Economist says Tories gave him incomplete platform

[mar]

Economist says Tories gave him incomplete platform

Updated Sun. Jan. 15 2006 4:28 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — A prominent economist commissioned by the Conservatives to assess the financial soundness of their election platform says major items were omitted from the version he was given.

Paul Darby, deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, originally concluded that Stephen Harper's Conservative platform "is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011."

The Conservative party promoted that conclusion last week as evidence its election platform had been "independently verified" by the Conference Board, an Ottawa-based think-tank.

But Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative party health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home.

It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and the provinces.

Darby wouldn't comment on whether the timely health-care guarantee would bear a significant cost.

"Talk to Harper," he said. "It is not in the platform I received from them."

[Rovik]

Interesting.

Looks like the Conservatives can't complain about the NDP anymore when it comes to budget costs (and the Conservatives tend to exaggerate the costs of NDP budgets anyway), considering they are not willing to cost all their promises and even providing an economist incomplete information.

They may even go the route of Bush and the US and put Canada into deep debt.

[geoffrey]

Interesting.

Looks like the Conservatives can't complain about the NDP anymore when it comes to budget costs (and the Conservatives tend to exaggerate the costs of NDP budgets anyway), considering they are not willing to cost all their promises and even providing an economist incomplete information.

They may even go the route of Bush and the US and put Canada into deep debt.

We are already in deep debt, blame that one on the Liberal Messiah Trudeau.

And Bush's deficiet is due to military spending in Iraq. Harper has said no Canadians will go to Iraq.

The Conservative platform works, you'll find plenty of economists that endorse it.

[mar]

Interesting.

Looks like the Conservatives can't complain about the NDP anymore when it comes to budget costs (and the Conservatives tend to exaggerate the costs of NDP budgets anyway), considering they are not willing to cost all their promises and even providing an economist incomplete information.

They may even go the route of Bush and the US and put Canada into deep debt.

We are already in deep debt, blame that one on the Liberal Messiah Trudeau.

And Bush's deficiet is due to military spending in Iraq. Harper has said no Canadians will go to Iraq.

The Conservative platform works, you'll find plenty of economists that endorse it.

Actually the last of the big spenders was Mulrooney who added a great deal more to the deficit (you could look it up).

I would think Rovik's general point was Bush deliberately chose to go into deficit for a war of choice. He wasn't arguing Harper would choose the same route, only the same result. Also that the economy took a nosedive under the republican administration as it might under the Conservative administration (after all virtually none of their members have ever governed anything other than several failed political parties).

You'll find plenty of economists that support every platform and criticise every other. That says?

I thought the point of this article was dishonesty. Mr. Darby seems a tad miffed he was punk'd, huh?

""Talk to Harper," he said. "It is not in the platform I received from them.""

[Rovik]

]

We are already in deep debt, blame that one on the Liberal Messiah Trudeau.

And Bush's deficiet is due to military spending in Iraq. Harper has said no Canadians will go to Iraq.

The Conservative platform works, you'll find plenty of economists that endorse it.

Regarding the debt, I agree with you, though Mulrooney's Conservative govt. didn't help much knock down the debt either.

Our debt might have been much higher as well, if we had went to war with the USA as we would if Harper had been PM at the time. And if Martin was in charge of the Liberals at the time, instead of Chretien, we may have been at war as well, considering he was supposedly leaning towards supporting the US in the war at the time.

Each party can turn to economists to back up their platforms. Though this is the first time an economist (that I have heard) has cried "foul" because a party gave him incomplete info (as the Conservatives did.)

[Rovik]

I would think Rovik's general point was Bush deliberately chose to go into deficit for a war of choice. He wasn't arguing Harper would choose the same route, only the same result. Also that the economy took a nosedive under the republican administration as it might under the Conservative administration (after all virtually none of their members have ever governed anything other than several failed political parties).

Exactly, in this situation today in this election campaign, this is true

[geoffrey]

Actually the last of the big spenders was Mulrooney who added a great deal more to the deficit (you could look it up).

I would think Rovik's general point was Bush deliberately chose to go into deficit for a war of choice. He wasn't arguing Harper would choose the same route, only the same result. Also that the economy took a nosedive under the republican administration as it might under the Conservative administration (after all virtually none of their members have ever governed anything other than several failed political parties).

