$13.2 billion surplus

[Leafless]

Interest payment on the national debt remains the single biggest expenditure of the Canadian government, doesn't it? Larger than healthcare, or education, or social programs?

Well, you have this one:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:0OMRko...t=clnk&cd=6

[geoffrey]

Liberal shopping spree agenda? We are talking about the governments of Finance Minister Paul Martin and Prime Minister Paul Martin, champion of deficits to surpluses, right? Maybe someone who was of age at the time could point out some prominent Conservative shopping spree items from the Mulroney era... I was 9 when the Liberals took power in '93.

But that aside, how old were many of those spending initiatives? I don't think goverment should spend all of its time axing every little program they find, just because it isnt theirs. To some extent a new government has to honour an old governments commitments, and a few of the axed programs dont even appear to be leftist policy items, but rather party neutral. If the government were to change every four years, that means that we would be on a constant roller coaster ride for everything.

Are you telling me the NDP budget wasn't a spending spree?

[Wilber]

Liberal shopping spree agenda? We are talking about the governments of Finance Minister Paul Martin and Prime Minister Paul Martin, champion of deficits to surpluses, right? Maybe someone who was of age at the time could point out some prominent Conservative shopping spree items from the Mulroney era... I was 9 when the Liberals took power in '93.

But that aside, how old were many of those spending initiatives? I don't think goverment should spend all of its time axing every little program they find, just because it isnt theirs. To some extent a new government has to honour an old governments commitments, and a few of the axed programs dont even appear to be leftist policy items, but rather party neutral. If the government were to change every four years, that means that we would be on a constant roller coaster ride for everything.

Federal spending increased at a rate of 8.2% per year from 1999 to 2005. It increased 14.4% in 04-05 when Martin was trying to buy his job. Tories have forecast 5.4% this year and 4.1% next year, still way above the rate of inflation, hence cuts. Yes their priorities are different but that is why we have more than one party.

[jdobbin]

The government would be better to cut taxes and let people pay down their mortgages.

Generally what happens when taxes are cut is that people get bigger houses and bigger mortgages. That was the American experience anyways.

[jdobbin]

Having a surplus shouldn't be a burden if things are considered carefully.

Klein paid off Alberta debt but left Calgary with too few hospitals and a road to Fort McMurray that is killing people.

Once the debt has been paid, he was able to put money back into the system.

He probably could have probably spent money to upgrade for Alberta's boom as well as end the debt. He says he really didn't have a plan when the money poured in. It shows. Perhaps the new leader won't be so foolish as to cut taxes to zero and leave roads a mess.

[watching&waiting]

It was already said that the program cuts were based on where the money invested gave a return in that investment. In other words if your program did nothing to better society, or create some other benifit, it would be axed. If they was a need of such magnitude, and where the money could be justified, then you had nothing to fear. But if you look at what was killed, there really was not the justification for the money.

The debt reduction money saved enough in inerest to pay for many more things or to again reduce the debt. So the 13 billion today saved 688,000,000.00 million per year from this point onward. That is a lot of money right there. I would love to see tax breaks come but if it is not in the cards then I would rather the debt be paid, then government spending more. In the end though it will all come back to the people.

[Higgly]

Paying down the debt is a good thing. As for the Liberals, Remiel's the only one who remembers it right. It was the Conservatives under Mulroney who multiplied the debt by running huge budget deficits in successive years. It was the Liberals who whipped the federal finances into line and started to pay down the debt.

It is always a joke to see right wingers harp about left wing spending. In both Canada and the US (Clinton), it has been the right who has done the most damage to the national treasury (look at Bush - see where the US dollar is going) and it has been the left who have brought it back into line.

[Wilber]

Paying down the debt is a good thing. As for the Liberals, Remiel's the only one who remembers it right. It was the Conservatives under Mulroney who multiplied the debt by running huge budget deficits in successive years. It was the Liberals who whipped the federal finances into line and started to pay down the debt.

Government spending doubled during the Chretien years in spite of massive downloading to the provinces, privatization of such things as air traffic control turning responsibility for airports over to municipalities and the introduction of many user fees for other services. It probably had to be done but if interest rates had remained in the 18 to 20% range as they were in the eighties the country would be bankrupt by now no matter what any government could have done.

[sharkman]

Paying down the debt is a good thing. As for the Liberals, Remiel's the only one who remembers it right. It was the Conservatives under Mulroney who multiplied the debt by running huge budget deficits in successive years. It was the Liberals who whipped the federal finances into line and started to pay down the debt.

