicted on Tuesday budget deficits totaling C$85 billion

Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit - Federal

finance.sympatico.msn.ca/budget/article.aspx?cp-documentID=17204766

reportonbusiness.com: globeinvestor.com - Canada budget sees C$85 ...

CTV.ca | Federal budget forecasts massive $85B deficit

The Telegram - St. John’s, NL: Local News | Update: Harper budget ...Update: Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit Breaking News print this article. BY BRUCE CHEADLE The Canadian Press—

globeandmail.com: Ignatieff to call for changes to budget... support the minority Conservatives' budget, which pledges $40-billion in spending to fight the recession and a deficit of $85-billion

Tuesday's News Recap: Canadian Deficit of $85B www.economicnews.ca/cepnews/wire/article/219575

$85 billion deficit forecasted | TopNews United StatesThe federal budget tabled by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty showcased $85 billion deficit

The Prince Albert Daily Herald: News | BUDGET '09: Harper budget ...BUDGET '09: Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit Breaking News print this article. OTTAWA BY BRUCE CHEADLE The Canadian Press ...

View topic - Harper budget sending Canada $85B into deficit ...Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit 1 hour ago. OTTAWA — Down periscope! The Conservative government dove for economic and political cover ...

www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=111595&sid=70e338645bacdd9027e45cfeb9e76aa8 - 9

Yet another reason for Harper to cut the budget of the budget watchdog.

[madmax]

It is the Conservatives fault. They have done nothing to curb their spending since 2006, they had no reserve to tap to avoid deficit like Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Someone just got punched in the nose. Touche.

No one can deny that the Conservatives did anything to curb their spending. Actually what the stimulus package really is, is business as usual for the CPC. Their track record demonstrated they liked spending more money then they take in.

Now, its coming to bite them in the ass.

Good For Manitoba and Saskatchewan. NDP and Sask party governments with their house in order.

[normanchateau]

No one can deny that the Conservatives did anything to curb their spending.

One small step to curb their spending:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1111410.html

[Wilber]

My understanding was that it was in higher rated provincial bonds.

If only the deficit was one year. The interest rates will rise and debt interest will start to take a bigger bite. This is what the problem was in the 1980s.

Fiscal stabilization was set up to guard against this and avoid inflation from paying debt too quickly. And yes inflation rises as a result. The best course of action is a steady rate payment and finances at had to handle downturns.

Provincial bonds? You mean they were lending money to themselves and paying themselves interest? Even if they were other province's bonds it is all still part of Canada's national debt load. What would you suggest the Feds should be investing your tax dollars in that would present an acceptable risk and pay out more than their cost of borrowing?

The way things are going, if the Americans borrow a few more trillions, our dollar will be worth 50 cents. We better start catching up.

We would still be carrying existing debt at a higher rate than we could borrow that money now. The notion that reducing debt is inflationary is absolute nonsense. You seem to think that you are farther ahead having money in the bank and pile of debt is somehow less inflationary and better than no debt and nothing in the bank. The fact is the more debt you have, the more you will pay if you have to borrow. I guess I must be crazy during the odd month I use a 3% line of credit to pay a 18% VISA bill. If in fact we are going to run an additional 80 billion in debt during the next few years do you seriously think the Liberals could have sold the idea of an 80 billion dollar contingency fund in previous elections? If so, why didn't they try? If so, why did they rely on the EI surplus as a so called contingency fund instead of being up front about its real purpose.

I do agree however that this deficit must have fixed targets and not become structural or we will be in deep doo doo again.

I think this is a very ingenuous thread. You are accusing the present government of not doing something no federal government has done before.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Provincial bonds? You mean they were lending money to themselves and paying themselves interest? Even if they were other province's bonds it is all still part of Canada's national debt load. What would you suggest the Feds should be investing your tax dollars in that would present an acceptable risk and pay out more than their cost of borrowing?

Itself.

The notion that reducing debt is inflationary is absolute nonsense.

It isn't. Faster payments on paying the debt has been shown to be inflationary and has been discussed by the Bank of Canada and other national banks. It isn't a problem when inflation is low but is one of big reasons why paying debt is usually done in a fixed way.

You seem to think that you are farther ahead having money in the bank and pile of debt is somehow less inflationary and better than no debt and nothing in the bank.

I do. If you don't believe me, consider some of the stories back when Clinton was President and the deficit ended. The fear was that inflation would roar if ever greater payments went into the debt. The best strategy was to keep a fixed payment and to deal with the Social Security issue. The U.S. ended up doing neither.

