Well, the above video is the latest attempt by the Liberals to reply to the campaign-style ads that the Conservatives have floated on YouTube. I’m not sure whether either party have aired their ads on television yet, but it certainly seems as though the rhetoric has been amplified toward a spring election.
The Liberal ad might be effective for people who believe the simplistic explanation that corporate tax cuts are a bad thing. I don’t know. I do know that I argued in favour of the 4.5 per cent tax cuts the federal government has made since 2006 being the main reason why the Canadian economy has rebounded more quickly than the rest of the G7.
I’m well aware of the Conservative deficit and the deficit spending that has little to nothing to do with the economic recovery, the burden of which will only create further problems on the balance sheet later. I’m also aware that dropping the corporate tax rate by another one and a half percentage point in 2012 will reduce the immediate revenue to the federal treasury by an estimated $6 billion. So the Liberals certainly aren’t lying on that point.
But where the Liberals, and the NDP and Bloc and Greens for that matter, seem to fall short in their reasoning is that the corporate tax cuts won’t create any economic stimulus. On the contrary, corporate tax cuts are most likely the strongest kind of economic stimulus, as it gives companies an opportunity to keep employees, make investments, hire new workers, or just simply decide not to move to a more favourable tax jurisdiction.
Which means that as far as the Liberal attack ad goes, it’s not much of an attack at all. Hammering on the Conservatives for cutting taxes is like being mad at a dog for barking. It’s what sound fiscally conservative policy should be.
If the Liberals wanted to mount a less self-defeating attack, removing “$6 billion tax cut” in big letters from their ads would be a good place to start. The second thing would be to question the spending practices of the Conservative government, and it would be no more difficult than quoting the Fraser Institute’s Niels Veldhuis.
As I’ve mentioned numerous times before, the so-called stimulus that was spent during the recession will have a compounded debt of $110 billion by the time the Conservatives expect to balance the ledgers in 2015. The federal debt at this juncture will be $626 billion, or fully $63 billion more than the Liberal government drove it to in 1997 when Canada’s debt hit a record high.
The problem is that although the Conservative government has taken a fiscally sound plan in cutting corporate taxes to 15 per cent, it continues to outspend all previous governments in growth and overall expenditures. In fact, in the five years that Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister, spending has increased from $209 billion under the Martin government to $278 billion for fiscal 2010-11, an increase of 25 per cent.
According to the Conservatives’ own estimates, when the budget will finally be balanced 2015-16 spending will be 25 per cent greater than it is now. It isn’t sustainable, even if revenues do recover to the point where we can begin to run modest surpluses again.
The problem is that the Liberals can’t exactly attack this plan, since they’re busy making large spending promises of their own. While they would cancel the 1.5 per cent corporate tax cut in 2012, they would implement a program aimed at expanding Employment Insurance, at a minimum cost of $1 billion every year. That’s not an alternative. That’s a worse scenario.
There are numerous methods and ways to balance the budget more quickly than the Conservative plan and without causing any panic. Among those are eliminating liberal spending programs like regional economic development agencies, corporate subsidies and handouts, so-called environmental subsidies and “loans” like the one handed to aerospace giant Pratt & Whitney Canada.
Privatize inefficient public companies, including the CBC, and end taxpayer support for the ones in competition with the private sector. Freeze hiring for the public sector and wages for two years. Reduce the Equalization program, which sees $8.5 billion sent to Quebec annually. Force them to develop their own revenue stream by tendering drilling rights in shale oil like British Columbia. Eliminate the vote subsidy. Claw back the departmental increases in spending to immigration and scrap the appeals process for denied refugees.
None of these choices should be considered too difficult when carrying a half-trillion-dollar public debt. When the government returns to surpluses sufficient to pay down the debt, then personal incomes tax cuts should follow. There’s a clear way forward. Now we just require the courage to walk in that direction.
…I’m not sure whether either party have aired their ads on television yet…
Yes, I have seen the CPC ad with Stephen Harper working in his office aired on TV. I saw it a couple of nights ago watching a program on HGTV.
Sadly, your analysis is spot on. The Conservatives have been heavy spenders, yet no party can credibly attack them on it, since the other parties would all be spending even more. I’m waiting to see someone campaign on a platform of no new government programs and slashing inefficient and ineffective public spending on the rest of them, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
I completely support the planned tax cuts, because they will be positive for the economy. We’re just missing the last piece of cutting spending to sustainable levels. I’m not saying the cuts should be made made over night, but at least a good plan for how spending will be cut over the coming years. All I’ve seen so far are forecasts to control the growth of spending. Until that growth rate is negative, it’s not enough.
