CTV reporting NDP will not support.

I wanna see Duceppe run out and say he can't support so we can watch Dion have to spin how he will support it... :)

Damn... Dion beat Duceppe to the mikes... :(

have to get more details on the fuel-inefficient vehicle levy. We knew there would be some pandering but this is disgusting green hysteria. If you have a large family -- which a good conservative government should be encouraging -- are we going to punished for not buying a piece of junk minivan? this, and the foolish subsidy for fuel-efficiency, is terrible pandering and market manipulation. off to a bad start

I don't believe it... Duceppe against it too?

We gonna have an election call in a week? (Please) or is one of the parties going back on their position?

Wonder how the SOWs will fare in the new budget.

For those in Alberta want to mention that I personally heard Ed Stellmach speak last Friday. He pays homage (believe it or not) to AGW but stops short (naturally) at Kyoto.

What is it with politicians? Are polls telling them that they have to bow to the Manbearpig God or be banished to political hell? I don't get it. Isn't there a single politician in power with any intergrity at all on this issue?

No income tax cuts. No sales tax cuts. No capital gains tax cuts. Yet there is a 7$ increase of spending. I give it an F.

More than a third of the "spending" is tax cuts. Environment spending is mostly on conservation instead of greenhouse gases. Capital Gains exemption on farmland sets the stage for general capital gains tax elimination in next budget. Child Care spending is on tax credit for investment. On all this, an A.

Only thing I don't like is the bucks being thrown at the provinces with no strings. It stinks of the downloading that Flaherty did in Ontario that really didn't accomplish anything other than passing the buck for bureaucratic failure.

All opposition hates it already...they must be doing something right.

$2000 tax credit per kid...I'll take it.

Block Blinked ??

CTV Craig now saying, "not clear if Block on or off".

Yeah... Bloc is good for something... :)

Lorne isn't happy with the "1/2 measure" on equalization and natural resources.

My day is looking up :)

IMO, PMSH, Flahterty have it right.

A huge majority of Canadians, and I think correctly so, are in favour of using Hydrocarbons wisely. Both for $$ saved and the environment.

They are NOT in favour of the Mo Strong Kyoto Carbon-Credit scam that would see $$Billions going to countries like Russia and Romania. For nothing but UN, Pembina Insitute, Greenpeace Bureaucrat jobs.

Flahterty has just put a muzzle on the biggest pain in the butts. The Suzuki and Gores of the world.

Bonner interviewing a glum Mr. Sustain-a-Bull. No idea what he's saying, but he sounds and looks defeated. Total inability to connect with the public.

Now calling Duceppe a liar for saying this budget gives Quebec more money...

I don't like paying so some champagne socialist can stroke their self-reighteousness by buying a worthless Prius or some such.

CBC has BMO analyst Shirley Cooper on...

Talking about incentives for buying environmentally friendly cars. Can you guess the angle being played?

It's bad for the auto and oil industries.

*Nothing* about how this is a positive, balanced move in terms of protecting the environment.

lmao,

Dion is still harping about the income tax "increase" that the conservatives "reversed" liberal decrease that was never put into law.

And he just did the same Que is getting less than we gave and would give now, so why is duceppe supporting bit on CTV too.

Even Craig Oliver is saying that Dion should have supported.... This is funny

Spending up 15% since the Tories took power, including waste like almost a third of a billion ($300 million) for aboriginal housing, for example.

Since when did conservatives believe throwing money at people helped solve social problems?

Appalling.

NCF TO, what are you watching? Canoe news says $310 tax credit for each kid not $2000!

I am mildly surprised that all opposition parties are rushing to disapprove of the budget.

John M Reynolds

It's not about protecting the environment. It's about buying off a noisy section of the public. It's bad for freedom.

The only good thing about it is it avoids the government throwing billions away on useless CO2 reduction schemes. So that's a good thing about this otherwise pretty meaningless budget. Certainly nothing in it for me - I still have to go on supporting hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats.

Good for famillies with children.

I like the corporate tax help for sequestration of carbon dioxide. That's the smartest thing to do for CO2, and for future development of old oilsands.

The DEDUCTION is $2000...the effective SAVINGS for the average family is about $310 per kid. Lower-income families save more, higher-income families save less.

Stephawn Deyawn is not going to support the Budget that is so GOOD for Quebec????

Talking about wedge issues, that Titmouse needs a high wedgie.

All this and we have yet to suffer through listening to the likes of McCallum and the venerable, holier than the Pope Ralphie Goodale.

Let the spin roll!

This budget was a good one, yet again Jim. It will fly high. When the dumb parade find out that polsters rank approval with the public they have no way of turning it down and not having their heads cut off.

$2000 of basic exemption X .155 = $310.00

Libby Davies is complaining to Parliament that the budget isn't socialist enough. Her yellow blazer is certainly socialist enough.

$750,000.00 lifetime capital gains benefit for small businesses...HUGE for this small businessman

Those whining about a Conservative government spending so much...political reality children

Budget gets a big fat F-. You would think the NDP are currently running the government. Spend...spend...spend...and no tax relief?

