Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Budget '09: Tories take a final leap into the void

by Andrew Coyne on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:46pm - 165 Comments

Say what you like about the Tories: they don’t do things by halves. When they spend, they spend. When they go into debt, they do it $100-billion at a time. And when they decide to put an end to conservatism in Canada — as a philosophy, as a movement—they go out with a bang.

We can safely say that the strategy of incrementalism, at least, has been put to bed. With this historic budget, the Conservatives’ already headlong retreat from principle has become a rout: a great final leap into the void. For there will be no going back from this, for the party or for the country. Whatever the budget’s soothing talk of “temporary” this and “extraordinary” that, and for all its well-mannered charts showing spending obediently returning to its pen, deficits meekly subsiding, “investments” repaid in full, we are in fact headed somewhere we have never been before. We are on course towards a massive and permanent increase in the size and scope of government: record spending, sky-high borrowing, and — ultimately, inevitably — higher taxes. And all this before the first of the Baby Boomers have had a chance to retire, and cough up a lung.

Also at Macleans.ca
Budget ‘09: The Overview
Budget ‘09: Bailout
Budget ‘09: Stimulus
Budget ‘09: Economic Outlook
Budget ‘09: Personal Finance

Tags: Budget 2009, budget09, conservatives

More by Andrew Coyne

Ian

This is interesting and I haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere:

“Hidden, but still included in this budget are the cuts to transfers, controls on program spending, weakening pay equity for federal employees and the privatization plans announced in Harper’s disastrous November Economic and Fiscal Update. ”

(from Toby at “progressive-economics.ca/relentless”)

http://ragingranter.blobspot.com Raging Ranter

Ian, you have pointed out the one, thin silver lining. Though I’m sure you never meant it that way. Thanks. You’ve cheered my up slightly. (Ever so slightly.) I should also point out that Harper has given the public service unions a giant FU in his bid to legislate pay increases they’ve basically already agreed to. We must satisfy ourselves with small victories I suppose.

Gord Tulk

Catherine:

adjusted for inflation and how much the expected to intake in the budget a year ago they are …
Meany

Serious question, looking back, who is more fiscally conservative:
1. Jean Chretien, or
2. Stephen Harper

My money is on good JC himself. I really don’t understand why I used to loathe him so, he was great. I was wrong.

Personally, I’m through with Stephen Harper and his NDP Party. They just called me 20 minutes before the budget for a donation, too. Hilarious guys, simply hilarious.

Gord Tulk

You must be joking…

Chretien “solved” his budgetary problem by stealing (this is the unanimous opinion of the Supreme court) from the EI surplus and reducing transfers to the provinces whilst increasing federal progam spending. Harper has done almost no new program spending while increasing or restoring transfers to the provinces and individuals and cutting taxes including the GST which JC promised to scrap but did jack squat.

Meany

No. I am not kidding. The math is real simple. Chretien brought spending from 22% of GDP to 16%. Harper maintained the 16%, until now, so during Chretien’s tenure, spending as a percent of GDP dropped, during Harper’s (if we include this budget) it sharply went up. I repeat, who’s the Conservative here?
Don’t complicate things by looking at the revenue side of the picture (EI). It’s actually REAL simple, forget the party labels and look at the data:
Chretien spending: 22% to 16%.
Harper spending: 16% to 18-19%.

Who’s the ‘c’onservative? Who’s the ‘l’iberal?

madeyoulook

Meany & Gord, let’s not forget the manufactured faux-prosperity created by the Chretien Liberals riding the devaluation wave down to the 60s cents.

But, Gord, at least JC recognized the harm to the country’s future prosperity that would have occurred had he actually scrapped da tax. Today, I don’t know which is worse: Does Harper understand the harm he’s doing (and doing it anyways) or does he not even understand the harm he’s doing? Neither is terribly flattering.

Gord Tulk

let’s all remember that whatever JC did budgetarily it wasn’t his idea – the bond market told him to tunr things around or the next issue of cdn gov’t bonds weren’t going to fly.

As for the %ages quoted above – JC got all of his reductions through the elimination of transfers to the provinces – he did not cut any federal programs but rather made the provinces cut theirs. Harper has restored those transfers and is moving to transfer tax points to the provinces so that they can raise funds for areas that are their juristiction. And be thus be directly accountable. When he has moved to cut federal programs he has been heavily criticised – rather he has frozen many and spent much more on things like defense. The liberals – JC included -are opposed because they think that it’s a good thing that the feds meddle in provincial affairs by pulling at the purse strings.