You'll find plenty of economists that support every platform and criticise every other. That says?

I thought the point of this article was dishonesty. Mr. Darby seems a tad miffed he was punk'd, huh?

""Talk to Harper," he said. "It is not in the platform I received from them.""

I agree mar about Mulroney, but I've explained this action in another thread, debt financing and the such. Remember, Martin also robbed the EI fund to end deficiets.

I have no reason to believe our economy would collapse under the CPC. Every one of their policies is favourable to our economy, besides the child care program.

Fair enough on the economists comment as well.

[Riverwind]

Looks like the Conservatives can't complain about the NDP anymore when it comes to budget costs (and the Conservatives tend to exaggerate the costs of NDP budgets anyway), considering they are not willing to cost all their promises and even providing an economist incomplete information.

In this election no party's platform adds up thanks to the spend like there's no tomorrow policies of the Liberals. However, when push comes to shove the parties will react as follows:

Conservatives: Cut spending and go back on some spending promises

Liberals: Cut spending go back on tax cut promises

NDP: Raise taxes

[Guest eureka]

Why would anyone be surprised. After all, they have not given the electorate the complete picture either. Programmes have to be cut if taxes are to be cut to meet the expenditures, That is certain and needs basic mathematical skills not an economist to calculate.

They haven't told us which programmes.

It is amusing to see the old debt mythology arising from the forum ashes. Trudeau was not respnsible for the punishing debt Mulroney left behind. Trudeau incurred debt but he was a piker compared to the following government. Debt peaked in Mulroney's final year and immediately began to fall with Chretien.

You can find it all in the threads that were devoted to the topic.

[geoffrey]

In this election no party's platform adds up thanks to the spend like there's no tomorrow policies of the Liberals. However, when push comes to shove the parties will react as follows:

Conservatives: Cut spending and go back on some spending promises

Liberals: Cut spending go back on tax cut promises

NDP: Raise taxes

It's true, and I have a feeling about which of those spending areas will go. From that perspective as well, its obvious which party will be best for the economy. And actually I think the Liberal plan is at least costed within their estimates (which have a not so great track record) not to run a deficiet though, about the only thing going for them right now.

Economy in Canada does not equal government budget , by the way. So all this the CPC will destroy our economy and make us all poor doesn't work. The economy is based more upon the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada then it ever will be on what happens in the House of Commons.

Another important consideration is the Liberals utter failure to realise costs.

Anyone remember the 1mil gun registry?

Is anyone actually convinced on the costs of building and running these huge child care establishments?

[geoffrey]

Why would anyone be surprised. After all, they have not given the electorate the complete picture either. Programmes have to be cut if taxes are to be cut to meet the expenditures, That is certain and needs basic mathematical skills not an economist to calculate.

They haven't told us which programmes.

It is amusing to see the old debt mythology arising from the forum ashes. Trudeau was not respnsible for the punishing debt Mulroney left behind. Trudeau incurred debt but he was a piker compared to the following government. Debt peaked in Mulroney's final year and immediately began to fall with Chretien.

You can find it all in the threads that were devoted to the topic.

Mostly due to increased debt service payments because of interest rates in the Mulroney times. Come on, if your going to go there, at least tell the whole story.

Mulroney was also attempting to create an environment for the economy to recover after Trudeau trashed it. Chretien simply enjoyed this environment.

Martin does deserve credit in his fiscal conservatism (and social conservatism at one time too) at the beginning of his time in the Finance office. Too bad he's so far away from that now.

[mar]

Why would anyone be surprised. After all, they have not given the electorate the complete picture either. Programmes have to be cut if taxes are to be cut to meet the expenditures, That is certain and needs basic mathematical skills not an economist to calculate.

They haven't told us which programmes.

It is amusing to see the old debt mythology arising from the forum ashes. Trudeau was not respnsible for the punishing debt Mulroney left behind. Trudeau incurred debt but he was a piker compared to the following government. Debt peaked in Mulroney's final year and immediately began to fall with Chretien.

You can find it all in the threads that were devoted to the topic.

Mostly due to increased debt service payments because of interest rates in the Mulroney times. Come on, if your going to go there, at least tell the whole story.

Mulroney was also attempting to create an environment for the economy to recover after Trudeau trashed it. Chretien simply enjoyed this environment.

