More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[inchman]

I gotta admit... I'm as fickle as the polls indicate the rest of Canada is. I could never bring myself to vote NDP and I really don't like Harper, but I don't agree with the idea of tax and spend, especially when I contribute a lot of money to the government already.

Most of us in this business and certainly those in the pointy end, pay more than 50% tax on at least some of their income and will meet the criteria of Justin's "very rich" who should be paying more taxes. Yes, we're in a mild recession. Does that justify throwing a bunch of money at the economy (much of which will end up in the hands of the very rich who own the companies who build the infrastructure that Justin is talking about).

I think everyone should be paying taxes, especially really rich people, so it would be fine to have at least a minimum tax on all income above the poverty line, but that is a pittance compared to the waste generated by EI claims by people who think EI is there to support working only the required amount to requalify, false welfare claims and people just sitting at home collecting money eating chips on the sofa.

How much money will be generated by taxing say, an extra $1 million from each of 3,000 really, really rich people? Now divide that by 30 million "middle income" Canadians over 18 years old... 100 bucks per Canadian. That won't even give them enough money to export Canadian dollars to Asia by buying another TV or cell phone.

When I was a kid in the middle class, we had 2 phones (1 more than most of my neighbours), one TV and cars with an AM radio, a carburetor and asbestos brakes. Growing up in Hamilton, I saw many working at the steel mills riding bikes to work from their dingy apartments above the local delicatessen or hardware store. Virtually nobody went away on vacation.

And there were the rich guys who drove the Caddies and belonged to the local country club. Some of those rich guys were the union bosses.

Yes, there still are those in jobs that can't afford a lot, but anyone with more than a retail or janitorial job nowadays has a car with fuel injection, ABS, air bags, Sirius radio, cell phone's for the whole family, 10 mbps internet access to their Macbook Air, a couple of LCD TV's and many live in single-family homes in the suburbs.

And there are still the rich guys who drive Mercedes-Benz or BMWs and belong to the local country club. Some of those guys are still the union bosses.

Today, if people are standing still on the escalator, it's probably because they are going out and buying the newest cell phone, living in a house they can't afford, buying a boat they can't afford or going on vacation on credit. And it ain't going to get any better as they approach retirement with no pension and virtually no contributions to their RSP. Easy for me to say for the moment, with an (unindexed) company pension plan (which will devalue even more with inflation caused by more government spending).

But to those with no pensions or RSPs, those of us who have them will be the "rich" ones and they'll be happy to have a PM that will expect the "rich" ones share their spoils.

[Guest]

Interesting article from the CBC.... More and more I am wondering if we can afford to kick the Conservatives out.....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-hall-liberals-ndp-1.3225365?cmp=rss

There was a time in Canada when New Democrats were considered "Liberals in a hurry." But in this federal election campaign the reverse appears to be true.

Under Justin Trudeau, the Liberals look and sound a lot like New Democrats in a rush.

Consider some of the key commitments Trudeau's made both in the lead up to and during the election.

A Liberal government, he says, would spend a staggering $125 billion over the next 10 years to build and refurbish critical infrastructure.

The Liberals would tax the rich, creating a new 33 per cent tax bracket for people earning more than $200,000 a year. They'd scrap the Conservatives universal child care benefit as part of a plan to create a new, tax-free benefit that would pay more to lower-income families than those who are better off.

As well, Trudeau says, the Liberals are prepared to run deficits for each of the next three years.

OK, it's not exactly socialism. Other Liberal leaders have campaigned from the left, including Trudeau's own father, with great success.

But these Liberals are not just crowding New Democrats on their familiar turf on the federal scene. They're happily pitching in to help NDP leader Tom Mulcair pack up the furniture as he moves his party to the political centre.

Whatever Mulcair is proposing, the Liberals will go bigger. Whatever the NDP plans to spend, Liberals will dole out more.