Sad.

CTV is now reporting that the Bloc will support the budget.

That's all she wrote.  Unless somebody changes their minds in the next few days, there's not gonna be a spring election.  About what I'd thought, though for different reasons...

Just heard Danny Williams crying to the CBC. I can't for the life of me understand why non-renewable resources shouldn't be included in the equalization formula. It's no different than any other industry. You make what you can off it, ie: farming, fishing, tourism. Once it's depleted you become a have-not province and are thereby entitled to receive more transfers.

What is the consensus on the demolishing of the Income Trusts? I certainly wish I knew more about this, as it appears to be a bad move altogether.

$300 million for a cervical cancer immunization program seems a tad high to pay for a program when you consider that pap tests are already 'free' and readily available to all 1400 women who may potentially get cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer vaccine
No such thing as a 'magic bullet'
...HPV may be the most common sexually transmitted disease worldwide, infecting 75% of sexually active women at some point in their lives, but for the majority of women who contract HPV, the body's natural defenses are enough to beat the virus...

www.cwhn.ca/resources/cancer/cervical

Where is the *fiscal* conservativism?

Just saw the Dion clip.

He should fire his English tutor.

Even tho this is far from being a conservative budget just think what it would be if the crooks or the commies were in charge.

oops i meant to say liberanos or new dhimmi party

Not the most fiscally conservative budget, but a brilliant political one.

It's almost unfair the way Harper toys with Dion. Seconds after the budget is released, Dion is running to a podium saying he won't support it. Yet the budget promises his home province billions of dollars.

I can just see the Quebec adds now, Stephane Dion is not a leader, he voted against transfer payments for Quebec.

The majority avalanche has started with this rolling snow ball.

Tories deliver liberal budget

http://taxpayersfederation.blogspot.com/2007/03/tories-deliver-liberal-budget.html

Why can't they give everyone a tax break?

Sure, families with children can certainly use some relief. Seniors need help too.

So could people saving for their first house, or people who have raised their children but need to save for retirement, or people who have been unable to have children and are paying for fertility treatments, or people who need to find a new job or get retraining, or people who for various reasons have been unable to start a family, or people who are supporting a relative or a parent, or young people trying to finance higher education. Don't these people deserve tax relief too? Well, according to Jim and Steve, tough luck to all of them.

Clearly they are targeting a demographic (families with children under 18 and seniors) and a region (Quebec) in an attempt to gain a majority.

This budget is a disaster for small c conservatives.

The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation is giving the budget a D.

Did anyone catch the poke at CSL? Real change to 'loopholes' that have allowed tax emption for off shore investment.Paulie,s boats are gonna be taxed! Wish I could have seen Dithers face when that was announced...Flaherty locked eyes and smirked at someone...hope it was Martin.
This is good spending...it goes back to taxpayers instead of lining Lib pockets.Lot's to provinces for infrastructure...in my world that means EMPLOYMENT in the construction sector.

"Not the most fiscally conservative budget, but a brilliant political one."

I agree, nothing in it for me. But being a single male in his 40's, I expected as much.
I'm a patient man, I'm willing to support PMSH until he gets a majority. It's still a lot more than the liberals would do, unless you're brown bagging it.

A horrible budget. 14 months in office and my taxes are up. Is this the party I've volunteered hundreds of hours to help elect?

some people get everything in a knot before they look at the whole picture.......this seems like a pretty good budget, gives a bit for evryone, business incentives families, income splitting....what more would you want...if they would quit throwing money at the "CHILD CARE" hysteria more ordinary people would benefit....stay home, look after your own kids, the working parent gets to claim you as a full adult deduction.....there is no downsize......we need more parents looking after their own kids...i think it produces a better society.then you know what your kids are up to and they will like that more also.............

And Layton was sleeping thru the whole presentation.
"No money for aboriginals, no money for student". Wrong....I heard both mentioned several times.
Let's fill in the blanks:
Nothing for_______
I'll start:
Nothing for beagle owners.
Nothing for moonbats dressed in orange in Ottawa today.

Canadians don't want fiscal conservatism. Canadians want to ride this "welfare state" pyramid scheme out to the end. They'd throw Harper out in a heartbeat if he cut so much as a dime from the budget.

Universal suffrage, or fiscal conservatism: pick one, because you can't have both.

CTF is full of crap. There is plenty of tax relief for working families. Federal program spending is minimal. Provincial transfers are obscene, but politically you can't chop them now.

I'm going to buy a new F250 and a new Grand Cherokee tomorrow!

"A horrible budget. 14 months in office and my taxes are up. Is this the party I've volunteered hundreds of hours to help elect?"

I hear ya Matt. Again the Conservatives make us look like fools for supporting them. Once the surplus is gone next year, we can look forward to more personal tax increases to help pay for all this crap. I hope there is an election, just so we can flush this budget down the drain, where it belongs.

