Tuesday, November 15, 2005

The Solberg Budget

Upon reflecting on Goodale's budget, I'm beginning to wonder if he's suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

I mean, last February, we had the Goodale budget. Then, in May, we got the Jack Layton budget with NDP spending galore.

Now, Ralph gives us the third budget in less than a year chalk full of tax cuts. Because of this, from now on, this blog will refer to it as the Solberg budget. Basically, we got the same budget Minister of Finance Monte Solberg would have delivered under a Tory government (minus the military spending).

So I'll open up the question to a vote: Of the three, which one is your favourite budget? Or are you holding out hope for the Duceppe budget this March?

14 Comments:

  • I'm personally on the edge of my seat for the Gerry Byrne budget. I figure it's only 55 or 60 budgets away (so...mid-February-ish, assuming the gov't stays that long). That one's going to be a ring-a-ding-dong-dandy!

    By Anonymous Johnny Pockets, at 12:59 AM  

  • That's a difficult question. I think the Spring budget was right for the Spring and I think this one is right for now. I would say that I prefer Goodale's overall policy direction.

    I really don't understand why you are so down on this.

    By Blogger Jason Cherniak, at 7:57 AM  

  • I rather like the "Solberg budget" myself, except for the fact that it has obviously been put forward to prevent the existence of an actual Solberg budget.

    By Blogger The Tiger, at 8:57 AM  

  • If only Bronconnier could have a shot at a federal budget.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:56 AM  

  • Jason; I just think there are a lot of better ways to spend 30 billion dollars, than on tax cuts.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 11:22 AM  

  • I don't know, CG. I certainly don't need the tax cut and I'll probably do what I did with the $200 Harris gave us in Ontario - drop it into my local charity. But 500,000 lower income Canadians just dropped off the tax collection list altogether. That's pretty significant and pretty good progressive tax policy.

    TB
    Cerberus

    By Blogger Cerberus, at 11:51 AM  

  • TB- At least you can finally admit that Solberg and the CPC has great ideas that can benefit ALL Canadians.

    Cheers to the Solberg budget.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:56 AM  

  • This may come as news to Jason, but budgets are supposed to be for some purpose other than the re-election of the Liberal party. But I guess that's why I read CG's blog, Liberal though he may be, and not Jason's.

    By Anonymous MarkC, at 12:34 PM  

  • I luv ya CG, but this line:

    "I just think there are a lot of better ways to spend 30 billion dollars, than on tax cuts."

    ...Means we'll never be close friends. ;-)

    By Blogger The Hack, at 12:58 PM  

  • Um Cerberus, I have an excellent introductory literacy class that you can take if you so choose. 500,000 Canadians were not dropped from the tax rolls because of the Solberg budget, the government is claiming that 500,000 now in total are off the tax rolls. The 500 dollar raise in the basic exemption may have dropped 40, maybe even 50 thousand, but not 500,000.

    But I agree with Jason, I think the Spring budget with no corporate tax cuts was the correct Budget in May, but clearly now in November, it is time for Corporate tax cuts. We must keep up with the changing economic times, it is not trite to say that once again Ralph has his hand on the pulse of the nation, just as he did in the spring.

    Kudos Ralph on a job well done

    By Blogger fartcatcher, at 2:01 PM  

  • I admit I'm a bit strange. But years ago, in the 1970s, I got my first job. Sure, a few dollars were taken off my cheque for taxes. It wasn't much, but it was something.

    I didn't make much money (back then when I was in high school), but I didn't think it was bad that I was actually paying a few dollars of taxes. In fact, I was rather happy that I was finally making a contribution (albeit a small one) to the country which I rather liked.

    The additional $ 500 deduction will take those off the tax rolls who paid $80 or less in Federal Tax. That's about $7 a month.

    Its not really significant. And the cost is $80 x 15,000,000 or so taxpayers ($1,200,000,000).

    What's a billion? Not very much when targetted like a shotgun blast at 3 miles. But it really could be something if it were targetted at something in particular.

    Most people won't notice the $ 80. I suppose it might spur some economic growth, or create the incentive to innovate. But I doubt it.

    On the other hand, we could do a lot of things. Buy 100 fighter planes, 1,000 Challengers, 2,400 DA-40s. At least every flying nut in the country would be happy. A we might even vote for Mr. Martin.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:24 PM  

  • CG, I like your blog but I gotta disagree with ur non-preference for tax cut.

    If the government was spending wisely, I could give up the $80 tax cut. Canadian army needs new ships, subs and choppers. But since the government will spend it unwisely, like the sponsorship program, penalty for cancelling a chopper purchase, I would rather have my tax cut.

    By Blogger mezba, at 6:15 PM  

  • Is your vote for sale?

    The underlying premise of the Goodale economic update ("budget")yesterday is that your vote is for sale. The second premise is that you can be bought with your own taxpaper dollars. Are the Liberals correct in their cynical assumption that the majority of Canadian voters are prepared to forget and forgive the corruption and scandal of the past few years in return for a Christmas bribe of $400 or so? I hope not. Twelve years of Liberal administration is enough. As Mark Kennedy wrote in the Ottawa Citizen, "The goal of the mini-budget is clear. It's an attempt to buy votes to keep the scandal-plagued Liberals alive at the polls."


    While the alternative(s) may be unpalatable, better to vote for one of the alternatives than to condone the practices of the current administration.Martin would like to pretend that his government is new and different but, as Finance Minister through the Chretien years, he has to share responsiblity for the actions and inactions of those years.

    It's time for a change. Vote for an alternative. Teach them that we are not sheep, to be taken for granted.

    By Blogger cardinal47, at 10:38 PM  

  • CG

    For Harper, his willingness to cut "legislated social liberalism" (e.g., children's aid societies) is what separates himself and Martin on the issue of taxation.

    “There are real limits to tax-cutting if
    conservatives cannot dispute anything about how or why a government actually
    does what it does. If conservatives accept all legislated social liberalism with
    balanced budgets and corporate grants - as do some in the business community -
    then there really are no differences between a conservative and a Paul
    Martin.”

    http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html

    Harper went on to say that not only is "legislated social liberalism" not needed it also a threat to conservative values. Harper singled out the Ontario child aid society for scorn.

    "Take, for example, the debate over the rights of parents to discipline their children - the so-called spanking debate. Of course, there are legitimate limits to the use of force by parents - limits outlined in the Criminal Code. Yet the most recent Liberal Throne Speech, as part of its "children's agenda," hinted at more government interference in the family. We saw the capacity for this abuse of power in the events that took place in Aylmer, Ont. Children there were seized for no reason other than the state disagreed with the religious views of their parents. No conservative can
    support this kind of intrusion, and conservatives have an obligation to speak forcefully against such acts."

    A year before Harper put this to pen the judge rendered his verdict in the case. The judge ruled (July 2002) in the Aylmer case that hitting the kids with a belt, stick, electrical cords, clothes hanger and metal “spanking stick” went well beyond the use of “reasonable force” and slapping the wound of boy brunt by hot water so that a remedy including diluted bleach could be a applied to the wound was not protected by law. http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt33.html The Children’s Aid Society had every right to intervene; the parents claims to the contrary were “sheer nonsense”. "No community, or society, could reasonably agree with the concept that a parent who sexually abuses or physically mistreats a child should be entitled to give his/her consent to the interviewing, or examination of the child by a member of a Children's Aid Society." http://www.rickross.com/reference/hildebrandt/hildebrandt35.html

    By Blogger Koby, at 4:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home