The GST cuts need to be viewed in conjunction with provincial taxes. The HST in places like NL was at 18%. This drove a significant part of the economy underground – bartering is rampant everywhere there and cash is king. Reducing VATs and sales taxes to a level that encourages more of the economy is reported is a good thing for many reasons.

William

A team of 46 doctors and nurses just delivered octuplets in California. A team of fiscally-minded conservatives just delivered a 30 plus billion dollar deficit that ndp and most commentors on this site should be proud off. Strange times we live in.
For Andrew and the few here who think this is a sad day, I`ll try and find something good to look at.
WE do need to do some work on those bridges.
Less new subdivisions—more renos and housing for poor.
5 more weeks on the pogey is worth a party or two.
There is some tax cuts if you know anybody making money.
Maybe the next budget will see that the best time to get rid of the waste in gov`t bureacracy is when we have to.

Foe the majority here of fiscally imprudents—-well I don`t know what you can say—maybe you wanted an even bigger deficit or maybe you just like to complain.
bob

Harper is an ultra-right wind conservative. The problem is that he can’t be an ultra right-wing conservative if he wants to get elected. Conservatives can’t help themselves, and they don’t exactly have a history of surpluses. I think they ought to start a new reform party, or rebel and retake the reformist part of the conservative party. Then they won’t get elected again anyway. This government will collapse over this recession, especially when Canadians realize we have entered another decade of deficits. Say good-bye to all the debt repayments the LIBERAL party has made.

PMO meet Ignatieff….Ignatieff meet PMO.

JARA!

Stephen Harper an ultra-right wing Conservative – you must be a Marxist-Leninist or are joking! Harper may lean to the right but you wouldn’t think so from the way he has governed and with this ridiculous budget. Left wing religion of re-distributing wealth forgets that you need an egine to create that wealth in the first place and it sure doesn’t come from socialist policies as most of those who have tried them have found out!

Calgary Junkie

Let’s not forget the influence of the G20 meeting (all leaders agreed to a 2 % of GDP stimulus to their economies) on this budget. And of course, there is the very real threat of the Coalition taking power.

Andrew, let things play out. Harper will have red meat for his base via justice and democratic reform legislation. First, enough time has to pass for the GG to be 100 % guaranteed to grant SH an election, should the Opps vote non-confidence in this gov’t.

Gord Tulk

good point – too bad the cons have nothing about this

DR

Why are they freezing EI premiums? They’ve been going down for years.
Ed Brooks

“Let me repeat: it’s The Coalition’s fault.”

Jarrid, really man, give it a rest. Mr. Harper is a big boy; he can’t blame others for his messes.

Even if we were to grant you that it was the coalition’s fault, you would have to concede that Mr. Harper (Dr. Frankenstein?) created the coalition in the first place. Mr. Harper does not know the difference between politicing and governing. His bizarre actions with the fiscal update that no-one supported led him directly to the situation he finds himself in today.

This is all his doing, no-one elses.
Al Heck Brakes

This budget can be explained by dipping into the book “Crisis and Leviathan” by Robert Higgs. It is in times of crisis that government lurches forward and grows in size, stealing more wealth and power from its citizens. In times of calm government may retreat somewhat in size and grasp, but until destroyed by revolution or defeat on the battlefield, it never shrinks in any really significant way.

If a suitable crisis does not occur then governments will create a crisis out of thin air. If a crisis does not frighten the public sufficiently to permit them to be cowed by government, then the crisis will be torqued up and exaggerated as much as required.

In the last 100 years the major crises which allowed governments to expand were: WWI, Great Depression, WWII, Cold War and 9-11. The crises “du jour” are Global Warming (now losing its shiny promise, but still a pretty good moneymaker for some) and the Great Credit Crunch.

Most members of the media and academia are only too happy to participate in the manufacturing and exaggeration of crises. Academics do it because they are part of Big Government and directly benefit from its growth, and media do it presumably because strife and ruin sell more newspapers and get more eyes on their newscasts.

