The Conservative Spending Spree

[August1991]

Considering the population has doubled in the last 60 years, and presently Canada has only 64,000 soldiers protecting some 36 million people, even doubling doesn't seem enough.

If the federal government considers the military a priority, then it should indicate what is less of a priority and cut spending in those areas. At present, it is increasing military spending while maintaining other spending. As a result, the federal government is taking an even larger portion of Canadian GDP.

Returning to my analogy of the divorcing couple, the ex-husband just got a promotion with a foreign firm and the ex-wife decided to increase her alimony so she can buy both the leather sofa and the new alarm system. The ex-husband's credit card balance remains unchanged but his salary increase makes no difference in his bank balance - his ex has taken most of his raise.

[And since the ex-wife is not using the ex-husband's credit card, Bluth et al say that she's a good financial administrator.]

Riverview, does it matter if the bank accounts are in US dollars? If you ask your employer to pay you in US dollars since you've heard that the Canadian government can only impose taxes in Canadian dollars, don't be surprised if your little ploy doesn't work.

[hiti]

No need for new military units, says Hillier

Last Updated: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 | 9:48 AM ET

CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/25/...er-cfunits.html

The federal Conservatives' campaign promise to create new army units across the country appears to be in doubt after the country's top soldier suggested the proposed units are unnecessary.

-end quote

At least someone has some sense and wants sanity to reign. What on earth does Canada need with 130,000 or so soldiers? Does Harpie think that we should attend every war in the world and even start our own like his bud Bush does just to keep the "photo-ops" handy?

So far Deceivin' Steven has spent $20 BILLION on military for equipment and such that won't be available until way after Afganistan 2009 deadline. But hey... it's stuff on O'Connors list and he admits it.

Quote-"It's my list: Restoring ships, Arctic ships and frigates and airplanes and trucks," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said earlier this week. The list also includes tanks, jumbo aircraft, frigate upgrades, new troop carriers, heavy-lift helicopters and new airbases. -end quote

That's more than $22 billion, which doesn't include the billions more for operations and maintenance.

Screwing the country over just to have an easy photo-op is Harper style. Ordering all this stuff without going to bids is also Harper style and is scandalous since he had a fit when the Liberal government awarded contracts lower than $30,000 without open bids.

Where are the bids for all this $22 billion in military equipment?

Steve spends more in a few months than the Tory Chuck Guite funneled to ad agencies in years.

[ScottSA]

No need for new military units, says Hillier

Last Updated: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 | 9:48 AM ET

CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/25/...er-cfunits.html

The federal Conservatives' campaign promise to create new army units across the country appears to be in doubt after the country's top soldier suggested the proposed units are unnecessary.

At least someone has some sense and wants sanity to reign. What on earth does Canada need with 130,000 or so soldiers? Does Harpie think that we should attend every war in the world and even start our own like his bud Bush does just to keep the "photo-ops" handy?

Typically dishonest CBC reporting. Hillier said he doesn't plan to revive the Airborne, and says he doesn't want 14 new units, and CBC takes this and plasters it together to pretend Hillier is talking about not needing the increase Harper wants. In fact, all Hillier is saying is that he is going to expand the existing force structure to achieve what harper promised. The CBC made it sound as if Hillier said almost exactly the opposite of what he said.

[M.Dancer]

Ahem.....

OTTAWA — Canada's top soldier appears to have sidelined the Conservative government's election promise to create 14 new army reserve units across the country that would be the first line of defence in case of natural or other disasters.

“We're not in the business of creating new reserve units,” Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier told the CBC. “We have sufficient units. … We don't need new units.”

The 14 “territorial defence battalions” were a key element of the Tories' Canada First defence plan as laid out in the 2006 election campaign. Under the proposal, each unit would be made up of 100 regular troops and 400 reservists.

Gen. Hillier, who has tussled with Mr. O'Connor before, appears to have won an internal battle to halt the establishment of new reserve units and instead will concentrate on improving existing units.

“I guess there's been a bureaucratic struggle inside the department and it seems to me that Hillier has persuaded the minister and his advisers that it doesn't make sense [to set up new units],” said Jack Granatstein, a military expert and professor emeritus of history at York University.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Partisan spin. Both ways.

Hillier says he doesn't want the Govt's ill advised plan to increase the forces capability and Tory supporters make it sound like like Hillier endorse the plan. The fact that Hillier and maybe even Harper want to enlarge the forces is irrelevant. It the how here that is faulty, not the what.

The straight dope is the minister is incompetent and his plan was nothing more than a bad election promise.

[jdobbin]

The spending spree continues.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071005/...al/harper_north

Prime Minister Stephen Harper got up close with a polar bear Tuesday as he toured this windswept port on Hudson Bay.

He also announced more than $40 million for a string of northern research projects and said his government would provide money to improving infrastructure serving the port. Harper again stressed his government's interest in Arctic sovereignty.