I used to send money to support the Conservatives. Then they sprung the income trust Halloween bungle on me, and I was being extremely reticent about sending more $$ to the coffers. Thought maybe the budget would be payback time, but evidently not. Tax cuts, guys, tax cuts. I voted for you because I wanted tax cuts. Not more spending. Tax cuts. Spending cuts. Less government. So if any Conservatives are reading this and know somebody who volunteers for the fundraising committee, tell them I won't be sending any money until I see some benefit from having the Conservative Party in power.

Andrew Coyne says, "Jim Flaherty officially becomes the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada."

Why do these yahoos call themselves "conservative"? Flaherty makes Paul Martin look responsible. Maybe the Liberal party really is the “natural ruling party” in Canada, even if they call themselves “Conservative”.

Increase government spending; pander to the greenie wackos; liberal all the way.

The gas-guzzler/saver component misses the mark. Looking purely at EPA gas numbers doesn't address the polution a vehicle creates. We should be looking at European tailpipe measurements of polluting compounds, not CO2 alone. A badly engineered hybrid on the highway produces more pollutants than a well engineered SUV. Hybrids look good on paper but the assumption is a 50/50 mix of city & highway driving. Giving a $2000 credit to buy a Prius and drive it outside of a major metropolitan area does nothing for the environment. Likewise, having a family or any other group take two small vehicles is worse than the worst SUV.

"Flaherty makes Paul Martin look responsible."

Sums it up all very nicely right there.

At least the money is being spent on programs that actually do some good. With the exception of the greenie BS. I did enjoy watching the one fellow in the pre-budget show rip that green facist from Toronto a new one.....everytime he slammed her beloved GW idealogy with factual science she would retort arn't we here to talk about the budget.

I guess in a way I can't blame the Conservatives, they are in a minority situation faced with a public that has NO stomach for another election right now. I also happen to be one of the lucky ones that will benefit from tax relief. I have two kids under 18.

"The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation is giving the budget a D"

SF, did you watch the same budget as I.......CTF gave the budget a B

1. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.
2. The longer the CPC is in power the greater their popularity will be.
3. Once they get their majority they will be able to deliver more conservative budgets.
4. Instead of reading liberal bias MSM analysis of the budget get it from the source.

www.budget.gc.ca/2007/index_e.html

There will be an extra tax on the poor and middle-income Canadians who drive.

The reason I say this is that you may notice that the lower income citizens can only afford lower priced cars. This will mean that they will have to pay more because of not affording a new car/van/truck. I already emailed my MP on this. Putting on a levy [I think it is about $3 – 4,000.00] on the cars that they can barely afford to operate now is going to hurt this group. I’m sure they would love to buy a new efficient car; they will be the ones buying the cars that are on the road presently.

Just a thought.

Linked below

Budget 2007

I thought there was a little slap at CSL and other off shore companies. What was it about no interest being deductable if used in out of country entities. Does this mean Strong can't borrow money in Canada, to invest in his carbon credit scam, and deduct the expense.

Odie it was a "B" for "big government." This budget barely merits a D.

The way I'm reading the news is that a single parent can income split with their child. An interesting scam might be for a couple with 2 kids to separate, each take i kid, and cut their tax liability. You could still live under one roof by renting :-)

opie if you could remember any details about who was ripping who a new one on GW (names network etc) i'd like to look for that on the web.

hopefully that stupid tax credit for has very broad exemptions cars for lower and middle income like chevy cobalts and kia rios are not included. hopefully too some full size family suvs are also exempt. if we have a third kid i don't want to pay and extra 4 THOUSAND DOLLARS because i think minivans suck. i am welll aware this is a bif picture budget targeted at certain demographic groups in the ontario and quebec, but there was no need for a punitive tax of that nature. they could have done something else.

The net effect of the credit on fuel efficient vehicles is to raise the retail price of these by $2000. In the end it won't make them any more attractive. Car manufacturers charge what the market will bear. I just purchased a Hyundai and got 15% off plus free financing. A friend just turned down an offer on a Cadillac CTS for over 30% off list($60000->42000).
I doubt either dealer is selling at a loss.

Cow Lick McCallums'gonna do a 26R tonite,obnoxious pr*ck.Grand kids are now worth $310 each for the married children.The ones in university can compete for great scholorships.I get income splitting,no money for chairman Mo,Jacks pissed,Dions ESL tutor is a total failure & Duceppes'gonna support & headed for political oblivion.A+ & checkmate.

As they say in Newfoundland, the arse is out of 'er for Jacko Layton. The Blocheads are forced to support the Budget because it's good for Quebec so the Dipperhead can posture and fume on.
He can join Dion, who incredibly doesn't support it, even though he's a Quebec Member! DUH! AND DUH!

My own take on the budget:

BUDGET 2007: The Economic Productivity & Family Budget

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2007/03/budget-2007-economic-productivity.html

"The cons keep re-announcing our policy's..."

"This is a terrible budget and we cannot support it."

Is there something that doesn't jive with these 2 statements??? Or have I had too much to drink??

TO Red Star admits the FI is dead.

