Federal Budget 2012

[hardguy]

There are 20,000 jobs cut across our country, a 10 cut to our national broadcaster, and much much more to get worked up about. The worst thing about this budget by far though is Harper never told us about this fundamental change to OAS when he ran not more then 10 months ago. Which is why we are worked up, there is plenty in this budget that is horrid so if that is what you got then you are dead wrong about how bad this budget is.

All so we can give money to Harper's buddies in the resource and finical sectors.

[hardguy]

isn't that "financial"?

[hardguy]

I guess if I was a 64 low income person I'd be PO'd a bit.

bullshit - the changes wont even copme into effect for several years. Know what you are talking about

[hardguy]

Everybody loves layoffs and cutbacks, except when it's their own jobs on the line.

the federaal bureaucracy is bloated and over-populated

[madmax]

Actually, for my daughter it takes effect tomorrow. as of the 31 march she will be eligible for 2 more years working B4 she can receive the OAS. She will be 54 in June this year.

I'm not knocking the idea but it does make a difference for people immediately, which may be a good thing because it will make more people prepare for the eventuality.

Fact is I know of few people who plan to collect OAS.. most young people intend as did the generations before them.. to retire on their own savings and savings plans.

The reality hits home to many that life does not go as planned and that the ability to collect OAS at age 65 makes a huge difference in their lives ..TODAY!

The Baby boomers are already in the OAS zone, so essentially after the babyboomers have "faded away" the tail end of boomers and x and y, can wait longer to collect.. while all data currently suggests that this next generation is going to require MORE help by the time they hit 65 and not less help as the saving plans and other schemes have not provided the said returns.

That said, whats done is done.. there is no actuarial as far as I know to back up the assertion that OAS would collapse the Nation if this adjustment wasn't made, but the decision has been made.

My experience with those people from 50 to 55 is that if you haven't packed away a good pension plan by that age and your Freedom 55 program has been set back 15 years... from a little stock market incident or a bankruptcy (orchestrated or real).. then its highly likely that as you get older your company will give you the boot.. I mean a retirement party around the age of 60 .. and you will enjoy your new job serving coffee until you hit age 65 67

Edited March 30, 2012 by madmax

[Boges]

bullshit - the changes wont even copme into effect for several years. Know what you are talking about

I posted that before I found out. Chill.

[madmax]

the reality is that the age increase will not be implemented for several years

That is to Prevent Current Seniors.. of which many are Conservative Voters... from either not going to the polls for their party or even switch to another party. Both which are important statements.

The CPC is gambling that they can get enough support back with this measure.

Some might consider this the only "Tough" thing in the budget.

Many are asking "WHY"

Goes along with the MPs protecting their own Platinum Pension scheme with some token language in this budget.

[madmax]

bullshit - the changes wont even copme into effect for several years. Know what you are talking about

Seniors were well aware of the Harper Budget to move OAS to 67. Even though many local MPs said it wasn't on the table and was fear mongering from the opposition.

Its a policy thing... I think its poor policy and many Seniors today who will be collecting OAS at age 65 and those who are going to collect in the next couple years are doing a couple things..

1) Thanking their lucky stars its not going to burn them

2) Understand full well that those following them are getting the shaft.

[jbg]

Some of the Feds budgets is slowly leaking out and one item is the MP's will have to pay more on their pensions and wait longer to get it. What's the catch......not until the next election. Also, many people are working for the government will be in the EI line and the minister said they had hired them but now they don't need them.

Can they constitutionally cut pay or change pension terms during a term? In the U.S. they cannot reduce those during a term.

[Argus]

the federaal bureaucracy is bloated and over-populated

And your evidence for this is what exactly?

[Smallc]

And your evidence for this is what exactly?

I've never seen a government office that operated with too few workers really. I know what it takes to operate a business. I know when I see to many people doing too little work.

[Argus]

Not impressed by the cuts to DND. Not impressed by pushing back needed equipment purchases. This is a false saving and one the Liberals practiced for years, one which the Conservatives criticized them for years. Now they're doing it themselves.

The changes to OAS might help one day, but not for a long time. I would have liked to see them scaling back the amount of OAS payments based on needs. I think it's idiotic you can get it even if you're already making over $60,000.