NDP to spend billions on transit, commuter bridges

• Economy No. 1 issue: Vote Compass
• Trudeau lays out $1.5B youth employment plan

It is, as long-time Conservative adviser David McLaughlin wrote this week, a battle of "real change" versus "safe change."

Change without risk

Mulcair says an NDP government would invest an extra $1.5 billion a year into infrastructure programs, plus $1.3 billion annually over 20 years for public transit. Solid, affordable investments. But far less than the Liberal plan.

Mulcair would raise corporate taxes, but cut the taxes of small businesses. On personal income, so far his party is only promising to close a loophole used by business execs to avoid paying taxes on stock option benefits.

New Democrats are also pushing their $15-a-day child-care plan, and pledging to create one million new spaces — a plan that depends on co-operation and a substantial contribution from the provinces.

But here's the big difference between the two parties in a hurry.

An NDP government would balance the books next year, and beyond.

No deficits. No out of control spending. No danger to markets, or Canada's credit rating.

Janice Mackinnon is a former NDP finance minister in Saskatchewan. She said the Mulcair NDP has embraced the 21st century.

"I think this is key because the idea of taxing the rich is a critical 1960s NDP idea. What we had to come to grips with is, in a late twentieth, early twenty-first century economy, you can't do it," she says.

"It's a global economy, it's a competitive economy. We'd all love to tax the rich, on the left, but on the ground, it no longer works."

The time to invest

Mulcair's NDP is also mimicking the Conservatives in promising to use tax dollars to subsidize private industry.

The NDP would create new innovations funds — the first to boost Canada's aerospace sector, the other to provide financial incentives to the auto industry.

Both are key industries in Quebec and Ontario, provinces with a large share of battleground ridings.

The NDP holds most of the seats in the first, and is determined to portray itself as the real alternative to the Conservatives in the other.

NDP strategists acknowledge their campaign is built on the idea of change without blowing the piggybank — in other words change that's not so risky that it will drive voters back to the Conservatives.

For the Liberals, it's all about driving voters unhappy with the Conservative's overly cautious ways to them.

The focus of the Liberal policy, says Bob Rae, the former Liberal MP and NDP premier of Ontario, "is give the tax breaks to the people who need it the most, and let's spend the money in a responsible way.

"And when interest rates are virtually zero, this happens to be a good time for the government to be spending on infrastructure."

People can debate which of the Trudeau Liberals or the Mulcair New Democrats is the more progressive. But what's evident from the numerous public opinion polls is that both parties are enjoying early success.

They are virtually neck and neck, and, perhaps more importantly, are keeping pace with Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Common ground?

Mackinnon says the closeness of the race should be prompting the Liberals and the NDP to look at each other's campaign promises, to try to find common ground now just in case the Conservatives win a slim minority.

"They both want to get rid of income-splitting for families, they both want to scale back tax free savings accounts, they both want to expand the Canada Pension Plan, they both want a different approach to the environment, they want a different approach to relations and funding First Nations…

"There's lots of common ground they have on which they could work together."

But Bob Rae, for one, adamantly disagrees, saying it's far too early for those kinds of talks.

"The time to focus on that is after the election. The time to focus now is on who's going to win?"

Rae, of course, negotiated an accord with Ontario Liberal leader David Peterson in 1985, talks that began four daysafter the Progressive Conservatives won just four more seats than Peterson's Liberals.

Their accord included a "program of action from common campaign proposals'' and a commitment from both parties not to force an election for two years.

So, in this incredibly tight three-way race, the two parties on the left of the Conservatives are both in a hurry to connect with progressive voters, but in no rush yet to see where exactly they might work together to end a decade of Conservative rule.

[Guest]

Poking holes in the major parties: an editorial dissection

By Erica VellaDigital Broadcast Journalist Global News

TORONTO – Campaigns have been ramping up in advance of Canada’s Oct. 19 federal election.

Sun Media columnist and Global News contributor Anthony Furey has spent recent weeks breaking down some of the policies and promises put forward by the three leading federal parties.

