Liberal deficit set at 18.4 billion

[scribblet]

Liberals launch the 'not-our-fault' defence as deficit forecast balloons to $18.4 billion

Andrew Coyne says: But the issue is not why the deficit is now $18 billion, but why the Liberal government proposes to push it to $30 billion

and Kevin Page says Liberals need to explain $40B 'adjustment'

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kevin-page-liberals-need-to-explain-40b-adjustment-1.2788678?hootPostID=248ed74dfbe7d9b4fcdf9899054cfec8

Edited February 23, 2016 by scribblet

[waldo]

Liberals launch the 'not-our-fault' defence as deficit forecast balloons to $18.4 billion

and Kevin Page says Liberals need to explain $40B 'adjustment'

and now... now... Kevin Page is a go-to source for Conservative supporters?

easy peasy: incorrect Harper Conservative 2015 growth projections (as in significantly slower growth than projected)... as it stands a decreasing tax base due to the significantly lower oil price means the Trudeau Liberals Finance Department is expecting a $15 billion per year reduction of GDP beginning this year, compared with what was projected in the last Harper Conservative 2015 budget.

[Accountability Now]

as it stands a decreasing tax base due to the significantly lower oil price

Whaaaaat? I thought oil was Alberta's problem???

[cybercoma]

In 2 months? Sorry, I'm calling BS.

You just can't accept that Harper was lying about the surpluses in order to get elected, eh? The surplus never existed. The Conservatives would have been looking at a pretty huge deficit themselves and you would be on here blaming world markets and factors outside Harper's influence. Since Trudeau is PM though, this is all his doing.

[scribblet]

Not a lie according to the PBO report last year which projected a small surplus.

[cybercoma]

You're really hung up on this. I'm wondering if it may be impacting your ability to look at this objectively.

He excused Harper's deficits due to world market factors and he's excusing Trudeau's for the same reason. He's pretty consistent and isn't batting for one team over the other. Looks pretty objective to me.

But I disagree with him in Harper's deficits. A large portion of that was a result of slashed revenues, making the deficits much higher than they should have been. With the collapse of oil prices, the current problems were not an act of government at all. Harper would be riding deficits as well because the gravy train has come to a standstill in Alberta.

[cybercoma]

Not a lie according to the PBO report last year which projected a small surplus.

Last year.

[PIK]

Trudeau spent 5.3 billion in 100 days and over 4 of that was spent outside the country. Spending like a drunken sailor.

[overthere]

You just can't accept that Harper was lying about the surpluses in order to get elected, eh? The surplus never existed. The Conservatives would have been looking at a pretty huge deficit themselves and you would be on here blaming world markets and factors outside Harper's influence. Since Trudeau is PM though, this is all his doing.

BUT HARPER!!!

Why hasn't anybody claimed this as an all purpose username?

I'll play along though. Harper has sucked the PBO and the Fiscal Update into his conspiracy, with daily directives from his new headquarters at In n' Out burger in Las Vegas.

The reaction of the Conservatives to looming deficit, with a majority government and at the beginning of their term- would be to slash spending. Spending on new and ongoing social program spending, at least. He had As an economist, Harper would be aware that a balance sheet has more than one column. And golly gee, why won't Trudeau unleash the spending of $25 billion in non-taxpayer cash to build a couple of pipelines that will bring mucho dinero to our beleagered peso?

[Derek 2.0]

You just can't accept that Harper was lying about the surpluses in order to get elected, eh?

Was the Liberal Government lying when they released their economic update late last year based on oil at $40 bbl? Clearly they "lied" when they didn't account for a near $15 drop per bbl from then to now....

One thing is for certain, the Trudeau Liberals can't blame Harper forever, nor blame him for the reaction to their upcoming budget...

[Accountability Now]

If it were me, I'd release numbers that were worse than the actual, as governments always do. Then I'd run a slightly smaller than projected deficit and look like a hero - if it were me.

I thought this line was interesting as most people in business do the same. They project achievable numbers so that they can either meet or beat those numbers. It got me thinking....why don't we look at Harper's past record on this very matter (i.e. What he said we would do verses what actually happened).

