Conservative Spending - Out of Control

[August1991]

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money".

Everett Dirksen

The simplistic mindset of the Right (and Left) in Canada is that it's bad to borrow. As long as a government doesn't borrow, then in this mindest, the government is fiscally competent.

Not.

At the moment, the federal government is rolling in dough. Unemployment is down to a historic low of 6.1%, the economy is booming and all manner of tax revenues are up. The guys in Ottawa are flush with cash. And unfortunately, they're spending it.

A billion or so for a Toronto subway. A billion or so for airplanes. Another billion or so of mad money for the provincial governments. Stephen Harper has morphed into minority PM PM, circa 2005.

That might be a small indication to Harper that this is not a politically winning strategy. It's certainly not a winning strategy for Canada's economy or Canada in general.

I have a simple idea: Governments in Canada spend too much money. I don't care about government deficits, debts or taxes. Because of the nature of government, they're largely irrelevant. What does matter is what government buys. And our governments spend too much.

Canada, this wonderfully civilized place that has existed for centuries, certainly longer than Ottawa, needs less government.

I voted Conservative because I want politicians to say no. Harper is saying yes, far too often.

[jdobbin]

I voted Conservative because I want politicians to say no. Harper is saying yes, far too often.

I doubt that you're going to change your vote regardless of what he does. The old fall back is that the Liberals are worse and that the Tories have to do this because they can't win without it. And you and others will believe it.

It is certainly clear that there is an election about to happen.

[August1991]

I doubt that you're going to change your vote regardless of what he does. The old fall back is that the Liberals are worse and that the Tories have to do this because they can't win without it. And you and others will believe it.

I can vote for the BQ which is the ultimate stop-notice for federal government spending. (For those who think an independent Quebec governbment would result in greater profligacy, you don't understand government. Governments, by nature, spend other people's money. Think of what that means.)

Unfortunately Dobbin, I have only one vote and it will change absolutely nothing in any election. Quebec is not going to become a separate country with its own government because of my single ballot.

It is certainly clear that there is an election about to happen.

It disturbs me to believe that Harper is spending other people's money in the belief that this will make him PM for the next four years.

Western democratic governments will face a serious problem in the next few decades. How much can they spend of other people's money? In the west, this is a relatively new phenomenon. Western governments have only spent on this scale for the past few decades. Elsewhere, when governments spend other people's money on such a scale, they don't (didn't) survive long.

Harper promised to keep the increase of government spending below the increase of general economic growth. He's already broken that promise. In Harper's short regime, the federal government already takes more of the Canadian GDP pie than before.

This can't continue. To survive as a legitimate institution, democratic government must learn how to limit its appetite. Democracy is dangerous because demagogic politicians (and Harper seems to be one) have an incentive to say yes.

[geoffrey]

So what do we do? I agree, but there is absolutely no choice for those with our view outside Quebec other than the CPC. The Liberals are, in fact, the same boat with an Eastern focus (good for you, bad for me).

The money isn't there for a seperatist movement in Alberta. I know there is people that like the idea in positions of some authority, I was talking to a Exec VP of a large oil and gas firm this week about the idea. Those with the money are interested, but like he said, "the movement isn't strong enough for me to throw any money at... right now."

So that's where the rest of us non-Quebecois interested in an alternative sit. Reform is dead and has been replaced with another tax and spend government.

[Catchme]

No actually, the "movement", meaning people are not there for a separate AB.

[geoffrey]

No actually, the "movement", meaning people are not there for a separate AB.

Oh lots of people are. Not a majority mind you. But it's there.

UofA poll:

The poll--conducted among 1,017 respondents, evenly divided across the four western provinces between Aug. 29 and Sept. 12--reveals that, today, 28 per cent say they agree (strongly or somewhat) with the idea that Westerners should consider secession. Alberta, where separation sentiment remains the highest in the region, with 32 per cent agreement, also saw the biggest drop, with 10 per cent fewer Albertans willing to entertain separatist plans today.

Source: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=51140

That means they were polling at 42% when the Liberals were in power. That's no small voice for considering secession. A campaign outlining the massive fiscal benefits to Alberta would certainly push that up a few.

If it actually went to referendum, with Dion in power for example, I think we'd see something very similar to Quebec 1995.

The numbers are lower with a Western-responsive government in Ottawa however.

[Vancouver King]

So what do we do? I agree, but there is absolutely no choice for those with our view outside Quebec other than the CPC. The Liberals are, in fact, the same boat with an Eastern focus (good for you, bad for me).