Well if none of the other parties can do better..WHY T F are you crying about Conservative spending.And this BS about someone’s child in the future has to pay the debt is just pure BS.We pay for what happens to the deficit all our lives and the situation dictates if we go into debt or pay off debt.A recession dictates big spending.It,s only when we get the type of Liberal government of Chretien-Martin that the problem arises.Big big surpluses and they spent like idiots on golf courses and fountains and Liberal schemes instead of paying down the debt.The Conservatives are doing great thank you and they get enough BS from the Liberal press without you supposed Conservative blogger’s spouting this kind of shit.Sure they are big spenders,but what are they spending on.Refitting the air force with top of the line fighter jets, infrastucture around Canada,rebuilding the armed forces,fighting a war costs billions.But so does keeping this CBC,Bilingualism,and the yearly 8 billion dollar give away to Quebec.And dont blame the federal government for causing this crap,it,s the Ontario government and there Fn green plan and electricity schemes and the constant tug for more money from Quebec.Just about free day care that Canada pays for in Quebec and big giant fans in Ontario that are utterly useless and give no electricity.Look to BC for their great green plans to show you what is happening in Canada.Every country or province that has gotten into this GREEN shit is bankrupt or is backing out of it.Even Japan has given Kyoto a big thumbs down.Maybe we should complain about some of this crap instead of how much the Conservatives are spending during this recession.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Annette Carter, Adrian MacNair. Adrian MacNair said: Stephen Harper's Canada, according to Michael Ignatieff: http://bit.ly/essXD8 (and bad attack ads) [...]
So you are complaining about a simplistic message? How about “tough on crime” when EVERY credible analysis of how to combat crime says spending money on heavier sentences has absolutely nothing at all to do with reducing crime.
See, Harper is not the only one who gets to campaign on catchy simplistic issues.
Better to have the many recidivists created by the lax Liberal justice system behind bars for longer periods of time.
That may be what you think, but that is not how it is being sold. It is being sold as though tougher sentences will result in decreased crime. Which is a simplistic message that does not stand up to analysis.
Bert points out what is glossed over by many.
WHAT were the spending increases on.
-All economists agree, Canada’s infrastructure was in dire shape, neglected for decades. Bridges collapsing, if you recall.
The ‘Stimulous’ took direct aim at infrastructure.
And all costs were shared by 3 levels of government.
So don’t cry a river about the Economic Action Plan spending billions our children have to pay for.
Our children also benefit from bridges, roads, community centers that WE are paying for now.
On the balance sheet, due to the Economic Action Plan, our children inherit the benefit of huge spending on infrastructure,
that’s called an ASSET, not an expense.
-In the last few weeks of Paul Martin’s short reign, he reassigned our troops from the safety of Kabul to the front lines in Kandahar.
Costs of course escalated.
Much needed military spending on equiptment to drag our troops out of the Liberal Decade of Darkness.
The war in Afghanistan is part of the so called Harper big spending era.
- More cops, training of border guards, then doubling the number or armed border guards.
Security costs are HUGE, and necessary.
There is a reason Canada has yet to be targeted by terrorists, and it ain’t because they love us.
-The first two years Canadian taxpayers were in surplus’, the Harper Govt paid down $30 Billion on the debt, before the economic meltdown.
-The economic meltdown sent the EI fund into deficit $$$, government sponsored retraining programs,
the feds shouldered the cost of the meltdown, keeping many Canadians off the welfare lines by stopping many job losses,
let’s not forget the Ontario Auto Bailout.
-The interest rates are unprecedently low, which greatly reduces the impact on ‘future generations’.
-Had the Chretien/Martin govt’s not raided the EI fund of $54 Billion (2001-2005) to fake surplus’,
all the EI/retraining programs would not have contributed to the deficit.
- PMSH stopped EI360, and the coalition of losers wanted a second round of stimulous spending,
and you know damn well that the coalition of losers would have raised taxes on Canadians and Canadian businesses.
Likely would have forced ‘carbon taxes’ on everything to pay for their hairyfairy social programs.
They would have devasted the Western Canada economy, the economic engine of Canada.
Time for so called fiscal conservatives to get a grip on reality,
and give PMSH and Flaherty the respect the economists in the International community does.
Leave the Harper hating to the socialists and separatists, eh.
Dippers are hilarious.
To them the REAL criminals are those who drive SUVs and work in the ‘tar sands’,
Western Canadian farmers who want to sell their own grain,
oh and those who refuse to fill out a census form,
how dare we think that gang members should spend more time behind bars so we can shop on a Sunday without fear of being killed,
and that child rapists never see the outside again….