Headline: With $39B, Flaherty declares fiscal imbalance fixed ...-

But, Red Star says there is a sad note for the Rev. Lorne:

"But that cap also ends up penalizing Saskatchewan, the province least likely to be appeased by Flaherty's fancy footwork on equalization."

CTV presents two perspectives to budget. One from the Liberals, another from the NDP.

Dion got himself backed into corner. If he supports budget, which he doesn't have do given Bloc support, he is acknowledging good budget. If he doesn't, then on wrong side of Quebec friendly measures. Watch him try to have it both ways, with his usual inept result of have it no ways, to continue in his political limbo while party figures out way to get rid of him without losing election. Dion will be first Liberal in over 100 years to not become PM. What a fine mess the LPC in, humbled with no chance of money, I mean, government.

tedf:
Thanks for reminding me. McCallum and Goodale, the Gold Dust Twins, two obnoxious Pr*cks!
They'll be opposing for the sake of opposing because
it's SAFE to do so! Turn off your sets, they're rants are of no consequence, let them fan the air.

Although not everything I had hoped it would be, it is still better than letting the Liberals do it, and still way better than listening to Ralph Goodale tell you what a good budget he just delivered.

"I like the corporate tax help for sequestration of carbon dioxide. That's the smartest thing to do for CO2, and for future development of old oilsands."

You're a fool. This is just like burning money. CO2 has no economic use, to to spend money on it is to burn it.

And, before you jump in, man made CO2 is not going to destroy the planet.

I agree with Matt. If I wanted this kind of budget I'd have voted Liberal. As a Conservative supporter for years, I'm getting pretty despondant. Harper has been nothing more than a Liberal minus the corruption.

He's got one more budget to show some real tax relief, then my vote is up for grabs.

This isn't a new thing but I hate the concept of taxation as a form of social engineering. What is so hard about cutting income taxes across the board? It always has to be something to try and coerce people into behaving in a certain way. An "efficient vehicle" is only efficient if the only thing I need to move is my butt. If I have to carry stuff like my children or my tools, its not particularly efficient.

Transfers to the provinces - let the provinces raise their own money. Provinces and municipalities are never going to be well run (Quebec and Toronto can get away with being run by socialist idiots if the rest of the country has to pay for it)if whenever they need money they just beg another level of government for it. I would love to see a federal government say they would cut taxes, and if provinces need more money they can raise there taxes. "Fiscal imbalance" solved.

Clown Party See my post earlier that it is the left wealthy who will profit from this interference in the auto market.

John G

No matter how bad the budget or anything else is, to paraphrase MasterCard, "..minus the corruption", PRICELESS :-)

What exactly are these items about:

a levy on gas guzzlers.
Does this mean I get to pay an extra tax because I have a hunting vehicle in great shape but is older than say 19?? Or does this mean I get to pay less for a new (but useless) 1/4 ton than say a 2500 4x. Or does it mean I get to pay more per litre of gas based on the judgment of a gas jockey that I have a "gas guzzler". Maybe a special pump will be designated for "guzzlers only".

Incentives to take all those "Older" (read fully paid for, not leased) vehicles off the road.
Does this mean the gov't cuts me a check if I trade in my "older" unit on a new one. Sounds a whole lot like a subsidy to the auto industry rather than anything about the color green. If I don't choose to buy - then what happens. Do I get to pay more to register my older unit.

Right - if you have lots of kids, you gain a little popcorn; otherwise not a whole lot for individuals.

Since the Bloc sees the budget beneficial - we will see the meat and potatoes flow into Quebec this week.

Stelmach is very happy. Bronconier (mayor) is crying as usual as his middle names are Give Me More. Only ON gets a huge transfer for transit.

Those words - per capita transfer - just keep on flowing so we will just keep on working and remitting taxes so central Canada can keep on spending.

Filter ate my comment for some reason. Seems to dislike even single links now.

Just click on my name and read my post on my blog. It's my take on the Budget, which I call, basically, an economic productivity and family budget.

Termites are the biggest single producer of CO2, by a long, long way. Lets tax termites! Save the planet, tax termites!

I also would call this a "national unity budget".

What better way to slay the Quebec separatist dragon than by solving the fiscal imbalance?

Is all that money spent on CO2 a scam for taxpayers?

Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy

FIRST PRINCIPLES
A weekly commentary by Link Byfield

March 19, 2007

Strange to say, Parliament has never questioned whether CO2 causes global warming

One issue we at the Citizens Centre have avoided up to now is “climate change.”

Our focus as an organization is constitutional, and the constitutional implications of climate change remain unclear.

If human-emitted carbon dioxide really is unleashing hurricanes, droughts and floods, then Ottawa should certainly consider imposing reductions, and provinces should co-operate.

But if it isn’t – if CO2 is just a harmless, fluctuating component of Earth’s atmosphere – anything Ottawa does to restrict emissions constitutes a gross theft of provincial rights and responsibilities.

So it’s a scientific question first, and then, depending on the evidence, a political and constitutional question.

We have all been told that the science is now settled.