Martin does deserve credit in his fiscal conservatism (and social conservatism at one time too) at the beginning of his time in the Finance office. Too bad he's so far away from that now.

The problem is, geoffrey that you're arguing against a false cause. The fact (you can get the figures from the national accounts, StatsCan and other official sources) is that since 1994 the Lberal party reduced the deficit and cut taxes. Also in that time the real income of Canadians rose and the Liberals ran sa surplus.

So when Conservatives make these dire predictions of increased Liberal government spending that we have to elect Conservatives to stop, you're arguing against something that has not happened in a succession of Liberal governments and there is no reason to suppose will happen if they are returned to power.

So you're left with: "Well, we could do it better."

Maybe, maybe not.

Only one party has proved they can and when you start with making an unsubstantiated promise the Conference Board of Canada supports your budget (certianly implying your ENTIRE budget, not your budget proposals of six months ago) it is not a good start. Neither is throwing in compensation for GST losses to Quebec in the debates (which as we discussed would inevitably open the door to compensation issues for all provinces and territories).

[Canuck E Stan]

Is anyone actually convinced on the costs of building and running these huge child care establishments?

Where are those figures on the Liberal Warehouse daycare plan?

Ontario's cost for the 25,000 daycare spots is presently costing Ontario taxpayers -$44,000 per spot.

How much will 650,000 spots cost with the Liberals plan?

Another gun registry?

No,something even more expensive.

[mar]

Is anyone actually convinced on the costs of building and running these huge child care establishments?

Where are those figures on the Liberal Warehouse daycare plan?

Ontario's cost for the 25,000 daycare spots is presently costing Ontario taxpayers -$44,000 per spot.

How much will 650,000 spots cost with the Liberals plan?

Another gun registry?

No,something even more expensive.

So your solution is "scru the kids. I want a few bucks in some kind of rebate. Any kind."

[Boondoggle]

Interesting.

Looks like the Conservatives can't complain about the NDP anymore when it comes to budget costs (and the Conservatives tend to exaggerate the costs of NDP budgets anyway), considering they are not willing to cost all their promises and even providing an economist incomplete information.

They may even go the route of Bush and the US and put Canada into deep debt.

We are already in deep debt, blame that one on the Liberal Messiah Trudeau.

And Bush's deficiet is due to military spending in Iraq. Harper has said no Canadians will go to Iraq.

The Conservative platform works, you'll find plenty of economists that endorse it.

Canada's debt is about 38% of GDP. In contrast, the US has about 8 trillion in debt with a GDP of about 11 trillion. In other words, US debt is about 73% of GDP, but they are also somewhat shielded from the effects of high debt by having the worlds main reserve currency. Canada's debt is less than $500 billion. In contrast once again, the deficit in the US for one year, about 300-400 billion, would cover most of Canada's debt. So, I'm not sure I would say Canada is deeply in debt. It could be better and it could be worse. It certianly was worse in the 90s when debt to GDP was at about 68%.

[cybercoma]

The federal government shouldn't be involved in child care, healthcare, education, roads, etc. I'm tired of being double taxed.

[Boondoggle]

Economist says Tories gave him incomplete platform

Updated Sun. Jan. 15 2006 4:28 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — A prominent economist commissioned by the Conservatives to assess the financial soundness of their election platform says major items were omitted from the version he was given.

Paul Darby, deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, originally concluded that Stephen Harper's Conservative platform "is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011."

The Conservative party promoted that conclusion last week as evidence its election platform had been "independently verified" by the Conference Board, an Ottawa-based think-tank.

But Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative party health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home.

It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and the provinces.

Darby wouldn't comment on whether the timely health-care guarantee would bear a significant cost.

"Talk to Harper," he said. "It is not in the platform I received from them."

So Harper is first accused of a hidden plan to cut social programs, and now he's got a hidden plan to spend more on health care? Which is it? You know Harper is an economist too, right?

[Boondoggle]

Is anyone actually convinced on the costs of building and running these huge child care establishments?

Where are those figures on the Liberal Warehouse daycare plan?

Ontario's cost for the 25,000 daycare spots is presently costing Ontario taxpayers -$44,000 per spot.

How much will 650,000 spots cost with the Liberals plan?

Another gun registry?

No,something even more expensive.

So your solution is "scru the kids. I want a few bucks in some kind of rebate. Any kind."

