4 Years later, Canada barely balances it's budget
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
A mixed bag budget, with one epic fail
Politics, smoke and mirrors. Partisan advantage at all costs. Budgets are all that, which is why they inspire broad cynicism. But they are important because they demonstrate government priorities. In this specific case, the federal budget delivered by Finance Minister Joe Oliver is a preview of the Harper government's re-election campaign.
With this budget, the Harper Conservatives do a fair number of things right. And they do some significant things wrong. And they may be making one fundamental mistake we all could be regretting a year from now. Here are our ratings:
Right: The government will spend an additional $5 billion a year on measures that will help families, including increasing the Universal Child Care Benefit (family allowance).
Wrong: In spite of broad opposition and condemnation from economists, the government will go ahead with income splitting, known as the Family Tax Cut plan. It allows families with younger kids to split their income for tax purposes for a maximum savings of $2,000 annually. This is an expensive, unneeded measure that will only benefit about 15 per cent of families. But it's targeted at the Conservative support base, so it lives on regardless.
Right: Dropping the small business tax rate from 11 per cent to 9 per cent by 2019.
Wrong: The tiny surplus of $1.4 billion (on an $800 billion budget) is fake. It only happened because the government spent from its emergency fund, which means that emergency money is now much reduced. And it reduces the government's ability to react to fiscal or other emergencies.
Right: Extending compassionate-care benefits under the employment insurance system from six weeks to six months for Canadians caring for gravely ill family members.
Wrong: The government that boasts of its dedication to the military won't spend one new dollar on it until 2017.
Right: Loosening rules about retirement savings so seniors can preserve their nest eggs for longer.
And now, the big wrong. This is a political document. It says "vote for us: We'll deliver these investments, but not right away." Thanks to expensive election goodies, there is nearly no wiggle room. And that at a time when economic growth — already just two per cent — will slow even more thanks to low oil prices and sluggish manufacturing. Rather than recognizing that reality and investing in jobs and growth, the government spent much of its emergency fund boosting Stephen Harper's election campaign. That's a fail.
The Spectator’s View: A mixed bag budget, with one epic fail
Politics, smoke and mirrors. Partisan advantage at all costs. Budgets are all that, which is why they inspire broad cynicism. But they are important because they demonstrate government priorities. In this specific case, the federal budget delivered by Finance Minister Joe Oliver is a preview of the Harper government's re-election campaign.
With this budget, the Harper Conservatives do a fair number of things right. And they do some significant things wrong. And they may be making one fundamental mistake we all could be regretting a year from now. Here are our ratings:
Right: The government will spend an additional $5 billion a year on measures that will help families, including increasing the Universal Child Care Benefit (family allowance).
Wrong: In spite of broad opposition and condemnation from economists, the government will go ahead with income splitting, known as the Family Tax Cut plan. It allows families with younger kids to split their income for tax purposes for a maximum savings of $2,000 annually. This is an expensive, unneeded measure that will only benefit about 15 per cent of families. But it's targeted at the Conservative support base, so it lives on regardless.
Right: Dropping the small business tax rate from 11 per cent to 9 per cent by 2019.
Wrong: The tiny surplus of $1.4 billion (on an $800 billion budget) is fake. It only happened because the government spent from its emergency fund, which means that emergency money is now much reduced. And it reduces the government's ability to react to fiscal or other emergencies.
Right: Extending compassionate-care benefits under the employment insurance system from six weeks to six months for Canadians caring for gravely ill family members.
Wrong: The government that boasts of its dedication to the military won't spend one new dollar on it until 2017.
Right: Loosening rules about retirement savings so seniors can preserve their nest eggs for longer.
And now, the big wrong. This is a political document. It says "vote for us: We'll deliver these investments, but not right away." Thanks to expensive election goodies, there is nearly no wiggle room. And that at a time when economic growth — already just two per cent — will slow even more thanks to low oil prices and sluggish manufacturing. Rather than recognizing that reality and investing in jobs and growth, the government spent much of its emergency fund boosting Stephen Harper's election campaign. That's a fail.
The Spectator’s View: A mixed bag budget, with one epic fail
c'mon mentalfloss! There clearly is/was an emergency financial need that required pulling $2 billion from the contingency fund... Harper Conservatives have an election to try to win. :mrgreen:
A promises-kept budget, if you ignore the sleight of hand:
Mind you, none of those things stopped this government from employing a little fiscal sleight of hand.
To get to balance, Ottawa sold its remaining shares in General Motors.
The $3-billion contingency fund was cut to $1 billion. EI premiums will continue to take in more than the fund pays out to the unemployed. All together, those decisions gave Oliver billions in additional revenue.
And then there's the spending.