The research projects are just another facet of Canadian ownership, he said:

"Scientific inquiry and development are absolutely essential to Canada's defence of its North, as they enhance our knowledge of, and presence in, the region. Like I've said so many times before, use it or lose it is the first principle of sovereignty."

Harper issued a list of the final 26 projects selected by the government as part of its $150 million commitment to International Polar Year, which started last month. Another 43 projects were announced earlier.

And this:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUvLbS...Kd90lMb5EPMonrQ

Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed Thursday to change what he called a 1960s drug culture in Canada, proposing mandatory jail sentences for drug traffickers and added border security to stem drug imports.

"If you're addicted to drugs, we'll help you. If you deal drugs, we'll punish you," Harper said, outlining a spending plans for a national awareness campaign targeted at youth; updated treatment services; and more investigations and prosecutions of drug crimes.

The new anti-drug strategy would cost 64 million dollars.

"A simple war on drugs is not going to be successful, but neither is simply being soft on the question going to be successful," Harper said.

"We are up against ... a culture that since the 1960s has at the minimum not discouraged drug use and often romanticized it, or made it cool."

"My son is listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean ... I love these records. I'm not putting them away ... But we have to change the culture," he said.

[capricorn]

Yeah, right. And we wouldn't have a spending spree if the Liberals were in power. Give me a break jd.

The last thing any Canadian politician wants is to stop overtaxing us and giving us any real tax relief. And I do mean ALL parties. There's always another good and just cause just around the corner to make us fork over the dough.

I'm really cranky tonight. :angry:

[jdobbin]

Yeah, right. And we wouldn't have a spending spree if the Liberals were in power. Give me a break jd.

The last thing any Canadian politician wants is to stop overtaxing us and giving us any real tax relief. And I do mean ALL parties. There's always another good and just cause just around the corner to make us fork over the dough.

I'm really cranky tonight. :angry:

The Tories overtaxed you $14 billion this past year and spent at a couple of percentage points above GDP. Both are violations of their campaign promises. I expect we'll see spending announcements like crazy during the election.

As far as tax cuts, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says that the last budget of the Liberals gave Canadians more tax breaks than the Tories have given over two years.

[Fortunata]

He also announced more than $40 million for a string of northern research projects and said his government would provide money to improving infrastructure serving the port. Harper again stressed his government's interest in Arctic sovereignty.

The research projects are just another facet of Canadian ownership, he said:

"Scientific inquiry and development are absolutely essential to Canada's defence of its North, as they enhance our knowledge of, and presence in, the region. Like I've said so many times before, use it or lose it is the first principle of sovereignty."

Harper issued a list of the final 26 projects selected by the government as part of its $150 million commitment to International Polar Year, which started last month. Another 43 projects were announced earlier.

So I totally agree with doing something in the north, the more the better for our sovereignty. The Libs really fell down on paying attention to the north - Bill Graham and his "there is no threat to our northern sovereignty BS". But I digress; the lack of commitment in Steve's environmental plan goes against any concern he might express about scientific research unless it is resource research which will bring in even more coffers to the surplus that this "new" government said we'd not see again.

I'm really cranky tonight. :angry:

It's turkey weekend - does that cheer you up?

Edited October 6, 2007 by Fortunata

[Argus]

The spending spree continues.

Spending money on responsible and necessary programs and projects is not the same as your Liberal Party spending sprees, which built bridges to nowhere, canoe museums, and gave loans to the Prime Minister's crooked business partner so he could then forward it to the prime minister.

[Argus]

The Tories overtaxed you $14 billion this past year and spent at a couple of percentage points above GDP. Both are violations of their campaign promises. I expect we'll see spending announcements like crazy during the election.

I don't have a problem with surpluses when the money is spent responsibly - like paying down the Liberal debt.

As far as tax cuts, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says that the last budget of the Liberals gave Canadians more tax breaks than the Tories have given over two years.

That was an election budget which stood as much chance of being kept as the promise Dalton McGuinty made not to raise taxes.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't have a problem with surpluses when the money is spent responsibly - like paying down the Liberal debt.

That was an election budget which stood as much chance of being kept as the promise Dalton McGuinty made not to raise taxes.

I haven't seen any reasonable criticisms about where the Conservatives are spending money. Just the fact that they are spending money leads to the continuation of an inaccurately-titled thread. Seems like every penny the Government spends has been ascribed as part of a 'spending spree'.

[capricorn]

It's turkey weekend - does that cheer you up?

Sure does. Canadians do have much to be thankful for. Happy Thanksgiving Fortunata.

[August1991]

I haven't seen any reasonable criticisms about where the Conservatives are spending money. Just the fact that they are spending money leads to the continuation of an inaccurately-titled thread. Seems like every penny the Government spends has been ascribed as part of a 'spending spree'.