No, the solution is to give parents a choice.

[shoop]

Did you start this thread to discuss uncosted policy proposals or attack the CPC at regardless of facts presented to you?

So your solution is "scru the kids. I want a few bucks in some kind of rebate. Any kind."

[August1991]

The problem is, geoffrey that you're arguing against a false cause. The fact (you can get the figures from the national accounts, StatsCan and other official sources) is that since 1994 the Lberal party reduced the deficit and cut taxes. Also in that time the real income of Canadians rose and the Liberals ran sa surplus.

Mar, the Liberals did that in a context where real interest rates were around 4% or lower. Mulroney faced real interest rates that were in double digits or certainly well above 5% during their whole period in office.

It took over a decade for capital markets to believe that inflation would remain low, and then real interest rates fell around 1993.

Lowered inflationary expectations not only helped the economy to grow (meaning more government revenues) but lower real interest rates meant lower debt payments. The Liberals (and Clinton) had no problem eliminating the dovernment budget deficit. The sad part is that in Canada, we got no tax cuts. The federal government just "wasted" that money on crazy schemes like HRDC, the gun registry and submarines.

----

As to this Conference Board economist, my understand is that he has objected to not having Tory numbers for the health care and the fiscal imbalance proposals. In the case of health care, it is hard to know what it will cost because if it works well, it won't cost much. Its purpose is to hold a stick over the provinces: do it at home or pay for the service out-of-province. Presumably, this incentive will make the provinces solve the waiting-time problem. The Tories can't give the fiscal imbalance numbers now because that would be showing their bridge hand to the provinces.

[scribblet]

The Conservatives have responded to the economist.

Conference Board of Canada reaffirms analysis of Conservative platform

15 January 2006

OTTAWA - Today Paul Darby, Deputy Chief Economist of the Conference Board of

Canada, confirmed to us that his original analysis of the Conservative Party

of Canada's election plan released January 13, 2006, remains unchanged.

"In summary, we found that the Conservative Party's economic platform is

affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. In each

year there is enough fiscal room to pay down at least $3 billion a year in

debt, as in the [Conservative] fiscal plan.

"Over the five-year forecast horizon to 2010-11, the CBoC economic and

fiscal outlook suggests that there remains $15.7 billion in unallocated

fiscal room, over and above the $3 billion annual debt payment, which

provides further cushion to ensure that deficits do not occur due to adverse

economic events."

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has always made it clear that the details

of the fiscal imbalance will be negotiated with the provinces and that

surplus revenues exist in the Conservative plan to deal with this issue.

Mr. Harper has said on numerous occasions that the Patient Health Care

Guarantee will be paid for from existing budgetary resources.

[Rovik]

The Conservatives have responded to the economist.

Conference Board of Canada reaffirms analysis of Conservative platform

15 January 2006

OTTAWA - Today Paul Darby, Deputy Chief Economist of the Conference Board of

Canada, confirmed to us that his original analysis of the Conservative Party

of Canada's election plan released January 13, 2006, remains unchanged.

"In summary, we found that the Conservative Party's economic platform is

affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. In each

year there is enough fiscal room to pay down at least $3 billion a year in

debt, as in the [Conservative] fiscal plan.

"Over the five-year forecast horizon to 2010-11, the CBoC economic and

fiscal outlook suggests that there remains $15.7 billion in unallocated

fiscal room, over and above the $3 billion annual debt payment, which

provides further cushion to ensure that deficits do not occur due to adverse

economic events."

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has always made it clear that the details

of the fiscal imbalance will be negotiated with the provinces and that

surplus revenues exist in the Conservative plan to deal with this issue.

Mr. Harper has said on numerous occasions that the Patient Health Care

Guarantee will be paid for from existing budgetary resources.

The economist has basically said, again, that this is his conclusion using the info (incomplete that it was) the Conservatives gave him. His conclusion does not include monies to fix the fiscal imbalance or the Patient Health Care Guarantee.

And what happens if the surplus revenues are not enough to fix the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and Ottawa. Will they cut spending, perhaps increase service fees, or maybe even raise taxes to make up the difference?

And how about if there isn't enough exisiting budgetary resources for this Patient Health Guarantee, which could be the case if this guarantee is used by large numbers of Canadians, what would the Conservatives do then?

