News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.2K     0 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,895
Reaction score
9,171
All I can say is *sigh*.

-------------------------------------------------------------


Tories blamed for coming deficits
GST cut, spending driving Canada into red, Budget officer Kevin Page warns

David Akin
Canwest News Service

Thursday, November 20, 2008


Page said Conservative policy decisions, not global financial conditions, are to blame for the current fiscal situation.
harper_flaherty112008.jpg

CREDIT: Chris Wattie/Reuters
Page said Conservative policy decisions, not global financial conditions, are to blame for the current fiscal situation.

OTTAWA - Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page told MPs Thursday that Canada's deficit next year could be as high as $13 billion and that Conservative government decisions to cut the GST and raise government spending are to blame, not global economic events.

"The weak fiscal performance to date is largely attributable to previous policy decisions as opposed to weakened economic conditions," Page wrote in his first report to parliamentarians on the government's economic and fiscal position.

Page concluded Ottawa could run a deficit as high as $13.8 billion next year, in 2009-10. Deficits could remain higher than $11 billion each year through to 2013, adding nearly $50-billion to Canada's debt over the next five years.

Page provided a range of deficit scenarios for MPs. His most optimistic scenario shows Ottawa with a surplus of $1.3 billion next year and a surplus that would grow to $11.8 billion by 2013. What he described as his "average" scenario has deficits of $3.9 billion and $1.4 billion for next year and the year after that before Ottawa returns to the black.

But in a briefing with reporters, Page said he believes the most likely outcome "would tend towards the lower scenario," in which the deficit could be greater than $13 billion next year.

Page's report gave Prime Minister Stephen Harper's political opponents fresh ammunition as they stepped up attacks on the Conservative's ability to manage the federal treasury.

"Mr. Page came out with a report this morning which leaves the prime minister absolutely nowhere to hide in terms of direct and personal responsibility for Canada's impending budget deficit - the first in more than a decade," Liberal MP John McCallum said in the House of Commons within minutes of the release of Page's report.

The Parliamentary Budget Office was created by the Conservatives as part of their Federal Accountability Act. Its mission is to provide independent analysis to senators and MPs on the state of the nation's finances. Page, though, can be fired by cabinet, without cause, raising questions about his office's independence.

"In black and white, the prime minister's own appointee says that our impending deficit - and he says we will be in deficit for at least the next two years- is due to actions taken by the government and not to the deteriorating global or Canadian economy; actions like reckless spending increases by this finance minister to the point where he is the biggest spender in Canadian history, the erosion of the tax base and, worst of all, the spending of Canada's contingency reserve, which is our safeguard against going back into deficit," McCallum said.

But Harper said his government's tax and spending policies have helped the Canadian economy weather the economic crisis better than its peers.

"The government undertook last year, as the crisis began, to act earlier than most other countries, engaging in long term fiscal stimulus both on the tax side and in infrastructure investments. We make no apologies for them. Those actions deliberately reduced the size of the surplus," Harper said in the House. "At a time of an economic downturn the government puts activity into the economy, it does not hoard it in the government itself. That is what this government did. It did it earlier. Other countries are doing it later. They are already in deficit. They are increasing their deficits."

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will present his annual fall economic and fiscal statement in the House of Commons on Nov. 27. That update will provide the latest information on how the government is doing this year and should provide some better direction as to where the government thinks it will end up next year. Flaherty, though, has warned that his update will not contain any new tax or spending initiatives.

"We will be setting out our own economic forecasts, as well as those of private sector forecasters," Flaherty said.

In the Commons Thursday, Harper said his government will take "additional fiscal stimulus" - in other words, increase government spending - to help boost Canada's economic growth. The government has not provided any indication how much it will spend to do that.

Page's presentation to MPs was based on assumptions in which there were no new spending announcements or anything other than previously announced tax cuts. If the government does increase spending next year, then Page's deficit projection could be even worse.

Page said tax revenues are down $353 million this year compared to last year.

"(That is) due in large part to recent policy measures, such as the one-percentage point reduction in the Goods and Services Tax and reductions in corporate income taxes."

Corporate income taxes are scheduled to fall further next year.

Last year, the Conservatives said they would cut the corporate tax rate to 19 per cent from 19.5 per cent. The Conservatives say they remain committed to this plan and the Opposition Liberals support that initiative.

The NDP, though, will vote against that plan, saying the government cannot afford a further tax cut.

The Liberals have criticized the GST cuts and increased government spending over the last three years.

"This is a made-in-Canada deficit," said McCallum, the Liberal's chief spokesman on economic issues.
 
I guess this could mean that the next Liberal Prime Minister will probably be having a "Dalton McGuinty moment" upon seeing the books for the first time.
 
why are conservatives soo bad with money?
 
Perhaps it's just Jim Flaherty.

Also, I think most North American conservatives subscribe to the notion of 'starving the beast'. Cut taxes, and then when 'unexpected' deficits occur, sell off assets, privatize crown corporations, cut program spending, etc.

For instance, they are going to continue cutting corporate taxes. While I support this, I think they should restore the GST.
 
While I don't blame the Tories for the upcoming deficits, I do blame them for the ill-advised double cut to the GST, which has lowered their spending room in the current crisis. I also find it appalling that today, when clearly immediate action is needed, that Flaherty is still sort of, well, maybe, calling for a balanced budget this year and he might get around to some spending.

Get over it. We're moving into a deficit, do it and get it over with and turn on some taps. Let's get Transit Toronto happening sooner rather than later, there's thousands of people in construction going to be out of job soon.
 
1) What's so bad about a deficit? Especially during an economic downturn?

2) Is it right that any government would purposely collect tens of billions in extra revenue (that they didn't budget for) just so they could look good?

No doubt, the GST cut was not the wisest tax cut. But it is still a tax cut and one that was aimed at boosting consumer spending just as consumer spending started to tank. I think the Tories should get at least partial credit for cutting taxes during a slowdown. The Liberal election platform was to suck more revenue out of the economy with most of their tax cuts and social services going towards low-income folks (hardly the job creating types).

Next, I rather think it's unfair to criticize unless you have ideas on how to solve the problem. I used to have a commander who used to tell all of his junior officers, "Don't come to me with a problem, unless you have a solution." Same applies here. It's easy to criticize. But let's hear the Opposition's game plan. From my perspective, for once a government is taking a sound, cautious non-reactionary approach. And here the opposition is blabbering away, simultaneously demanding a reduction in government spending, a magical solution to a global economic crisis (which they don't have), and an increase in social and infrastructure spending....all of which are contradictory goals. If this is the Liberal position, and they take down the Conservatives on that, the tories will automatically get my vote for being the most responsible of the bunch.

Have the Conservatives made some poor choices? Sure. We can all agree that a corporate tax cut would have been wiser than the GST cut. Well maybe the dippers would rather have no tax cuts at all. But that debate was there last election. The voters passed judgement. They took their two cents and voted in the Conservatives. It's time to move on to the here and now. Unless the Liberals are proposing to raise the GST, they should start offering real solutions to the current crisis.

The Opposition should also quit conflating the current crisis. Canada has sound fundamentals. But we were bound to get hit by the global crisis at some point. The fundamentals have not changed (low deficit position, middle of the pack debt/gdp ratio, well funded social services, etc.) Our economy remains one of the strongest in the developed world. The PM was damn right to say that during the election. What the hell was he supposed to say? "As PM of Canada, I believe the country is financially unsound and is heading down the toilet." Yes, he should have told the world that, and knocked another 500-1000 points of the TSX. According to the Liberals and NDP that would have been the appropriate course of action here.

If the Liberals want to earn votes they had better shape up and start acting like HM Loyal Opposition. Note the loyal before the opposition. That means putting Canada first not their own political agenda. Quit portraying our economy in a negative light. Help the government pass a deficit budget to get the economy through this rough patch. And if you disagree with the government present your coherent alternative. This is after all a minority parliament, which means you share some responsibility in governing.
 
1) .

If the Liberals want to earn votes they had better shape up and start acting like HM Loyal Opposition. Note the loyal before the opposition. That means putting Canada first not their own political agenda. Quit portraying our economy in a negative light. Help the government pass a deficit budget to get the economy through this rough patch. And if you disagree with the government present your coherent alternative. This is after all a minority parliament, which means you share some responsibility in governing.


didn't jim the finance minister do that? remember what he said about ontario's economy a while back?
 
Folks here should look at the English Parliament. Their parties understand the meaning of being in opposition. They would not be behaving like the Liberals here.
 
sorry for the dirty comparison mods.

but at least jimbo is consistent. he screwed ontario's economy and now he can do the same for the canadian one.



hopefully the country won't be left with a gaping hole after he's done his term.
 
but at least jimbo is consistent. he screwed ontario's economy and now he can do the same for the canadian one.

they say most women try anal twice, the first time to see how it feels, the second time, to remember just how bad it felt the first time.


hopefully the country won't be left with a gaping hole after he's done his term.

While I certainly did not support him or his party in Ontario, but in this case he is not the leader of the government, merely the finance minister. He will be executing the PM's finance plan. Hopefully, that precludes Harrisite type actions. If it doesn't then I'll have an easy choice at election time.

Despite that...what's so bad about a deficit during a downturn? Nobody is answering that. It is damn sound policy to run a deficit when times are bad. So what if it's 50 billion over the next 5 years. Compared to what the rest of the G8 is running, we look like discount Walmart shoppers.
 
Despite that...what's so bad about a deficit during a downturn? Nobody is answering that. It is damn sound policy to run a deficit when times are bad. So what if it's 50 billion over the next 5 years. Compared to what the rest of the G8 is running, we look like discount Walmart shoppers.

It's not so bad to run a deficit during an economic downturn. But, a few things:

1) Harper promised during the election campaign to keep a balanced budget. Now I didn't believe him for an instant, but it was a glaring vote-grab (by all parties) and I'd like for people to be able to trust their representatives. Short weeks ago Flaherty was still committed to a balanced budget.

2) I don't know if it's been made here, but the "slippery slope" argument certainly applies. Governments who allow themselves to slip into deficit are vulnerable to continuing the slip to maintain programmes and create new ones. The same argument can apply to the other side, increased taxation (i.e. governments get addicted to increased revenues).

3) While it's not bad, Canada's debt load certainly isn't something to be admired. The latest statistics from the OECD that I found were for 2006, where Canada's debt was at 68% of GDP. Still above average. The UK has stated its maximum target debt load is 45%, to give you an idea of what is deemed reasonable.

In summary, I am ok with running a deficit during a recession, but only if it's not too deep and the government is able to pull itself out fairly quickly and easily.

One can't help but wonder if it truly is Flaherty that somehow manages to destroy every budget he touches.
 
i don't like the fact that during an economic downturn, he tries to make up for the loss by selling or trying to sell our provincial or national assets. to make matters worse, it's fiscal irresponsibility even more to sell things we paid for during the up cycle at lower prices during the down cycle. why buy high and sell low? doesn't make sense to me.
 

Back
Top