Tories back off campaign pledge to show a surplus by 2014-15

[MiddleClassCentrist]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-back-off-campaign-pledge-to-show-a-surplus-by-2014-15/article2018983/

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says he needs time to consult economists and to draft a clear plan to deliver the extra savings Prime Minister Harper promised during the election campaign.

We will do the strategic and operating review and we will book [those savings] once the review is done. That will get us to balance a year earlier, but is not part of the upcoming budget, Chisholm Pothier, Mr. Flahertys spokesperson, said on Wednesday.

More in Link

Edited May 12, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[guyser]

No fan of Flaherty but in this case I agree.

Who knows what the revenues are going to be, who knows what moves in the economy are coming.

It would be prudent to get the facts and figures first, then move on them. As long as they steer the ship right, we should be ok.

[TimG]

It would be prudent to get the facts and figures first, then move on them. As long as they steer the ship right, we should be ok.

Prudent government requires that promises be broken if circumstances require them. This is what we have been missing in 6 years of minorities.

[cybercoma]

Vote for us for economic stability and to reduce the budget deficits.

Thanks for voting for us, but we were just kidding about getting rid of deficits.

[Scotty]

Vote for us for economic stability and to reduce the budget deficits.

Thanks for voting for us, but we were just kidding about getting rid of deficits.

The original promise was that they'd have a tiny, $300 million deficit in 2014-15. During the election they promised to have a surplus instead. I'll wait to see how it eventually works out. One thing for sure, they need to be in surplus by next election.

[madmax]

The Campaign Promise was rediculous to begin with..

They governments running a $50billion deficit, and once 2015 comes they will be paying another $40Billion in new Prisons and F35 jets that aren't included in the current budget...

Increased Spending combined with reduced revenues = deficit..

Conservatives blew the 2006 surpluses handed to them by 2008.

I don't think anyone took their election promise seriously, not even them.

[Dave_ON]

Prudent government requires that promises be broken if circumstances require them. This is what we have been missing in 6 years of minorities.

Then let us hope that in Flahrety's prudent judgement he discovers it is ludicrous to further lower corporate taxes, and thus lower revenues even more. Keep things as they are, now is not the time to tinker with revenues. I have precious little faith in Flahrety's ability to balance the books without selling crown assets. Ontario is well aware of his fiscal wizardry.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

No fan of Flaherty but in this case I agree.

Who knows what the revenues are going to be, who knows what moves in the economy are coming.

It would be prudent to get the facts and figures first, then move on them. As long as they steer the ship right, we should be ok.

Are you saying that the Conservatives are so grossly incompetent that they could not have access to the numbers or a good idea of what services could be cut after being in power for 5 years???

I doubt it. Their huge spending increases on jails and military can't be balanced. That is their problem. To balance the budget they'd have to break two promises.

Why risk breaking 2 promises when you can risk only breaking 1?

[guyser]

Are you saying that the Conservatives are so grossly incompetent that they could not have access to the numbers or a good idea of what services could be cut after being in power for 5 years???

No I am saying that they need to find out what is coming, what and how to make cuts and produce and vet the numbers and then let us know.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

No I am saying that they need to find out what is coming, what and how to make cuts and produce and vet the numbers and then let us know.

I don't disagree with their statement because at face value it makes sense.

I suggest that their integrity to govern should be questioned if they don't know what services to cut by now. I know a few obvious ones, like funding the CBC, should be on that list. Maybe they are spending a few million conducting polls to see what they can cut without people getting angry? They spend 31 million a year on polling... even then, because they spend so much taxpayer money on polls... shouldn't they know already?

Edited May 12, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Dave_ON]

I don't disagree with their statement because at face value it makes sense.

I suggest that their integrity to govern should be questioned if they don't know what services to cut by now. I know a few obvious ones, like funding the CBC, should be on that list. Maybe they are spending a few million conducting polls to see what they can cut without people getting angry? They spend 31 million a year on polling... even then, because they spend so much taxpayer money on polls... shouldn't they know already?

I have lots of suggestions for cuts that wouldn't make people angry, the CBC isn't one of them, no more hockey night in Canada? I think not. How about reducing the number of ministers this go round? Harper had one of the largest ministries in recent history. How about cut his personal security expense? No other PM seemed to need quite as much security. Get rid of the vote subsidy AND the tax credit for political donations. That reduces spending and increases revenue in one shot. Scrap the gun registry which as it currently is, fees being waived, is draining revenues. Scrap all federal contributions to ALL cultural events including the Calgary stampede, and other such festivals. That's a good start and we didn't even have to go near any social programs.

[RNG]

Go to You Tube and search "Eat the Rich". I don't know if any Canadian has done an analogous analysis, but would love to see it. The right's mantra. "It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem."

Edited May 12, 2011 by RNG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Go to You Tube and search "Eat the Rich". I don't know if any Canadian has done an analogous analysis, but would love to see it. The right's mantra. "It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem."

The video was pretty eye opening on the perspective of just how bad their economy has been hit. The problem is that Government spend money and initiate programs that are unsustainable when times are bad.

Chretien did do a good job at, and rightly advocated that we maintain a lower debt level. I remember the rest of the world balking at his 'low debt' recommendation in the news.