And for those of you who are surprised that a “conservative” party is expanding government … get real. They make their living from government. They’re part of government. They live in the belly of Leviathan. When they are no longer running the government they will not go to work in factories, mines, retail sales or insurance. They will live off their fat government pensions and double-dip and triple-dip working for various government agencies and government-funded agencies and do lots of, ah, “consulting”, for companies which seek government contracts and government subsidies. The “fiscal responsibility” song and dance was just a patter to get the rubes into the tent where their pockets could be picked more easily (after shouting BOO! in their faces to frighten them).
anonymous

Devil’s Advocate Mode: While it would be tempting for small-c conservative folk to tell the Conservatives, “submit a balanced budget with all the pain that would entain, watch the opposition vote it down, and let the ‘coalition’ deal with the mess. You’ll be back in six months, tops.” I really think that line is just wishful thinking for several reasons. 1) For a ‘coalition’ government to fall in six months would require that the majority partner (the Liberals) to display the same level of selflessness and ideological purity that y’all are now demanding from the Conservatives. I highly doubt that would happen. I think it’s more likely the the Big Red Machine would accept nearly any demand to keep its coalition partners happy. 2) I think it’s unlikely that a ‘coalition’ government would be content to simply submit a short-term ‘stimulus package’, no matter how large the dollar figure. I think it’s more likely that they would institute the sort of deep structural entitlement programs that are VERY hard to reverse later down the road. If there’s one good thing to be said about this budget, it’s that the only permanent structural changes are the tax cuts. The spending, while massive and sometimes silly, is made up of one-time grants. In other words, the mistakes this budget contains are mistakes that can be reversed. Cruise ships may be silly things to spend money on, but it’s easier to cut that sort of funding later on than to eliminate a “guaranteed universal child care” entitlement, or a “Canadian Broadcasting Corporation”, or a “Green Shift/Carbon Tax”, etc. etc. Bad spending decisions hurt, but eventually pass. In contrast, bad institutions are almost impossible to get rid of once they’ve been founded, and the cost of keeping them going creeps ever higher the longer they’re allowed to operate. I mean, we still have the gun registry, and it isn’t even that old of an institution!

madeyoulook

I appreciate the effort, anonymous.

But here’s the thing about principles: You don’t abandon them. The Tories have accepted, validated, gone whole-hog into, drunken-sailor mode. The idiotic notion (that you piss away tomorrow’s wealth at the first sign of a downturn in a cyclical economy) has now gained credibility in the political world, and by extension the electorate. “Hey, even those evil right-wing neocons are spending like crazy, I guess it’s a given that that’s what you gotta do.”

So I do not accept that “Bad spending decisions hurt, but eventually pass.” Bad spending decisions are used in future to justify further bad spending decisions. “Don’t worry, these measures for 2009-10 FY are one-time,” … “These are targeted temporary measures for just 2012-13,” … “OK, these tough circumstances call for a one-off binge for FY 2018-9, but this is the last time, promise!” … “We really mean it this time (2024-5)!” …

john

Of a long series of seriously creepy photos of Harper, that is one creepy-assed photo of Harper
http://www.politicks.ca/ Shawn

When times are tough more me, I find ways to decrease costs. When times are tough for government, it finds ways to spend more. I thought, maybe, that would change with Conservatives in power. Nope.

T. Thwim

Individual != Government.

Here’s the thing, individuals aren’t all rational like economists would like them to be. We get together and groupthink begins to happen. Witness the Cabbage Patch Kid, pet rock, the Wii, and housing prices in Vancouver.

Unfortunately, groupthink can’t outlast reality forever. Which means that we as a people are doomed to cycles of extreme prosperity followed by extreme poverty. Economic cycles are well known. Government, if it’s intelligent, works counter-cyclically in order to smooth that out.. so it means our prosperity isn’t as high as it could be, but then hopefully our poverty isn’t as low as it would be.

This is why when times are good, the government should work on hoarding money.. cut spending and raise some taxes where it can do so safely, and basically run a significant surplus. That way when the bad times come, they have a healthy cushion to spend and ease the pain that people would otherwise feel.