The main authority behind this assertion is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Yes, says the IPCC, the temperature and the sea have both risen slightly in the last century, and will rise slightly again in the next, causing limited coastal flooding, and accentuating regional patterns of drought and rainfall. And yes, this will be caused in large part by humanity increasing atmospheric CO2 from 260 parts per million to 375 ppm.

It’s less gripping than Al Gore’s sci-fi horror movie showing New York under 20 feet of seawater. But it’s concerning.

To appreciate how much work – and guesswork – has gone into this, read the IPCC’s latest report, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).

But be aware as you read that many credible scientists still dispute the central contention, that CO2 raises temperatures.

This was the point of a BBC documentary on March 8 (on-line at http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_detail.php?StreamID=566).

In it a roster of experts argues that the current temperature falls midway within a known natural range, and is driven by fluctuations of the sun, not CO2. And besides, they say, a little more heat is probably good, not bad.

The BBC show also suggests that most climate research is now being driven by green propaganda and governments looking for reasons to control the economy.

So where does this leave us?

Before Canada plunges into huge and costly disruptions to provincial energy production on the basis of some questionable UN theory, we suggest there be a rigorous parliamentary review of the science.

Strange as it might seem to some, no Canadian legislature has performed an open and unbiased review since the controversy erupted a generation ago. Not even the Harper government. Not even the Klein and Stelmach governments.

They listen only to one side, and block their ears to the other.

I once asked a former premier why. He replied, “Because in politics you have to be on the side of the angels.”

Whatever that means. There is nothing angelic about governments clumsily redesigning the economy – which is what state-mandated CO2 reductions will do. We are still paying for similar stupidities in the 1970s and ’80s.

Nor is it angelic to needlessly increase the price of energy, especially in destitute places like Africa.

As a nation we should not take everything the UN says on blind faith. Last we heard they were still obsessing (wrongly, as it turns out) about overpopulation.

It may seem politically late in the day for a scientific public inquiry on global warming.

But better late than never.

Until Parliament has honestly and openly considered all the evidence about CO2, it has no moral right to do anything.

Link Byfield

Link Byfield is an Alberta senator-elect and chairman of the Citizens Centre. The Centre promotes the principles of personal freedom and responsible government.

$2000/kid tax credit and an end to the marriage penalty for single income families - I'll take those.

But the rest is a little disappointing. In fairness, the opposition gets a vote and none of the three opposition parties would support a genuinely conservative budget. So it looks like real fiscal reform will have to wait for a majority.

Come on people. Yes, the government is spending more this year and there is no significant, broad-based tax relief. Who expected anything else with this minority situation?

Any sort of meaningful tax relief or program cuts would not be supported by the opposition parties, we would have an election and we would be right back into another minority government.

We are just going to have to wait until the Conservatives get their majority before we see a true conservative budget.

Not impressed with the budget, but not really angry about it either. The realities of a minority government I would say.

Ok, so I've spent three hours reading various analysis of the new proposed budget, and I must say that some of the comments above must be about some other budget. All the usual suspects are complaining about everything, but that's to be expected. This is Canada's operating budget for the short-term future. It is not a philosophy seminar. Those who would prefer that the Conservatives propose a budget that would see them manning the opposition benches again are, in my opinion, not Conservatives.

The National Post says that the budget includes $8.2-billion in personal and business tax cuts, $6.9-billion more for the provinces to end the so-called fiscal balance, $3.9-billion more for the environment, health and culture, $1.1-billion more to bolster workforce skills and economic infrastructure, $819-million more for defence and foreign aid, $370-million more for First Nations, and $3.2-billion of debt paydown.

John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation, gives the budget a B. Craig Wright, Vice-President and Chief Economist, RBC Financial Group, gives it B+. Sherry Cooper, Chief Economist, BMO Nesbitt Burns, gives it a B.

According to the CTF, the 2004-5 Liberal budget saw an increase of 14.8% in program spending. Last year the Conservative budget saw a drop of 0.7%, and this year an increase of 7.9%. Thus, so far, Mr. Harper is doing twice as well as Mr. Martin did on that front.

There is one thing I don't understand though. CTV said that "Flaherty had signalled the budget would include legislation to include a tax on income trusts, vehicles that have been used to avoid paying most corporate taxes, but in an unexpected turn of events, the agenda did not include this measure". Does anyone know how that relates to the trusts announcement last fall?

Altarboy, the best way to have people stay at home and look after their kids, or to assist the working poor, IS TO STOP TAKING AWAY THEIR HARD-EARNED MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It seems to me one of Harper's pre-election priorities more than a year ago was to reduce healthcare wait times. The only thing I heard about wait times was a statement that going to electronic healthcare records would reduce wait times----an absolute falsehood. All we heard for years was that healthcare wait times was the number one priority for Canadians. Suddenly it seems to have disappeared off the radar screen. Maybe it's all fixed????????

The Financial Post says, "There were no major corporate [tax] cuts in Monday’s budget". CBC says that Jack Layton said: "The boardroom table got big corporate tax cuts". Jack Layton is a liar.