I just wish the Conservatives would stop promising to spend more money and actually stick with their mantra, it would give them credibility. It too often just ends up that they spend money differently.

Edited May 13, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[guyser]

the CBC isn't one of them, no more hockey night in Canada?

CBC Sports is paid for via private funds and not the money from Parliament.

[RNG]

CBC Sports is paid for via private funds and not the money from Parliament.

My sister worked for the CBC. And she admitted that they are screwing TV in Canada. They have commercials, but they also get megabucks from the government. And anyone with two bits of brain to rub together realizes that that means from you and me. So because they are subsidized, they charge less for commercial time, which forces CTV, Global et al to have to charge less also. A totally unfair advantage. And this is from a loyal CBC employee.

[Shady]

The video was pretty eye opening on the perspective of just how bad their economy has been hit. The problem is that Government spend money and initiate programs that are unsustainable when times are bad.

Chretien did do a good job at, and rightly advocated that we maintain a lower debt level. I remember the rest of the world balking at his 'low debt' recommendation in the news.

I just wish the Conservatives would stop promising to spend more money and actually stick with their mantra, it would give them credibility. It too often just ends up that they spend money differently.

Chretien also had a majority government. Now Harper does, so there should be no more excuses.

[TimG]

I just wish the Conservatives would stop promising to spend more money and actually stick with their mantra, it would give them credibility. It too often just ends up that they spend money differently.

When Chretian was in power his competetion wanted to cut even more. The dynamic has reversed where we have a tax and spend government in waiting. It is too early to tell if that will push the CPC away from controversial cuts.

[Bonam]

What they (Canadian governments over the next few decades) really should aim to do is to abolish the deficit (pay back all $500 billion), but not stop there, and continue to run surpluses and use them to establish a sovereign wealth fund. Once that's built up enough, a large chunk of government expenses can be paid for from interest/income/dividends/capital gains in the fund instead of from taxes. A mere ~$4 trillion sovereign wealth fund would allow the federal government to pay for all of its expenditures without collecting a penny of taxes and without depleting the fund.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Bonam

[RNG]

What they (Canadian governments over the next few decades) really should aim to do is to abolish the deficit (pay back all $500 billion), but not stop there, and continue to run surpluses and use them to establish a sovereign wealth fund. Once that's built up enough, a large chunk of government expenses can be paid for from interest/income/dividends/capital gains in the fund instead of from taxes. A mere ~$4 trillion sovereign wealth fund would allow the federal government to pay for all of its expenditures without collecting a penny of taxes and without depleting the fund.

Oh yes. But are you and the NDP supporters ready to bear the sacrifice it will take to get there?

[Bonam]

Oh yes. But are you and the NDP supporters ready to bear the sacrifice it will take to get there?

What sacrifice? Less government spending is all to the good from my viewpoint. As for NDP supporters, no, I don't imagine they are.

[jacee]

What sacrifice? Less government spending is all to the good from my viewpoint. As for NDP supporters, no, I don't imagine they are.

Ready for billions in savings from F35's and ineffective jails for a start, and hundreds of billions from subsidizing oil sands profits, and getting back to the surplus we had before Harper. And what did 'spend and spend' Harper blow the surplus on? More corporate welfare?

It's really a matter of where the cuts are. Corporate subsidies to foreign companies hauling in massive profits would seem like a prime place to find the health care money we need for our aging population. At least we get some accounting of where the money went and what we got for it. Where's the evidence of the effectiveness of superjails and corporate welfare?

Edited May 13, 2011 by jacee

[ninjandrew]

Ready for billions in savings from F35's

Im all for that military spending, but for ships instead of blingin' aircraft.

Where's the evidence of the effectiveness of superjails and corporate welfare?

According to a lot of people on this forum, without corporate welfare the corporations will all go away. It would seem corporate welfare is actually corporate another-day-at-the-office. I hope somebody can offer a bulletproof answer to your question.

[TimG]

Corporate subsidies to foreign companies hauling in massive profits would...

What only foreign companies? So you are all for corporate welfare as long as it is given to Canadian companies? What nonsense. You could then try defining what you mean by "corporate welfare" instead of throwing it as if it is a universaly recognized problem. I suspect you don't have a clue and are simply using it as a talking point.

[Dave_ON]

Chretien also had a majority government. Now Harper does, so there should be no more excuses.

Yet I fully anticipate that both the CPC and their supporters will have a litany of excuses prepared when they fail to be fiscally conservative. It's already begun, spending has increased while they've cut taxes, you cannot do both, that's utterly foolish.

I fully expect the throne and mace of parliament to be up on the auction block in the near future to help curtail the shortfall

Also sit tight, if you always wanted to live in Stornaway, I'm certain that will be on the market soon enough now that Flahrety can go all 407 on all crown assets.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

now that Flahrety can go all 407 on all crown assets.

Worst idea ever. "Hey, I have an idea. Let's sell a highway that is a sure fire way to make money to a foreign company."

Everytime someone takes the 407, they export money to Europe. The only consolation to me was that at least the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan snuck in on the deal by investing in a spanish consortium (because Harris would have never have sold to the OTPP knowingly) to then buy into the 407. So at least some of the money comes back to Ontario.