Or in short, when times are tough for you, government finds ways to spend more so that they’re hopefully not as tough for you as they would be otherwise.

http://macleans.ca kc

I have to say i’m more than a little impressed by all those Conservatives here who are rejecting the blame the coalition line. Not enough for me to convert mind but i’ve alway been an admirer of those who hold true to their principles. I guess as an irresponsible liberal financial reponsibility isn’t my reason d’etre. Although i would hope many libs are concerned by these numbers. Let’s hope we learn something of value as Canadians over the life of this Parliament.
Jubi

One thing in particular in this budget that impact me directly is this item “Protecting the severance pay for employees when companies go bankrupt.” I have worked for this unnamed company for over a decade now, a friend of mine for almost 2 decades . We have seen a lot of good people get laid off for a number of years now. They got their severance pay and all much needed support to get them back on their feet. All in all the company treated its employees very generously after being told they have been affected by company “right sizing” efforts. Recently the company declared Chapter 11 Bancruptcy protection and all employees have been told that there will be no merit increases for the next few years, what’s worse previous and future severance pay agreements are now in limbo and will be treated just like any other creditor that will need to get in line.

So for all of you squirming in protest, groaning with angst about how this budget is not Conservative at all, think about us ordinary hard working canadians in need of a lifeline like this. Will you deny our families this much needed assistance until we can find another job and get back on our feet ? This is not about ideology but survival for some . Did this thought ever occur in that empty vessel you call your heads ?
http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

And Sisyphus helpfully provides us with a link to a site that tells us that the Liberals did not have to balance the budget nearly so quickly in the 1990s, and that running more deficits for longer would actually have been good for Canada. Because of course we need to be reminded that today’s deficit is not nearly big enough.

That’s almost as amusing as the knee-slapper the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives came up with last week. They said that Canada must act fast with much greater stimulus than planned or we’ll end up like Japan. Apparently increasing the national debt from 15% of GDP to 85% (where Japan sits today) wasn’t stimulating enough for the progressive stimulators. Well, that explains why Japan’s economy has never recovered! Always wondered why that was.

Sis, we already know you’re economically illiterate. You’ve shown that repeatedly with your own opinions. There is no need to provide links.

Sisyphus

There are different kinds of illiteracy. The worst kind , to me , is the kind where people who can read won’t.

I’m not sure if my anonymous name is appropriate or not. But your’s surely is.

http://ragingranter.blobspot.com Raging Ranter

Actually Sisyphus, far from refusing to read, I’ve spent a good 20 years reading about economics. And I’m still learning. And no, I don’t just read stuff written by right-wingers either. (I find right-wing economists to be just as enamoured with their own dogma as the progressives, and often even more so.) I’ve even read a couple of Paul Krugman’s books. (His criticisms of Bush’s voodoo math regarding social security and budgeting are bang on. Where I disagree with him is on his own policy prescriptions, which seem just as deluded as Bush & Co.’s. )

It is the total lack of the predictive ability of economics (something that will never change because it is inherent in the economy itself) along with its reliance on overly-complex mathematical models which cannot possibly reflect the real economy, which makes me extremely leery of deficits and stimulus. Running a temporary deficit, or a short-term stimulus, are both predicated on the belief that the government can accurately predict the effects of these policies, and that those positive effects are strong enough cover the opportunity costs. The empirical evidence for such beliefs simply isn’t there.

When it comes to economics, the only bias one should have is extreme skepticism. (And it’s taken me most of the past 20 years to learn this lesson.) Read and learn as much as you can, but don’t buy to deeply into anything, because if you keep learning, by this time next year, you’ll have likely changed your mind on a lot of things. Try Nassim Nicolas Taleb at the link below.

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

Better yet, read his books, The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness. (I don’t much bother with videos of him actually speaking – he’s a mostly unimpressive speaker who can’t control his temper.) Taleb is neither right wing nor left wing, and pokes fun at both leftists and free market gurus. More interestingly, he’s an admirer of both Keynes and Hayek, a combination one doesn’t come across often. But he takes a view of economics that I’ve personally never seen before, and he’s well worth reading.

Sisyphus

Oh, what am I to think ? Andrew Potter thinks Taleb is clinically insane or something.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/01/26/world-o-declinism-ii/

So, what am I to do ?