Link to the videos:

Confusing Conservative tax credits

Liberal stimulus spending

New Democrats waiver on political spectrum

[Boney]

Flat tax, say 10% on everyone over a predetermined amount, say 30K. Now have a consumption tax, say 15%, or some amount. The "rich", those making over 60K, will have more disposable income to buy stuff, which creates business and jobs. The poor will always be hand to mouth no matter which tax system is produced, but the "rich" will keep the economy going.

Just a thought.

[AAS]

60K is rich??

[DEFCON]

“The poor will always be hand to mouth no matter which tax system is produced, but the "rich" will keep the economy going”

When people are ‘given’ things and become dependant on the practice of taking and receiving, being they haven’t ever worked for anything, they will never respect, or appreciate the efforts of those that did and will instead focus future emphasis on acquiring even more free stuff from others.

[Guest tailwheel]

As for your second entry, perhaps Mulcair is just asking for the same treatment afforded Mr Duffy and all the others embroiled in this Conservative Senate scandal - "innocent until proven otherwise", which speaks to due legal process vice the fickle 'court' of public opinion, the tea leaves of polls, or conviction by media proxy.

Thanks for the comments Don, I don't think it is too much for the opposition to do as you say, consider Duffy and especially Harper....innocent until proven guilty.

Please feel free to comment on my third entry in response to that video. That Canada is considered the MOST desirable country in the world. And that this typical opposition video is once again....lies.

I don't have a problem with the honest truth in criticism or policy. Trudeau wants to spend a lot and has admitted it while Mulcair will balance the budget and spend a lot because both of them believe in a society more like some Scandinavian countries.

But stop the continuous lies as we saw with the video.

[deicer]

Speaking of continuous lies....

One conservative ad says Trudeau just isn't ready. He's roughly the same age Harper was when he was elected PM.

One conservative ad says Mulcair is a career politician. Harper has never worked anything other than political jobs.

You can't have it both ways......

[Guest]

Speaking of continuous lies....

One conservative ad says Trudeau just isn't ready. He's roughly the same age Harper was when he was elected PM.

One conservative ad says Mulcair is a career politician. Harper has never worked anything other than political jobs.

You can't have it both ways......

You note the ad does not mention age, just the fact that he is not ready and I agree with that based on his positions re budgets etc. .

Harper did work for Imperial Oil for a short time but I can agree with your comment re being a career politician.

[DEFCON]

I'm predicting a Conservative / Harper win, but in minority only please.

A New Phrase is Born

Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for PRIME MINISTER put forth by any party in the 2015 election year.

[boestar]

No matter what happens NO GOVERNMENT with these leaders and platforms should be allowed a Majority. Every platform is treading on dangerous ground. Harper has done enough damage with his majority government. All following hi dictatorial commands

[dagger]

A thought occurs to me about boosting the aerospace sector. Why not have the next government actually proceed with some of the often-deferred military expenditures - not to turn us into some military power, but just to give Canada the ability to maintain its current level of military preparedness for the next two decades. Make a decision on a new fighter and the procurement offsets can stimulate a lot of jobs. If the F-35 is a pricey dog, and it is with its current software, then move on.

[Guest]

A thought occurs to me about boosting the aerospace sector. Why not have the next government actually proceed with some of the often-deferred military expenditures - not to turn us into some military power, but just to give Canada the ability to maintain its current level of military preparedness for the next two decades. Make a decision on a new fighter and the procurement offsets can stimulate a lot of jobs. If the F-35 is a pricey dog, and it is with its current software, then move on.

since the Liberals in this regard have a proven track record (of not doing) then I guess we are left with the Conservatives or the NDP.

[boestar]

None of the have "done" anything in this regard. We all know the F-35 is the wrong plane for Canada (if it ever actually works). There are many viable alternatives. I agree Canada should go back to grass roots and build their own Canadian Fighter. The over all price tag would initially higher as we currently have no manufacturing of the like in this country anymore.

I also agree that this would be a great Job creation program as would fixing our poorly maintained roads. There are lots of ways to create jobs but no one seems willing to dole out the cash to do it.

