Ontario Budget 2014 -- Election

[CPCFTW]

The feds have balanced their books without destroying our economy. Ontario has 54% of the debt of the provinces. Meaning a Third of the provinces accounts for more than half of the countries deficit at the provincial level. SOMETHING! has to be done.

Exactly. Federal expenditures haven't increased since 2009. In 2009 Ontario expenditures were 97B and Wynne's budget has 127B in expenditures. A 30% increase in spending! Keep in mind 97B was already a 10% increase from 2007 budget spending of 88B. So the liberals have increased spending by 44% since 2007. The feds have increased spending just 25% in that timeframe with almost all of the increase occurring when the opposition threatened to topple the government unless there was significant stimulus spending.

[CPCFTW]

I only provided that link for reference.

It's a good reference.. It shows that Ontario's otpp contributions cost us almost $1B per year... Almost 10% of our deficit.

[CPCFTW]

Hudak is talking about cutting expenses by 6%.

The Harper government still has higher expenses now (280.6B) then they did at the time of the worst deficit (274.2B in 2009-10) and they there projected expenses in 2015-16 is 286.9B. Now obviously considering inflation the government has been showing spending restraint, but the vast majority of balancing the books was due to Revenues increasing. I don't have a problem with government restraint. I don't have a problem with cuts, even deep ones, when the global economy is strong. But most economists seem to rate significant cuts when the global economy is not strong as questionable at best.

If Wynne/McGuinty had the same spending restraint since 2009 Ontario would have a $10B surplus.

Edited May 16, 2014 by CPCFTW

[Wayward Son]

If Wynne/McGuinty had the same spending restraint since 2009 Ontario would have a $10B surplus.

Based on what?

[shocktech88]

It's funny because Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were employing similar austerity at the same time and it was followed by times a great economic growth for both governments.

I also don't think Hudak should make his policies based on public service unions having a hissy fit. They'll do it anyway if they don't get what they want. See McGuinty's fight with the teacher after years of giving them every single thing they wanted.

What about the cancellation of the replacement program for the Sea King helicopter's? That decision alone cost 20+ Canadian soldier's their lives. Cut's don't cause risk and create safety hazards leading to possible death? BS, those flying junk yards should have been replaced in 93 when they were initially scheduled to be, instead because of spending restraint, people died. Get the picture? Wynne nailed it with Walkerton too, good on her for providing an example of how how expenditure cuts from the Ministry of Environment cost 7 people their lives and caused serious illness in many more. Walkerton is also a great example of how contracting out services leads to safety concerns, other health hazards and reduced quality in service.

[CPCFTW]

Based on what?

Based on the budget. 2009 expenditures were 108B. 2014 revenues are 118B.

[Wayward Son]

Based on the budget. 2009 expenditures were 108B. 2014 revenues are 118B.

Thanks. I was just wondering if you had a completely simplistic view of the economy, such as the belief that current government revenues would be same today regardless of changes in government expenditures over the past several years. My question has been answered.

[Boges]

What about the cancellation of the replacement program for the Sea King helicopter's? That decision alone cost 20+ Canadian soldier's their lives. Cut's don't cause risk and create safety hazards leading to possible death? BS, those flying junk yards should have been replaced in 93 when they were initially scheduled to be, instead because of spending restraint, people died. Get the picture? Wynne nailed it with Walkerton too, good on her for providing an example of how how expenditure cuts from the Ministry of Environment cost 7 people their lives and caused serious illness in many more. Walkerton is also a great example of how contracting out services leads to safety concerns, other health hazards and reduced quality in service.

What about Corruption in ORNGE that caused the death of 8 people?

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/15/what-about-ornge-premier-wynne

That's a more applicable way to capitalize on the deaths of people then going back 14 years to insinuate that Hudak wants to kill people. Even though he's said he won't cut front line civil servants.

It's funny the critique of Harris over Walkerton wasn't that the cuts caused the outbreak but the cuts prevented the two drunkards that did from being found out. It was an oversight problem.

What kind of oversight does this government have allowing scandal after scandal in several of their agencies?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Boges

[CPCFTW]

Thanks. I was just wondering if you had a completely simplistic view of the economy, such as the belief that current government revenues would be same today regardless of changes in government expenditures over the past several years. My question has been answered.

Federal govt revenues (+26%) have increased at a greater rate than Ontario revenues (+23%) despite all the "revenue tools" implemented by Ontario and all the tax cuts implemented by the feds. Hate to burst your arts degree pseudo-economics bubble.

[Wayward Son]

Federal govt revenues (+26%) have increased at a greater rate than Ontario revenues (+23%) despite all the "revenue tools" implemented by Ontario and all the tax cuts implemented by the feds. Hate to burst your arts degree pseudo-economics bubble.

So what? You do realize that there are disparities across the country? Right? That the change in the dollar has affected some regions negatively, and others positively. That manufacturing base vs resource base during the financial downturn has resulted in some areas being more affected than others.