It is always a joke to see right wingers harp about left wing spending. In both Canada and the US (Clinton), it has been the right who has done the most damage to the national treasury (look at Bush - see where the US dollar is going) and it has been the left who have brought it back into line.

Not so fast. Bush is not a financial conservative. Look to his father and Reagan for that. Remember Voodo Economics, a phrase coined by the Dems when faced with Reagan tax cuts? And those were bad times during the early eighties. The interest rate skyrocketed (as mentioned by previous poster) which shrunk government revenue in a huge way. Many nations around the globe had to run deficits until things improved. Mulroney was in no way alone.

As long as Liberals can lose track of a billion dollars (under Chretien) there will be people harping about it and rightly so.

[BubberMiley]

All three of them are/were big spenders, but the money goes into the miltary-industrial complex rather than into programs that benefit the taxpayer.

[Argus]

Paying down the debt is a good thing. As for the Liberals, Remiel's the only one who remembers it right. It was the Conservatives under Mulroney who multiplied the debt by running huge budget deficits in successive years. It was the Liberals who whipped the federal finances into line and started to pay down the debt.

This hoary old cliche. The debt began under one Pierre E Trudeau, who increased government spending far above what it could pay for, and just borrowed money year after year to make up the difference. We had virtually no debt when he took office. When he left office, we had a large debt, high unemployment, and high inflation.

The Mulroney Conservatives actually cut program spending. The vast majority of the increased debt came from the need to borrow money in order to make up for the increasing costs of servicing the Trudeau debt during a time of sky high interest rates. They could have done better, but they certainly were better fiscal manageres than Trudeau, who ruled mostly during good economic times and had no excuse whatever for the big yearly deficits he initiated.

When the US economy recovered, it pulled us along with it, and money started to pour into government coffers from the GST the Liberals had so violently opposed. In addition, of course, people went back to work, social program spending lowered, income tax pulled in much more money.

THAT, more than any kind of deficit reduction project initiated by Paul Martin, really conquered the deficits. And as we saw, in the latter part of Chretien's time, and into Paul Martin's, the Liberal government began to greatly increase program spending again. In fact, Paul Martin's government increased program spending faster and higher than any government since the Korean war.

[Remiel]

Inflation was up everywhere in the world during Trudeau's time.

[jdobbin]

The Mulroney Conservatives actually cut program spending. The vast majority of the increased debt came from the need to borrow money in order to make up for the increasing costs of servicing the Trudeau debt during a time of sky high interest rates. They could have done better, but they certainly were better fiscal manageres than Trudeau, who ruled mostly during good economic times and had no excuse whatever for the big yearly deficits he initiated.

A dozen plus tax increases under Mulroney. Cuts were marginal to the budget. The deficit soared. A recession in his second term. Twice to the Constitutional well and no water drawn.

Trudeau helped push the deficit and national debt skyward. Mulroney left things worse than he found it.

The GST helped bring the deficit down but so did spending cuts. Some people think it was all GST. It wasn't.

[Argus]

Inflation was up everywhere in the world during Trudeau's time.

During the latter years, yes. But he took power in splendid economic times, with low inflation, low unemployment, no deficit, and almost no debt, and building the debt was well under way before the economy hit the skids, the result of his ideas for new program spending and his lack of interest in how they were paid for.

[Argus]

The Mulroney Conservatives actually cut program spending. The vast majority of the increased debt came from the need to borrow money in order to make up for the increasing costs of servicing the Trudeau debt during a time of sky high interest rates. They could have done better, but they certainly were better fiscal manageres than Trudeau, who ruled mostly during good economic times and had no excuse whatever for the big yearly deficits he initiated.

A dozen plus tax increases under Mulroney. Cuts were marginal to the budget. The deficit soared. A recession in his second term. Twice to the Constitutional well and no water drawn.

Trudeau helped push the deficit and national debt skyward. Mulroney left things worse than he found it.

The GST helped bring the deficit down but so did spending cuts. Some people think it was all GST. It wasn't.

Again, Mulroney took power in very, very poor economic times, with the Trudeau debt like an anchor around every budget. It was a world-wide recession, not something any of his policies (or Trudeau's) caused. You think servicing the debt costs a lot at 4-5%? Try it at 15%. Of course he had to pour money into it - at a time when government income was falling due to increasing bankruptcies and unemployment, and increased spending to keep all those unemployed/welfare people from starving.