Looking through past annual financial statements, I was able to find these results:

You will note that in no year did Harper's estimated surplus/deficit have a difference to the downside more than 1.9B. He did however have many years where the deficits were less or the surplus was more than expected giving a positive upside.

Trudeau on the other hand predicted a much better scenario and is way off on his prediction...to the downside. You can blame the economy for that but the reality is Harper was never off that much during the Financial Crisis.

It looks like Harper's balanced budget going forward was completely made up.

As of December 2015, the Government still had a surplus (3.2B) going forward for 2015-2016. Its seems clear that he was on track to balance this year's budget or be close anyway. Again...his target put forth in the budget was 1.4B surplus.

April to December 2015: budgetary surplus of $3.2 billion For the April to December 2015 period of the 2015–16 fiscal year, the Government posted a budgetary surplus of $3.2 billion, compared to a deficit of $0.9 billion reported in the same period of 2014–15. Revenues were up $14.2 billion, or 7.2 per cent, reflecting increases in all revenue sources. Program expenses were up $11.2 billion, or 6.3 per cent, reflecting increases in all major categories of program spending. Public debt charges were down $1.1 billion, or 5.3 per cent, largely reflecting lower average effective interest rates on Government of Canada bonds and treasury bills.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fiscmon-revfin/pdf/2015-12-eng.pdf

To be very clear... I don't blame Trudeau for deficits or for the global economy. The economy of a country is like a boat floating in the ocean. I don't blame the captain when we hit a few waves or we take on water especially when that captain warms you about it from the start. I do blame the captain if they say it will be smooth sailing and then out of the blue a wave smashes you out of no where. This is the ONLY issue I have with Trudeau's changed outlook. Even during the Global Financial Crisis, Harper was still able to make solid predictions of where we would be and when he was off...it was to the upside.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Accountability Now

[cybercoma]

So then you recognize that there would be no surplus under Harper. That's a good start, but now it sounds like you're pissing in the wind.

[Big Guy]

A one percent increase in the HST translates into $7 billion going into government coffers yearly. Stephen Harper and the Conservative party decided to drop the HST by 2% for the last 7 years. He was advised at the time by economists that it was not a good idea.

Over the last 7 years, our Canadian government has missed out on about $98 billion in revenues.

Whose fault is that?

[TimG]

Over the last 7 years, our Canadian government has missed out on about $98 billion in revenues.

What a ridiculous premise. You assume that all money earned by Canadians "belongs" to the government and if it is not confiscated by the government is "lost revenue". Pure nonsense. Tax reductions are not "lost revenue" they are policy choices to reduce the size of government. Just like increased spending is a policy choice. Trudeau is making the choice to increase spending and should be increasing taxes to match the spending . He is running permanent deficits because he does not have the guts to admit he can't pay for his promises. Edited February 23, 2016 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

Whose fault is that?

Whose fault was it when Cretien got elected on a promise to get rid of GST all together?

Whose fault was it when neither Trudeau nor Mulclair promised to raise it if they got elected?

[On Guard for Thee]

What a ridiculous premise. You assume that all money earned by Canadians "belongs" to the government and if it is not confiscated by the government is "lost revenue". Pure nonsense. Tax reductions are not "lost revenue" they are policy choices to reduce the size of government. Just like increased spending is a policy choice. Trudeau is making the choice to increase spending and should be increasing taxes to match the spending . He is running permanent deficits because he does not have the guts to admit he can't pay for his promises.

Except when you reduce government revenue in a way that most economists cautioned against, supposedly to help reduce the size of government, and then proceed to create one of the largest governments in history, equaled only be Mulroney, it speaks to both competence as well as credibility. And leads to some pretty big deficits as we have seen.

[TimG]

Except when you reduce government revenue in a way that most economists cautioned against

It is still a policy choice. The test of a policy is if spending restraint (which does not have to be spending cuts if the economy grows) gets the budget into balance. In the case of Harper his spending restraints were enough to cut the deficit and get the books on the way to being balanced. Trudeau has decided that deficits don't matter and has no intention of restraining spending. Who ever takes over after Trudeau will have a huge mess to fix. It may be worse than the 90s. Edited February 23, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

Whose fault was it when Cretien got elected on a promise to get rid of GST all together?