Which has nothing at all to do with my point. But thanks for playing anyway.
Any person who cares about their country and the sustainability of that country would be concerned about the reckless spending levels of a government that criticized the Liberals for doing the same thing while in opposition.
Not at all bullshit. As I pointed out — well, by way of the Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank — the debt will be $63 billion higher in 2016 than the record set by the Liberals.
Now maybe you’re the kind of person who just gets a new credit card or remortgages his home every time there’s a financial crisis, which is what the government did during the recession, but that isn’t sustainable either.
Nonsense. You can see that hasn’t worked for other countries. It’s only worked here because of low interest rates and low corporate tax cuts.
Anybody with an Internet connection and five minutes can prove that the Conservatives have serially broken their own promises and stated principles. But if you want to call a person a liberal for pointing out the elephant in the room, you go right ahead if it makes you feel better.
All of that is sustainable. You’ll notice I haven’t criticized any of that, although the stimulus hasn’t all been infrastructure. Nor do I see how hockey arenas pertain to the economy, but whatever.
They’re not mutually exclusive, bud. That’s your first mistake.
I’d rather a thousand guilty men stay in prison longer at great taxpayer expense, than one get out again and rape children so we can save a dime.
And all scientists agree climate change is destroying the planet. Are they right? Where’s the proof, Wilson?
Nobody is crying about anything. I’ve simply point out that the Conservatives have a reckless spending track record, and that the future generation of taxpayers will (i.e.: my children) will have to pay for it.
Telling me how badly our infrastructure is in need of repair doesn’t mean much to me. Maybe your house roof needs repair but you can’t afford it. So you use your credit to pay for it, but that isn’t the end of the story. Now Wilson is in debt for her decision to pay for something she couldn’t afford. How will you pay it off? Wait until your earning power increases?
That’s what the CPC is doing. Instead of axing spending in bloated programs that they expanded — not the Liberals, the CPC — they’re trying to have it all.
Afghanistan, more cops, a more secure border is all affordable with a balanced budget as well. Don’t pretend it isn’t, Wilson.
This is pretty weak Wilson. Everybody knows that security theatre in Canada hasn’t prevented anything. Don’t make preposterous statements about $12 an hour security personnel groping 82-year-old women saving Canada from terrorists.
Really? The auto bailout? You wanted that?
Low interest rates are something that only affects the current economy, Wilson.
Wilson, these so-called fiscal conservatives are keeping a check on a so-called conservative government that lets in record numbers of immigrants, spends record numbers of dollars on dubious programs, breaks promises constantly, and is leaving a legacy of record debt.
Won’t argue that money is being spent, but did want to add some clarity about two things.
-1- The jets the liberals are accusing of Harper sole sourcing, well that program was one that Paul Martin got us into. Why didn’t the liberals stop it then if it was such a bad deal? But if they want to go there could they at least include how much more its going to cost to cancel the “sole sourced contract”?
-2- The liberals criticise tax cuts like its a bad thing. The only thing I can add is that it proves that liberals have no interest in seeing a reduction in government spending.
1. I don’t have a problem with the jets, although I know Mark wasn’t a fan of the F-35s. All I want to know is that the military has the tools it needs going forward. Do the F-35s accomplish that? Unknown.
2. True
There with the BS again.If you don’t want the country to survive say so.The Fraser institute gives bad advice half the time and people like you give it the other half.Without the spending A H there would be 20% unemployment,no armed forces and riots in our streets.Give us all a break from the commie -Liberal crap.The country is in good hands and we want PM Harper to spend our tax money on our country and not on the FN Liberal party.Without spending now there is no Canada for the future.The trick is spend wisely like PM Harper is doing and dont listen to the Friggin Fraser Institute or take advice from bloggers.And i OWE nothing bud and don’t rely on low interest rates.Only the sick lame and lazy and Quebec rely on low interest rates.Go PM Harper Go make these idiots eat their words.
I don’t want the country to survive? Bert, do you survive solely on credit cards? Are you up to your eyeballs in debt? Do you encourage people to take out mortgages they know they can’t carry if the interest rates change by a half-percentage point?
Sure sounds like it.
We can actually afford all of the things you mistakenly seem to think I’m asking us to cut. But do we really need all of it? Really? Everything we’re spending money on at the present we desperately need?
Face it, Bert. Your Conservatives are out-liberalling the Liberals. And you have the nerve to call people who want to cut spending commies. I don’t think you really have any idea what you’re talking about.