[mar]

The Conservatives have responded to the economist.

Conference Board of Canada reaffirms analysis of Conservative platform

15 January 2006

OTTAWA - Today Paul Darby, Deputy Chief Economist of the Conference Board of

Canada, confirmed to us that his original analysis of the Conservative Party

of Canada's election plan released January 13, 2006, remains unchanged.

"In summary, we found that the Conservative Party's economic platform is

affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. In each

year there is enough fiscal room to pay down at least $3 billion a year in

debt, as in the [Conservative] fiscal plan.

"Over the five-year forecast horizon to 2010-11, the CBoC economic and

fiscal outlook suggests that there remains $15.7 billion in unallocated

fiscal room, over and above the $3 billion annual debt payment, which

provides further cushion to ensure that deficits do not occur due to adverse

economic events."

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has always made it clear that the details

of the fiscal imbalance will be negotiated with the provinces and that

surplus revenues exist in the Conservative plan to deal with this issue.

Mr. Harper has said on numerous occasions that the Patient Health Care

Guarantee will be paid for from existing budgetary resources.

You DO realize this is spin?

All Harper and he are saying is that the out-of-date and incomplete budget that they gave him produces the results he stated. There is NOTHING in this about additional promises.

I'm gonna try this with my bank. Hey! give me a loan. My credit score was 8.5 in August. Course since then I lost my job and promised to pay a loan shark a million dollars but I got my August credit rating report right here and Equifax stands behind it 100% as being an accurate representation of some point in the past.

[August1991]

The Conservatives have responded to the economist.

Conference Board of Canada reaffirms analysis of Conservative platform

15 January 2006

OTTAWA - Today Paul Darby, Deputy Chief Economist of the Conference Board of

Canada, confirmed to us that his original analysis of the Conservative Party

of Canada's election plan released January 13, 2006, remains unchanged.

You DO realize this is spin?

All Harper and he are saying is that the out-of-date and incomplete budget that they gave him produces the results he stated. There is NOTHING in this about additional promises.

I'm gonna try this with my bank. Hey! give me a loan. My credit score was 8.5 in August. Course since then I lost my job and promised to pay a loan shark a million dollars but I got my August credit rating report right here and Equifax stands behind it 100% as being an accurate representation of some point in the past.

I find it hard to believe that one economist from the Conference Board no less can possibly be critical in this campaign.

We are close to election day and it may involve a change in power in Ottawa. People are getting nervous. Expect more of this in the coming days.

(For most Canadians, a change in power in Ottawa doesn't matter much. For some Canadians though, this makes a large, material difference. Their contract or whatever may not get renewed. Many people are nervous.)

[geoffrey]

The problem is, geoffrey that you're arguing against a false cause. The fact (you can get the figures from the national accounts, StatsCan and other official sources) is that since 1994 the Lberal party reduced the deficit and cut taxes. Also in that time the real income of Canadians rose and the Liberals ran sa surplus.

So when Conservatives make these dire predictions of increased Liberal government spending that we have to elect Conservatives to stop, you're arguing against something that has not happened in a succession of Liberal governments and there is no reason to suppose will happen if they are returned to power.

So you're left with: "Well, we could do it better."

Maybe, maybe not.

Only one party has proved they can and when you start with making an unsubstantiated promise the Conference Board of Canada supports your budget (certianly implying your ENTIRE budget, not your budget proposals of six months ago) it is not a good start. Neither is throwing in compensation for GST losses to Quebec in the debates (which as we discussed would inevitably open the door to compensation issues for all provinces and territories).

The real income of Canadians rose only slightly higher than inflation. Joy.

Running surpluses is almost as bad as running deficiets. It means you taking more than you need and your hampering the economy. It's not hard to run surpluses when your robbing EI either.

As well, the Child Care proposal is significantly under-costed. This needs to be stopped, so your idea that we have no claim that the Liberals are over-spending is false. Once its in place, it will become one of those untouchables (like health care) and we'll be stuck with this bill forever.

As Stan mentioned, $44,000 per spot. 650,000 spots... 28.6 billion per year? Not to mention is way harder and more costly to provide this so-called 'universal system' in remote areas than downtown Toronto. Add on the usual Liberal beaurucracy costs... and we would most likely see a number higher than that.

This can't be allowed to happen.