Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

What changed in the last 17 days?

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, April 8, 2011 12:03pm - 137 Comments

In October 2008, Stephen Harper promised his government would “never” go into deficit. In November 2008, the Harper government projected budget surpluses through 2013-2014. In January 2009, the Harper government projected deficits through 2012-2013 and a surplus in 2013-2014. In October 2010, the Harper government projected deficits through 2014-2015 and a surplus in 2015-2016.

Two weeks ago, the Harper government projected a $300-million deficit in 2014-2015 and a surplus of $4.2-billion in 2015-2016.

Today, the Harper government projects a $3.7-billion surplus in 2014-2015 and an $8.2-billion surplus in 2015-2016.

Update 2:51pm… A kind of explanation is here.

Update 4:22pm… Jim Flaherty’s previous explanation is here.

Tags: Budget, deficit, economic update, election, Election 2011, platform, Stephen Harper, surplus

More by Aaron Wherry

OriginalEmily1

An election campaign happened.
Stewart_Smith

I believe it was the election. Since this unnecessary, dangerous election was called the troubles lapping at our shores have dissipated and the economy has been booming.

http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

I feel comforted and frightened.
Mike

Oh yeah, that whole democracy thing is sooooo dangerous! And unnecessary!
Stephanie

Dangerous election? No, dangerous is being in Egypt or Libya right now. This government was found to be in contempt of parliament for the first time in the history of the British parliamentary system. That's dangerous. And the way our system works, when the majority of MPs in the House of Commons loses confidence in the government, it is up to the citizens to take its responsibility seriously and elect a new government. It's called democracy.

http://notquiteunhinged.blogspot.com Catelli

They obviously reevaluated how conservative they were with the budget. By adopting a more optimistic forecast it gives them more room in their election platform.

Either way, it just proves to me that any parties fiscal projections are not worth the paper they are printed on. Its all woo, magic and sleight of hand.
P Wall

I wonder what the projections will be next week.
Mine is 5 billion surplus in 2014-2015 and a 25 billion surplus in 2015-2016
These numbers do not take into account the promises made during this campaign because they are all for 2014 and beyond.
I’m using the same scientific method that Harper uses.

J Kuchar

I don't believe anything the conservatives say,look at the Senate that is a I'll never load the senate promise that turned out to be a LIE

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

We will have this deficit slayed by election day!!!

burlivespipe

They'll then be the first CONservative government to 'slay' a deficit in Canadian history… In fact, when you factor in that the Harper government spent its first three years whittling down Paul Martin-made surpluses before the economic downturn, you have to travel way back in the wayback machine to Diefenbaker to find a Conservative government that didn't add to the debt.
Harper's a fraud on economics.
BCVoiceOfReason

The Green already have done it. The NDP says it doesn't matter, they are putting the government spending on a Visa and defaulting. and the Liberals are using a 1B increase in revenue (raise corporate taxes) to fund 10B in spending AND get rid of the deficit.

Since no one is calling out the other parties on their ridiculous claims Harper decided to stretch the truth as well

Mike T.

somebody handed tricky jim flaherty a bottle of white out?

saskboy

Applicable tweet:
althiaraj Althia Raj RT by tomflem
Flaherty has never met a deficit target..he has set in the past 5 years, David McGuinty says. #elxn41
aunrie-em-m

Not white out, Mike, just the old black marker hiding any pertinent information as usual.

jonatwitan

In case Wherry was genuinely curious…

What changed between Nov 08 and Jan 09: Opposition pressure and a general populous outcry forced Harper to recognize the coming recession and spend on stimulus.

What changed between Jan 09 and Oct 10: Well, lots of stuff. It's almost freakin' two years. Does anyone really expect that all the numbers forecast in the future will be accurate to the dime? or do we expect that the forecasts show us, in general, where the finances are heading?

