Pension attacks continue...

[mrlupin]

Politically, it will be interesting to see how the main voting pool(namely the baby boomers) react to pension and old age security attacks.

Harper hints at pension reform,

In Davos, PM sets stage for 'major transformations' and deficit slashing

Prime Minister Stephen Harper signalled his government will bring forward "major transformations" in the coming months - in areas such as the retirement pension system, immigration, science and technology investment and the energy sector.

Of those reforms, Harper said, getting a grip on slowing the rising costs of the country's pension system is particularly critical.

In the wake of Harper's speech, it now appears the Conservative government could be poised to gradually change the Old Age Security system so that the age of eligibility is raised to 67 from 65.

The opposition NDP and Liberals said that such a move would financially cripple millions of Canadians. They argued that at a time when world leaders are talking about addressing income inequality, the prime minister's words indicated the opposite may happen in Canada.

Harper made the revelations in a major keynote speech Thursday at the World Economic Forum, the annual gathering of the world's political and business elite.

As expected, the prime minister was critical of Europe and the United States for not adequately dealing with the economic problems that have gripped them in recent months and years.

But it was Harper's assessment of the major changes that lie ahead for Canada that stood out in the speech.

"In the months to come, our government will undertake major transformations to position Canada for growth over the next generation," Harper said.

The Conservatives will table a budget in the coming weeks that is expected to set the stage for years of deficit-slashing and government reform.

"Under our government, Canada will make the transformations necessary to sustain economic growth, job creation and prosperity now and for the next generation," Harper said.

He said that means two things: "Making better economic choices now. And preparing ourselves now for the demographic pressures the Canadian economy faces."

Harper said the country's demographics - an aging population and a dwindling workforce - constitute "a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish."

For that reason, he said his government will "be taking measures in the coming months."

Harper did not specify what those measures will be, but he said they are necessary - not just to bring the government's finances back to a balanced budget in the medium term, "but also to ensure the sustainability of our social programs and fiscal position over the next generation."

"We have already taken steps to limit the growth of our health-care spending over that period," Harper said. "We must do the same for our retirement income system."

Harper said the centrepiece of the public pension system - the Canada Pension Plan - is fully funded, actuarially sound and does not need to be changed.

But he added: "For those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation while not affecting current recipients."

So far, the government has come forward with a plan to create a private pooled pension system to encourage Canadians to prepare for their retirement.

Still, there are concerns that as baby boomers approach retirement, the cost to government of providing public pensions will skyrocket.

In December, the National Post reported that there was internal debate within the government about increasing the age of eligibility for the other major element of the public pension scheme - Old Age Security - to 67 from 65.

Internal government documents project the cost of the OAS system will climb from $36.5 billion in 2010 to $48 billion in 2015. By 2030 - when the number of seniors is expected to climb to 9.3 million from 4.7 million now - the cost of the program could reach $108 billion.

NDP finance critic Peter Julian, speaking to reporters in Ottawa, called Harper's speech "ominous words because we don't have any details yet."

Julian said the NDP wants to see the government increase spending on the OAS by $700 million per year, which the NDP says would make the system sustainable, rather than tell seniors they have to work for two more years before they can retire.

"That's completely unacceptable. If he had run on that platform last May, he wouldn't have the numbers he has in the House he has today," Julian said.

The NDP and the Liberals said that increasing funding to the OAS could be financed by reining in spending on prisons and the F-35 fighter jet, which could cost anywhere between $16 billion and $30 billion, depending on who you ask.

"If he's serious about the demographic shift, he should listen to evidence and invest in hospital beds, not prison beds," Liberal critic Scott Brison said.

Brison said the government should make tax credits refundable for those in the lowest income brackets to help address income inequality in Canada.

"It would be a very regressive step to cut or restrict OAS at a time when income inequality is a growing issue," Brison told Postmedia News.

"Harper isn't addressing income inequality. He's proposing changes that would make it worse."

The challenge to the government will now be selling whatever changes it plans to the pension system, something that has dogged previous prime ministers, said Errol Mendes, a politics expert from the University of Ottawa.

Brian Mulroney, months into his mandate, controversially decided to de-index pensions. After a senior confronted him, Mulroney backed away from the plan.

"I bet you (Harper) won't talk about the OAS over here because there will be pictures of that woman saying 'Goodbye Charlie' to Brian Mulroney," said Mendes, referring to the famous 1986 encounter.

Harper issued a scathing criticism of countries in the developed world, which he suggested had forgotten about the importance of creating economic growth.

He suggested that developed countries had taken wealth "as a given ... assuming it is somehow the natural order of things."

As a result, he said, countries in the Western world had become focused primarily "on our services and entitlements."

As a result, he said, it's not surprising that, in addition to banks facing debt, countries themselves are also facing sovereign debt crises.

Harper warned that the wealth of Western economies "is no more inevitable than the poverty of emerging ones."

He said the problems afflicting Europe and the U.S. threaten to become even more serious in future.

"Each nation has a choice to make. Western nations, in particular, face a choice of whether to create the conditions for growth and prosperity, or to risk long-term economic decline."