Topping the list, a new Public Transit Fund. The investment of $1 billion seems small, but the news isn't the amount, it is how the money will be spent.
Ottawa will no longer cover its usual one-third share of construction costs; instead it will cover the loan payments taken out by cities to improve public transit, with a goal of helping finance more projects, over a longer period of time.
The government also announced it will spend nearly $300 million more on national security.
But the catch in both initiatives is in the fine print.
Spending on security starts out small, and grows over time. The Public Transit Fund, and new spending on defence, don't kick in until 2017, leaving the government wiggle room to backtrack if the economy stalls.
Promising the money will be spent AFTER the election also provides an incentive for Canadians to stay with the Conservatives. At least that's the thinking.
One commitment won't be re-thought. The Conservatives' already announced plan to allow income splitting by parents with children is untouchable, despite its $4.5- billion price tag.
It's the foundation of the government's family-first agenda, and a significant piece of the budget's claim that the average two-earner family has $6,600 more in their pockets under the Conservatives.
To get to balance, Ottawa sold its remaining shares in General Motors.
The $3-billion contingency fund was cut to $1 billion. EI premiums will continue to take in more than the fund pays out to the unemployed. All together, those decisions gave Oliver billions in additional revenue.
And then there's the spending.
Topping the list, a new Public Transit Fund. The investment of $1 billion seems small, but the news isn't the amount, it is how the money will be spent.
Ottawa will no longer cover its usual one-third share of construction costs; instead it will cover the loan payments taken out by cities to improve public transit, with a goal of helping finance more projects, over a longer period of time.
The government also announced it will spend nearly $300 million more on national security.
But the catch in both initiatives is in the fine print.
Spending on security starts out small, and grows over time. The Public Transit Fund, and new spending on defence, don't kick in until 2017, leaving the government wiggle room to backtrack if the economy stalls.
Promising the money will be spent AFTER the election also provides an incentive for Canadians to stay with the Conservatives. At least that's the thinking.
One commitment won't be re-thought. The Conservatives' already announced plan to allow income splitting by parents with children is untouchable, despite its $4.5- billion price tag.
It's the foundation of the government's family-first agenda, and a significant piece of the budget's claim that the average two-earner family has $6,600 more in their pockets under the Conservatives.
You, waldo and Flossy should form a support group.
... All those bitter little tears and heart ache, might make for a big hit on the country charts
Certainly that comment is not specifically directed at moi?
I have simply offered my humble suggestion regarding how these folks might deal with the trauma they feel exists caused by the recent Federal budget
I have simply offered my humble suggestion regarding how these folks might deal with the trauma they feel exists caused by the recent Federal budget
You'll have to excuse me this morning... Watched lots of hockey last night, and well, maybe had a few cocktails during the evening's festivities
No problem. Compared to petros, you're the soul of reason. He's off claiming that if you don't know that an ECU is an engine control unit, you can't possibly know anything about intellectual property law.
4 Years later, Canada barely balances it's budget
What's with all the complaining.. Canada fared pretty well during a global recession.. compared to the United States, I wonder how our budget measures up.
What's with all the complaining.. Canada fared pretty well during a global recession.. compared to the United States, I wonder how our budget measures up.
Fairy Mason, you have no clue.
P.S. CaptainMorgan knows what an electronic control unit is..
Would an engine control unit run spark plugs, ignition and carburetors on a diesel?
I was thinking of this earlier and I know that you will be able to provide some accurate inputs on this:
Is it possible to completely remove the ECU and software from a JD tractor and thereby eliminate the copyright/"ownership" issue?
The scenario I am proposing would (obviously) require to refit the tractor to an analogue-style arrangement... I also understand that the warranty would be voided, but surely this is possible (like your older model tractors before software was ever incorporated into them)... Is it even feasible?
Yes. You can pull the JD OEM ECU, toss it in the air and pump it full of #2 bird shot, drop an aftermarket unit in with tunability and fire up immediately.
But.....the phone home option which is like OnStar will no longer exist. JD won't know your business.
But.....the phone home option which is like OnStar will no longer exist. JD won't know your business.
The problem is not whether the other parties would do the same, its that the sitting party is forgiven on that very basis. How can you possibly expect a change in behavior if you continue to reward a sitting party with another round? Sooner or later, if you vote out the sitting party - regardless of whether you believe the next gang will do the same, they will catch on. That or one term is all they get.
And in case you forgot, our current gang inherited a surplus, they squandered that before the world wide economic crisis, and they may have just finally got us back to a balanced budget, forget the debt they heaped upon us, and your best statement is the other guys are no better. Really? Time for a change, any change.
To be fair, if you recall the Libs and NDP wanted more spending during the downturn.