What changed between two weeks ago and today? It's right there in black and white, as Harper is fond of saying. They have proposed to cut government operating costs, "trim the fat" as they say. 1B next year, 2B the year after, and 4B after that. That is what account for the 4 billion dollar change.

*anticipated critical response* "Oh, but they can't do that! Why didn't they include it in the budget then? Huh? Obviously they wanted an election or obviously they were lying then! You can't trust these guys because they want to destroy Canada and I for one love my country too much to sit by and let that happen!"

Okay, I would just suggest that they truly want to be seen as the party that is serious about eliminating the deficit, and this is something they have identified and will go after.

Thwim

You forget the additional 2.2 billion they're handing over to Quebec.

How does that trim fat, exactly?

And are there any ideas of where such fat is to be trimmed? Is he going to finally return to the reform promise of stopping MP's pensions?

Loraine Lamontagne

Have you heard that the Bank of Canada is warning Canadians over the risks of indebtness and rising interest rates? You probably have, I have, but Stephen Harper doesn't. If these rates go up, so does servicing the debt.

jonatwitan

What kind of comment is this? You really think Harper hasn't heard this?

I repeat, one of Ignatieff and Harper is talking about the importance of eliminating the debt, and the other is not.

OriginalEmily1

Actually both of them are talking about eliminating the deficit, not the debt.
jonatwitan

hahaha….yes yes, that is obvious, and yet another error by me. Thank you Emily. I believe I have gotten it right in numerous other places, and to most people I think they will know what I mean.
LdKitchenersOwn

If only some politician, somewhere, at some time (perhaps in response to past Liberal shenanigans), had suggested that we establish some sort of budget office for Parliament that could do independent analysis of budget figures and give Canadians numbers separate from the partisan spin given to us by the various political parties. That's the kind of pledge that would really get me excited about a candidate… even a Tory!

Then again, whatever government was in power once such an independent office was established would probably just start undermining the office from day one, and pretending that the office's figures were THEMSELVES the partisan spin, and that this time (trust them) Canadians had finally elected a government who's numbers can be relied upon, because THESE GUYS are going to be different.
GAB

The lies and made up numbers are astounding,, I think this new wave of spending and magically found money makes the Greens the most fiscally responsible party by a mile.
Andrew (not PorC)

This is my depressed face. The only promises the Tories seem to follow through on are the ones that drive me crazy. The ones I like are forgotten or ignored.

jonatwitan

2.2 billion to Quebec? Are you trying to dereal? That's not what's being talked about. The 2.2 billion is in the platform, and included in the numbers that still say deficit elimination. Let me ask you honestly: do you think that Ignatieff, if elected, will just ignore Quebec's 2.2 billion demand?

Hey, 4 Billion off of government operations sounds VERY drastic to me. But do we not all agree that that would be a good thing?

Thwim

Ah, I see that, you're right that 2.2 billion is in there.
However, that still leaves open the question of where exactly that "fat" is to be trimmed. And it's not just 4 billion, it's 7 billion dollars total. Where would you say the federal government is going to find an extra 7 billion dollars to be trimmed out, if, as Mr. Harper says, they won't be touching transfer payments?

John.K

40 jets and a mini-prison?
Jan

If misc fat trimming was obvious and easy, why didn't Harper start doing this five years ago.? Wouldn't that be the first thing a fiscal conservative would do?
Thwim

Well, if you listen to alfanerd, he couldn't because he was in a minority.

If you listen to jt, he couldn't because he was providing stimulus and moving the party to the centre.

If you listen to reason, he couldn't because it already got trimmed pretty significantly through the Martin financing years and simply isn't there to trim anymore.
Jan

You're not suggesting Harper is talking out of a part of his body which is not mentioned in polite company, are you?
jonatwitan

You really think Chretien and Martin had the government trimmed down to ideal efficiency? Really?

