Conservatives Lose Control of Spending

[SaskBigPicture]

This is another wedge issue that the Freedom Party of Canada could use to further attract fiscal conservatives from the economic social policy of the Conservatives and Liberals

Well, I would have to agree this whole scheme sounds like one big boondoggle. And though I'm no libertarian, these boondoggles are a driving force in my political choice. They involve sums of money and interventions into the economy that area real pain.

I just don't think the FPC is enough like Reform to capture the public's imagination and so grow like wildfire as Reform did.

Freedom Party will not grow like wildfire. It also will not burn itself out like wildfire. The only way for Freedom Party to grow is by people coming to their senses and realizing that the Canuckistan welfare state is unsustainable. Less government is the only way for Canada to pull itself back from the abyss. It will hurt far less to make the structural changes to this country now than waiting until collapse, anarchy, or totalitarian rule becomes our reality.

[Faramir]

I voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives because I was concerned about issues like taxes, the gun registry, our military, crime, the security of our borders and general overall wasteful spending for special-interest groups and whatnot; all issues which the CPC have addressed or are currently addressing.

Others, such as an elected Senate without any conditions attached may have to wait for a majority government, which I'm confident will come in time.

So, please take your Freedumb, Freedim, Freedoomed Party in all its less-than-microscopic forms and take a one-way hike.

Be it federal or provincial, you are a non-entity and always will be.

Soooo...you want tax cuts that come on the backs of our nations future generations? You don't mind if you run the debt up further, making my daughters' pay for it?

[littleharbour]

There have to be tax cuts and deficit paydown. But both are threatened by the orgy of spending that Harper is revelling in. Imagine, instead of all the nonsense about global warming funding, grants to farmers, grants to fishermen, grants to the auto sector, "fiscal imbalance", billions to Quebec and Toronto, billions on baby bonuses, billions in GST cut, that there was a serious cut in the income tax and a $20 Billion per year reduction in the Net Debt. Canada would become a magnet for investment and the increased productivity would more than make up for the lost tax revenue. And it doesn't even take massive cuts to current government spending. If Harper had merely kept spending levels to the cost of living plus population growth, in 10 years the existing Net Debt would have been carved in half, which would have permitted even deeper tax cuts. When the current stream of prosperity ends, and it will, we are all going to regret the failure of the Tories to resist the urge to buy themselves a majority.

[jimmyr]

There have to be tax cuts and deficit paydown. But both are threatened by the orgy of spending that Harper is revelling in. Imagine, instead of all the nonsense about global warming funding, grants to farmers, grants to fishermen, grants to the auto sector, "fiscal imbalance", billions to Quebec and Toronto, billions on baby bonuses, billions in GST cut, that there was a serious cut in the income tax and a $20 Billion per year reduction in the Net Debt. Canada would become a magnet for investment and the increased productivity would more than make up for the lost tax revenue. And it doesn't even take massive cuts to current government spending. If Harper had merely kept spending levels to the cost of living plus population growth, in 10 years the existing Net Debt would have been carved in half, which would have permitted even deeper tax cuts. When the current stream of prosperity ends, and it will, we are all going to regret the failure of the Tories to resist the urge to buy themselves a majority.

Bang on LH. I'd go so far as to say the income tax cuts could be nominal to start with and as long as the government was showing real progress in eliminating the debt, investment and productivity would rise exponentially.

Grants and programs are short term band-aid solutions for select sectors where debt reduction can have long term benefits for the entire country for years to come.

[Faramir]

If Harper had merely kept spending levels to the cost of living plus population growth

Well, since most wages are barely keeping up with the COL, I would take only increases by population growth. There is no reason to increase spending by the COL.

Imagine if Harper threw out a 5% cut in corporate taxes instead of an insulting half percent. But heh, that doesn't but votes, does it?

[Faramir]

There have to be tax cuts and deficit paydown. But both are threatened by the orgy of spending that Harper is revelling in. Imagine, instead of all the nonsense about global warming funding, grants to farmers, grants to fishermen, grants to the auto sector, "fiscal imbalance", billions to Quebec and Toronto, billions on baby bonuses, billions in GST cut, that there was a serious cut in the income tax and a $20 Billion per year reduction in the Net Debt. Canada would become a magnet for investment and the increased productivity would more than make up for the lost tax revenue. And it doesn't even take massive cuts to current government spending. If Harper had merely kept spending levels to the cost of living plus population growth, in 10 years the existing Net Debt would have been carved in half, which would have permitted even deeper tax cuts. When the current stream of prosperity ends, and it will, we are all going to regret the failure of the Tories to resist the urge to buy themselves a majority.

