Fair enough: $15 B on a $200 B budget.

$15 B is triple the $5 B (or thereabouts) GST cut that the Liberals say “blew apart the fiscal framework” or words to that effect. So if a $5 B cut blows the budget, then I think that by their own standards, $15 B is a massive tax hike.

Does Dion’s plan say what happens if his plan is successful at modifying behaviour? If we vastly reduce the amount of carbon we use, where does he get the money to fund his tax-cuts/rebates/whatever Coyne thinks they are or are not know. The question is important, because the whole point of this thing is to reduce carbon usage. If it is not, then what is the point?

Also, did I miss why this is essentially not reverting to the Conservatives proposed intensity based emissions system (under a different name, and with different rules, no doubt, but still it is aimed at reducing intensity, not capping emissions), as opposed to a complete cap that the Liberals insisted we needed?

Fat? Then I guess Dion could have funded his non-environment-related tax credits by cutting “fat” instead of his carbon tax. I wonder why he didn’t?

I agree completely Brian : rather than all the usual pseudo-scandals and liberal fear and shmear tactics, it is very refreshing for Dion to actually try something anything to change the channel and propose an idea and I give him major cudos for this. Even if the plan has a carbon molecule in a furnace’s chance of ever getting through to becoming a canadian policy thank god, none the less it is actually fun to rant about something interesting for awhile.

there hasn’t been, because new ideas and new-thinking, has run a bit amok and we spent the last 13 years getting some old ideas implemented properly. that period, by the way, isn’t over.

new and good are as close in meaning as new and crappy.

Mr. Wells, you’re a fan of historical comparisons.

Here’s one:

Harper – Trudeau.
Dion – Stanfield.
2009 – 1974.

I haven’t had the time to read through the entire proposal, but I was wondering if it takes any consideration of Jeff Rubin’s notion of implementing a carbon tariff as a means of dealing with the growth in carbon emissions from rapidly developing nations, notably China, whose energy sources emit carbon at much higher intensity – because it’s primarily coal. To borrow his phrase “In effect, a carbon tariff is a countervail against unfair energy subsidies that Chinese (and other developing
world) exporters reap from either their direct carbon emissions or indirect emissions such as those generated from the coal plants that supply them with power.” and this might have some mild supporting effect on our own manufacturing base. See: http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/smar08.pdf for more details. Anyway – just curious about its ramifications beyond the Dion vs Harper dynamic.

“The government of Canada plans to spend $200 billion this year.”

A problem here is that one cannot measure government influence on the economy by just its direct expenditure.

Even leaving aside governent’s significant regulatory impact, consider a tax cut targeted to parents of kids in physical fitness programs (not that anyone would actually propose something so narrow). Technically, that’s less money on the government’s books. But economically it functions the same as if the government cut a cheque to those people and called it a handout instead of a tax cut. Either way, you’ve got one group of society being subsidized by the rest.

The “revenue neutrality” of the GreenShift/PermanentTaxOnEverything is debatable because the tax cuts are targeted. Even if the government’s budget doesn’t change, government’s role in the economy has nonetheless increased.

On the one hand, economists would like the fact carbon consumption is being taxed instead of capital. But on the other hand, even if truly “revenue neutral” such that 100 cents of a dollar of carbon tax revenue goes to tax cuts, if the cuts are targeted to families with children and low income earners that would be a policy decision motivated by social objectives not productivity considerations.

Perhaps I’m regionally blinded, being from Sask, but I’m not sure Sophie understands the relationship the people have with PM Harper. Now obviously I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know in Sask that PM Harper has attained near hero worship.

It isn’t a mistake that our host (book) and Kinsella (online) have both pointed out the targeted personalities and stereotypes of the CPC, or the resounding success PM Harper had in connecting to those types of people.

Perhaps that targeted voter doesn’t live in downtown Toronto, Mtl, or Vancouver . . . but they sure as hell seem to be living everywhere else.

Even something that jolts the Libblogs, screw that, is more real then anything I’ve ever heard from the prof.

No, I don’t think a Trudeau/Harper comparison is all that far out of touch.

Course, C-61, oddly enough, goes entirely against the grain.

Cheers,
lance

*Ben’s* Sorry.

The Trudeau/Harper – Stanfield/Dion comparison isn’t about personalities, it’s about strategy.

In 74 Stanfield, instead of making the election about Trudeau’s record, decided to float a controversial policy and turned the election into a referendum on his own leadership.

Sound familiar?

Perhaps a more recent and familiar comparison could be Harper/McGuinty – Dion/John Tory.

In the McGuinty VS Tory election the Libs and PCs were very close in the polls going into the election (as Harper and Dion are) and the leader in power was distrusted by a large number of voters (like Harper) however, Tory proposed a controversial policy and made the election about his plans rather than McGuinty’s record which resulted in him losing big-time.

What Dion has forgotten is that it is very rare for oppositions to defeat governments in Canada. Usually it is the governments which defeat themselves which is why the focus of the election must be on the government record, not on the opposition proposals.

Forget global warming, the real problem is our addiction to oil. Canadians, even Albertans, are at the mercy of world oil prices, most of our eggs are in the fossil fuel basket. We are held hostage by market forces, affecting the basic necessities of life. The Dion plan is designed to encourage us to move toward greener alternatives, where market forces have a lesser effect on us. That can’t be bad, the way I see it.

Touché, Wells.

I have a feeling, however, that the PM is road-testing various catch-phrases right now to see what has the impact of “Zap, you’re frozen!” on the electorate.