Harper claims this sort of review of government operations hasn't happened in 10-15 years. I can't vouch for it, but that's what he said.
Jan

But he's had five years and he's just getting around to it now?
jonatwitan

Political calculations.
Thwim

So now you're going back on your own argument of moving the party to the centre and cozying up to alfanerd's idea that he has a hidden agenda he hasn't been able to implement during minority parliament?

Harper's claimed a lot of things. Most of them turn out to be untrue. Why do you believe him now?

Andrew (not PorC)

Harper committed himself to 2% stimulus at the G20 before the opposition did anything. Funny, also, how the deficit was substantially larger than the stimulus initiatives. Let's not let the truth spoil a good narrative.

jonatwitan

deficit before recession: I know, that does nothing to deny that the recession and stimulus spending took the deficit to a place it never would have gone without the recession. It's a straw man, that's not what we're talking about.

firing public servants: Hey, if Harper gets elected, he is going to have to do some firing. I for one would hope that he starts with the size of cabinet. Some of you don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and that's fine. I still listen to both party leaders (that I consider voting for) with the expectation that they will attempt to do what they are saying. Right now, only one is talking about eliminating the deficit.

OriginalEmily1

Yeah, adding a payment to Quebec, fighterplanes and empty prisons will really help the deficit.

Ignatieff has addressed the deficit….the one Harper caused.

jonatwitan

Ignatieff is not going to buy planes? Ignatieff is going to ignore Quebec's HST demand? I know he is ignoring them now, but for how long?

I have stated elsewhere that I believe in prison reform, so you won't hear a defence from me.

OriginalEmily1

I have no idea…maybe, maybe not

New empty prisons are not prison reform
Jan

I am curious to know what you mean by prison reform?

jonatwitan

First, thanks for not deliberately misrepresenting what I said *coughEmilycough*

I largely agree with Conrad Black's recent articulation of prison reform:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/12/co…
Jan

So you're totally opposed to Harper's crime and punishment model, right?
jonatwitan

Pretty much.
Jan

This is a positive sign.
jonatwitan

I'm glad you think so. I am quick to defend Harper against those who think he is a dictator out to destroy democracy and the country while he is at it, but of course I don't agree with everything he says or proposes. So I disagree with his crime and punishment model, but I also disagree that he is contemptuous of parliament, while I obviously recognize his government was technically found to be in contempt of parliament.
Andrew (not PorC)

Critical thinking win!

Thwim

So using absolute best-possible-outcome scenario for budgeting now. That's conservative, is it?

s_c_f

First of all, those are not all scenarios, those are based on events: "Stronger-than-expected economic growth". That's not a scenario, that's an event.

Secondly, that's not a best-possible-outcome scenario. That was the most recent prediction by the Bank or Canada – not worst case, not best case, just the best overall prediction.

Thirdly, in the past 17 days, the methods by which government projections have not changed, the data has. They are making projections in the same manner they always have.

This is not rocket science.

Thwim

Re-read the release.
Note the word "may"
Carry-on decieving yourself anyway.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

This is not rocket science.

Rocket science is based in facts.

s_c_f

Look, the Bank of Canada does things based on facts. They try to do stuff with the best facts available. If there is a falsehood in that article, then go ahead and point it out. Otherwise, your words are just meaningless bluster. The fact of the matter is, tax revenues are relative to economic output, so if economic growth has been better than expected, then the deficit will be smaller.

Andrew (not PorC)

Yeah, that's entirely credible. This is a huge swing in economic assumptions, and one survey doesn't sway the underlying poll of forecasters enough to do this. They're playing with their numbers, and no one should believe their lies.

s_c_f

That's not a huge swing. That is a reasonable projection! This is not rocket science.

Government revenues are about 600 billion. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt48b-eng.htm

GDP is about 1.3 trillion. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&me…

Tax revenues are about 33% of GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by…

A 1% change in GDP growth is therefore equivalent to 13 billion of tax revenues, per year.