There were spending cuts by the Chretien administration, but let's face facts, they ran big deficits in their early years because of the world-wide recession, and because of the debt, which had grown considerably through all those years of high interest. The deficits were beaten by the American economy rebounding and huge increases in income to the government (which also, btw, raised taxes numerous times).

[Ricki Bobbi]

Again, Mulroney took power in very, very poor economic times, with the Trudeau debt like an anchor around every budget. It was a world-wide recession, not something any of his policies (or Trudeau's) caused. You think servicing the debt costs a lot at 4-5%? Try it at 15%. Of course he had to pour money into it - at a time when government income was falling due to increasing bankruptcies and unemployment, and increased spending to keep all those unemployed/welfare people from starving.

There were spending cuts by the Chretien administration, but let's face facts, they ran big deficits in their early years because of the world-wide recession, and because of the debt, which had grown considerably through all those years of high interest. The deficits were beaten by the American economy rebounding and huge increases in income to the government (which also, btw, raised taxes numerous times).

Mulroney's Government ran the first operating surplus in over 15 years. The regulatory streamlining of the Mulroney era made the boom of the 90s possible.

National debt went up 12 times in Trudeau's 16 years in office.

It almost doubled in Mulroney's 9 years.

Who was the better fiscal manager? Pretty obvious to me.

[geoffrey]

It is not simply a redistribution of 4% to the bond-holding public. The government (and by proxy the population) get something for it. They get the time-value of money. IOW they get to use the money. If the government is only paying 4%, it is getting a great deal from the bondholders, rather than running a social program for the bondholders.

I don't think it's necessarily "a great deal" unless the money is actually used for something useful. Borrowing money just because the interest rate is low doesn't seem to make a lot of sense...

-k

Your right Kimmy, money shouldn't be spent until it's useful. I'm not advocating deficit budgets. But Canadians are holding larger and larger amounts of debt and not investing. Bit of a crisis. Cut taxes, and let Canadians pay off their debt at anywhere from 6-20% then have them pay of 4% debt through their taxes.

Would you pay your 18.5% Mastercard or your 4% government debt first? Obvious answer, let's give that money to people that need it... everyone. Cut them taxes.

View public debt as a personal debt of your own, which it is (you pay it through your taxes)... then the concept that I'm (and August, though his view is different) suggesting makes alot more sense.

[jbg]

$13 billion is $13 billion too much collected. Give it back in rebate cheques proportion to personal incomes taxes paid in.

I, or any other taxpayer, never gave the government the mandate to collect excess monies and then spend them at whim. That's our money, let's have it back. Government's collect money to spend on critical programs in the national interest, not for the sake of collecting money.

But realistically, unfortunately, this is Canada and the government does need somewhat of a "promise slush fund" for the upcoming elections. Sad but true.

[Remiel]

A surplus by itself doesn't indicate anything. If the government cut spending to absolutely nothing, and said they had a surplus of $180 billion, it wouldn't mean jack.

[Wilber]

It is not simply a redistribution of 4% to the bond-holding public. The government (and by proxy the population) get something for it. They get the time-value of money. IOW they get to use the money. If the government is only paying 4%, it is getting a great deal from the bondholders, rather than running a social program for the bondholders.

I don't think it's necessarily "a great deal" unless the money is actually used for something useful. Borrowing money just because the interest rate is low doesn't seem to make a lot of sense...

-k

Your right Kimmy, money shouldn't be spent until it's useful. I'm not advocating deficit budgets. But Canadians are holding larger and larger amounts of debt and not investing. Bit of a crisis. Cut taxes, and let Canadians pay off their debt at anywhere from 6-20% then have them pay of 4% debt through their taxes.

Would you pay your 18.5% Mastercard or your 4% government debt first? Obvious answer, let's give that money to people that need it... everyone. Cut them taxes.

View public debt as a personal debt of your own, which it is (you pay it through your taxes)... then the concept that I'm (and August, though his view is different) suggesting makes alot more sense.

Anyone who is carrying a credit card balance when they could pay it off with a line of credit isn't smart enough to pay it off. While I think this surplus should be used on the debt, I also think governments need to be more honest and accurate when it comes to budget forcasts. Large surpluses are just a form of over taxation but I am never upset when I see a modest surplus.