I think the government is dreaming if it actually believes it can drop another 20,000 people from its ranks and continue with services as they are. If you want to reduce the size of government that's fine, but you need to reduce what you want them to do. You can't simply cut back that number of jobs and expect everything to continue along and be done as it was before. It won't happen. Remember that departments have already been cutting back for the last several years. The PBO said back in January that spending restraints over the previous two years were already showing substantial effects. Those cutbacks are the result of earlier 'efficiencies'. The idea you're going to find more efficiencies, enough to counter losing 20,000 people is nonsense.

The cuts to RCMP, for example, come on top of several years of heavy spending restraints that have made things extremely tight. The statement in the budget that cutting a further $260 million would only be to administration and wouldn't effect end services is just so much BS. I know a manager there who's already had her budget cut by more than 15% over the last two years. There are administration areas which are supposed to have 2 day turnaround times which are now taking 4 months to respond to internal requests.

As I said in an earlier post on another thread, the public service is certainly inefficient, but that inefficiency is largely due to excessive oversight, and there's absolutely no sign that will be reduced in any way. So reducing the number of employees is going to result in decreased service, no matter what the government says. We've already seen that in some departments, notably Service Canada.

Chopping the EX ranks by 10% isn't a bad idea. There are certainly too many of them up there, but you need to reduce the work done, too, or you're just going to burn out those remaining. I know several managers not far from burn-out as it is, due to the massive paperwork burden dumped on them in recent years.

[Argus]

I've never seen a government office that operated with too few workers really. I know what it takes to operate a business. I know when I see to many people doing too little work.

Who says they're doing too little work? Just because they're doing unproductive work doesn't mean it's not still work.

Remember, the government sets the rules on oversight. And those rules are designed to prevent the government from being embarrassed by some sort of boondoggle, some big waste of money on this or that. The high level executives respond by obsessing about their lower level managers doing something that will make them look bad to the politicians. This results in massive paperwork, reports, business cases, meetings, meetings, more meetings, buy-in, consultation, multiple approval stages, multiple layers of approval, more meetings, more documentation, all to do just about anything.

Grossly inefficient? You bet. But that's the process the government wants to make sure there are no surprises that might become politically embarrassing. So the fact it takes five times longer to actually get something done isn't because people aren't working hard. It's because they're working at going through the paperwork the government sets out for them to do before anything of actual substance can be done. Getting rid of a bunch of bodies is not going to speed things up. All that red tape still has to be processed before you can produce any widgets. If there's less people, it will simply take a lot more time to get the red tape processed. And some of it won't get processed at all.

[MACKER]

Seniors were well aware of the Harper Budget to move OAS to 67. Even though many local MPs said it wasn't on the table and was fear mongering from the opposition.

Its a policy thing... I think its poor policy and many Seniors today who will be collecting OAS at age 65 and those who are going to collect in the next couple years are doing a couple things..

1) Thanking their lucky stars its not going to burn them

2) Understand full well that those following them are getting the shaft.

More needs to be done on OAS, but this is a good first step. fact is that the quality of life and life expectancy are increasing but people are expecting the same retirement age. The move to shift this up is the right thing to do, more however needs to be done. There should however be a shifting of full time hours as someone ages past 50, lowering weekly hours by 1 hour per year, and mixing in partial benefits so it isn't all or none.

The money doesn't exist.

Edited March 31, 2012 by MACKER

[Smallc]

Not impressed by pushing back needed equipment purchases.

Actually, they aren't pushing back the purchases. According to Embassy Magazine, it's a result of the fact that DND can't seem to spend their procurement budget. In 2009 - 2010, for example, the department lost 1B procurement dollars because they couldn't spend it. This saves the money for them to use later.

[Argus]

Actually, they aren't pushing back the purchases. According to Embassy Magazine, it's a result of the fact that DND can't seem to spend their procurement budget. In 2009 - 2010, for example, the department lost 1B procurement dollars because they couldn't spend it. This saves the money for them to use later.

Come on. For seven years? I don't think so.

[scribblet]

Can they constitutionally cut pay or change pension terms during a term? In the U.S. they cannot reduce those during a term.

Good question, usually increases don't take effect until the next election, so likely the same thing applies to MPs pensions.

The gov't has said they will put forward legislation on this in the fall, so we will have to wait to see how much he will cut back on them (pensions). I don't think the gov't can make radical changes with setting up the pension committee (can't remember the full name).

http://www.globalnews.ca/mp+pension+changes+to+be+outlined+in+fall+legislation/6442611870/story.html

Changes will be made to the age of entitlement and benefit levels, though they won't take effect until after the next election in 2015.