[Guest tailwheel]

For those of you who are possible Conservative voters thinking that perhaps the NDP is a better alternative because Mulcair has moved them a bit more from the far left areas....

....remember that he is surrounded by the regular far left socialists that are the core of the party.

So what you might say. But Australia's PM was just replaced today by his own party. It happened as well to the opposition party that used to be in power. Thatcher was kicked out as well way back when in the U.K.

So if you are thinking of voting for the NDP because of Mulcair, think again. You might get Linda(close down the oil industry) McQuaig as PM and the rest ofthe regular NDP and the party in power soon to follow.

Be careful what party you vote for because you are voting for the party.

[Don Hudson]

tailwheel - thank you also for your comments.

I took the video for what such entries into serious discourse represent. One can neither like nor dislike such work nor have good reason to be convinced by such work, as it is mere propagandizing, begging people to listen to their emotions and as such is eminently dismissable.

I haven't lived anywhere else for any length, (two months in Scotland doesn't count but one does get the drift of a country in such time), but in observing "fair treatment of ordinary people" from governments which are both capable and able to balance social responsibilities with a vibrant business environment while maintaining and improving the country's standing in the world, Canada traditionally comes in very high. It is the change to this caring-and-compassionate capacity and in particular, Canada's 'place' in the world, that I have objected in the past and am considering now. I hear nothing from the other two entrants that addresses these changes. All I hear is usual bribery during this tiresome stumping phase.

Conservatives and neoliberal political economies are being questioned anew in a number of places. I see that Tony Abbott, Australia's PM and leader of the "Liberal" Party, (in quotes only because the traditional meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" have switched hats over the last four decades), has just been challenged and "toppled", (Aussie term), replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. They have an election coming in about a year and realize that Mr Abbott, despite "successes", (so observes some conservative pundits, (- see ABC article), has become a liability, dropping the Liberals to ~46% of support in a two-party system. We in Canada may be heading for a photo-finish.

In an attempt to occupy fertile storytime ground, the NDP has morphed to a centrist party in its sales job and it is effective, catching the Liberals unprepared and trying to find the differences. One is reminded at times of automobile advertisements or soap commercials. All are spending our money to convince us of their right to govern when there are far more serious issues facing our country, the discussion of which remains tightly guarded and when let out, closely managed by all three. Seventy-eight days where truth is suspended; I have no idea who I will eventually settle on but it won't be as a result of the above.

[Guest]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN0RE1DG20150914

OOttawa posts surprise $1.9B surplus, balances books one year early

By Staff The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – The Finance Department says the federal government posted a surprise $1.9-billion surplus in 2014-15 – bringing the country’s books back into balance a year earlier than expected.

The government had expected to generate a $2.0-billion shortfall.

The result ends a streak of six deficits under the Conservatives and is certain to reverberate on the campaign trail.

Political leaders have jockeyed to portray themselves as the best stewards of the public piggy bank as the economy has struggled amid the steep slide in commodity prices.

The surplus is certain to please Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose government had expected a $2.0-billion deficit for

2014-15 in its April budget.

The Harper government has predicted a $1.4-billion surplus for the current 2015-16 fiscal year.

But his political opponents have charged that Ottawa will run a shortfall in 2015-16 after the economy slipped into a recession.

The federal government posted a $5.2-billion deficit in 2013-14.

© The Canadian Press, 2015

[DEFCON]

The Party system is quite unholy imho and one of if not the largest corrupting forces in a democracy.

[Guest]

Michael Den Tandt: How Jean Chrétien is still getting it wrong

Michael Den Tandt | September 13, 2015 | Last Updated: Sep 14 9:39 AM ET

Jean Chrétien can still choke out an opponent, figuratively speaking. In a newspaper article Saturday and again Sunday at a Hamilton rally with Justin Trudeau, the former prime minister pilloried Stephen Harper for besmirching Canada’s standing in the world and for bungling the Syrian refugee crisis. Chretien’s speech, though rambling and apparently delivered off the cuff, was passionate and peppered with jokes and digs. By the end he had the partisan crowd eating out of his hand. It was vintage Chretien.