Bang on LH. I'd go so far as to say the income tax cuts could be nominal to start with and as long as the government was showing real progress in eliminating the debt, investment and productivity would rise exponentially.

Grants and programs are short term band-aid solutions for select sectors where debt reduction can have long term benefits for the entire country for years to come.

I agree. We need some tax fairness. Such as stop taxing interest! How petty can a government be. They bring in next to nothing on interest.

[Ipberg2]

deleted

[Ipberg2]

Stephen Harper has been able to get Stockwell Day and Peter MacKay to work together and keep the Liberal Party out of power for a year. While this is something most conservatives celebrate, you have a problem with it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Ottawa's spending problem Ian, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem in Canada.

Here's what it has to do. The Liberals want to increase spending than the Conservatives in today's surplus era and their spending priorities pander to the Left.

[Clinton P. Desveaux]

Stephen Harper has been able to get Stockwell Day and Peter MacKay to work together and keep the Liberal Party out of power for a year. While this is something most conservatives celebrate, you have a problem with it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Ottawa's spending problem Ian, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem in Canada.

Here's what it has to do. The Liberals want to increase spending than the Conservatives in today's surplus era and their spending priorities pander to the Left.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Conservatives reversing a Liberal choice to close weather offices in Newfoundland in this day and age of high speed internet, satellight communications and so on. I'm not sure what this has to do with handing out big dollars to families just because they have kids and I'm not sure what this has to with the billions of dollars going out to Toronto and and so on for transit. The list goes on and on.

[FriedmanForever]

This is another wedge issue that the Freedom Party of Canada could use to further attract fiscal conservatives from the economic social policy of the Conservatives and Liberals

Well, I would have to agree this whole scheme sounds like one big boondoggle. And though I'm no libertarian, these boondoggles are a driving force in my political choice. They involve sums of money and interventions into the economy that area real pain.

I just don't think the FPC is enough like Reform to capture the public's imagination and so grow like wildfire as Reform did.

Freedom Party will not grow like wildfire. It also will not burn itself out like wildfire. The only way for Freedom Party to grow is by people coming to their senses and realizing that the Canuckistan welfare state is unsustainable. Less government is the only way for Canada to pull itself back from the abyss. It will hurt far less to make the structural changes to this country now than waiting until collapse, anarchy, or totalitarian rule becomes our reality.

Canada's electoral system does not reward ideological parties, but rather, regional parties like Reform or the Bloc Quebecois. Yes, the Reform party represented regional interests (especially if you consider non-Toronto Ontario part of the west) before it represented a conservative ideology. The issue that did it for them wasn't the deficit, it was CF-18's and Charlottetown/Meech in particular.

Canadian voters broadly reject ideology when they vote - they care about what is in it for them. If fiscal conservatives want to change the world, they must assemble a coalition of regional interests that can win, and that would benefit from fiscally conservative policies - not just in the long-run, but in the short-run zero sum gain kind of competition. As much as I appreciate the sentiments behind the Freedom Party approach (which in practice, if it worked, would be an NDP of the right - no offence - costing the Conservatives votes if they veered too far to the centre) they are not likely to transform the nation.

What are the set of interests underlying the Conservative party of Canada?
-farmers/rural folks
-the suburban middle class, especially families
-unionized workers (the CPC does very well among them)

What would a fiscally conservative coalition look like?
Regionally: Ontario and Alberta, you need to have the "have" provinces in charge (esp. over the environment question, since these provinces are the big pollutors). Plus win over a few people elsewhere in the other groups listed below.
Class: rich people, we have to become the party of rich people
Area: the suburbs - generally the suburbs are the least-served by governments
Age: middle aged people
Families: that don't have kids. Families create a billion opportunities for big government (education, healthcare, childcare)

So rich, single, middle-aged suburban Ontarians/Albertans of the world UNITE!

[optimus2861]

I voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives because I was concerned about issues like taxes, the gun registry, our military, crime, the security of our borders and general overall wasteful spending for special-interest groups and whatnot; all issues which the CPC have addressed or are currently addressing.