Vitruvius,

"The National Post says that the budget includes $8.2-billion in personal and business tax cuts, $6.9-billion more for the provinces to end the so-called fiscal balance, $3.9-billion more for the environment, health and culture, $1.1-billion more to bolster workforce skills and economic infrastructure, $819-million more for defence and foreign aid, $370-million more for First Nations, and $3.2-billion of debt paydown"

Not a penny of that $8.2 billion went to me; $6.9 billion to other politicos to swash down the drain for their re-election; $3.9 billion on fairy-tales; $370 million likewise down the drain.

Yes, I understand the importance of staying cool until we get a majority; but this budget isn't going to get us an election, and we can't get a majority without an election. And then next year we will have another budget along the same lines, and the next and finally we'll get an election after another similar budget, and we would all have forgotten why we did this.

Just why do we give $5 million to the SOW who will use it to work against us?

Sometimes one needs a little less real-politik and a little more Krazy.

Al-lea said: "It seems to me one of Harper's pre-election priorities more than a year ago was to reduce healthcare wait times..."

Don't you remember? Paul Martin "fixed health care for a generation"?

/sarcasm off

For those who have posted disappointment about the "non-conservative" nature of the budget, reflect on this...the NDP has been, for years, focused on dogma instead of pursuing policies to gain actual power, and the results have been obvious.

Personally, I prefer my politicians to be pragmatic, not dogmatic. I want to see the CPC gain a majority so that they can pull our country out of the semi-socialistic swamp in which it is currently stuck...I'm prepared to wait a while to see that happen.

And what the F*&k am i supposed to do with my 5% GST button now? The libs will try to use that and may get some traction because this was a key promise and that has been broken along with the wait times guarantee. The GTA and quebec votes are pretty expensive when you add up all to goodies in here to get people to come to our side. And all you pragmatists out there bleating that we will get our fiscal reform when we get a majority are delusional because then you'll all start bleating that we need to spend all this money on fantasies like carbon sequestration to KEEP the majority.

BAH!

Fine, Wimpy, why don't you start the Krazy Less Real Politik party and we'll see how many votes you get.

Matt:

Simmer down and reflect, When PMSH announced the 1% reduction in GST, he also promised a further reduction (to 5%) within five years...

I'm feeling generous at the moment...I'd be happy to mail you a free calendar...starting from February 2006, so you can track the progress of the promised further 1% reduction in GST...

CPC budget and tax policies are indistinguishable from those of the Liberals. And, wrt IT's, they lied. They even can't speak plainly on income-splitting ... CPP is not considered a "pension plan", even now.

Quebec costs us more; the CPC target market is Pete and Paula in surburbia with 1.29834 kids, sports deductions, kid deductions, daycare deductions, book and tuition deductions, journeyman tools deductions. The list goes on.

Meanwhile Harper' greatest supporters, demographically, are seniors, their vote is taken for granted, and seniors end up getting screwed by the CPC after 40-45 years of paying taxes and supporting them.

Enough. This senior will no longer support Harper and the CPC. After 30 years of being my favourite party. Give me the Liberals any day. Same-same.

Bob Crooks, but what better way to get a majority than to run an election campaign on a rejected budget that offered the middle class broad, direct, tax reductions.

It is that simple.

Good attitude, Eric.

Given that you are now cheerfully prepared to have the Liberals pick your pockets, might I suggest that you start leaving your doors unlocked as well...so as to allow others to steal everything else you have...after all, what's the difference?

Bruce:

"I prefer my politicians to be pragmatic, not dogmatic. I want to see the CPC gain a majority so that they can pull our country out of the semi-socialistic swamp in which it is currently stuck...I'm prepared to wait a while to see that happen."

I am too, but also, I've been here before - remem,ber Mulroney? Thatcher I also remember, although at the time I was her sworn enemy. But she had alasting effect. Mulroney didn't. Real Politik or Real Krazy? You be the judge.

Real Politik is a slippery slope mate.

no need for the calendar as i stand corrected - i thought the gst reductions were supposed to happen in consecutive budgets, but he gave himself some wiggle room there. as a party memeber i should know better. carbon sequstration is still a fantasy and worse than that it legtimizes the kyoto-esque dementia of the GW believers because even "we" are taking action. action in a cynical vote getting fashion though.

I'm getting a little tired of the Federal Government being the only one whose standard of living goes up year after year.

The laughable part, Bruce, is they all have been saying they are going to "fix healthcare for generations" and get themselves elected, partly on that basis, while care erodes and we become less competative as a world class provider (Waaaaayyyy down the list now). Seems they have now switched the mantra to the environment because at least that is a relatively new election ploy, and that is the (temporary) direction the MSNM is going. They are looking the other way while Quebec charges facility fees (extra billing or balanced billing as we once called it),waiting lists get longer, and nobody acknowledges that the Canada Health Act needs major revisions. I know, I know, we need to wait for a majority Conservative budget! Well, save your money, because when things collapse from a provider prospective (as they are now), you'll need it to run to the States for care.