The money isn't there for a seperatist movement in Alberta. I know there is people that like the idea in positions of some authority, I was talking to a Exec VP of a large oil and gas firm this week about the idea. Those with the money are interested, but like he said, "the movement isn't strong enough for me to throw any money at... right now."

So that's where the rest of us non-Quebecois interested in an alternative sit. Reform is dead and has been replaced with another tax and spend government.

I actually sympathize with principled conservatives - Harper & Co. give every indication of out-spending recent Liberal regimes.

Most true-blue rank and file would rationalize that in order to address the issues closest to their hearts (confronting the homos, revisiting abortion, 3 strikes and your out, a reasonable turn at the trough, etc.) the party requires a working, 5-year majority, thus in the short term the electorate must be bribed with it's own money, historically a can't lose strategy. Look at it this way, the NDP type spending is temporary and simply serves the greater good.

Harper has been accused of borrowing policies, mannerisms and inspiration from George Bush. Is it coincidence that Washington Republicans spend money as fast as it can be printed or borrowed?

[Moonlight Graham]

So you thinking spending is out of control, yet you don't care much about the debt? So what do you want to happen to the money being spend? Are you saying you want taxes lowered?

[August1991]

So you thinking spending is out of control, yet you don't care much about the debt? So what do you want to happen to the money being spend? Are you saying you want taxes lowered?

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too a government budget deficit or surplus.

When politicians claim to be competent because they balance the budget, they are lying.

Politicians have access to the extensive wealth of Canada and all Canadians. Given such power, talk of governmment borrowing, deficit, surplus is irrelevant. (This economic idea is unfortunately a source of serious confusion in Canada, both French and English.)

The only thing that matters is government spending. What do politicians buy on our behalf? Their competence should be measured by what they buy. Politicians are our buying agents.

IMV, Harper is spending money like a drunken sailor who has found a wallet.

[geoffrey]

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too government budget deficit or surplus.

I really disagree with you on this one August. Debt, your right, the government pays lower interest than you or I ever will get approved for. I can't issue treasury bills, though it would be nice.

But deficits and surpluses both have their own effects on the economy. Large deficits invariably crowd out lenders and make things more expensive for everyone else. Supply and demand slopes do apply to loanable funds.

Surpluses are another issue all together. The money is generally spent recklessly (like paying down the debt... it would make much more sense to spend it all on a one-time mortgage contribution to all home owners) or on buying votes. The government spending a dollar means I spent one dollar less, it lessens my standard of living in most cases. It too can effect funds available for investment (and spending) by reducing everyones bank accounts.

That all into consideration, I'm going to say a balanced budget (like really balanced, surpluses being refunded) and extremely limited debt repayment, if any, is the way to go.

[August1991]

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too government budget deficit or surplus.

I really disagree with you on this one August. Debt, your right, the government pays lower interest than you or I ever will get approved for. I can't issue treasury bills, though it would be nice.

But deficits and surpluses both have their own effects on the economy. Large deficits invariably crowd out lenders and make things more expensive for everyone else. Supply and demand slopes do apply to loanable funds.

The economy (a country) is like a river. A government can dip into the river and divert some of the water.

Surplus, deficit, debt? These questions are irrelevant. The only question is whether the government diverts so much water that the river stops flowing. In Canada, that question is irrelevant because the river's flow is so great. How much can the government take of what the economy produces? There's no limit.

The government can always take water. As long as Canada's lakes have fresh water, the government will have a choice. If the federal government takes less water this year, there'll be more next year. The debt/surplus situation this year is irrelevant - except for how much the government took.

For Canadians, the government cannot stop the river's flow. The question rather is: how much water should the government take? We, in Canada, are sitting aside a wide, powerful river and our governments eye this river. How much water should they divert?

[geoffrey]

If the federal government takes less water this year, there'll be more next year. The debt/surplus situation this year is irrelevant - except for how much the government took.

I'm so confused here. How much the government took is important... government spending is important and they are somewhat related. That means some correlation between the two must be important.

[August1991]

I'm so confused here. How much the government took is important... government spending is important and they are somewhat related. That means some correlation between the two must be important.

Ordinary Canadians generate so much wealth every year that Stephen Harper can take a large part without any less for anyone in the future.

Forget government and government debt. The government is not Canada. (L'État québécois constitue-t-il le Québec ? Will Canada - the country - be richer or poorer in 2050? Will the federal government receive more tax revenues?)

Question piège: In 2050, will any of this matter to you?

[Saturn]

I was going to start a topic on this too. Mr. Harper has gone nuts! What the hell does he think he is doing? Ok, he thinks he is buying lots of votes and he is probably right. But this means that if he ends up with another minority he is going to pass a budget that's a whisker away from a deficit and could easily turn into one. Geez!