The things that affect government revenues are complex. I know of no serious person who would think that a reduction in government spending would lead to zero change in government revenue. All was asking was if your claim that there would have been a $10B surplus was based on say a Picasso painting understanding of economics, a 4-year old drawing stick figures understanding, or somewhere in between. You gave your answer. I don't claim to have a strong understanding of economics myself, but at least I understand that it is a complex system.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Wayward Son

[cybercoma]

Being unable to fire them, regardless of how incompetent they might be, doesn't help either.

This is complete fantasy.

[TimG]

This is complete fantasy.

Nope. You are one who is delusional because you seek to minimize a serious problem:

says Menuey, who authored a 2007 study on the subject. Despite research indicating that about five per cent of every workforce is incompetent, he uncovered a truth about his district he describes as “scandalous”: less than one-tenth of one per cent of tenured teachers were being dismissed annually for poor performance. When viewed through this lens, the Canadian numbers are even more damning. Of the roughly 200,000 educators licensed by the Ontario College of Teachers to teach, only 27 have been terminated due to poor performance since 2004—an annual average of just 0.002 per cent. In the past five years, not a single permanent teacher has been dismissed for incompetence in the largest school boards in Montreal and Winnipeg; Saskatoon Public Schools has terminated just one; and in Edmonton Public Schools, says a spokeswoman, “very few if any” have been let go.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-its-so-hard-to-fire-bad-teachers/ Edited May 16, 2014 by TimG

[WWWTT]

The feds have balanced their books without destroying our economy. Ontario has 54% of the debt of the provinces. Meaning a Third of the provinces accounts for more than half of the countries deficit at the provincial level. SOMETHING! has to be done.

Why?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Exactly. Federal expenditures haven't increased since 2009. In 2009 Ontario expenditures were 97B and Wynne's budget has 127B in expenditures. A 30% increase in spending! Keep in mind 97B was already a 10% increase from 2007 budget spending of 88B. So the liberals have increased spending by 44% since 2007. The feds have increased spending just 25% in that timeframe with almost all of the increase occurring when the opposition threatened to topple the government unless there was significant stimulus spending.

Do you have any links as to where you are getting these numbers?

You are also lumping spending all together as "spending"

WWWTT

[Boges]

Because servicing the debt is the third largest thing on the province spends money on.

[CPCFTW]

Do you have any links as to where you are getting these numbers?

You are also lumping spending all together as "spending"

WWWTT

Just Google the budget and year

[CPCFTW]

So what? You do realize that there are disparities across the country? Right? That the change in the dollar has affected some regions negatively, and others positively. That manufacturing base vs resource base during the financial downturn has resulted in some areas being more affected than others.

The things that affect government revenues are complex. I know of no serious person who would think that a reduction in government spending would lead to zero change in government revenue. All was asking was if your claim that there would have been a $10B surplus was based on say a Picasso painting understanding of economics, a 4-year old drawing stick figures understanding, or somewhere in between. You gave your answer. I don't claim to have a strong understanding of economics myself, but at least I understand that it is a complex system.

Yes it's a complex system which is minimally affected by Ontario's spending increases. It's not a stretch to assume revenues would be similar in just 5 years whether we gave teachers a 5% raise per year or froze their wages. Take my word for it since you have admitted you don't understand economics.

[Argus]

I'll be happy when they're compensated similarly to arts grads in the private sector.

E.g. 30-40k starting salary. Minimal job security (only the best teachers should survive and thrive). 3-5 non-bankable sick days and 10 vacation days with no pension.

Teachers college can go to.. I don't think it adds any value.

I have the same opinion of other public sector jobs including police.

Ridiculous. What have you got against pensions? You like the idea of lots of old people eating cat food?

A certain amount of job security is required given that in many cases, there's only one school board in town. What good people would get into teaching when you knew you had one employer who could dump you any time they were inclined to, and that you'd then have to leave town? As for vacation days, 10 is the minimum set by law. You don't feel people who put in the time to educate themselves and get a better job should get more benefits, like better vacations?

And what exactly would you have them doing in the summer when school is out?

[shocktech88]

Ridiculous. What have you got against pensions? You like the idea of lots of old people eating cat food?

A certain amount of job security is required given that in many cases, there's only one school board in town. What good people would get into teaching when you knew you had one employer who could dump you any time they were inclined to, and that you'd then have to leave town? As for vacation days, 10 is the minimum set by law. You don't feel people who put in the time to educate themselves and get a better job should get more benefits, like better vacations?

And what exactly would you have them doing in the summer when school is out?

It sounds like CPCFTW is actually jealous of what the teacher's, some public servants and Police Officer's have in terms of vacation, sick time and pensions. If he was offered a job with the same pay, pension and benefits would he really say no to it? No. Because people who work in the private sector are usually paid less, with no benefits or pensions and very little if any paid leave time, they often get upset and point the finger at the Public Servants who do have these programs and benefits. The problem with this finger pointing is that it's pointed at the wrong people, it SHOULD be pointed at the corporate manager's and CEO's, who instead of offering their employee's a living wage, health benefits and a pension plan, would rather increase thier own personal income and give themselves bonuses often happening behind closed doors.