Erik, seniors get public and private pension income splitting, two more years before they have to convert their RRSPs to RIFs, and the age credit has been raised by $1,000.

Al-lea, the budget includes an extra $1.4-billion for health care, largely targeted to make progress on the patient wait times guarantee.

Wimpy:

I agree with your premise. Personally, I loathed Mulroney...and I wasn't that fond of Mila either (although she WAS hot). Reason being...deep down, Mulroney was shallow...he was a conservative pretending to be a liberal. Simply for political gain. He was probably one of the most unprincipled politicians we have ever seen in Canada...other than Chretien.

I used to be a Trudeau supporter...and being a vocal supporter of him in Calgary during the NEP era was very unpleasant. At the time, I liked him because, in my mind, he had balls, he had fundamental beliefs and he stuck to them, regardless of opposition...

Personally, now I have evolved. The difference for me is that I can support Harper being pragmatic, given that he actually believes in core values, versus Mulroney, who had none...

Vitruvius, I am being rhetorical. But, however, it is noted that the crazy ones get a lot more respect than the docile, polite ones.

As to your suggestion I join the Libertarian party, well maybe I would, and make it a formidable competitor too; unlike today :-)

Do you not remember the history of the CPC? Joke Clarke? PM 1979-1979

Matt,

"And all you pragmatists out there bleating that we will get our fiscal reform when we get a majority are delusional because then you'll all start bleating that we need to spend all this money on fantasies like carbon sequestration to KEEP the majority.

BAH!"

Clearly we are of a like mind; been there before. Sure, politics is a trade-off, but only from a position of strength, otherwise it is a capitulation. And, if you are in a position of strength, you do not need to compromise, to trade off, you choose to do so out of good grace.

Anyone calling this a Liberal budget or a Mulroney budget should have his head checked. First of all, it's a do-no-harm budget. Just about every Liberal budget in history has done serious harm. Secondly, it's not a Mulroney budget because Mulroney had a huge majority, and thus no excuse - not to mention that Mulroney was a Power Corp. lackey too, which Harper is anything but.

Harper is trying to get a majority. He's staying away from the tough stuff now because he actually wants a chance to get the opportunity to tackle it! As it stands, he's biding his time and destroying his opposition with utter brilliance. What, you want him to run a minority government like Joe Clark or Paul Martin - aka Parliamentary suicide? He can't deal with the Health Care system or corporate taxation in a minority, that would be a recipe for disaster.

Give the guy a chance - and if his second MAJORITY budget is like this in 2010, then you can worry.

Good point, Bruce. I guess the difference is, if it's all just pragmatic, what's the point? I support Harper, on the other hand, because there is a "there" there - a core of values, as you said, and I hope he gets a chance to act on them.

Brue, from your previous post, I can only say that I understand. I too have had a migration in my political philosophy. I disagree with your view of Mulrony, he was not conservative, merely opportunist, and full of the blarney.

I am in favour of pragamatism, as opposed to ideology, but one can get sloppy and careless. This is my concern. To fight against this, I feel one must keep the CPC feet to the fire, the fire that it was born in. Otherwise it WILL slide.

CBC bias SO predictable and SO p***es me off! First comments negative, negative, negative...

Obviously, if Don Newman thinks the new monetary incentives for parents aren't "very much," he doesn't have a clue what it's like to live on next to nothing.

Of course, being a Fat (nursed-at-the-taxpayer-funded-CBC-teat) Cat, he wouldn't.

Cry me a river, Mr. Newman.

I'd give Harper a B- for this budget. Pragmatic but not a budget I would run for re-election on. 8% increase in spending - that's way too much. Even 5% would have been fine considering 3.5% of the money was spent on fulfilling the fiscal imbalance promise. Conservatives are too smart to be bought by their own money.

He should've put in income splitting at a cost of $5 billion instead of all these little tax credits. That would've brought home the majority. But maybe Harper's got some more tricks up his sleeve.

Six-ninths of changes in this budget go to resolving the so-called fiscal imbalance, which was one of the five promises. Two-ninths of it goes to tax reductions, and one ninth, or about 10%, goes to new program spending. Now, remind me again, just what is it that the whiners are complaining about?

Does anyone know exactly how the gas guzzler tax and the corresponding rebate will be levied?

Everyone thought Stephen Harper was toast back in the mid 90s when he fell out with Manning... everyone was wrong.
Everyone thought Harper was done for when Day was drafted to lead the Alliance Party... wrong again.
Everyone thought Harper would never get the Alliance and P.C.s to unite... wrong.
Everyone believed Harper was finished when the CPC blew a slim lead in the last couple weeks of the June 2004 election (I recall John Gormley saying as much on his radio program, musing out loud about Peter Mackay as Harper's possible replacement)... wrong again.
Everyone figured Harper couldn't control his M.P.s when Stronach jumped to the Liberals... wrong, as usual.
It seems to me that Stephen Harper understands that one has to advance towards one's goals in increments; why is it that so relatively few people see things that way?
This budget is another measured, deliberate step towards a goal which Harper feels he can reach, that being a Conservative majority in the next election. Don't sell Stephen Harper short!
Four years of a Conservative majority would fundamentally change the way Canada is governed. The kicker; it will have to be a Harper-run government, I think.
Stephen Harper; Western Canadian, exceedingly smart, free market economist. It's a mistake to confuse his fiscal policy with Liberal Party fiscal policy... I believe we'll find that out if Harper can get past the next election with a healthy majority (180 seats?).
At least all the money is out there on top of the table, if ya know what I mean.