If only so much of what he said wasn’t ginned-up malarkey. But that, too, is Chrétien.

Liberals have for years bemoaned The Little Guy’s absence from the stage. They will have reason to feel encouraged by his return, at a practical level. If nothing else, since Paul Martin has also appeared at Trudeau’s side, it puts a final stake through the desiccated heart of the ancient Chrétien-Martin war. Though the two former prime ministers haven’t appeared together — it would be surprising if they did — their making common cause stands to bolster Trudeau’s ground game, particularly in Ontario, the Liberals’ former stronghold in the 1990s.

That said, Chrétien’s analysis of this country’s foreign and defence needs is no more credible or persuasive now than it was back then, when he gutted military procurement, disbanded the Airborne Regiment, slashed defence spending on the backs of serving members of the military and repeatedly sent troops overseas as “peacekeepers” in situations in which there was no peace to keep.

Because the Conservatives have also made a mess of defence procurement — everyone does this it seems, it’s an immutable law of Canadian governance — the Canadian Forces have yet to recover fully from Chrétien-era cuts, which began in earnest in 1995, as did reductions in foreign aid. A navy with no ships, an air force flying dwindling numbers of patched-together fighters, and stinginess towards the most vulnerable, is not a legacy of Conservative mismanagement alone. It began long before 2006.

Is it fair to say Harper has made a mess of the refugee crisis, politically and practically? It seems so. For two weeks he gamely fought a rear-guard action against swelling popular pressure for more and faster action, as though resisting public opinion might somehow count as a mark of strong character. What this has yielded the Tories, instead, is a belated partial capitulation, in the form of the $100-million matching-donation fund for aid to refugees unveiled by International Development minister Christian

“None of us can stand idle when we know the horrors that affect so many civilians caught in the Syrian conflict,” Paradis solemnly intoned. Well, OK. But the timing ensures this will be dismissed as too little, too late by swing voters, and possibly even resented as a sop to the mob by Tory hardliners. The same will apply if, this coming week, the Conservatives announce plans to increase the number of refugees Canada will take in, beyond the 10,000 from Syria and Iraq announced earlier in the campaign. This isn’t to say they shouldn’t do any of this. But politically, much damage has already been done that won’t be undone.

Opposition criticisms the Tories have swaggered while wielding a teensy stick, in terms of Canadian engagement overseas, are also valid. Humanitarian work in many places can’t be divorced from a capable defence. Canadian military spending as a percentage of GDP is now hovering at around one per cent, the lowest in the G7. That extends to development aid. “Since 2011,” write the authors of a new report for the Canadian International Council, “Canada has ranked dead-last in development assistance” among the world’s mid-sized economies. That list includes nations such as Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

All terribly bad, Liberal partisans will nod knowingly. Except the same report, by authors Robert Greenhill and Meg McQuillan, notes Canada’s era of active internationalism began in the 1950s, extended through the Diefenbaker, Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney eras, but ended in 1995 — two years into the first of Chrétien’s three majority terms. In the decade between fiscal 1990-91 and 2000-2001, Canadian development aid as a percentage of GNI (gross national income) declined by more than half.

Most strikingly, the authors found levels of engagement have moved in long-term cycles that cross party lines. “During the 20 years from 1975 to 1995, across Liberal and Conservative governments — including years with some of the largest deficits in Canadian history — Canadian spending on development assistance never fell below 0.4 per cent of GNI. Since 1995, under Liberal and Conservative governments — including years with some of the largest budget surpluses in Canadian history — spending on development assistance never returned to 0.4 per cent even once.”