Fair is fair Adrian, Tell me how you would of done it better, The money has to be spent to keep people working, so IMHO if you have to spend then spend it on worthwhile stuff, which is the point that Wilson is making. The stuff about the military is also correct, once we committed ourselves to Afgan, then a lot of money had to be spent to bring us up to speed in a hurry, the RG 31, the Chinooks, the new Leopard II( even renting or borrowing them is expensive), the Globe masters, Arid Pattern uniforms, and all the kits that comes with them, frag vest, boots, jackets, helmet covers, etc etc etc, All that stuff you saw over there had to be shipped Adrian, that is all included in that spending. As to the auto bailout, that had no choice at all, the US was going to do it, if we wanted to keep any auto manufacturing at all in this country we had to do what they did. Woud you of not rented the ships to rescue those “citizens in Lebanon” for example
Seriously Adrian, What would you have done differently in the same circumstances, what programs would you of cut, be honest, sit down, look at the same domestic and foreign situation, both military and economically and tell me what you would of done differently.
Oh ya and your example of the roof, if Casa Adrian, had a dangerous leaking roof, I have no doubt you would be maxing out your credit to fix it ASAP
Just about number 2, IMHO, all of the tax cuts were about handicapping any other following govt from coming up with big time expensive social programs, i.e. Daycare. We all know it is a hell of a lot more accept to the public to cut then it is to raise.
It does? Says who?
Our investment in Afghanistan is a small part of the overall federal expenditures, and I’ve already said it was necessary. Still, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. Conservative spending on the military has barely kept pace with inflation, and last time I checked was still 0.7% below the recommended 2% of GDP.
So I have no problems with the military spending.
In 2008 on this blog I listed numerous programs to cut and ways to balance the budget. There are plenty of areas to cut spending. But even as has been pointed out by other writers, even holding spending at current levels would be prudent. We’re slated to increase spending by 9% from current levels by 2016 to $300 billion annually.
What would I have done differently? I would have started without the stimulus program, kept interest rates low, kept the corporate tax rate low. I think the emergency measures to EI was probably prudent in certain parts of the country.
But then again, nobody says you have to stay in the same place when times are tough.
The Liberals want to cut the 2012 corporate tax cut and implement an expansion of the EI program. Bad idea.
Nothing to do with your post per se, but FYI YouTube’s embedded link code seems to be screwed up these days which results in the video being outsized in WordPress. I find the way around this is to simply insert the video using its URL via the WordPress tool for this purpose rather than including the (now oddly truncated) link code YouTube offers up.
I have it set to 620 pixels wide. Is that what you’re seeing?
I think with this template you’d be better to go with 560.
But it may not work.
I’ve just gone back to using the default WordPress tool.
first of all can someone please explain to me what plans liberals have for Canada..other than to just complain lol…second I’ve taken Business accounting in college and it included 3 terms in Micro and Macro Economics..and I can honestly say Harper being an Economist is the best thing possible for Canada..he has even followed the Keensien Theory (John Maynard Keens – look it up) basis of Gov’t guidelines during recession periods. He is a very intelligent man (Harper I mean) who has staved off coalitions and managed to make much needed promises of rebuilding our military..the navy expecially…without which we are royally screwed..he’s dealt with the EI backdebt (because of liberal dipping 54 billion)during a recession and continues to keep his promises (as much as possible) through a minority Gov’t while constantly having all plans argued and procurements slowed due to liberal dissagreement (for purpose of keeping Harper looking bad only I might add) forcing certain decisions like locking in the F-35′s before Liberals take power and Canada gets nothing as a replacement…I can only hope for Conservatives (As long as Harper is the Leader anyway)..to get a majority ..so we can really get things done and done quickly and properly for once in this country…if Harper had a majority I believe Navy keels would already be being layed and probably bigger and better ones than the ones coming…such a shame when Canada gets a Leader it needs..but has him restricted because he has to watch every step he takes as a minority Gov’t..with talespinning head hunting Liberals at his door.. HARPER HAS MY VOTE..
and could someone please tell me if any Jan 2011 updates on Navy shipbuilding progress available..it would be appreciated.
Again, the point is that this is being sold as a simplistic solution to crime prevention, when it has absolutely nothing to do with crime prevention.
Harper does this because it sells, not because it works. You are right behind him on that, so not sure why you are complaining because the LPC found something they can simplify that might work for them
Actually, cancel that. I DO know why you are complaining about that.
By the way, just out of curiousity, what legislation has Harper passed to keep sex offenders in jail longer?
Keensien Theory…
What a maroon.