Whose fault was it when neither Trudeau nor Mulclair promised to raise it if they got elected?

The electorate. Every 4 years we get the opportunity to choose who we want to represent us in parliament. This last time we chose the Liberal Party and the the party has chosen to keep JT as its leader. We rejected the Conservatives and NDP.

[Accountability Now]

The electorate. Every 4 years we get the opportunity to choose who we want to represent us in parliament. This last time we chose the Liberal Party and the the party has chosen to keep JT as its leader. We rejected the Conservatives and NDP.

Yet you keep blaming Harper for cutting the GST and the electorate voted him back into power in two different elections after the GST cuts.

You also deflect from the fact that JT (the proclaimed chosen one) did not campaign on increasing it.

[Big Guy]

It is still a policy choice. The test of a policy is if spending restraint (which does not have to be spending cuts if the economy grows) gets the budget into balance. In the case of Harper his spending restraints were enough to cut the deficit and get the books on the way to being balanced. Trudeau has decided that deficits don't matter and has no intention of restraining spending. Who ever takes over after Trudeau will have a huge mess to fix. It may be worse than the 90s.

Trudeau will do what every previous PM has done - decide on how to best satisfy his vision of Canada. Harper did it with his majority and rammed through what he thought was best. Now Trudeau has been given the power to ram through what he thinks is best. In 4 years we will again have the opportunity to keep the Liberals in power or to elect someone new.

The budget is a consequence of attaining those goals. The concept is very simple - when government spending equals government revenues then we have a balanced budget. You want to add $10 billion to social programs then cut military budget in half and send that money to social programs. You want to double military spending then add 2% to the HST and send that money to the military. Obviously the transfers are far more complicated than that but the process is that simple.

[On Guard for Thee]

It is still a policy choice. The test of a policy is if spending restraint (which does not have to be spending cuts if the economy grows) gets the budget into balance. In the case of Harper his spending restraints were enough to cut the deficit and get the books on the way to being balanced. Trudeau has decided that deficits don't matter and has no intention of restraining spending. Who ever takes over after Trudeau will have a huge mess to fix. It may be worse than the 90s.

Well Harper's policies never got the budget to balance after his first year,Don't let the latest facade the CPC are touting about a surplus fool you.

[Big Guy]

Yet you keep blaming Harper for cutting the GST and the electorate voted him back into power in two different elections after the GST cuts.

You also deflect from the fact that JT (the proclaimed chosen one) did not campaign on increasing it.

I pointed out that Harper decided that a 2% cut in HST fulfilled his vision of Canada. That caused the government to miss out on $98 billion in revenues that it could have used for the military, transfer payments, health etc - or anything else. Some people thought it was a good idea and some thought it was a bad idea. Eventually, Canadians lost their trust in the Harper vision.

Personally, I vote for a party trusting that it will elect a good leader and cabinet and do what they think is best for Canada. If the Liberals decide to raise taxes than so be it. In 4 years I may or may not change my mind. The Liberal government will do many things they did not campaign on as did the previous Conservatives and all government before them. That is the nature of our democracy.

[Smallc]

Trudeau spent 5.3 billion in 100 days

No he didn't - About $4B of that is earmarked to be spent over 5 years.

[Accountability Now]

Eventually, Canadians lost their trust in the Harper vision.

Did they? They just elected another guy who isn't going to touch the GST and in essence has the same 'vision' when it comes to GST.

Personally, I vote for a party trusting that it will elect a good leader and cabinet and do what they think is best for Canada.

I agree. Unfortunately I find the partisanship of politics is becoming so intense now that people aren't able to see what is actually good or bad, they just view it as Harper or Trudeau.

[Argus]

In 2009, Canada has a short, sharp recession. Canada (and the world) are in for a period of shallow recessions and slow growth in between. The world isn't headed over a cliff or anything, but there's a reason that the IMF is calling for fiscal stimulus. It isn't because things are looking good.

In 2009 the world had a very sharp recession, including our major trading partners. The US is not in recession and its economy is improving. We are not in recession either. Comparing our situation to 2009 is merely an opportunity to excuse Liberal deficit financing in order to buy the election.