Sisyphus

Nevermind. I’ve figured it out. I’ll read lots of everything and respect that which appeals to my innate personal bias. That way I’ll be exactly the same as everybody else. There.
http://ragingranter.blobspot.com Raging Ranter

Yes, and Potter provides no evidence to back up that assertion. Not even an explanation. And the links he provides barely mention Taleb, let alone show him to be insane. Taleb has angered whole professions of people (economists most of all, but also Harvard School of Business luminaries and various financial “gurus”) by pointing out the simple fact that the “science” they practice is voodoo. And makes a pretty good case in his books (in his own rambling way). Taleb might well have a screw loose – he is an eccentric after all, (for a purported genius, he spends an inordinate amount of time engaged in petty personal vendettas against anyone who criticizes him), but insane he most certainly isn’t.

And interesting that you should mention your “innate personal bias”. That very human bias takes up a good portion of Taleb’s book Fooled by Randomness.

http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

Jubi, the long term health of this country does not depend on whether or not you get your severance pay, much as you’d like to think otherwise. The fact that the government would even think to put such a mindless and meaningless detail into a budget document shows just how far off the sane track they’ve strayed. And what if all this debt costs you another job someday? Will you still be grateful for the assistance to get back on your feet? Look at what just a few years of progressively larger deficits have done to the US. You want more of that?
kody

I too blame the opposition.

Harper’s in a minority situation, where the other three are threatening to take control, lest he opens the taps.

So he “listens” and opens the taps, and now he’s a pariah.

Shame, shame on the opposition for bringing this on.

What Canada needs is a Harper majority.

I think that’s something we all can agree on.

J@ck M!tchell

In other words, “Shame, shame on the opposition for putting Harper’s principles to the test!”
Patrick

“I think that’s something we all can agree on”

pfffffff!

And yes indeed, shame on the opposition for fighting for what they believe is the best for the country… maybe Stephen Harper needs a lesson in this particular subject.

I could just imagine if the tables were turned and it was the Liberals in government… and the conservatives were in opposition… hmm what would Kody be saying… oh hell, we all know he’s way too partisan, why bother.

J@ck M!tchell

A $40-billion deficit out of the blue, eh? Does anybody, apart from Jarrid, think the Coalition would have dared to table anything so reckless? Only Nixon could go to China; only Harper can go to Cloud-coo-coo-land.

In principle, I support government action to help an ailing economy, if a case can be made that such action would be effective, even to the point of deficit. But $40-billion? Good lord!

Jarrid

The NDP and the Bloc still think it’s not enough.

They want to go further, they want more government spending, they want more debt for our children and our children’s children and our children’s children’s children.

That’s the Libs’ Coalition partners J@ck.

T. Thwim

Citation needed.

http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

Perhaps the most disturbing thing I’ve read tonight is in the Ottawa Citizen. The growth in the public service will accelerate over the next two years, despite retirements. There is simply no way the government can get the cheques out the door – and the programs off the ground – as fast as they say they will without hiring MORE public servants. (That wouldn’t be a huge issue if the PS weren’t already larger than it was before Paul Martin starting cut 50,000 positions in the mid-1990s.) That fact, more than any other, puts the lie to the talk of this being a “temporary deficit”. More employees means more office space to rent, more computers to lease, more networks to install, more benefits to pay out, more pension contributions to make, and more otherwise productive young workers in cubicles pushing paper. We’ll see how “stimulative” that is five years out.
Jarrid

I hope that the Liberals are happy now.

They wanted stimulus and deficit spending, they got stimulus and deficit spending.
madeyoulook

Kody, Jarrid, please, just stop.

But Your Honour, I HAD to murder my neighbour’s three kids, because my other neighbour really wanted to kill them, and was calling me names because I wouldn’t do it for him. So you see, it’s important to have principles, but, sometimes, you’ve just got to be pragmatic. Really, it’s my neighbour’s fault — don’t blame me for my own behaviour!

J@ck M!tchell

I’m glad to see you’re not on-side in this, MYL. You’re a man of principle, whatever slurs should be cast at that principle.

I’m quite appalled by this budget, I must say. Now Canadians have no choice in the next election, as between a party (or parties) who want to keep the budget balanced and a party (or parties) who want to go into the red big-time. Forget fiscal principle: democratic principle should dictate that, when push comes to shove, parties want more than mere power. That way voters can choose. As it is, Harper has deprived his (erstwhile) supporters of the chance to vote for him and his opponents of the chance to vote against him.