Therefore a projected change in revenues of 4 billion 4 years from now is entirely accurate, it is equivalent to a forecast of improved GDP growth corresponding to a third of a percentage point, about 0.33 %, which is easily in line with the improved economic forecast provided by numerous groups, which is higher growth between 1.5% and 2.7%. In fact, the Conservatives' estimates seem rather conservative.

The bank will most certainly raise its annual and quarterly economic growth projections for 2011. In January, it projected 2.5 percent first-quarter growth, while economists now see the rate at closer to 4 percent, and the OECD pegged it at 5.2 percent.

All of these facts are easily verifiable by numerous independent sources.

Are all of you guys too dumb to do a few simple calculations to assess the projections?

David_Nicholson

You are exaggerating the revenue of the Government of Canada. The 600 billion Government Revenues includes provincial and municipal revenue.

From the 2010 budget, the Government of Canada forcast revenues of $231 billion in 2010-2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budg…

$231 billion is 18% of GDP (I use the $1.3 trillion figure you quoted).
A 1% increase in GDP would not mean 13 billion more tax revenues as you stated. 1% of GDP is $13 billion. Using the fact that Government of Canada revenues are approximately 18% of GDP increasing GDP by 1%, 13 billion, will increase revenues by $2.2 billion.

s_c_f

Good point. I am not claiming my numbers are exact.

The Bank of Canada projected growth has risen from 2.5 to 4%, and the OECD projects even higher growth of 5.2 percent growth, an improvement of between 1.5 to 2.7 points from the bank's previous projection, which are increased revenues of 3.3 to 4 billion per year according to your estimates.

As an aside, I find that a little surprising, that federal tax revenues are 18% of GDP while provincial and municipal are as high as 15%. When you consider the size of government transfers to the provinces, equalization being about 1%, the Canada health transfer being another 2%, that means the federal tax revenues are actually smaller than provincial and municipal.

Andrew (not PorC)

Your numbers are off by a fair bit. A 1% increase in GDP implies a 1% increase in government revenues, assuming revenues:GDP are fixed (doesn't quite work this way). If revenues are $231 billion, that 1% yields $2.3 billion.

The Ministry of Finance supposedly uses a consensus forecast from several different sources. They don't just pick one latest forecast that they like and gives them the result they want. It's also assuming there aren't any bumps along the way. Remember back in 2007 when we were projecting federal government debt would fall to 25% of GDP by 2012. We're off by a country mile, at 40%. Woops. Assigning a false sense of certainty to these five year projections gets you into trouble.
s_c_f

A 1% increase in GDP implies a 1% increase in government revenues

Exactly, so a 1.5 to 2.7% increase in GDP is a 1.5 to 2.7% increase in revenues. Ergo, 3.3 to 4 billion.

Yes, well, I'm not assuming a sense of certainty. All I'm saying is that the government projections are reasonable.
Andrew (not PorC)

I want us to run some surpluses for a while after this recession, too. If we just piled on $150 billion in debt, I don't think it's too much to ask to pay back some of that before we gorge ourselves on increased spending and tax cuts. None of our political parties seem to agree.
s_c_f

Well, the Conservatives have not proposed tax cuts in their platform, and they are proposing reduced spending (based on today's headlines). As far as I know, no other party is proposing tax cuts either. The Liberal party is proposing increased corporate taxes to match their increased spending.

I can't agree with you more that I'd like to see the deficit eliminated ASAP.
David_Nicholson

"Well, the Conservatives have not proposed tax cuts in their platform,"

I believe they have included as part of their platform: income-splitting, doubling contribution room to TFSA, tax credit for volunteer fire fighters, tax credit for children's art programs. Most of their campaign promises so far have revolved around lowering taxes.
s_c_f

True. But I prefer tax cuts that are beneficial to all.

I do agree with you though, that I would trust the Conservatives to lower taxes more than any other party.

