Federal Budget 2007: More & Still More Government

[August1991]

I don't like this budget because it spends far too much money and it spends the money in really dumb ways. The government now wants to make the choices for us.

Rather than leave us our own money to spend as we see fit, the federal government gives our money to other governments or gives it back to us if we fill out umpteen forms and do what it wants us to do.

Canada's tax system and Canadian governments just got a whole lot more complicated.

They say that Harper is good strategist. I think rather that his Achilles' heel is that he has the mentality of a 1980s computer programmer. He likes to fool around with details.

This budget is entirely lacking in big-picture thinking or imagination. The only thing big is the amount of our money Harper and Flahert want to spend:

At various points in its 477 pages, the budget declares itself to be “historic.” It is that. With this budget -- including another 6% increase in spending, on top of last year’s 8% blowout -- Jim Flaherty officially becomes the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada.

It’s true. The $200-billion in program spending Mr. Flaherty has budgeted for this year works out to about $5,800 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Even adjusting for inflation and increases in population, that’s more than Paul Martin spent in his frantic last hours. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days. It is more than the Trudeau government spent in the depths of the early 1980s recession. All of these past benchmarks of out-of-control spending must now be retired. Jim Flaherty has outdone them all.

Andrew Coyne

[Remiel]

What did you expect? This is the same guy who made an illusory surplus out of a very tangible deficit in Ontario.

[BC_chick]

I'm not sure if I'm about to break the rules by leaving this link. If so, I apologise in advance. But it's a good editorial about the budget.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...b8-0e714e81aee4

Basically it outlines how the CPC is more "liberal" than the LPC when it comes to spending. Interesting read indeed.

[Canadian Blue]

The CPC are basically Liberal lite. The reason why is simple, because that is what's needed to win back to back majorities and elections. We don't really have a truly conservative party which want's to cut back on the size of government in all areas, and retain many traditional aspects of Canada. I'd assume that if we had PR we could see that come about.

I think Mulroney might be more of a "conservative" than this current PM.

I didn't get the reason behind the opposition's position on the budget, if it was voted down then I would imagine Canadian's would be more unhappy with the Liberal's and New Democrats than the Conservatives.

I doubt this current surplus is an "allusion".

[Curiouscanuck]

The CPC are basically Liberal lite. The reason why is simple, because that is what's needed to win back to back majorities and elections. We don't really have a truly conservative party which want's to cut back on the size of government in all areas, and retain many traditional aspects of Canada. I'd assume that if we had PR we could see that come about.

I think Mulroney might be more of a "conservative" than this current PM.

I didn't get the reason behind the opposition's position on the budget, if it was voted down then I would imagine Canadian's would be more unhappy with the Liberal's and New Democrats than the Conservatives.

I doubt this current surplus is an "allusion".

I'm with Canadian Blue.

I can't say there is any serious opposition to stop this spending spree. I hear Dion responding to the budget and all the handouts and still stating there is not enough spending anywhere. Not to mention the NDP. The race is for the middle, and if this is the oppositions stance there is trouble.

I must admit that it is good to see that the federal budget is giving more money to the provinces. I hope this is with the intention to hold them accountable for what they spend, with the idea to cut the federal tax in the future.

[Remiel]

Was that an intentional mispelling of illusion?

Of course the surplus isn't an illusion, but I was pointing out that Flaherty is no stranger to underhanded financial parlour tricks.

[Canadian Blue]

Dion said something like, "it wasn't as good as previous Liberal budgets", I really got no clue what that mean's besides the fact he's self absorbed.

If it's a financial parlour trick, then he's gonna be hearing about it from Canadian's in a couple of month's.

I meant allusion, he was alluding to the idea that the budget is an illusion.

The budget wasn't that bad, it wasn't great, but I don't think it's something worth bringing the government down over. If Harper has used the entire budget to cut taxes for corporation's and rich people, by all mean's bring them down.

Either way I have a feeling that we are going to see Harper becoming somewhat akin to Lester Pearson, in term's of governing with a minority.

[jdobbin]

I don't like this budget because it spends far too much money and it spends the money in really dumb ways. The government now wants to make the choices for us.

The Bloq is supporting it. Does that still mean they get your support because the Tories are spending too much?

Doesn't more BQ mean more spending?

[Wilber]

According to our Finance Minister's speech, the country ends at the Rocky Mountains. According to his budget, he means it.

[sideshow]

It's an OK budget. Not the best or the worst. The best thing I like is the 310 per kid tax break. The rest is mostly stuff that i wont even notice. Buts in money in my pocket so I give it a two thumbs up.

Hope it passes. Probably will.

[geoffrey]

This budget has left me unconvinced that anyone can accurately reflect and defend the position of Albertans and specifically myself. Harper has failed us. Why are we bumping up social welfare in the midst of Canada's largest boom? Why aren't my taxes being cut? Why does the Federal government collect money to simply send it back to me or the provinces?