Just when you think Canadian democracy could not get more corrupt, the ante is severely upped.

http://macleans.ca kc

Good pt Jack. I never considered it from this pov before. Where will all those true cons go? Don’t care, do i hear my fellow libs But consider, this is not good for anyone. When people feel unrepresented they either stay home [ not good at all] or they form other, possibily more extreme, disafected regional groups [reform, bloq] A healthy body politic is a necessity in a democracy. This requires political parties to be at least an approximate of what they say they stand for. For the libs it’s not such a big issue since their core ideology is not so tied to dogma. The cons and the ndp don’t have as much wiggle room. SH is a chameleon, he thinks he can just change colour again when necessary, maybe; but not as a plausible conservative he wont. I’d say he’s set conservatisim back a decade or so.

madeyoulook

kc, it is the country that has been set back by at least a decade. I don’t give a rat’s gluteus about the Conservative Party. They were tolerable when they were the least damaging to the country. Their race to be as or more damaging than the other guys just threw that all out.

I remember “Canada is in an enviable position, our banks are ok, and our federal balance sheet isn’t as bad as any other country’s.” I remember “Now is not the time to do anything rash or stupid.” I remember the polls showing Canadians expected Harper’s gang could be trusted to manage any economic storm, more than any other party. And now, this.

We now have nobody who can be trusted with the common purse.

Mulletaur

Who the hell is going to pay for this orgy of spending ? How ? When ?

And where exactly is the influence of the brilliant team of economic advisors that your colleague Wells was touting ?

Why can’t Conservatives act like conservatives ?

Sisyphus

As I recall Wells wasn’t exactly touting it so much as having a head-scratching episode.

But I wouldn’t call it a team of economic advisors , brilliant or otherwise. It’s a team of business boffins.

And business boffins , despite the public impression , love nothing so much as spending public money.

Preferably on themselves.

Bruce

From Curiosity Cat;

Today Harper unveils his budget, and tomorrow Michael Ignatieff will most probably lead the Liberals in approving the budget, while the NDP and Bloc will oppose it. Harper will remain in power.

To date, it seems that the Liberals have been rubbing out one line drawn in the sand after another (Harper deceived the public back in the summer because he knew then that his budget would go into deficit in 2009? That’s OK, we still have confidence in him to run the country. Harper is tabling a stimulus package which is less than the amount the Canadian government agreed with the G20 to spend, and less than the amount the Liberal Party agreed with the NDP and Bloc to spend? That’s OK, we still have confidence in him to run the country. Harper is saying that white is black and black is white, so that we don’t really know what to believe? That’s OK, we still have confidence in him to run the country).

And what is the last line in the sand the Liberals drew, which Harper is about to cross over?

We need, said Ignatieff, to avoid permanent tax cuts for the middle class because that will reduce the ability of Canada to move from budget deficits to budget surpluses.

Yesterday, on CTV (apparently the unofficial Tory television show), Harper said very carefully and very precisely that his budget would contain permanent tax cuts for middle class Canadians (all those who earned $80,000 or less).

So it appears that Harper has thrown down the gauntlet for Ignatieff, by deliberately stepping over the last remaining Liberal line in the sand.

Why is he doing that?

What is really going on in Ottawa today?

The Cat believes that Harper is acting on his assessment of Ignatieff as an opponent, made during his recent meetings with Ignatieff. Harper has measured Ignatieff, and perhaps sensed that there just might be a trend in the man for kowtowing to those in authority (We Americans; the Imperial Presidency), and is now about to teach Ignatieff that there is only one alpha male in Ottawa, and his name is Harper.

Harper is trying to achieve three things (and according to news reports about Ignatieff’s and other senior Liberals’ intention to vote for the Tory budget, he stands a good chance of achieving all three):

1. He is proceeding with his firm objective of gutting the power of the federal government by reducing its revenue stream (tax income) and so reducing its power.

The permanent reduction in income tax for the middle class is part of this design. In his budget, Harper will outline how the budget will get back to surplus in 5 years; these forecasts will include rosy revenue forecasts, and mention cuts in expenses.

The rosy revenue forecasts will most likely not be met, but Harper will then rely on the Act of God defence his Tories are already using to explain how they got it so wrong with their rosy November forecast (no human could have foreseen the worsening of the economy; it was outside our control; we are therefore blameless and competent), to explain that the shortfalls in revenue are outside his control.