And with respect to Andrew's (not PorC) comments, he was saying that he would like to see the deficit eliminated before new spending or more tax cuts, and in fact the income splitting proposal is something they are proposing after a balanced budget or surplus has been achieved.
Andrew (not PorC)

No, I'm saying I want surpluses. We just racked up a huge amount of debt, in large part due to some fiscal recklessness. I'd like to see a few years of $20 billion surpluses. You don't get there by indulgent tax cuts the minute you're in a balance position.
Andrew (not PorC)

It's not enough to eliminate the deficit. I want surpluses, and no one intends to do it. It's like maxing out your credit card when you go through a rough patch, then making the minimum payments when you're back on your feet, choosing to increase consumption rather than repay debt. The next time you hit a rough patch, you'll need to max out another card. It's shamefully self-indulgent.
chet

scf,

you are dealing with people who would try to argue the Earth is flat if it meant an attack on Harper.

Don't bother.

s_c_f

It's funny how Wherry will go through the math of crowd sizes at party rallies but he won't even do the most basic calculations in this case. I wonder why? Hmmmmm….

OriginalEmily1

Certainly missed this data http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business…

s_c_f

Who missed that data? The Bank of Canada includes unemployment data in their measurements.

OriginalEmily1

The Bank of Canada that's warning Harper about the state of the economy?

s_c_f

No. Apparently you can't read.

OriginalEmily1

I keep up with things though.
DPT

net loss of 1500 jobs. not so bad especially with the increase n full time vs. part time.
OriginalEmily1

As in the US, and everywhere else….it's a 'jobless recovery'

saskboy

And if I'm elected on May 2nd by uncounted write-in votes, I promise a surplus budget next year, and I'll make hand-held cell phones legal to use from vehicles again.

Thwim

I'd far rather require that all hand-held cellphones be mandated to contain a GPS tracker and simply don't work if moving at over 30mph.

Screws over passengers, but I think the money saved in accident prevention would be worth it.

Amateur Hour

Most car on pedestrian and car on cyclist crashes happen at low speeds. The two times I've been "bumped" by a driver in the past year occurred while I was in a crosswalk and the texting driver just started to roll forward.

If you're in a car that's in gear, just drive. Don't do anything else. You'll fail, eventually.

Thwim

I agree, but I don't know any technical means to have a cell-phone detect when it's in a car and moving, and I don't think it's worth stopping pedestrians from being able to use them while walking. That's a little too far.

saskboy

And the reason I mentioned cell phones in cars is because it's a hot button issue with people. If you talk about it, someone has an opinion. This is what the Conservatives and other big parties do to keep their voters interested, even if policy doesn't make sense or is contradictory. This is where the Greens are falling short, they aren't hitting hot button issues that strike up conversations like this – because talking about unpopular stances is risky and often leads to lying.

OriginalEmily1

LOL good point!
LdKitchenersOwn

I'm not sure that the Bank of Canada being a little more hawkish really explains a $3.4 BILLION increase in the government's estimated figures from less than 3 weeks ago. Not if the estimate from 17 days ago was worth anything at all.

I think it's pretty obvious and transparent that the change in projections happened not because of any change in our economic circumstances that has just been realized in the last two weeks, but because a $3.7 billion surplus in 2014-15 sounds better in an election ad than a $300 million deficit does.

To my mind, I don't know why they bothered though. How many people are actually taking the Tories seriously any more when they're providing estimates for the future size of the deficit we were never going to need to fight the recession we were never going to have? The Tories can tell me we'll have a $1 trillion deficit in 2014-15 or a $1 trillion surplus, or pretty much any number in between and I wouldn't believe a word of it. These guys are even worse at economic forecasting than the Liberals were, but at least the Liberals always surprised us with surpluses.
canon70

How could we forget this Stephen Harper quote?

"We're not running a deficit. We have planned a realistic scenario. We've got conservative budget estimates. We've got a modest platform that doesn't even fill the existing fiscal room that we have and we have plenty of flexibility in how we phase it. So that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."

LdKitchenersOwn

Yes, but that was BEFORE the election.