Canada fixed its CPP problem and continued fixed payments on debt. It didn't have a reserve fund but left a large cushion of surplus each year. I disagreed with the large surplus as I have mentioned and said it should have been directed to four places.

The fact is the more debt you have, the more you will pay if you have to borrow. I guess I must be crazy during the odd month I use a 3% line of credit to pay a 18% VISA bill. If in fact we are going to run an additional 80 billion in debt during the next few years do you seriously think the Liberals could have sold the idea of an 80 billion dollar contingency fund in previous elections? If so, why didn't they try? If so, why did they rely on the EI surplus as a so called contingency fund instead of being up front about its real purpose.

I disagree with your premise that we needed an $80 billion contingency fund. You are just exaggerating now.

I do agree however that this deficit must have fixed targets and not become structural or we will be in deep doo doo again.

Which is why I can't understand deficits being now forecast as far as the eye can see. It is why the contingency funds in the provinces might keep a few of them from starting that process.

I think this is a very ingenuous thread. You are accusing the present government of not doing something no federal government has done before.

I am accusing the government of running a deficit and while it may not have been something a government has done before, it didn't have to be that way.

This Conservative government could have done a lot of things to avoid this. They didn't.

[Wilber]

Itself.

Isn't that the same as taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other? I don't see how you can profit at that without printing more money.

It isn't. Faster payments on paying the debt has been shown to be inflationary and has been discussed by the Bank of Canada and other national banks. It isn't a problem when inflation is low but is one of big reasons why paying debt is usually done in a fixed way.

Inflation has been at record lows the past few years as have interest rates. There has been no better time to pay down debt. Double digit interest rates made it impossible in the eighties resulting in mammoth deficits. The low global interest rates of the late nineties and this century were a huge factor in our returning to surplus. It would have been impossible without them.

I do. If you don't believe me, consider some of the stories back when Clinton was President and the deficit ended. The fear was that inflation would roar if ever greater payments went into the debt. The best strategy was to keep a fixed payment and to deal with the Social Security issue. The U.S. ended up doing neither.

Canada fixed its CPP problem and continued fixed payments on debt. It didn't have a reserve fund but left a large cushion of surplus each year. I disagreed with the large surplus as I have mentioned and said it should have been directed to four places.

So you would bank money at 1% and carry an 18% Visa balance. Carry on. You objected to large surpluses but think the government should have been building a contingency fund. Where was that money to come from? I'm saying that reducing debt is the same thing as saving. It is the only thing to do if you can pay off more debt than you can save. There is only one taxpayer and there is only one purse.

I disagree with your premise that we needed an $80 billion contingency fund. You are just exaggerating now.

Then the post about the government running a $85B must be wrong. What size contingency fund would you consider adequate to remain out of deficit?

Which is why I can't understand deficits being now forecast as far as the eye can see. It is why the contingency funds in the provinces might keep a few of them from starting that process.

And they might not, in which case they will not only have to service new debt but the debt they didn't pay off in order to have a contingency fund. Since interest rates are at record lows, they will be paying more interest on their old debt than they will on new debt. The bottom line is their contingency fund will end up costing them money if they are still carrying old debt at higher rates.

I am accusing the government of running a deficit and while it may not have been something a government has done before, it didn't have to be that way.

This Conservative government could have done a lot of things to avoid this. They didn't.

Well where is all this money going to come from that Iggy Jack and Gilles want to spend on stimulus? I'm sure they saw all this comming when no other western government seemed to, right?

I suppose the Conservatives could have done a few things if their crystal ball had forcast the global economic meltdown but I doubt they could have done much in two years to make a difference.

[Argus]

OK.

westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/01/85-billion-deficit-the-canadian-budget.html -

From Rueters "UPDATE 1-Canada budget sees C$85 billion deficit"

CP24- Harper budget sending Canada into $85 billion deficit - CTV ...

OTTAWA, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The government of Canada predicted on Tuesday budget deficits totaling C$85 billion

Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit - Federal

finance.sympatico.msn.ca/budget/article.aspx?cp-documentID=17204766

reportonbusiness.com: globeinvestor.com - Canada budget sees C$85 ...

