Friday, January 30, 2009

A budget amendment that even Monte Solberg would vote for

Even duty bound Monte Solberg is critical of Harper's budget.

Mind you, one can never be certain where Monte Solberg stands on any position, or from one minute to the next. It all depends on which way the lobbyist winds are blowing. and just how desperate the Neo-Conservatives are for seniors’ votes, at any given moment in time.

In any event, here’s my amendment that will further stimulate the economy, protect the vulnerable AND cut the budget deficit in half. Surely that would appeal to all Canadians, across the entire political spectrum. From Solberg, on through to Layton.

Harper’s budget is being panned by Canadians across the political spectrum, and for good reason. It is a hodge-podge of superficial measures that will lead our country recklessly in debt. Canadians need this budget like they need a hole in the head. Here is the amendment that I would make to this budget that would serve to further stimulate the economy, protect the vulnerable and reduce Harper’s reckless deficiy in half:

(1) Stimulate consumer activity over the next two year period by implementing a phased increase the GST, to 6% effective the start of 2010 and 7% effective the start of 2011. This will reduces Harper’s $85 billion budget deficit by $47 billion (or 44%) to $45 billion. Out children and grandchildren will thank us profusely, as we will be living within our means, in the same manner as we expect of them.

(2) Protect Canadian seniors by eliminating Harper’s income trust tax that has resulted in $108 billion of trust tax related takeover activity over the last two years, resulting in over 2500 job losses and the loss of $1.2 billion in ANNUAL tax revenue. This measure would restore $35 billion in lost retirement savings by 2.5 million Canadians (including losses by CPP, Caisse, OMERs, Teachers’ and others), and would serve to protect the remaining tax stream paid to Ottawa of $6 billion a year, that along with jobs, is very much at risk. Restoring this income stream to Canadian taxpayers and Canadian seniors would provide an immediate fiscal stimulus to the economy, as these people would resume their former consumption patterns and standard of living. Cat food sales would experience a significant decline, however sales of Canadian made automobiles and Alberta beef would improve by a significantly greater amount. Meanwhile pressures on Canada’s social security system by otherwise impoverished pensioners and seniors would abate.

The only downside to this budget is that it would be free from criticism from anyone across the entire political spectrum, except for those who deny empirical evidence (as it pertains to income trusts or the stimulate effects of consumption taxes) and those who deny that Canadians should ever be asked to live within their means.


Dr Mike said...

The party base must be seeing red today , not that I feel bad at all.

We tried to tell anyone who would listen that this guy has only one goal , a majority--if the Liberal movement dies along the way , all the better.

Nothing will stand in his way--nothing is sacred--no one is sacred.

I find it hard to believe that the Conservative movement will tolerate this for long--they have ideals that they adhere to & this budget & the pre-Christmas near-death experience are not part of it.

I think Harper`s time is drawing short--the shorter the better.

Dr Mike

Loraine Lamontagne said...

I would definitely support your amendment. That is exactly what the Liberals should be doing.

I will not answer your poll. I believe that the 'accountability' amendment aims at ensuring that parliament remains open for business. Whenever parliament sits, the conservatives' numbers go down.

Call me Ontarian, but I think Ignatieff is right in trying to ensure that Harper would not ask for prorogation til kingdom come once his budget has been voted on.

Anonymous said...

The problem with this is that the Canadian government along with the G20 nations agr4eed to all inject 2% of their GDP into the economy over and above budgeted expenditures.

That is why the budget defecti is what it is - it is the amount agreed to in December by Harper and all of the other countries are doing it as well.

If you increase the GST you remove that money from the economy so you would have to inject the same amount in some other way.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said

"The problem with this....."

The point you are making is invalid. This is an ammendment to Harper's budget and not a budget unto itself. As such all other aspects of Harper's lame budget remain in place, including those lame measures that he claims will be stimulative, such as income tax cuts etc.

meanewhile, these increases in GST occur 1 and 2 years out, which is the same as what the UK are doing. Furthermore, if Mark Carney (Harper's appointment as Bank of Canada Governor) is to be believed (a difficult task at the best of times), then this recession will be short live and over by the end of 2009.


Brent Fullard