[Saturn]

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too a government budget deficit or surplus.

When politicians claim to be competent because they balance the budget, they are lying.

The only thing that matters is government spending. What do politicians buy on our behalf? Their competence should be measured by what they buy. Politicians are our buying agents.

Actually, government debt is very relevant when 20 cents on every dollar you pay in taxes goes to interest on the debt. Government deficits are also very relevant because they can distort interest rates. Having said that, government spending is also very important - there has to be a balance between consumption and investment and both have to yield maximum benefit possible. What this government is doing though is not what's wise but what's popular, i.e. shoveling money out the money train and it's becoming ridiculous. And it's 2 months away from and election. At $3 billion a week, how many billion is going to spend up to the election?

IMV, Harper is spending money like a drunken sailor who has found a wallet.

Agreed.

[jbg]

That all into consideration, I'm going to say a balanced budget (like really balanced, surpluses being refunded) and extremely limited debt repayment, if any, is the way to go.

Why shouldn't debts be repaid, so taxes can be lowered even more in futuro?

[jdobbin]

I can vote for the BQ which is the ultimate stop-notice for federal government spending. (For those who think an independent Quebec governbment would result in greater profligacy, you don't understand government. Governments, by nature, spend other people's money. Think of what that means.)

Unfortunately Dobbin, I have only one vote and it will change absolutely nothing in any election. Quebec is not going to become a separate country with its own government because of my single ballot.

t disturbs me to believe that Harper is spending other people's money in the belief that this will make him PM for the next four years.

Western democratic governments will face a serious problem in the next few decades. How much can they spend of other people's money? In the west, this is a relatively new phenomenon. Western governments have only spent on this scale for the past few decades. Elsewhere, when governments spend other people's money on such a scale, they don't (didn't) survive long.

Harper promised to keep the increase of government spending below the increase of general economic growth. He's already broken that promise. In Harper's short regime, the federal government already takes more of the Canadian GDP pie than before.

This can't continue. To survive as a legitimate institution, democratic government must learn how to limit its appetite. Democracy is dangerous because demagogic politicians (and Harper seems to be one) have an incentive to say yes.

I don't even know what an independent Quebec means and I doubt you'll vote BQ. Somehow, you'll end up voting Tory. You're just angry and won't end up voting for a party that is even more confused about its existence as Britney Spears is.

I don't have a problem with Harper spending "our" money but I'd like to know what the plan for it other than trying to get elected.

[Argus]

I actually sympathize with principled conservatives - Harper & Co. give every indication of out-spending recent Liberal regimes.

Nonsense. Federal spending in the last years of Chretien/Turner rose faster than at any time since the war, faster even than under Trudeau. I have yet to see anything the Tories are spending money on which was not needed. I don't mind money going to infrastructure, and the military had been neglected for so long that regardless of who was in power billions would have had to be spent on them. Find a wasteful, profligate program the tories came up with and tell us about it. The only one I can think of is the GST cut, which I would not have done. I would have cut employment taxes, but hey, that's just my opinion.

Most true-blue rank and file would rationalize that in order to address the issues closest to their hearts (confronting the homos, revisiting abortion, 3 strikes and your out, a reasonable turn at the trough, etc.) the party requires a working, 5-year majority,

Most people who knew anything about conservatives - or politics - or history, would say that rationalizing would be on the basis of the country being better off with Tories in power, even if they do spend a little money they'd rather not, than with Liberals in power spending lots more, and stealing most of the rest while providing do-nothing, incompetent government to boot. Neither abortion nor homos are at or even near the top of most conservatives' political agenda, but the political philosophies of most liberals and leftists are so shallow and poorly thought out that demonizing those who believe differently is all they appear capable of.

[Argus]

So you thinking spending is out of control, yet you don't care much about the debt? So what do you want to happen to the money being spend? Are you saying you want taxes lowered?

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too a government budget deficit or surplus.

This is what happens when you have a little knowledge of economics and take it too much to heart. And when you ignore history, or are so complacent you're sure history will never repeat.

History always repeats itself. And the stagflation of the eighties will come again. Much of our current debt is a result of the ballooning Trudeau deficit hitting high inflation days when a deficit came around. That existing high debt hamstrung Mulroney's government, and had it lasted longer could have brought us from recession to full-blown depression. Those of us who remember those days, and think about the tens of billions we are still forking over every year on debt servicing, want the debt reduced.

IMV, Harper is spending money like a drunken sailor who has found a wallet.