In the meantime, MPs will start contributing more to their own pensions next year and by 2016, will pay half.

In advance of Thursday's budget, the Conservatives hinted they would take a hard line on MP pensions, after they raised the eligibility age for old age security benefits to 67 from 65.

Guess we'll have to wait until the Fall

[Smallc]

Come on. For seven years? I don't think so.

It's only shaving a very small amount off of the procurement dollars for each of those years.

For the first time, ``we are able to carry forward deferred payments on some of the capital projects. Things like the maritime helicopter program, where money was budgeted for a certain year and because the helicopters did not arrive that year, the money we had not spent in that fiscal year had to go back (to Treasury Board). We have a bit more flexibility now.''

http://www.canada.com/Fisher+MacKay+says+Defence+Department+budget+solid/6391823/story.html

Edited April 1, 2012 by Smallc

[bleeding heart]

As I said in an earlier post on another thread, the public service is certainly inefficient, but that inefficiency is largely due to excessive oversight, and there's absolutely no sign that will be reduced in any way. So reducing the number of employees is going to result in decreased service, no matter what the government says. We've already seen that in some departments, notably Service Canada.

Interesting. If you're right that excessive oversight is the primary cause of inefficiency (and you'd know better than I, so I defer to your judgement here) then of course your next point is correct as well; the ineffiencies will continue just as before, and for the same reasons, but may in fact be exacerbated....fewer people subject to the same amount of work and to the same culture of excessive oversight.

[jbg]

There is nothing in that budget that will make me likely to vote for the CPC in the 2015 election. I didn't vote for them in 2004, 2006, 2008 or 2011 either.

[madmax]

And your evidence for this is what exactly?

Have You retired yet?

[madmax]

Not impressed by the cuts to DND. Not impressed by pushing back needed equipment purchases. This is a false saving and one the Liberals practiced for years, one which the Conservatives criticized them for years. Now they're doing it themselves.

The changes to OAS might help one day, but not for a long time. I would have liked to see them scaling back the amount of OAS payments based on needs. I think it's idiotic you can get it even if you're already making over $60,000.

I think the government is dreaming if it actually believes it can drop another 20,000 people from its ranks and continue with services as they are. If you want to reduce the size of government that's fine, but you need to reduce what you want them to do. You can't simply cut back that number of jobs and expect everything to continue along and be done as it was before. It won't happen. Remember that departments have already been cutting back for the last several years. The PBO said back in January that spending restraints over the previous two years were already showing substantial effects. Those cutbacks are the result of earlier 'efficiencies'. The idea you're going to find more efficiencies, enough to counter losing 20,000 people is nonsense.

The cuts to RCMP, for example, come on top of several years of heavy spending restraints that have made things extremely tight. The statement in the budget that cutting a further $260 million would only be to administration and wouldn't effect end services is just so much BS. I know a manager there who's already had her budget cut by more than 15% over the last two years. There are administration areas which are supposed to have 2 day turnaround times which are now taking 4 months to respond to internal requests.

As I said in an earlier post on another thread, the public service is certainly inefficient, but that inefficiency is largely due to excessive oversight, and there's absolutely no sign that will be reduced in any way. So reducing the number of employees is going to result in decreased service, no matter what the government says. We've already seen that in some departments, notably Service Canada.

Chopping the EX ranks by 10% isn't a bad idea. There are certainly too many of them up there, but you need to reduce the work done, too, or you're just going to burn out those remaining. I know several managers not far from burn-out as it is, due to the massive paperwork burden dumped on them in recent years.

oh crap.. I am agreeing with Argus....

[cybercoma]

There is nothing in that budget that will make me likely to vote for the CPC in the 2015 election. I didn't vote for them in 2004, 2006, 2008 or 2011 either.

You need to get some new writers. You've recycled the same two jokes a few too many times.

[Newfoundlander]

I still don't see much wrong with this budget. The major problem with the Conservative Party is their leader.

[eyeball]

I still don't see much wrong with this budget. The major problem with the Conservative Party is their leader.

No, the budget just looks like another day on Parliament Hill. I'm even more certain now the problem is with the people following the Conservative Party.