CTV.ca | Federal budget forecasts massive $85B deficit

The Telegram - St. John’s, NL: Local News | Update: Harper budget ...Update: Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit Breaking News print this article. BY BRUCE CHEADLE The Canadian Press—

globeandmail.com: Ignatieff to call for changes to budget... support the minority Conservatives' budget, which pledges $40-billion in spending to fight the recession and a deficit of $85-billion

Tuesday's News Recap: Canadian Deficit of $85B www.economicnews.ca/cepnews/wire/article/219575

$85 billion deficit forecasted | TopNews United StatesThe federal budget tabled by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty showcased $85 billion deficit

The Prince Albert Daily Herald: News | BUDGET '09: Harper budget ...BUDGET '09: Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit Breaking News print this article. OTTAWA BY BRUCE CHEADLE The Canadian Press ...

View topic - Harper budget sending Canada $85B into deficit ...Harper budget sending Canada $85 billion into deficit 1 hour ago. OTTAWA — Down periscope! The Conservative government dove for economic and political cover ...

www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=111595&sid=70e338645bacdd9027e45cfeb9e76aa8 - 9

So you're saying that lousy journalism excuses you for posting misinformation? Or that reading beyond the headline to the actual story is too difficult for you? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. All of the above are referring to the estimate of what the combined deficit will be over several years, not to a single year's deficit. The budget deficit he's passed this year is $34 billion.

[Argus]

Money was not put away at 1%. It was built up over time at variety of rates during better times with better interest rates.

Even banks tell people to have some cash on hand to cover shortfalls even when they have debt to repay. You think it is idiotic to keep money in the bank for such shortfalls?

It is moronic to keep very much money in the bank earning little or no interest while you are paying interest on a large debt. Paying down the debt is more profitable, and if, in the end, you need money, you can then borrow it back again. But at least in the interim you weren't paying interest on it.

[Argus]

For most fiscal conservatives it is a no brainer. Is it any wonder why Harper's decision to go into deficit is causing some on the right to consider a new political party?

Indeed. If only there was one available other than yours.

[Argus]

Please. Once again your frothy mouthed anger and lashing out is getting the better of you.

I've often observed that you seem to feel the need to believe you're having some massive emotional effect on people despite no evidence to support that. But by all means, if it makes you happy.

The "What me worry?" attitude of the Tories certainly has gone over well.

Oh I'll admit that the opposition has done an excellent job of panicking and scaring people - in concert with the media, which always likes the worst possible news so they can breathlessly cover it. So congratulations. You helped cause a lot of people to lose their jobs, and gained a temporary political advantage by your scaremongering.

Was I referring to you? Think I was saying those on the right in general

.

I'm not sure you were referring to anything as it was very nearly incomprehensible.

It is the Conservatives fault. They have done nothing to curb their spending since 2006, they had no reserve to tap to avoid deficit like Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Oh I'll certainly agree they should have tried harder to curb spending. At the same time, I have no doubt whatsoever that your party would have violently opposed ANY and all cuts to spending, as would the BQ and NDP. As for Sask and Manitoba, their "reserve funds" were chicken feed. In order to have fended off this deficit the Tories would have had to have poured tens of billions into any such funds, and as I've already explained earlier, that would have been idiotic in light of the debt servicing costs we have.

[Argus]

Looks like the slimy Harper has found a place to save a few dollars...cutting the budget of the budget watchdog:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1111410.html

The budget watchdog is an imbecile, and no matter what party was in power his days would be numbered. He's the author of his own misfortune, completely inept at the job of keeping a low profile. I could not believe, nor could any other public servant of any level in Ottawa, that this nitwit would give an interview in the midst of an election campaign and tell people that the war in Afghanistan was going to cost a lot more than the government said it was. You simply do not do that sort of thing. You couldn't have got any other senior public servant in front of a camera to talk about a politically controversial subject at that time if you used a taser and a net. They all know better. It's not the job of public servants to get involved in politics.

In addition, he's picked fights with other officers of parliament, trying assert an independence from the Parliamentary Librarian which is just not there, and has openly challenged government statements, which was never what the office was set up for.

[Argus]

I am accusing the government of running a deficit and while it may not have been something a government has done before, it didn't have to be that way.

This Conservative government could have done a lot of things to avoid this. They didn't.

Your contention they should have simply stuffed tens of billions away in a giant piggy back is economic nonsense. It's certainly true they should have tried harder to cut the budget earlier, but where? I cannot think of a single major cut that would not have put the Liberal Party into hysterical opposition. There is just no way under the current minority that they could have cut spending. None of the opposition parties would have supported cuts to spending in ANY area - other than the military, of course. And since it was your party, more than any other, that ran around screaming and howling and demanding a huge incentive package you guys have no right to whine about the deficit. In fact, last I heard, your finance critic was demanding yet another incentive package even before they had passed this one. Apparently the Tories just can't spend money fast enough to please the Liberal Party.