The solution, he said, is for countries to make the sometimes tough, but correct, decisions now.

"Easy choices now mean fewer choices later."

Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz1keYPWhXe

[mrlupin]

Also of interest on the pension front. A recent CIBC Poll.

CIBC says older Canadians “Punch Drunk” on Debt

http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/eijan12.pdf

[Moon The Loon]

Wonder how that will all impact us "older" Canadians who are debt-free

[st27]

Want to make my retirement a lot easier??? Just refund my EI contributions that I luckily never had to draw on..it was a fund for my unemployment right??? Correct me if i am wrong [probably] but didn't Chretien change the fund accounting rules so that the previous amounts went into general revenues,helping him "balance" the budget.This is billions of dollars and they are upping the contributions again!!!

[J.O.]

Correct me if i am wrong [probably] but didn't Chretien change the fund accounting rules so that the previous amounts went into general revenues,helping him "balance" the budget.This is billions of dollars and they are upping the contributions again!!!

Just like the $30 billion + he and Martin pulled out of the public service employees' contributions to their pension.

[dagger]

It's debatable whether this pension reform of Harper makes any sense. Sure, Canadians will rejoice at the reductions in MP pensions, and the OAS changes won't hit current retires or those due to retire soon. But why the reform?

The OECD suggests Canada is well-positionned to ride out the benefits bulge without changing the OAS system. One suspects Harper wants the latitude to begin pushing top tax rates down. Most of what he does comes right out of the Republican playbook, so I suspect another shoe will drop soon.

http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

We already have lower corporate taxes (but where is the evidence they actually benefit the economy, I continue to see companies leaving Canada because they get upfront incentives or can consolidate in a low-wage jurisdiction. The EMD lockout in London by Caterpillar is a classic show of that - Caterpillar profits are at record levels, US corporate taxes are higher than ours, but US wage rates are lower. But if that's the primary draw, lower wage rates, then why lower corporate taxes especially at a time when the budget is in deficit and we're borrowing money to cover it.)

The pattern is clear to me: water down pensions gradually, water down health care gradually... next shoe... reward the rich with big tax cuts - it's right out of the Republican playbook, govern for the 1%, not the 99%

Now reforming EI would be a different thing, since it's basically a welfare system for certain parts of the country... but the Tories won't touch that.

http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

[deicer]

It's debatable whether this pension reform of Harper makes any sense. Sure, Canadians will rejoice at the reductions in MP pensions, and the OAS changes won't hit current retires or those due to retire soon. But why the reform?

The OECD suggests Canada is well-positionned to ride out the benefits bulge without changing the OAS system. One suspects Harper wants the latitude to begin pushing top tax rates down. Most of what he does comes right out of the Republican playbook, so I suspect another shoe will drop soon.

http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

We already have lower corporate taxes (but where is the evidence they actually benefit the economy, I continue to see companies leaving Canada because they get upfront incentives or can consolidate in a low-wage jurisdiction. The EMD lockout in London by Caterpillar is a classic show of that - Caterpillar profits are at record levels, US corporate taxes are higher than ours, but US wage rates are lower. But if that's the primary draw, lower wage rates, then why lower corporate taxes especially at a time when the budget is in deficit and we're borrowing money to cover it.)

The pattern is clear to me: water down pensions gradually, water down health care gradually... next shoe... reward the rich with big tax cuts - it's right out of the Republican playbook, govern for the 1%, not the 99%

Now reforming EI would be a different thing, since it's basically a welfare system for certain parts of the country... but the Tories won't touch that.

http://www.theglobea...article2320279/

Good Morning Dagger

After reading your post, all I can put as a comment is.....

'Welcome to the Dark Side'

Iceman

[Don Hudson]

Let us recognize Stephen Harper's vision of "Canada" for what it is. Where and when have we ever heard Stephen Harper speak passionately about his vision for the country, Canada?

By "Canada", I mean of course Canadian corporations and the now-visible wealthy class, the existence of whom the Canadian population have only recently awakened and who have just as recently been popularly described as "the 1%".

We don't hear such things because Mr. Harper envisions Canada as a "company", not a nation or a people. His is a pedantic and instrumental vision of practicality, bereft of imagination and inspiration that comes from leading a country.

I believe we will see the first signs of fundamental change when Mr. Flaherty brings in his first budget under a majority government. Mr. Harper reserves for himself and his majority government a statist and moral authority which is going to change the essential character of Canada as we know our country.

The kind of "reform" Mr. Harper envisions and which we will see for the first time on budget day has been in the works since Reagan-Thatcher...since the early '70's. It just took Canada thirty years to see the class advantages to a Neoliberal economy and to arrange their government according to a neocon (neoliberal and neocon are almost interchangeable), methods and priorities which were established in the U.S. by the corporate-friendly Congress decades ago. T

he U.S. population is paying the price today for the kind of thinking that germinated in Chicago School economics and Milton Friedman, again, decades ago. De-regulation is for the few not for the many. Privatization and de-regulation is as much about establishing private profit for the few while mandating the socialization of risk as it is about "cheaper airfares". Under a neoliberal political economy, the now-visible 1% have their cake and are gorging themselves in legalized larceny. It is a peculiarity of U.S. political economy that this is not only acceptable but encouraged by the original vision of the U.S. of the founding fathers, (except Jefferson).