Hrumph. After yesterday, I'm having a hard time believing any of it.

Taxes: Do you see an actual, honest tax cut anywhere in that budget? There's lots of hocus-pocus tax credits that require paperwork and Revenue Canada mandarins to sort out, but that's not the same as an across-the-board tax cut.

Gun Registry? Still on the books.

Military? Hear anything about it yesterday?

Crime? How many crime bills have gotten through the House this session again? The one on car racing and that's about it. The rest are all hung up in committee or something and I don't hear the Tories pushing very hard to get them out.

Security of our borders? We've armed the border guards. Refugee system still sucks and are we doing anything about improving the screening process for those 200k+ immigrants coming in every year?

Special-interest spending? Did you catch the bit about the $5m funding to SOW being restored? What the hell was that about? Where are the audits or outright funding cuts of all those arms-length agencies the Liberals set up?

I'm starting to wonder just what the hell these guys think we elected them to do. The Republicans got away with this "liberal in conservative clothing" act for a dozen years before the voters spanked them out of Congress - the Conservatives won't come close to that long a time if they don't actually act conservative.

[doctorftf]

I voted for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives because I was concerned about issues like taxes, the gun registry, our military, crime, the security of our borders and general overall wasteful spending for special-interest groups and whatnot; all issues which the CPC have addressed or are currently addressing.

Hrumph. After yesterday, I'm having a hard time believing any of it.

Taxes: Do you see an actual, honest tax cut anywhere in that budget? There's lots of hocus-pocus tax credits that require paperwork and Revenue Canada mandarins to sort out, but that's not the same as an across-the-board tax cut.

Gun Registry? Still on the books.

Military? Hear anything about it yesterday?

Crime? How many crime bills have gotten through the House this session again? The one on car racing and that's about it. The rest are all hung up in committee or something and I don't hear the Tories pushing very hard to get them out.

Security of our borders? We've armed the border guards. Refugee system still sucks and are we doing anything about improving the screening process for those 200k+ immigrants coming in every year?

Special-interest spending? Did you catch the bit about the $5m funding to SOW being restored? What the hell was that about? Where are the audits or outright funding cuts of all those arms-length agencies the Liberals set up?

I'm starting to wonder just what the hell these guys think we elected them to do. The Republicans got away with this "liberal in conservative clothing" act for a dozen years before the voters spanked them out of Congress - the Conservatives won't come close to that long a time if they don't actually act conservative.

[Clinton P. Desveaux]

The federal government released the spending estimates on Monday if I recall correctly, they plan on cranking up spending levels beyond the level of inflation. It would seem to indicate to me anyways, that the only goal of those fiscal "Conservatives" is to balance the budget, which the Sask NDP does all of the time, and which Paul Martin/Chretien Liberals did all of the time.

That is the claim, but there are no numbers backing the claim up ...... considering they are in a surplus situation, I don't think overall spending is a major concern for a minority government especially considering that the Ontario economy is stagnating.

A majority on the other hand must reduce taxes and shift its spending to priorities.

Equilisation has to go. If Harper cannot do that with a majority, then I would suggest people abandon any hope for confederation moving away from socialism any time soon.

It's not a claim anymore, it's a fact!

[Charles J. White]

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/02/28/3675907-sun.html

Tories to far outspend inflation

Wed, February 28, 2007

By ALAN FINDLAY, NATIONAL BUREAU

OTTAWA -- The federal Conservative government is set to far outspend inflation and overall economic growth next year, despite promises to tighten its fiscal belt.

Expenditure estimates released yesterday show that spending is set to grow by six per cent in 2007-08 over estimates a year earlier.

Last year, the government was initially expected to spend approximately $199.7 billion tax dollars. This year, that amount is pegged at $211.7 billion.

Much of the growth comes from new defence spending and Conservative programs such as the $100-a-month Universal Child Care Benefit for parents of preschoolers that were announced in last year's budget or at other times throughout the year.

John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the estimates don't take into account new spending initiatives such as larger payments to provinces expected to be added onto the total in the March 19 budget.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation were correct

[bluecon]

The voters want more spending. the voters vote for more spending.
The government is giving the simpletons what they want.

This problem started decades before Harper.

The East Coasters should be handing the provincial welfare back if they feel so strongly.