AFTER the election deficits became "essential" because we were "technically" suddenly in a recession that no one (by which I mean EVERYONE) could possibly have seen coming.

It may seem like the only thing that changed in between those two positions in 2008-09 was the election being held, but trust me, it's just TOTALLY A COINCIDENCE that the "No deficits ever / if we were going to have a recession we'd have had one by now" arguments from during the election almost immediately became "running a deficit is essential to battling the terrible recession we're in" within weeks of the election ending. The election ending had nothing to do with it though, just like the 2011 election beginning has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with $300 million deficit projections becoming $3.7 billion surplus projections.

Personally, I think the Tories can be trusted implicitly on this given their remarkable track record of consistency in economic forecasting, and their general stance of openness, accountability, and transparency. After all, this is the party that insisted on creating a Parliamentary Budget Office to provide Canadians with independent, non-partisan economic and spending numbers so that we wouldn't have to rely on the constantly torqued numbers provided by all political parties, particularly incumbent governments. And the Tories, like always, followed through on that important pledge. So, I'm certain that when I check, I'll find that the Tories are simply using Kevin Page's numbers, and that the PBO's numbers have simply changed dramatically since the election was called, and that's all there is to it.
lgarvin

Obi-Wan Harper :

"These jets will cost $75 M each."
"Do not look at those other jets, those are not the jets we are buying."

Cons: "Those are not the jets we are buying."

shouldIsellyourwheat

The budget 3 weeks ago was a Conservative minority budget designed to attract opposition votes.

The budget today was a Conservative majority budget focusing more on conservative priorities than opposition priorities.

Thwim

Apparently conservatives don't have any priorities for a couple of years yet then.

jonatwitan

Priority is to eliminate the deficit, as far as I can tell.

Thwim

If it was, you'd think they'd have plans for cutting it beyond relying on growth projections to pay for both it *and* the very few promises that happen in the next couple of years.
Andrew (not PorC)

They're courageously doing nothing to cut the deficit, or nothing they're willing to talk about.

Thwim

Other than giving 2.2 billion to Quebec.

Never would have thought that was a conservative priority, myself, but hey who am I to argue with wheatseller, here?

http://arsenisms.blogspot.com/ Fat Arse

Stephen Harper is not credible with his revamped projections. Somebody is on crack… and it ain't me! None of this makes sense. He's again throwing his projections under a bus… leaving a fiscal roadkill that should be D.O.A. at the polls.
Kyle

Stephen Harper promised during the 2008 election that if we re-elected him as Prime Minister there wouldn't be a recession in Canada. Now all he talks about is the recession and emerging from it.

I will be unable to vote Conservative this time unless he goes back in time and follows through on that promise.
Thwim

Okay, so comparing the platforms of Liberals and Conservatives side by side.. the CPC has no balancing income listed out as to how it's going to pay for it's promises. The best it's got is a "strategic operations review", which tells squat, and even that doesn't pay for what they're promising. They're just running under the assumption that the economy will grow, and they'll be able to pay for their promises out of that.

On the other hand, the Liberals promises are all costed out to come from cutting loopholes and exemptions in the tax system. So if our economy grows on top of that, they'll actually be able to devote all of that growth into deficit reduction.

So really, it's the Liberals who are being conservative in budgeting for their promises.. they're figuring out where the money is coming from ahead of time, not relying on the unknown like the CPC.

LdKitchenersOwn

Sure, but this is how it's been in Canada for basically my entire adult life. The Liberals campaign on spending and programs and when they get in to office they spend conservatively and create surpluses. The Tories campaign on fiscal restraint and spending cuts, and when they get into office they spend like drunken sailors and create deficits.

What else is new?

Thwim

I keep hoping if it gets pointed out in enough different ways, some folks might choose to discard their blinkers.