To pick up on Dobbin, don't be partisan, Bluth.

The Conservatives are buying stuff faster than Canadians can produce it. IOW, the federal government is taking more from us (as a percentage) under Harper than it did under Chretien and Martin. The economy may be growing, and there may be more stuff available, but we don't get it - the government has taken it.

Harper specifically promised to keep federal spending growth under economic growth. He has broken that promise.

If the military needs more, then Harper should have the guts to say what needs less. The government can't buy both guns and butter. There's no free lunch.

And Bluth, you can't spin this one either.

Edited October 7, 2007 by August1991

[Michael Bluth]

To pick up on Dobbin, don't be partisan, Bluth.

The Conservatives are buying stuff faster than Canadians can produce it. IOW, the federal government is taking more from us (as a percentage) under Harper than it did under Chretien and Martin. The economy may be growing, and there may be more stuff available, but we don't get it - the government has taken it.

Harper specifically promised to keep federal spending growth under economic growth. He has broken that promise.

If the military needs more, then Harper should have the guts to say what needs less. The government can't buy both guns and butter. There's no free lunch.

And Bluth, you can't spin this one either.

Any reason for personalizing the debate?

What percentage are you referring to? It's easy to throw out vague assertions about spending 'as a percentage'. Giving actual evidence would be providing substance to the debate.

Wages have gone up. Taxes have been cut. How is the government taking stuff?

Is the 'can't spin this one' comment an attempt at controlling debate on the board?

Edited October 7, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[August1991]

What percentage are you referring to? It's easy to throw out vague assertions about spending 'as a percentage'. Giving actual evidence would be providing substance to the debate.

Wages have gone up. Taxes have been cut. How is the government taking stuff?

Check this graph.

It comes from Andrew Coyne:

The chart above (click to enlarge) traces the history of federal program spending over the last four-and-a-half decades. The numbers shown have been adjusted to take account of inflation (ie they are in constant 2006 dollars) and population growth (ie these are per capita figures). In other words, they show the number of real dollars the government spent on each citizen, the best comparative indicator of the size of government over the years.

You can see the rapid buildup in spending in the late 1960s and early 1970s, followed by the Trudeau government's first attempts to rein it in in the late 1970s, only to be blown skyhigh by the recession of the early 1980s. Then the long holding action of the Mulroney years, the sharp cuts of the late 1990s, and the equally sharp rebound in the current decade, to its present near-record levels.

And the future? The chart builds in the latest numbers from the Economic and Fiscal Update. They show the Harper government plans to take spending to places it has never been -- higher than the Trudeau Liberals in the worst of the recession, higher than the Mulroney government in its last, desperate days, higher than the Martin government at its most profligate. They are going to spend more, faster than any government in Canadian history, with neither war nor recession to blame.

A year ago, those were projections. The reality since is worse.

Harper has spent billions on military toys but he has not cut elsewhere.

It is simply too easy for a politician to say yes. It is hard to say no. To their credit in the mid 1980s and the early 1990s, Mulroney, Martin and Chretien for a brief time said no.

Flanagan would have us believe that all this is transitory and we have to give the runner a chance in the long run. Right.

Is the 'can't spin this one' comment an attempt at controlling debate on the board?

Control the debate? How could I do that with merely a keyboard?

[jdobbin]

Spending money on responsible and necessary programs and projects is not the same as your Liberal Party spending sprees, which built bridges to nowhere, canoe museums, and gave loans to the Prime Minister's crooked business partner so he could then forward it to the prime minister.

How about the Tory museum in Winnipeg to the tune of millions? The rail link to Churchill which I guess you can say is in the middle of nowhere also gets millions.

[jdobbin]

I don't have a problem with surpluses when the money is spent responsibly - like paying down the Liberal debt.

That was an election budget which stood as much chance of being kept as the promise Dalton McGuinty made not to raise taxes.

I think you forgot about the years of Tory debt under Mulroney.

As for paying down the debt, that is what the budget is for. Surpluses are over taxation.

The tax cuts were kept. We have gone over this many times before and the CTF has confirmed those cuts when they compared the last two budgets of the Tories to the last one by the Liberals.

[Michael Bluth]

Check this graph.

Control the debate? How could I do that with merely a keyboard?

So you provide an article in which Coyne criticizes a "sharp rebound" spending since the end of the 90s as support for your assertion that:

IOW, the federal government is taking more from us (as a percentage) under Harper than it did under Chretien and Martin.

Please explain that one.

I didn't say you could control the board with merely a keyboard, I was just wondering why you were trying to do so.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

To pick up on Dobbin, don't be partisan, Bluth.

The Conservatives are buying stuff faster than Canadians can produce it. IOW, the federal government is taking more from us (as a percentage) under Harper than it did under Chretien and Martin. The economy may be growing, and there may be more stuff available, but we don't get it - the government has taken it.

Harper specifically promised to keep federal spending growth under economic growth. He has broken that promise.

If the military needs more, then Harper should have the guts to say what needs less. The government can't buy both guns and butter. There's no free lunch.

And Bluth, you can't spin this one either.

Back in March, Coyne wrote about the huge spending.

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

It’s true. The $200-billion Mr. Flaherty proposes to spend this year works out to about $5,800 for every citizen. Even after you adjust for increases in prices and population, that’s more than the Martin government spent at its frenetic worst, when it was almost shovelling the stuff out the door. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days, when it was past caring. It is more than the Trudeau government spent in the depths of the early 1980s recession. All of these past benchmarks of over-the-top, out-of-control spending must now be retired. Jim Flaherty has outdone them all.

In two years of this “conservative” government, spending has climbed a historic $25-billion. Bear in mind: that’s on top of the wild rise in spending during the Liberals’ last term. The Tories have taken all of that fat, all of that waste, and all of those hundreds of priorities -- and added to them.

The election platform was to limit spending to rate of inflation plus population growth.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/bnfiles/pic...latform2006.htm

Limit the future growth of spending (excluding national defence, indian affairs) to rate of inflation plus population growth

Edited October 7, 2007 by jdobbin

[August1991]

So you provide an article in which Coyne criticizes a "sharp rebound" spending since the end of the 90s as support for your assertion...

I didn't say you could control the board with merely a keyboard, I was just wondering why you were trying to do so.

Coyne is no fool. But curious, I checked the data.

To use newspaper lingo, Harper is spending money like a drunken sailor. To be more precise, under Harper, federal government spending is growing faster than Canadian GDP growth. Or rather, the federal government is taking more at a faster rate than the Canadian economy can produce and hence, the federal government occupies a bigger place (buys more) from the Canadian economy.

Why? I have a simple answer. Harper has chosen to get involved in Afghanistan but he is not prepared to reduce the federal government purchases elsewhere.

Harper wants our federal government to buy both guns and butter - and since he considers the guns essential, and he's afraid to cut butter purchases, his federal government is taking more of the goods and services we Canadians produce.

BTW, Harper's decision to let government bureaucrats have more guns and more butter has nothing to do with borrowing, debts or exchange rates. Harper's claim of a budget surplus is irrelevant. What matters is that the federal government is buying more on our behalf or IOW, it is taking more from us than what we produce.

----

To give credit where it is due, I should note that the Coyne links above come from Dobbin's (appreciated and worthy) posts to this forum.

Edited October 7, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

Harper wants our federal government to buy both guns and butter - and since he considers the guns essential, and he's afraid to cut butter purchases, his federal government is taking more of the goods and services we Canadians produce.

Can you elaborate on that? Especially the last part of the sentence. You can't possibly be claiming what you appear to be claiming, but I can't think of any other meaning. If you're claiming he's taking more money in GST in absolute terms, then that's a function of the economy and consumer spending and nothing to do with him. He's certainly not taking more in percentile terms, since he cut the % of the GST. So how exactly do you suspect he's taking more money from us?

[Argus]

I think you forgot about the years of Tory debt under Mulroney

Most of that debt was run up because of the huge payments the government had to make on the debt incurred by Trudeau.

The tax cuts were kept. We have gone over this many times before and the CTF has confirmed those cuts when they compared the last two budgets of the Tories to the last one by the Liberals.

This would be the same CTF which recommended everyone vote Liberal in the Ontario election because the Liberals promised not to raise taxes?

[jdobbin]

Most of that debt was run up because of the huge payments the government had to make on the debt incurred by Trudeau.

This would be the same CTF which recommended everyone vote Liberal in the Ontario election because the Liberals promised not to raise taxes?

If it was just huge payments, you might have a point but Mulroney's spending also contributed to that that climb in the deficit.

As for the last comment, it is probably with the CTF has recommended against voting for the Liberals this time because they broke that promise.

[Argus]

Harper has spent billions on military toys but he has not cut elsewhere.

Since most of that is for new equipment to make up for the rustout conditions the Liberals left behind and not program spending he doesn't really need to cut elsewhere.

And realistically, in a time of imminent elections, in a time of minority governments, whomever was in power would be spending money big time. For example, I note that your own chart puts spending this year as lower than it was in 2005 - when the Martin minority government was in power.

[Argus]

Why? I have a simple answer. Harper has chosen to get involved in Afghanistan but he is not prepared to reduce the federal government purchases elsewhere.

Harper has chosen to get involved in Afghanistan? Don't you mean the Liberal party chose to do that, and then chose to expand our role and insert us into a combat role from which it is quite difficult to withdraw with any honour?

Not that honour means anything to Liberals. Not that honour means anything to Quebecers either when it comes to cutting and running away from a fight