What I can never understand is how a CEO can allow themself to make $4.5 Million a year (which I don't beleieve any one person is actually physically worth) justify paying his workers minimum wage with no benefits? Where is the moral responsibility in that? There is NONE, it is NO WHERE to be found. There is also no current law that exists that prevents them from not doing so. I think there should be. If you want the massive profits and huge bonuses all for yourself, you SHOULD be made to share the wealth.

People need to realise that most Public Service jobs generally require a high level of education, skill and knowledge in order to obtain and maintain. Too often the Public Service is labelled by right wing media (Toronto Sun for example) as a spend happy go lucky organization where every employee has it made. This is far from the truth, in fact much of the Public Service is currently and has been on a pay freeze for years, let alone the amount of jobs that have gone contract-part time is also ridiculously high now and also so is the competition just to obtain a single job.

Teacher's don't exactly have a 'cakewalk' in the park as so many Conservatives seem to put it, they have to compete in one of the most competive job markets in Ontario right now, the competition is through the roof for even a temp teaching job with no benefits, pension or leave time ext. Teachers are NOT paid for much of the time they work outside of regular hours. Where do teachers mark tests? Home. Where do teachers often create assignments or the like? Home. Why? Because they are not provided the alloted time in a regular school day. What about the extra curricular activities and free tutoring teachers often offer to students on thier own time with no pay? We forget about that too, or do we still label them as free loaders?

[CPCFTW]

Ridiculous. What have you got against pensions? You like the idea of lots of old people eating cat food?

A certain amount of job security is required given that in many cases, there's only one school board in town. What good people would get into teaching when you knew you had one employer who could dump you any time they were inclined to, and that you'd then have to leave town? As for vacation days, 10 is the minimum set by law. You don't feel people who put in the time to educate themselves and get a better job should get more benefits, like better vacations?

And what exactly would you have them doing in the summer when school is out?

There is CPP/OAS/gis and for retirement teachers would have 13% more of their income to spend on rrsps like the rest of the private sector. They'd also be taxed less since we wouldn't need to tax the hell out if everyone to pay for education.

If the private sector won't give arts grads more than 30k-40k and 10 vacation days for an entry level job they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to do it. More vacation days would be earned as the teacher gained experience and we weeded out the bad teachers.

And they can work another job during the summer like anyone else with a seasonal job.

Edited May 17, 2014 by CPCFTW

[shocktech88]

When will people realise that the right wing Conservative mindset and backing political funding comes almost exclusively from the big business and corporate CEO's who then push their agenda. The Conservatives (and the Republicans in the U.S) are ultimatley pawns for the big players behind the scences to do thier bidding and to maximize profits. Lowering corporate taxes, giving big business a break, bending over to thier demands, bailout money! This is ALL in favour of big business as the executive team then pocket's it all and leaves the employee's hung out to dry.

Edited May 16, 2014 by shocktech88

[TimG]

Ridiculous. What have you got against pensions? You like the idea of lots of old people eating cat food?

The problem with pensions is way they make the employer assume all of the investment risk. If people want to have a collective pension plan then that is fine as long as the employer is only obligated to make contributions as a percentage of wages paid at the time the wages are paid.

The system that makes the employer liable is most odious for public employees because what means is future taxpayers are on the hook for paying for pensions which they do not have on top of scrambling to save enough for their own retirement.

Edited May 17, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Now EKOS has the OLP out ahead.

OLP 37.1

OPC 30.3

ONDP 20.9

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/05/16/the-ekos-poll-advantage-wynne/

These polls are all over the place. I would do it myself if I cared enough and had the time, but it would be interesting to see the methodologies at play here. I suspect Eric over at 308 will have a post-mortem on the election discussing the erratic polling. I'll wait to read his analysis.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'll be happy when they're compensated similarly to arts grads in the private sector.

E.g. 30-40k starting salary. Minimal job security (only the best teachers should survive and thrive). 3-5 non-bankable sick days and 10 vacation days with no pension.

Teachers college can go to.. I don't think it adds any value.

I have the same opinion of other public sector jobs including police.

So we'll have no engineers, no technology programs, no construction, no autoshop, no computer engineering... We still have to pay people with expertise who have in demand skills a good sum. At least if you want more than basket weaving as a practical course.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The problem with pensions is way they make the employer assume all of the investment risk. If people want to have a collective pension plan then that is fine as long as the employer is only obligated to make contributions as a percentage of wages paid at the time the wages are paid.

The system that makes the employer liable is most odious for public employees because what means is future taxpayers are on the hook for paying for pensions which they do not have on top of scrambling to save enough for their own retirement.

To be fair, the Teacher Pension plan had a MASSIVE surplus before and the law dictated that they were unable to maintain a surplus status...

Edited May 17, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist