Now That it Looks Like the Liberals Have a Chance… Bumped
Now that it looks like the Liberals have a chance…
Stephane Dion states that “Stephen Harper squandered the surplus on.” Then he goes on to insert either tax cuts, innovation spending, the GST or whatever is appropriate for the moment. This leaves me to ask, what exactly would Dion do with the surplus’ which, if I may remind him, come from you and I, and not some magic place. There is no macro economic plan I know of which proposes government keep surpluses accruing over years. Wait, actually there is a plan, its’ one where a dictator puts all that money in his Swiss Bank Account, but I digress. Even companies will invest profits or provide dividends while keeping a small amount to use as a contingency plan - something Paul Martin borrowed from the business world. So what did Harper do with the cash? Three billion spent on the military, which even the outgoing Liberals were planning on doing to refurbish a dying Canadian institution. Four billion spent on Health Care, on which has actually resulted in a reduction in waiting lists according to surgeons I have spoken with (we’ll see the big numbers). Six billion was used to lower the GST, while not the favorite of Economists, Harper was correct in stating that this is a regressive tax which harms the poor more than the rich - something every Economist knows, but the media won’t report (Harper has done more for the poor than the Liberals in 10 years so far).
So what would the Liberals have done? Probably nearly the same thing if in that situation. Or do they suggest not spending on Health Care or the desperate military, which was launched into Afghanistan by the Liberals in the first place?
What depresses me the most is not that Dion can say these things, in fact its what every opposition member would do. It is that the Mainstream Media isn’t all over Dion about this every time he opens his pie hole. Why don’t they ask about the Health Care spending, like “Hey Dion would you not have spent on Health Care, old boy?” There is a bias.
I think it is time to review these articles on the Green Shift, and how it will not reduce emissions but is likely to increase emissions, and moreover how even Jack Mintz, the Economist who helped write the plan, thinks it isn’t necessarily going to work.
Secondly let’s consider the NDP’s plan to increase corporate taxes. During a time when it is even more necessary to reduce taxes to make us more competitive against other leading countries (Stephen Harper plans to reduce our corporate taxes to the lowest in the G-7), Jack Layton wants to raise them. The OECD summarized the findings of the harmful effects of corporate taxes which I describe briefly in this article. In an open economy, Layton will only succeed in helping the blue collar workers lose their jobs. Right now Canada is rated to lead the G-7 in growth, albeit slow growth.
Yes, many economists describe a Keynsian style system of government spending through recessions, but Harper is correct in saying that once you go down that path it is hard to come back. Keynsianism is easy to understand, and lefties like that, but Robert Lucas and Milton Freidman have rightly critisized it and many have pointed out its failures. As both an economist and a politician I think he has good insight into the problems of Keynsian economics, what do you fund? Who gets funding? Are you picking winners and losers? Once a subsidy is given, it is not easy to take it away. Are you pouring money down the drain? Will the public go for it? It is easy as an economist to describe the best methods of targeted subsidies, but the public is as likely not to agree! You are constrained by public foolishness and corporate greed or seeking legalized monopoly establishment. Soon I will describe the critical paper that demonstrated government action extended the Great Depression.
Its not really useful if you read these, get your lefty friends to read the evidence. Or let them know the evidence. They believe in fairy tales.
I know others have suggested a “bomb the bridges” strategy. However, I think it slightly missed the mark.
The key is to destroy Stephane Dion’s claim that he wears the crown of fiscal prudence of Martin and Chretien. Chretien and Martin did address the debt challenge and created budgetary surpluses. They were fiscally prudent and cautious. Neither would have considered a CARBON TAX, particularly now.
Stephane is no Chretien or Martin.
This claim has to be destroyed.
Comment by JC Kelan — October 8, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Martin forced the provinces to cut spending - they did the hard work, not the federal government.
He also inheritied the increased trade because of the free trade agreement and the extra money from the G.S.T. that Mulroney fought for.
Why don’t the Conservatives put out a quicky ad showing that the Ontario premier and finance minister reject the Green Shift?
Comment by Nicola Timmerman — October 8, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Now that the Liberals have a chance?
Despite the media’s best efforts the Liberals are still fighting the NDP for 2nd spot.
Comment by Paul — October 8, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Would love to respond but am too busy trying to contact my stock broker to find some bargains!
Comment by sam — October 8, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Sam, if you had chosen a good stock broker,
he would be calling you to tell you the firm just bought blue chip at basement prices, and to hang in there !
But anyone who supports Dion isn’t exactly the sharpest knif in the drawer.
Comment by wilson — October 8, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Sam, the fact that you are mocking PMSH great piece of advice leads me to believe you don’t participate in the stock market or understand the fundamentals of the economy. Therefore you are a union worker or some such with defined pension and full boat benefits.