But then he will also use the same shortfalls in revenue (exacerbated by the middle class tax cuts) to justify a vicious round of cuts to government services and to transfers to the provinces.

2. He is showing Ignatieff that there is only one alpha male in Ottawa, by deliberately including these tax cuts for the middle class in the budget.

Having sensed that Ignatieff is afraid to bring his government down by voting down the budget, Harper, being Harper, is setting out to punish Ignatieff for the scare given him by the coalition Accord, and by Ignatieff’s tough talk. He is daring Ignatieff to do what he said he would do (vote no if there are middle class tax cuts), because Harper has concluded that Ignatieff will back off from his public tough statements, and come to heel.

Making Ignatieff support a Tory budget which deliberately includes the middle class tax cut is Harper’s way of publicly humiliating Ignatieff, and showing the world who is the stronger man.

3. Harper is also forcing Ignatieff and the Liberals to be a party to his overall objective of reducing the power of the federal government, by cutting its revenue through these middle class tax cuts.

And he will have made the Liberals party to the inevitable future cuts to federal government services and to transfers to provinces, because they bought into his budget forecasts by voting for the budget tomorrow. So the Liberals will not be able to point a finger at the Tories when they start their cuts.

Ignatieff is preparing to adopt the Liberal fighting tactics devised by Stephane Dion, which involves furiously attacking by frantically walking backwards while Harper repeatedly socks you in the snoot.

The most interesting thing tomorrow will be seeing how Ignatieff tries to explain to Canadians how he can approve the Tory budget despite it clearly crossing all the remaining Liberal lines drawn in the sand. The public wants us to do this, will be his rather lame defence.

It will be amusing, somewhat sordid, and rather sad to see Ignatieff on his knees, administering a public bootlicking to the top dog in Ottawa.

http://macleans.ca kc

Bow wow! Dream on buddy that distant roaring in yr ears isn’t howls of liberal outrage, but the sound of vengefull conservatives, true cons out for Harper’s blood. Alpha dog indeed!!
Gord Tulk

interesting analysis. Iggy will have to fish – bring down the government with an 85% chance this means an election – or cut bait which means he will vote as you theorize above and have to listen to the howling if the ND and Bloc and see his bump in support in que vanish – iow dion redux.

going to the polls with no money against a budget that is 95% of what he wanted and is supported by a majority of cdns in the middle of a recession will put him back lecturing in harvard by christmas.

http://www.wernerpatels.com Werner Patels

Tax cuts should have been even higher. In a country that violates people’s basic human rights, by forcing them to spend more of their income (45%) on taxes than the bare necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter), tax cuts are long overdue (and the current ones still don’t go far enough).

What we need is a flat tax at the federal level — 15% up to $80,000, 25% above $80,000, with the personal exemption at $20,000 – $25,000.

Anyone who doesn’t complain about taxes is either a bum living off taxpayers or so filthy rich that it doesn’t matter.

Most of the spending stimulus will evaporate upon impact; it’s useless and completely moronic. Deficit spending doesn’t stimulate the economy (at least not in the way it is expected). Only a reasonable tax system that leaves enough money in consumers’ pockets will do that.
David Bakody

Word from Tim’s this morning even from some Harper moderates ………… The Harper/Flaherty Budget is a waste of paper …. not one person could name one thing that would benefit them ….. Tax cuts … hello the Provinces will tax them back, like they did last time ….. no person on pension is making 85K, no where near it ….. home improvements will not pay for heat, food or higher gas prices plus the contractors will raise their prices 15% plus! …. nothing on EI for family and friends and their children ….. no word on pension guarantee’s …. hello no word on strict conditions on the $75 Billion put on table for the banks …( look south to what happened there) …. and the list goes on ….

NO ACCOUNTABILITY OR TRANSPARENCY ….. which leads to the same ode underhandedness en route!

PASS THIS ON …… we the taxpayers and our children and grandchildren deserve more! Do not every try and tell the working class people you never knew ….. if y’all do not hold Harper & Co’s feet to fire!

PS…. For what it is worth most thought those so called professional people who championed the Budget were running for the Senate . Sorry Andrew your name was first on the list ….. good luck worked of Duffy …..