I hope I am mistaken but I am concerned that this vision is crossing the border.

I say this because the Canada the baby boomers grew up in and who held an idea of "Canada" as a kind, polite, gentle world leader automatically imbued with integrity, (mostly by those who don't really know Canada), is slowly being supplanted by corporatist, neocon priorities, relegating the majority to the same place our friends in the U.S. have been put by private, unelected, corporate tyrannies who range throught the U.S. economy, on the public purse, with impunity, raking in bonuses that make hockey, baseball and basketball players look like paupers.

Canada is at risk of becoming just another western "location" - an instrumental, corporate enterprise where the value of "citizens" is measured by their compliant participation in production of profit for the few while our economy drifts towards becoming a devil's promise just as the United States has become for its "citizens". The twisted, lumbering homunculus that the Republican Party has become in the U.S., branches of which are fertile ground for the kind of religious fundamentalism so heavily criticized in others, would take the U.S. even further to becoming a technical instrument for profit, given the opportunity, of which, after the present economic disaster is forgotten and ordinary people have "adjusted" to new realities, will likely continue until the next boom-bust cycle. It is their history.

Spare us from "trickle-down" arguments which only sustain a devil's promise where the stock market is an arranged casino for insiders. We have seen what is trickling from those who do the trickling, and somehow it doesn't smell good.

While this writing is blunt and paints with a broad brush, these are neverthleless real issues out of which the lives of ordinary people are deeply affected.

This has nothing to do with mere re-distributionist policies or a Mercedes in every driveway or the notion that people down on their luck deserve it because they're either single, drug-using mothers on state welfare, or they didn't work hard enough.

Oddly, it has to do with original, small-c conservative values that I think most Canadians harbour in their hearts and which ground all other political parties including the NDP have yielded to the party with the most consistent and patterned vision. I think the awakening will be a rude one, perhaps even before the next election, but who, or what is in the wings? Who volunteers, and who has a vision of Canada that sees more to its people than instruments of production yet keeps such important economic notions, but in perspective?

It has to do with living in a country, and not merely existing in a technical serfdom where privilege trumps the needs and visions of ordinary people: - A political economy with sufficient promise of getting on with their own lives, raising a family and not retiring as a ward of the state, a prospect which has now been built in the U.S., and which is about to be built in Canada if we do not watch Mr. Harper's government very carefully.

Don

[Homerun]

How do you know what Harpers vision for Canada is?

[dagger]

How do you know what Harpers vision for Canada is?

I'm pretty sure it involves remaining in power until they carry him out feet first.

[Don Hudson]

How do you know what Harpers vision for Canada is?

By comparing with what has occurred in Canada over the past six years in terms of moving politically and economically to the right with what even moderate Republicans are saying they hold most valuable in terms of economic and social values, by examining the history of the U.S. political economy since the early '70's noting the increasing similarities between Canada and the U.S., by noting the warmth with which Republicans talk of Harper's values and the derision offered Obama, (which ignores discussing the actual issues in favour of old-fashioned negative propaganda) and finally by spending time watching what people say vice what they do and remaining skeptical rather than accepting, until the fat lady's sung. If it all turns out as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, great. But Missouri's population is increasing.

Cheers,

Don

[mo32a]

I'm pretty sure it involves remaining in power until they carry him out feet first.

God, I hope so.

That should give us 30 years or so of great government.

[Don Hudson]

Posted Today, 06:48 PM

dagger, on 01 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure it involves remaining in power until they carry him out feet first.

God, I hope so.

That should give us 30 years or so of great government.

Well, I for one, plan on being around to eat my words if I'm wrong!

But you may be right...On Day Two of Parliament Harper retreated from messing with the OAP, (nice trial ballon tho'), and his MPs are wondering why they didn't know about his speech at Davos and are ticked about his uncoordinated launch on a highly controversial matter. And of course, Canadians do not tolerate their government, any government, messing with "the peoples' Canada", (the old definition of...) and are swift to punish those who tread where angels fear, so to speak.

[thor]

God, I hope so.

That should give us 30 years or so of great government.

I hope so too!!

[J.O.]

New surveys for the government. Hmmm - I'd love to see the ToRs for those surveys ...

[DEFCON]

“The pattern is clear to me: water down pensions gradually, water down health care gradually... next shoe... reward the rich with big tax cuts - it's right out of the Republican playbook, govern for the 1%, not the 99%”

So, what is the matter with people anyway?

Romney is part of the 1%. He released the list of donors to his ‘Super Pac’ the other day, which was a list of ‘friends, also from the 1%, and their contributions to the Super Pac.

Why are so many from the ‘little guys club’ prepared to vote for Romney considering, Romney and his contributing friends represent ‘money’, not the lack thereof? Do the ‘sheep’ really believe that Romney and friends have any interest in the issues affecting the little guy?