Thwim

Cite your sources please. :)

Stewart_Smith

There are NO sources, which CONFIRMS the CONSPIRACY, and yet even after the CONSPIRACY is CONFIRMED, there is no ( I mean absolutely zilch!) coverage by the msm, proving their COMPLICITY!

LdKitchenersOwn

It just occurred to me that the Tories' 2008 campaign was basically "Vote for us, we're the only party that can keep Canada out of a recession and who won't take us back into deficit!" and their 2011 campaign is basically "Vote for us, we're the only party that can eliminate the deficit we created to get us out of the recession we went into!"

It's REMARKABLE.

Jan

It's like being trapped in one of those revolving doors.

Al O'Wishes

I can't wait for next Friday… by then I'm sure the Harp will be projecting a trillion dollar surplus by 2012, and a tredecillion dollar surplus by 2016. Of course, that's only if you vote Conservative now and in 2015. A vote for the radical socialist separatist Hungarian-loving nonCanadian opposition means you hate kittens and freedom.
http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

Remember how shocked everyone was – this includes PW – when Jack announced he wouldn't support the budget? And how everyone said the budget was, all in all, pretty middle of the road and clearly designed to attract opposition votes? Remember?

So tell me: which of the opposition parties would support this platform?

Now I haven't costed the entire platform and compared it to the budget – I suspect none of y'all have either – so it's certainly possible that the Tories have just snapped their fingers and conjured more savings.

But the more plausible explanation – and really the more obvious one, I'd think – is that the platform accounts for net spending reductions that the opposition parties could not and would not support in a budget. No?

Just Joe

I doubt Draco can succeed to achieve the savings he promises even with severe (and counterproductive) cuts. The man is the Canadian equivalent of Paul Ryan.
jonatwitan

It's more along the lines of snapped their fingers and conjured more savings. Specifically, they are proposing reducing the operational cost of the government. That's the only difference form 17 days ago.

http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

I believe they're proposing to reduce the operational cost of the government by, inter alia, imposing what amounts to a total hiring freeze on the federal public service and taking advantage of the resulting attrition. Will the NDP be supporting that in the next budget?

I concede that attrition won't save $8 billion. I presume there are other spending cuts in the platform; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, though I'm afraid I'm going to need something more authoritative than "that's the only difference" to convince me. My point is that the mere fact that spending forecasts differ between the March budget and the Tory platform is no evidence, itself, of deceit or of any other kind of shenanigans.

Thwim

There's nothing in the platform about spending cuts other than the cut to the voting subsidy program, which isn't anywhere near the amount they say they'll be saving.

jonatwitan

I'm just going by the second to last page of the platform. There it says 2011 budget fiscal track, and then revised fiscal track, taking into account the cuts from operations (the magic ones).

Also, spending decreases every year.
Thwim

Spending decreases every year *because* of the 2.2 billion in the first two years.

Mike T.

The pro-rogues are built in now? :)
http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

I should note in fairness that PW does appear to be going through the budget (on twitter); I'm confindent he'll let us know if the savings are simply conjured as you suggest (and, from his tone certainly, he appears to believe).

Paul Wells

Oh, I'm persuaded they're real cuts. Which is why there is no detail on offer for any of them: because you cannot cut this kind of money and only trim "fat."

http://www.maderblog.com David Mader

See that's fair. And I should note, for what it's worth, that the conservative Conservatives I know seem quite pleased with the budget. I sense a "hidden agenda" narrative on the horizon…
craigola

Their agenda doesn't have to be hidden, does it?

OriginalEmily1

Good point. He hasn't actually fixed anything he's said he was going to. In 5 years.

So of course he wants 5 years more.
s_c_f

If that's true, that's even better, because it's clear Canada's economy is performing very well, best in the G7 so far this year in terms of growth. So it's unquestionable that tax revenues will be higher this year and in years to come based on the improved projections from the available data.

In fact, the recent reports about Canada have been very good, so I would expect the Conservatives to emphasize the latest economic numbers in their campaigning.