In a nutshell, it boils down to this: Chrétien can still rouse rabble with the best, and he did that Sunday. But when it comes to Canada in the world, his historical narrative is a fiction. If Trudeau proposes to make Canada “generous” once again, he’ll be harkening back to Mulroney Conservatism – not the Liberalism of Chrétien and Martin

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/how-chretien-is-still-getting-it-wrong

[boestar]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN0RE1DG20150914

OOttawa posts surprise $1.9B surplus, balances books one year early

By Staff The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – The Finance Department says the federal government posted a surprise $1.9-billion surplus in 2014-15 – bringing the country’s books back into balance a year earlier than expected.

The government had expected to generate a $2.0-billion shortfall.

The result ends a streak of six deficits under the Conservatives and is certain to reverberate on the campaign trail.

Political leaders have jockeyed to portray themselves as the best stewards of the public piggy bank as the economy has struggled amid the steep slide in commodity prices.

The surplus is certain to please Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose government had expected a $2.0-billion deficit for

2014-15 in its April budget.

The Harper government has predicted a $1.4-billion surplus for the current 2015-16 fiscal year.

But his political opponents have charged that Ottawa will run a shortfall in 2015-16 after the economy slipped into a recession.

The federal government posted a $5.2-billion deficit in 2013-14.

© The Canadian Press, 2015

Interesting. If they were expecting a 2.0 billion dollar defecit this year then why has Harper been shouting that there will be no deficit? Just more lies.

Why let the facts get in the way? Just tell the people what they want to hear and do your own thing anyway.

The system is broken.

[Guest]

Interesting. If they were expecting a 2.0 billion dollar defecit this year then why has Harper been shouting that there will be no deficit? Just more lies.

Why let the facts get in the way? Just tell the people what they want to hear and do your own thing anyway.

The system is broken.

Perhaps more about good money management ????

and then there is the flip side.

In-Depth: Federal Election 2015

Trudeau accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of balancing the budget on the backs of a broad cross-section of Canadians.

“Mr. Harper worked hard to try and balance the budget last year in time for the election by cutting program spending to Canadians who need it – whether it’s our veterans, our seniors or First Nations,” Trudeau said during a stop in Toronto.

“We’re in deficit right now. But of the different deficits out there, the fiscal deficit isn’t the one that concerns Canadians and certainly doesn’t concern economists that much. It is the infrastructure deficit that is so concerning to so many people. That’s what’s slowing down our growth.”

Of the three main party leaders, Trudeau is alone in his commitment to hold off on surpluses for three years.

“The Liberal party is the only party standing straight, looking Canadians in the eye and saying, ‘We need investment and that is what we are going to do to grow the economy, to balance the books in 2019’,” Trudeau said.

His comments came after he promised to enhance the Canada Pension Plan and boost incomes for low-income seniors.

Trudeau told the Canadian Association of Retired Persons that the Liberals would begin talks with the provinces on how to improve the pension system within three months of taking office.

He said the Liberals would also bring in a seniors price index to ensure old age security keeps pace with inflation.

[flyinghigh]

Interesting. If they were expecting a 2.0 billion dollar defecit this year then why has Harper been shouting that there will be no deficit? Just more lies.

Why let the facts get in the way? Just tell the people what they want to hear and do your own thing anyway.

The system is broken.

It just shows. You are forced to spend, spend, spend billions in stimulus for a economic crisis which leads to a deficit and are labeled as incompetent by those who criticized for not spending even more.

Then when you cut back on spending you are criticized as the deficit slowly decreases and are called incompetent. But those who call you incompetent for running the deficit say that they will run a deficit.

Meanwhile as the deficit approaches elimination you are called a liar(and incompetent as well). because it may not quite be eliminated on the timeline you say it will be eliminated. Then when it is discovered that the deficit actually will be eliminated as predicted, you are called a liar because it is slightly off the prediction of a 2 billion dollar deficit.

This from the party supporters(and no doubt the party) that has the former PM and finance minister campaigning for them who....when he was finance minister was notoriously far off his predictions for deficit numbers. Apparently his deficit prediction was off by 20 billion in 1996.