It's about control, and the Federal government has too much... the clear example is this budget. Canada is a failed Federal system. There is only one level of government that calls the shots here. And they are unwilling to let go, even with the most provincial autonomy supporting PM we've ever had.

You don't eliminate the fiscal imbalance by sending more money to Quebec, you eliminate it by cutting Federal taxes. What Harper amplified with his budget is another Quebec and the Maritimes spending Albertan money scheme.

An 8% increase in Federal spending this year? What the hell is that? Who can afford this? Certainly not taxpaying Canadians.

I'll likely refrain from voting as there simply isn't any possible way any current Federal party will ever represent my views. Until I see differently from another party, my only vote will be for seperation from Canada.

What's the point in voting anyways, you get the same thing no matter the outcome of the election.

[August1991]

I'm not sure if I'm about to break the rules by leaving this link. If so, I apologise in advance. But it's a good editorial about the budget.

You're breaking no rule that I'm aware of and you're even allowed to have a short quote:

...the Conservative government has been increasing spending at a rate of roughly 4.75 per cent a year, greater than the rate of inflation, which is running below two per cent, and far above population growth of just over one per cent, according to census data released last week.

The pace of spending is also faster than the rate of the growth of the Canadian economy. Meanwhile, the cumulative growth in Canadians' incomes over the last 15 years has been a paltry 3.5 per cent.

This latest budget pushes annual federal spending up by 8 6%, according to Coyne.

The federal government is spending it faster than we can make it. (You'll note that I don't care about government deficits or debt because they are irrelevant.)

-----

In addition to the increased spending, the way this government goes about its business bothers me.

IMV, if Dion is going to get Harper, it will be because Harper is a detail-minded micro-manager. Harper sees the world as chess pieces to move about. The world ain't like that.

We already saw this in the election proposals to offer tax receipts for transit passes, kid's sports and tools.

Some examples from the CBC website.

• More rejigging of the child tax credit. More complexity to the transit credit. More complexity to personal deductions (if you're married and over 65; this will be another source of envy in retirement homes). And why pension-incoming splitting?
  
• Why the restrictions on the capital gains exemption to "farmers, fishermen and small business owner"? How do you define those occupations?
  
• We are told that corporation will not be able to deduct interest on loans to make investments abroad. How is the government going to enforce that?
  
• The Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB - get it?) is agood idea but needlessly complicated.
  
• More for research and students, if you do what the government wants you to do.
  
• More for anyone who hires a consultant/lobbyist, fills out a lot of forms and does what the government thinks is good for the environment
  

There's a whack of money for the provinces (why not just cut federal taxes and let the provincial governments raise taxes if they want to).

There's even a whack of money for cities. (Why is the federal government involved in city finances? No good can come of it.)

Government bureaucrats cannot pick winners. They shouldn't try.

BTW, I saw nothing about the military's big airplanes or how Harper plans to pay for them. Has he just tacked that expense on to everything else hoping we won't notice?

How can Harper pay for all this stuff and then tell us, with a straight face, that he manages our money well? He reminds me of the financial manager of Leonard Cohen or Billy Joel. "Don't worry! You're not in debt!"

Edited March 20, 2007 by August1991

[blueblood]

It's also that they are scattering money the four winds. There is so much spread, and not only that, the programs are lacklustre. 233+ billion dollars spent and we have a pathetic health care system?

No, Canadians can only blame themselves for this budget, we have an "I want this program" syndrome and we all like being patronized and supporting the government in that they tell us what we want to hear and not doing what needs to be done. This budget reflects the attitudes of Canadians and can we blame the government for having it's ear close to the ground not wanting to repeat Mulroney?

I'm sure when the Irish gov't restructured their country they've taken a lot of flak. This budget also shows that in Canadian politics, people would rather follow a whore than a decisive leader who isn't afraid to make an unpopular decision for the good of the country.

[Curiouscanuck]

This budget has left me unconvinced that anyone can accurately reflect and defend the position of Albertans and specifically myself. Harper has failed us. Why are we bumping up social welfare in the midst of Canada's largest boom? Why aren't my taxes being cut? Why does the Federal government collect money to simply send it back to me or the provinces?

It's about control, and the Federal government has too much... the clear example is this budget. Canada is a failed Federal system. There is only one level of government that calls the shots here. And they are unwilling to let go, even with the most provincial autonomy supporting PM we've ever had.

You don't eliminate the fiscal imbalance by sending more money to Quebec, you eliminate it by cutting Federal taxes. What Harper amplified with his budget is another Quebec and the Maritimes spending Albertan money scheme.

An 8% increase in Federal spending this year? What the hell is that? Who can afford this? Certainly not taxpaying Canadians.

I'll likely refrain from voting as there simply isn't any possible way any current Federal party will ever represent my views. Until I see differently from another party, my only vote will be for seperation from Canada.

What's the point in voting anyways, you get the same thing no matter the outcome of the election.

