I enjoy reading the analysis of Scott Clark and Peter Devries. From the standpoint of economics, they're not happy with any of the party platforms. They've given the Liberals a "bare pass." The NDP also got a bare pass; and the Green Party got an F. They give the Conservatives a C. But it's a shaky C -- because it recycles so many failed Conservative policies:
Mr. Scheer finally released the Conservative platform on Friday afternoon. On the front cover, there should have been pictures of Stephen Harper, Doug Ford, and Jason Kenney. What Mr. Sheer and these three gentlemen have in common is that they hate deficits, no matter what their cause.
Mr. Scheer is promising to eliminate the deficit by cutting government programs and services without providing much in the way of details. Doug Ford and Jason Kenney did the same thing. In their election platforms, they also proposed to cut government spending but didn’t indicate how these cuts would be achieved. Residents of Ontario found out the “ bad news” after the election. Residents of Alberta will find out the “bad news” in the province’s upcoming budget scheduled for later this month.
Not only does Scheer want to get to a balanced budget -- something all politicians claim as a goal -- he wants to introduce balanced budget legislation. But emergencies happen -- remember 2008? -- and it's not wise to face them with your hands tied.
What runs throughout Scheer's document is the phrase "tax cuts." Clark and Devries write:
This is not the first time a government has tried an across the board cut in operating costs. They weren’t successful before and probably won’t be successful now. They are very difficult to implement because spending on government operations is very complex. The only time a cut in government operations was successful was under Paul Martin in his 1995 budget. This required an intensive “program review” of spending in every government department. This was required because at that time the federal government was facing a fiscal crisis. There is no fiscal crisis today that would warrant this.
Several of the proposed tax reductions are recycled from the Harper era but were eliminated by the Liberals. These include the Green Public Transit Tax Credit, the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit, and the Children’s Arts and Learning Tax Credit. They were eliminated as studies showed that they failed to meet their stated objectives.
These are non-refundable tax credits and only benefit those who have taxable income. This excludes many low-income Canadians. In addition, the aggregate benefit is reduced by the lowest tax rate. Mr. Scheer claims the Fitness Credit will be increased by $1,000. However, as a non-refundable tax benefit, its value is only $137.50, once the lowest tax rate of 13.75% is applied. Anyone who has a child in organized sports quickly realizes that this tax credit is of little benefit.
The Age Tax Credit is also a non-refundable tax credit, which means low-come seniors will receive no benefit from this credit, if they are non- taxable. The proposed reduction in the lowest tax also reduces the value of all non-refundable tax credits, which will now be valued at 13.75% rather than 15%. Mr. Scheer has been misleading Canadians.
The Conservative Platform lacks transparency and credibility and the cover should be stamped “not as advertised”. Even strict fiscal Conservatives should feel let down.
Something to think about when you go to the polls.
Image: SlideShare
13 comments:
At least these authors point out that, to benefit from tax credits, you need to have income. Those in most need of help do not get any.
UU
Precisely, UU. Under the Conservatives, those who have will get more.
Agree with UU, Owen. I learned in a Sociology class eons ago that when asked by researchers where most people saw themselves financially, and the choices were "rich, middle class, or poor" something like 70% answered "middle class". This is precisely these politicians take aim at this mythical group when scouring the country for the most important thing in the minimal world: VOTES!
Notice these same politicians, many of whom spend a high proportion of their adult lives feeding at the public trough, never consider that raising the minimum wage, providing additional financial assistance through subsidized health care or education or even adequate housing will be of benefit to those families who are struggling the most. They don't chastise corporations who continue to price fix commodities that are basic necessities to a large percentage of this so-called middle class.
I could go on and on about how they could help those in need without impinging on their vaunted goal of a "balanced budget" - a notion that is just pablum for the masses - but when feathering their own nest is their primary goal, my opinion just falls on deaf ears.
After World War II, Lulymay, governments invested in people. And those investments paid off. Now governments simply offer tax cuts. Money doesn't circulate. It dies at the top of the pyramid and everything stagnates.
We should have -- by now -- learned our lesson.
Isn't it a form of Kabuki theatre to compare fiscal platforms of parties that have a chance of forming government and those that don't? And just what do we use as a yardstick, the same economic policies that brought us to the precarious state we're in today?
It strikes me that these assessments should address the different scenarios that remain open to us - business as usual, the abyss, or a viable future. Until you've chosen A, B or C as the path to be pursued or at least desired, how can any analysis be useful?
There was a time when economic policy was paramount. We still treat it that way. On well, it gives us something to dwell on while the next big thing looms ever closer.
Point well taken, Mound. The basic assumption behind these critiques is that the prime function of government is to manage growth -- not whether continued growth is good for the planet.
That said, Clark and Devries' critique of the Conservative platform -- that it is warmed over Harperism -- is well taken. And it isn't surprising.
"yeaaaaaaaaaaah,,, another happy ending for the rich people" zoiberg on futurama
Same policy, lungta -- appealing to the same people.
.. somehow I'm having trouble recalling Stephen Harper 'hating' deficits.. unless as a desperation move and a fake surplus to try and stave off defeat of his majority in an election year.. at the last moment
I do recall the Harper Lavalin Scandal.. getting some 15 million from Lavalin, giving them 50 + or was it 75 million or even more.. to sell them The Atomic Energy reactor division.. of course they also got the properties, the buildings, the technologies, and priceless research assets.. It was kind of like the Wheat Board giveaway for nada.. but then, being a 'prairie boy' he knew all about wheat farming, grain transportation and delivery. (well, actually he knew dick)
There never was much to like about Harper et al.. he lied and fudged daily.. Kenney and Ford are just lesser clones, Scheer is more clown like Ford.. but clone too. None of them have ever really had any real world work experience.. or had to pay rent.. as political animals, they began sucking on Canadian taxpayers as soon as possible.. all see Donald Loser Trump and completely corrupted GOP as 'exciting' ..
Perhaps they're like John Voight.. actor.. who called Trump 'the highest nobleman in the land'
I knew that Voight was a Trump supporter, sal. But "the highest nobleman?" Nobility ain't what it used to be.
Your comment is spot on, Anon. Please initial it and I'll publish it.
.. are you on Twitter Norm ' .. Askin for a friend.. haha
Its funny coming across such outrage ie John Voight aghast at criticism of Trump.. 'the marbles are strong in that man' rattling through his addled head.. I recently read Deliverance.. have seen the landmark John Boorman film many a time.. and its interesting the role he plays well.. and essentially his role, as read in the book is deeply introspective, observant, wondering.. but somehow lives to tell the tale. I referred to it in a Mound comment.. the book. The Georgia backwoods populace.. the backwater towns, the locals.. all struck me as prescient.. I suggested it was like 'The River Runs Through It' with zombies.. Where there should have been southern hospitality .. there was hostility, suspicion, indignity, insult, and attack.. even rape.. murderous intent..
What percentage of America today.. fits that ?
Who in Canada wants to embrace such a 'culture' ? And what percentage ?
John Boorman interpreted the book faultlessly .. no surprise
I remember Voight as the Vietnam War vet in Coming Home, sal. He serves as a reminder that the movie character and the actor can be two different people.
Post a Comment