Please provide us with a list of wasteful spending programs.

[jdobbin]

Nonsense. Federal spending in the last years of Chretien/Turner rose faster than at any time since the war, faster even than under Trudeau. I have yet to see anything the Tories are spending money on which was not needed. I don't mind money going to infrastructure, and the military had been neglected for so long that regardless of who was in power billions would have had to be spent on them. Find a wasteful, profligate program the tories came up with and tell us about it. The only one I can think of is the GST cut, which I would not have done. I would have cut employment taxes, but hey, that's just my opinion.

Most people who knew anything about conservatives - or politics - or history, would say that rationalizing would be on the basis of the country being better off with Tories in power, even if they do spend a little money they'd rather not, than with Liberals in power spending lots more, and stealing most of the rest while providing do-nothing, incompetent government to boot. Neither abortion nor homos are at or even near the top of most conservatives' political agenda, but the political philosophies of most liberals and leftists are so shallow and poorly thought out that demonizing those who believe differently is all they appear capable of.

Like the right in the U.S., it looks like the right here can't say anything without putting a slur in to it.

I think you are missing the point entirely. The Tories argued against this type of electioneering spending. They also said that they would keep spending below 6% of inflation. That promise has been broken.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/news06/06-003_2e.html

I imagine a number of you know that, under the previous government, federal spending jumped by 15 per cent—more than six times the rate of inflation.

[Argus]

I was going to start a topic on this too. Mr. Harper has gone nuts! What the hell does he think he is doing? Ok, he thinks he is buying lots of votes and he is probably right. But this means that if he ends up with another minority he is going to pass a budget that's a whisker away from a deficit and could easily turn into one. Geez!

And I bet you were saying the same when spending under Chretien and Martin skyrocketed.

[jdobbin]

And I bet you were saying the same when spending under Chretien and Martin skyrocketed.

Dazzle us with the numbers them compared to now.

[Argus]

Most people who knew anything about conservatives - or politics - or history, would say that rationalizing would be on the basis of the country being better off with Tories in power, even if they do spend a little money they'd rather not, than with Liberals in power spending lots more, and stealing most of the rest while providing do-nothing, incompetent government to boot. Neither abortion nor homos are at or even near the top of most conservatives' political agenda, but the political philosophies of most liberals and leftists are so shallow and poorly thought out that demonizing those who believe differently is all they appear capable of.

Like the right in the U.S., it looks like the right here can't say anything without putting a slur in to it.

That depends entirely on the attitude of whomever we're discussing things. If I'm responding to someone who is pouring scorn and contempt on me or my beliefs - esp without an iota of support - then I will respond in kind.

I think you are missing the point entirely. The Tories argued against this type of electioneering spending. They also said that they would keep spending below 6% of inflation. That promise has been broken.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/news06/06-003_2e.html

I imagine a number of you know that, under the previous government, federal spending jumped by 15 per cent—more than six times the rate of inflation.

I found nothing in that quote which contradicts what the Tories are doing, which included the need to better support infrastructure and to maintain existing agreements with the provinces and territories. I think you and the others also have to differentiate between program spending, which is the real problem, and capital spending on such things as purchases of military equipment.

[Argus]

And I bet you were saying the same when spending under Chretien and Martin skyrocketed.

Dazzle us with the numbers them compared to now.

Gee, here are a bunch of liberal supporters whining about high spending - and all they've got to come back with when I ask for examples is "Prove to us how our wonderful liberals were worse".

[jdobbin]

That depends entirely on the attitude of whomever we're discussing things. If I'm responding to someone who is pouring scorn and contempt on me or my beliefs - esp without an iota of support - then I will respond in kind.

I found nothing in that quote which contradicts what the Tories are doing, which included the need to better support infrastructure and to maintain existing agreements with the provinces and territories. I think you and the others also have to differentiate between program spending, which is the real problem, and capital spending on such things as purchases of military equipment.

I have no idea whose scorn forced you to use a slur. You rose to the bait and ran with it, repeating the slur.

The Tories said they would control *all* spending.

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/200...675995-sun.html

New estimates show spending is set to rise 6% to $211.7 billion in 2007-08 over estimates a year ago. Much of the growth comes from new defence spending and Conservative programs, such as the $100-a-month Child Care Benefit.

He notes that in last year's budget, the Tories estimated spending would rise 4.1%.

"They're already 50% above that, and we haven't seen the goodies (in the budget)," Williamson says. "Money is coming in too quickly from taxpayers and the government is simply spending it. The Conservative government is proving no better at managing the surplus than the previous government."