Equalization is in the constitution. Yeah, it sucks. It is like lagging around your whining lazy brother all day long.

You want a change? Crack open the constitution. It is not a budget matter.

[stignasty]

Bloc to support budget; Liberals, NDP say no

Last Updated: Monday, March 19, 2007 | 6:13 PM ET

CBC News

The Bloc Québécois vowed to support the federal Conservative government's new budget Monday, which should give enough support to ensure its passage and prevent an election.

Under the budget, Quebec would get roughly $698 million of the $1.5 billion in the upcoming fiscal year designed to correct the so-called fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces.

"It's our money," Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe told CBC News Monday outside the Commons after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's speech.

"We'll take the money and André Boisclair will win the next Quebec election."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/19/...opposition.html

[August1991]

Equalization is in the constitution.

If it were just equalization, I could almost live with it. (Although the principle and practice of equalization needs firmer ground than an annual bunfight.)

But how do you square the money this budget hands out for cities, research, education and the environment with "equalization"? This budget goes well beyond equalization.

I may be wrong but I fear Harper and the Conservatives are going to discover to their regret that if Canadians wanted to have the Liberals, they would have voted for them.

I think Harper is taking too much advice from Mulroney and Mulroney believes that the Tories should be the Liberals Side B (or Version 2.0) while getting through the odd Tory measure.

That may have been true in Mulroney's time but it's not true now.

The Bloq is supporting it. Does that still mean they get your support because the Tories are spending too much?

Doesn't more BQ mean more spending?

The Bloc's support saves me of the dilemma behind the cardboard wall with a pencil.

[jdobbin]

I'll likely refrain from voting as there simply isn't any possible way any current Federal party will ever represent my views. Until I see differently from another party, my only vote will be for seperation from Canada.

What's the point in voting anyways, you get the same thing no matter the outcome of the election.

Is there no one running in your area that you can throw a protest vote to?

I've done that a few times in my life.

[jdobbin]

The Bloc's support saves me of the dilemma behind the cardboard wall with a pencil.

Who represents the riding now?

[stignasty]

Is there no one running in your area that you can throw a protest vote to?

I've done that a few times in my life.

That's probably what I'll wind up doing. That my Conservative Party back-bencher will win with about 70% of the vote can't be questioned. The only reason I can see in participating is to help someone get back their deposit.

[Curiouscanuck]

If it were just equalization, I could almost live with it. (Although the principle and practice of equalization needs firmer ground than an annual bunfight.)

But how do you square the money this budget hands out for cities, research, education and the environment with "equalization"? This budget goes well beyond equalization.

I may be wrong but I fear Harper and the Conservatives are going to discover to their regret that if Canadians wanted to have the Liberals, they would have voted for them.

I agree. Don't get me wrong, there is a whole lot of other spending that is completely out of blue. I was pointing out the spending that took the majority of this budget.

I wonder what new name the media will paint Harper now that neocon is out the window.

[Wilber]

There's a whack of money for the provinces (why not just cut federal taxes and let the provincial governments raise taxes if they want to).

There's even a whack of money for cities. (Why is the federal government involved in city finances? No good can come of it.)

Agreed. Provinces and municipalities are responsible for most of what matters to us. It's BS, always has been. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Equalization is in the constitution. Yeah, it sucks. It is like lagging around your whining lazy brother all day long.

You want a change? Crack open the constitution. It is not a budget matter.

It may be in the Constitution but how it is interpreted and implemented within the budget in order to buy votes is a budget matter.

[Wilber]

Del

[geoffrey]

Is there no one running in your area that you can throw a protest vote to?

It's Harper's riding, you see all sorts of kooky people so they get their name up when Harper's riding appears on CBC. Maybe I'll vote for Christian Hertiage or for the Marijuana party....

I'd rather not waste my time though, it could be better spent banging my head against the wall in frustration or something to that that effect.

[blueblood]

I may be wrong but I fear Harper and the Conservatives are going to discover to their regret that if Canadians wanted to have the Liberals, they would have voted for them.

I think Harper is taking too much advice from Mulroney and Mulroney believes that the Tories should be the Liberals Side B (or Version 2.0) while getting through the odd Tory measure.

That may have been true in Mulroney's time but it's not true now.

What can you expect though? 60+% of Canadians voted left of centre. Quebec style programs are being touted in the media, remember the last election about Quebec style daycare, yah that's all fine and good but Quebec's economy is in the tank. No politician will point that out in an election campaign.

Canadians have been spoiled by socialism to the point where they believe they can't live without it. They believe this is as good as it gets. It's a bigger, better world and we are getting left behind. We don't need the gov't to make our lives better, we can do that ourselves.

[BubberMiley]

I wonder what new name the media will paint Harper now that neocon is out the window.

He's still a neocon, but he's governing like a liberal. He's a pragmatic, shrewd chess tactician playing for the checkmate of a majority government.