Comment by jckirlan — October 8, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
I just finished watching Mansbridge interview Dion on The National.
It was curious that Dion would NOT rule out including Elizabeth May in his cabinet. Even after Mansbridge went on to another topic, Dion reverted to the notion of May being in his Cabinet.
What kind of policy would we see from this mix? Will our economy die a green death? Will the GST be back?
Meanwhile, on CTV National News, Dion was reported mentioning on a couple of occasions that he had a transition team in place. He even referred to himself and his wife as Prime Minister and “First Lady”.
JC Kelan
Comment by JC Kelan — October 8, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
If Dion forms government, and I think it is likely he has cooked up some sort of backroom deal with another party, it might be a good thing.
For one thing we’d have the Conservatives in opposition. As we saw in the Reform party days, important things were done in preventing the credit rating crisis and deficit simply because the Reform party as opposition provided a consenting voice. Public perception was that the Liberals were doing the right thing but were not as crazy as the Reform. That was the line the MSM was presenting, anyway. (However I remember one CBC article actually stating the truth: that the Reform Budget was better for the poor than any other party’s due to the increased personal exemption.) Imagine if the NDP were the opposition during those days? Our debt crisis would likely make the other G-7 countries look like prudent managers.
The other thing is, JC, when Dion enacts his crazy plan and it causes a huge uprising, perhaps then the CPC can finally get it’s majority. I think it will take something like the near destruction of the country to convince the fools stuck voting Liberal out of habit or fear to come around.
As to Dizzy Lizzie May, I think Dion would have a hard time bringing her in as she’ll unlikely win a seat - though I wonder if he could pawn her off with a Senate Seat?
@ Sam: yeah, well as has been shown those who are able to buy on a downturn like things are now reap the huge rewards. Even the premier investments have fallen, which means great pickings on a sure thing.
Comment by langmann — October 8, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
“It was curious that Dion would NOT rule out including Elizabeth May in his cabinet. Even after Mansbridge went on to another topic, Dion reverted to the notion of May being in his Cabinet.”
Something tells me he won’t have to make that decision considering she is polling third in her riding.
Comment by Alberta Girl — October 8, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
@ Alberta Girl: though it is true, that while unconventional, I do believe it is legal to have non elected people in your cabinet. The other question, would he bribe her with a Senate seat?
Comment by langmann — October 8, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
“Alberta Girl: though it is true, that while unconventional, I do believe it is legal to have non elected people in your cabinet. The other question, would he bribe her with a Senate seat?”
Hmmm - good point.
Comment by Alberta Girl — October 9, 2008 @ 6:38 am
didn’t Harper propose to do that (appoint a non-politician or senator to cabinet) and got slammed in the media? And exactly what is wrong with May? I thought she was the strongest in the debate.
Comment by Darrell — October 9, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
@ Darrell: May is a child. As a leader she is running in a riding against a McKay a man who is pretty much a sure thing. Why didn’t she run in a place she might actually win in order to strengthen her party? It makes me very suspicious that she isn’t serious.
In the debate her only good line was using the OECD report but SHE DIDN’T ACTUALLY READ IT because she would have noticed the part where corporate taxes inhibit economic growth. The rest was pretty much BS stuff that anyone could say. Dion couldn’t say it because he cannot speak English.
As to the Green platform - there are two things I agree with - lowering income taxes and stopping corporate subsidies. HOWEVER there is all this other crap like banning genetically modified foods, subsidies for small business (a subsidy is a subsidy folks), raising the minimum wage, making energy more expensive (no real plan for alternative energy like nuclear or hydro), increasing the dominance of unions in the workforce dooming productivity, weird taxes that cannot be accounted for like social costs (how do you account for that?), and RAISING CORPORATE TAXES, then there is funding alternative therapies that have NO scientific benefit, no public-private health funding etc., 0.7% of GDP to poor countries, reducing military funding significantly…
Basically their party platform smacks of the same thing you get from people who think the world is only 10,000 years old. A few scientific principles in there to sound smart but basically a very uneducated anti-science view of the world on the whole.
Here’s the main problem, if you read my article on the Green Shift increasing CO2 emissions and the article on corporate taxes.
There is another hidden cost or side to their platform they don’t present. IF (a big if) the carbon taxes reduce emissions, then their national tax revenue will go down significantly. SO where are they going to get money from after that to fund their fancy ideas? What they aren’t saying is that with economic growth even with a carbon tax, emissions on total will still increase. Hence they won’t reduce emissions below 1990’s level. Not even close.
Oh and of course Harper did appoint an unelected person to cabinet. That’s what I have been saying. I don’t mind it really, as it is closer to a US style system which we desperately need. Separation of the executive and legislative is much better than this Prime Minister controls all thing we have here.
Comment by langmann — October 9, 2008 @ 1:02 pm