Mind you Harper has no room for any crap that may come up.
Wasteful tax cuts as well.
Actually this government has done a worse job than Trudeau Senior
Time for them to go. Imagine they fudged the balance of the budget
I am not surprised
Time for them to go. Imagine they fudged the balance of the budget
I am not surprised
How does the federal tax payable today compare with the tax extracted when Pierre was at the helm and wages were 1/4 of what they are now?
LOL yeah, no..
Killery... nah.. she won't become President.. she has too many skeletons in her closet..
This should come with a warning, I f**king near barfed my cookies! Cruel and unusual punishment.
PET had 1 balanced budget. How is that worse.
He then went on to massive deficits and WPControls.
A $billion is chump change on the federal level- it equates to the average consumer being +/- $1 at the end of the year. I think if I had the job of establishing the budget (fat chance
) I'd have taken advantage of low interest rates and borrowed $5 or $10 billion to beef up infrastructure & create employment. Otherwise I'd rate the budget a C+. "It all depends on whose ox you are trying to gore"
Oh dear....
Did Joe Oliver Just Have His Own 'The Budget Will Balance Itself' Moment?
Before he tabled his spending plan, Finance Minister Joe Oliver popped online to cheekily remind Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau that the budget did not balance itself.
The jab referenced a now-infamous remark the Liberal leader made on live TV after the 2014 budget, and a soundbite featured in Conservative ads arguing Trudeau cannot be trusted to run the economy.
In his speech to the House of Commons Tuesday announcing a return to balance, Oliver doubled-down with a thinly veiled reference to the Liberal leader.
"Some underestimate the discipline involved, suggesting that budgets 'balance themselves,'" the finance minister said. "They do not understand what it takes, or why it matters so much."
Yet hours later, Oliver appeared live on TV and his comments — not about budgets balancing themselves, but about granddaughters not yet born — are now drawing fire from rivals
On "The Exchange with Amanda Lang" Tuesday, Oliver was pressed on his plans to nearly double the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts (TSFA) from $5,500 to $10,000.
Some economists say the move will cost future governments billions in lost revenue. The budget watchdog estimates the new limit will cost federal and provincial governments $70 million in 2016 and grow to nearly $40 billion by 2080. New Democrats and Liberals believe that, much like income-splitting, the plan benefits only the wealthy.
Oliver conceded to Lang that Canada may indeed have a problem with the program in 2080.
"Well, why don't we leave that to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's granddaughter to solve that problem," he said.
On Wednesday, Oliver's off-the-cuff remark was seized upon by New Democrats and Liberals eager to paint Tories as uninterested in the concerns of future generations.
"I have a granddaughter and I don't want her to be responsible for picking up the mess that the Conservatives are intentionally leaving," NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair told reporters after his party's caucus meeting.
New Democrats also fired off a shot on Twitter that was a sign of things to come.
Stephen Harper’s Finance Minister wants to let our grandchildren clean up the mess his #Budget2015 has created. #NDP pic.twitter.com/PpJmEAJ6Ky
— NDP_HQ (@NDP_HQ) April 22, 2015
When question period rolled around, Oliver was not there to defend himself.
A spokesperson later told The Huffington Post Canada that the finance minister was in Toronto promoting the spending plan and will do the same across the country in the coming weeks, as has become common in recent years.
Mulcair's first question pounced on Oliver's "granddaughter" quip, with the NDP leader again accusing Tories of wanting to leave behind a fiscal mess for the next generation.
"Will the prime minister stand in his place and reject those unacceptable statements by his finance minister?" Mulcair wondered.
Harper responded that Oliver was merely dismissing a "clearly preposterous argument" and defended TSFAs.
"Those billions of dollars that middle class people are putting away will create tens of billions of dollars of long-terms savings in our economy, which will drive jobs and growth," he said.
Trudeau also led things off for the Liberals with a reference to Oliver's remarks.
"Since when does Canada burden our grandchildren instead of building for them?" the Liberal leader asked.
Again, Harper said Oliver was casting aside an absurd argument because "balancing the budget is good for future generations."
The prime minister also rhymed off other measures he thinks will benefit Canadians in the future.
"Cutting taxes and allowing people to save, keep money in their own pocket, is good for future generations," he said to applause from Tory MPs. "Giving money to Canadian families so they can raise their children is good for future generations."
NDP finance critic Nathan Cullen and Liberal finance critic both made points of including references to Oliver's remarks in their questions Wednesday.
Why is @MinJoeOliver putting a reverse home mortgage on Canada's fiscal house to pay for his giveaways to the rich? https://t.co/XdmzlzpEe1
— Scott Brison (@scottbrison) April 22, 2015
NDP MP Murray Rankin also said Oliver "openly admitted the budget puts a burden on future generations." He noted the budget did not contain a single reference to climate change, another issue that will impact Canadians well into the future.