But Harper is the liar of course(as if anyone can predict the exact budget number).

It really is difficult to take most of the criticisms leveled at the government seriously. If Harper had done everything the opposition said should be done, he would be labelled as an incompetent liar. Perhaps that lies with the critics(no pun intended).

[dagger]

It just shows. You are forced to spend, spend, spend billions in stimulus for a economic crisis which leads to a deficit and are labeled as incompetent by those who criticized for not spending even more.

Then when you cut back on spending you are criticized as the deficit slowly decreases and are called incompetent. But those who call you incompetent for running the deficit say that they will run a deficit.

Meanwhile as the deficit approaches elimination you are called a liar(and incompetent as well). because it may not quite be eliminated on the timeline you say it will be eliminated. Then when it is discovered that the deficit actually will be eliminated as predicted, you are called a liar because it is slightly off the prediction of a 2 billion dollar deficit.

This from the party supporters(and no doubt the party) that has the former PM and finance minister campaigning for them who....when he was finance minister was notoriously far off his predictions for deficit numbers. Apparently his deficit prediction was off by 20 billion in 1996.

But Harper is the liar of course(as if anyone can predict the exact budget number).

It really is difficult to take most of the criticisms leveled at the government seriously. If Harper had done everything the opposition said should be done, he would be labelled as an incompetent liar. Perhaps that lies with the critics(no pun intended).

Unfortunately for your case, your argument mirrors the political nature of the debate rather than the true economic effect. The need to balance the budget, whether you agree with the outcome or not, was motivated entirely by politics. Doing has necessitated pushing back a massive amount of spending that was authorized. For example, in the area of military procurement, it involved delaying many projects for which the bill will ultimately have to be paid, whether we're talking about new destroyers, helicopters or jet fighters. These purchases, representing tens of billions of dollars, haven't been cancelled, merely stretched out or deferred. In truth, the goal was to create the illusion of balance. It's not unlike the homeowner who figures he can put off renovating a seriously dilapidated kitchen with ancient, failing appliances. At the end of the year, he can claim to have balanced his personal finances, but the truth is he will either face spiking ad-hoc costs to fix his appliances, his counters, etc, or he will have to go for the big one-shot expense of a kitchen renovation a year or two later. Either has the potential to bust his budget in a future year, perhaps at a greater cost than it would have entailed doing a reno earlier. But in 2015, he can claim he balanced his books.

[flyinghigh]

Thanks Dagger,

But in the meantime other expenses have been reduced such as the continuing focus on public service cost. I see now that they are going after unused sick days worth billions of dollars.

Refusing to pay billions required for the Kyoto accord was another massive saving that was going to go to the coffers of a bunch of third world countries that supported it.

There was an earlier mentioned refusal to loan money to Greece a few years back when there was considerable support from other parties to do so.

Small things add up like less money to the CBC and less money to those unemployed who claim that they cannot find a job anywhere while their neighbours move to other provinces to make big money and help the economy.

Sure, there are some big expenses that have been deferred, perhaps some will be cancelled such as the F-35, but at least we don't see money being thrown at every hand that is extended for a free ride.

Of course there will be items that could have been done better, but I think an overall trend can be seen for each party's platform.

[Fido]

It is nice to see government being run responsibly.

Just because a budget has been set does not mean that the money MUST be spent. If departments can run for less then the government is doing a good job by spending less. I cannot countenance the idea that money must be spent just because it was authorized.

I heard many stories about wild, end of year spending at TCA just to get amount spent that had been authorized. The rational was that if the company did not spend it all they would get even less the next year. Vehicles were bought at the end of the year just to spend the money, not because new vehicles were needed. Business trips were taken just to get it on the books for the following year. Overtime was encouraged just to keep the budget up. Air Canada got over that sick mentality and now the government has seen some rehabilitation too.

Trudeau bleating that the surprise surplus came about because program spending was cut is unbelievable and can only come from someone who has always had more money than needed. I applaud the government for not spending every dollar in the budget.