It remains to be seen if opposition MPs will be able to get as much mileage from Oliver's post-budget remarks as Tories have from Trudeau's quip last year.
But if Wednesday is any indication, Canadians can expect to hear more about "Harper's granddaughter" before Canadians head to the polls in October.
Did Joe Oliver Just Have His Own 'The Budget Will Balance Itself' Moment?
Did Joe Oliver Just Have His Own 'The Budget Will Balance Itself' Moment?
Before he tabled his spending plan, Finance Minister Joe Oliver popped online to cheekily remind Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau that the budget did not balance itself.
The jab referenced a now-infamous remark the Liberal leader made on live TV after the 2014 budget, and a soundbite featured in Conservative ads arguing Trudeau cannot be trusted to run the economy.
In his speech to the House of Commons Tuesday announcing a return to balance, Oliver doubled-down with a thinly veiled reference to the Liberal leader.
"Some underestimate the discipline involved, suggesting that budgets 'balance themselves,'" the finance minister said. "They do not understand what it takes, or why it matters so much."
Yet hours later, Oliver appeared live on TV and his comments — not about budgets balancing themselves, but about granddaughters not yet born — are now drawing fire from rivals
On "The Exchange with Amanda Lang" Tuesday, Oliver was pressed on his plans to nearly double the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts (TSFA) from $5,500 to $10,000.
Some economists say the move will cost future governments billions in lost revenue. The budget watchdog estimates the new limit will cost federal and provincial governments $70 million in 2016 and grow to nearly $40 billion by 2080. New Democrats and Liberals believe that, much like income-splitting, the plan benefits only the wealthy.
Oliver conceded to Lang that Canada may indeed have a problem with the program in 2080.
"Well, why don't we leave that to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's granddaughter to solve that problem," he said.
On Wednesday, Oliver's off-the-cuff remark was seized upon by New Democrats and Liberals eager to paint Tories as uninterested in the concerns of future generations.
"I have a granddaughter and I don't want her to be responsible for picking up the mess that the Conservatives are intentionally leaving," NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair told reporters after his party's caucus meeting.
New Democrats also fired off a shot on Twitter that was a sign of things to come.
Stephen Harper’s Finance Minister wants to let our grandchildren clean up the mess his #Budget2015 has created. #NDP pic.twitter.com/PpJmEAJ6Ky
— NDP_HQ (@NDP_HQ) April 22, 2015
When question period rolled around, Oliver was not there to defend himself.
A spokesperson later told The Huffington Post Canada that the finance minister was in Toronto promoting the spending plan and will do the same across the country in the coming weeks, as has become common in recent years.
Mulcair's first question pounced on Oliver's "granddaughter" quip, with the NDP leader again accusing Tories of wanting to leave behind a fiscal mess for the next generation.
"Will the prime minister stand in his place and reject those unacceptable statements by his finance minister?" Mulcair wondered.
Harper responded that Oliver was merely dismissing a "clearly preposterous argument" and defended TSFAs.
"Those billions of dollars that middle class people are putting away will create tens of billions of dollars of long-terms savings in our economy, which will drive jobs and growth," he said.
Trudeau also led things off for the Liberals with a reference to Oliver's remarks.
"Since when does Canada burden our grandchildren instead of building for them?" the Liberal leader asked.
Again, Harper said Oliver was casting aside an absurd argument because "balancing the budget is good for future generations."
The prime minister also rhymed off other measures he thinks will benefit Canadians in the future.
"Cutting taxes and allowing people to save, keep money in their own pocket, is good for future generations," he said to applause from Tory MPs. "Giving money to Canadian families so they can raise their children is good for future generations."
NDP finance critic Nathan Cullen and Liberal finance critic both made points of including references to Oliver's remarks in their questions Wednesday.
Why is @MinJoeOliver putting a reverse home mortgage on Canada's fiscal house to pay for his giveaways to the rich? https://t.co/XdmzlzpEe1
— Scott Brison (@scottbrison) April 22, 2015
NDP MP Murray Rankin also said Oliver "openly admitted the budget puts a burden on future generations." He noted the budget did not contain a single reference to climate change, another issue that will impact Canadians well into the future.
It remains to be seen if opposition MPs will be able to get as much mileage from Oliver's post-budget remarks as Tories have from Trudeau's quip last year.
But if Wednesday is any indication, Canadians can expect to hear more about "Harper's granddaughter" before Canadians head to the polls in October.
Did Joe Oliver Just Have His Own 'The Budget Will Balance Itself' Moment?