Skuleman, as I understand it so far, it's a $500 federal rebate to the customer for every 0.5 l/100km that a car does better than 7.5 l/100km, up to $2,000, and a levy of $500 for every 1.0 l/100km that a car does worse than 8 l/100km, up to $4,000, to be paid by the vendor. That means a car that uses 5.5 litres or less for each 100 kilometres will gain a $2,000 rebate, while a car that uses 16 litres or more per 100 kilometres will pay a $4,000 levy.

Apparently there are those who are tallying the total number of new dollars that have recently been committed as well as added dollars promised that will be flowing into QC by the end of this week. Let's hope that there is a reasonable agreement to just what the total is.

Charest was grinning like the proverbial chershire cat about 6 p.m. on TV.

Call it by any name - equalization, whatever. It is far from settled and this budget is clearly a reneging of the deals between the Feds and NF/L & Sask.

It is the amount of new dollars that flow into QC (and under what, if any, accountability riders) that will allow people to come to their own conclusions about how much longer this is going to be tolerated.

A view from west of Canada, er B.C. I was under the impression that the liberals lost the last election. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice not likely.

Well said, Joe. People forget that Mr. Harper has a masters in economics, and one of his first actions was to appoint Mr. Lynch, who has a doctorate in economics, as Chief Privy Council Officer (that is, head of the permanent civil service). Based on that, and what I've read over the last five hours, I'd have to conclude that this budget is pretty economically reasonable.

Based on the last few decades of Mr. Harper's work, I think that his long term plan is the devolution of power from the center to the provinces, and I happen to think that is the single most important thing Canada needs if it is to retain it's geographic form. In order to do that he needs to get and keep at least two majorities in the house. History suggests one needs about 40% of the popular vote to do that (depending on how the ridings split). He hasn't got that yet.

I was a founding member of the libertarian party of Alberta in 1972. I think total government spending should be cut to 1/3 of what it is now. That is not going to happen in my lifetime. So, given all the above circumstances, I'm not in the mood to quibble with Mr. Harper just because I get very little from this budget. I'm not that selfish.

(PS to Clipper: SK gets the greatest equalization increase per capita.)

Vitruvius...do those whiners and skeptics have such short memories?
At some time in the future we will be able to stop bringing up the terrible Liberal way...but for now some need to be reminded:
HRDC, gun control waste, SWC bearocracy and waste, and Adscam, Challenger jets, dangerous helicopters for our soldiers...Enough?Remember?

al-lea: How do you eat an elephant?
...one bite at a time.
The simple title of 'wait times' doesn't really describe the elephant that is Health care.
Harper has arranged funding to reduce waits for children's surguries,spinal cord injuries and now recording keeping is in this budget. ...one bite at a time.
Perhaps these skeptics are getting media filtered interpretations of the budget. I saw most of it live...and some of these comments don't match what I heard. This budget gives money back. Infrastructure(thru provinces) means employment.
Clean water and clean air are tangible...the only mention of Kyoto was to discredit it.
This is a good budget.

I'm OK with the budget considering the situation. If it is passed and there is an election in the next year, the Conservatives need to hold some ammo in reserve. They can't give out everything in this budget. I'm sure the PM is keeping the rest of the powder cool and dry.

I don't understand them either, VF. Up until just over a year ago, for 40 years Canada had been gaining momentum in the leftward direction. Now, it would appear, some people expect Mr. Harper to undo all that momentum in just over a year, and with a minority government. Those people are being unreasonable. Talk to me in a decade.

Bruce: I guess I shouldn't have left my doors unlocked on Halloweeen night, eh? What does it take for you folks to take your blinkers off. Blind obedience to a guy who is abandoning every conservative principle, that made them so attractive to us, is really a mugs game.

Pick Pocket, indeed. Harper just did it with more finesse.

Vitruvius: the CPP is not splitable, tax-wise, if one person is receiving it and the other spouse is less than 65 and not receiving CPP (my wife, e.g., is

Basically, the government does not define the CPP as a "pension", in it's waffle-word announcements.

And, for everyone saying "he's just doing this to get a majority, so that he can do the things he really wants to do" ... keep dreaming. Once in power he will keep imitating the Liberals, because he wants to stay in power. So don't hold your breath.

You are being taken to the cleaners, and can't recognize it.

Some people don't seem to realize that in a democracy one must compromise tactically in order to achieve one's strategic goals.

If there is anyone that still thinks that Harper is incompetent strategically, pull your head out of the sand, and look at the forest, not the trees.

For the nincompoops that that supported the Conservatives in the past, but now refuse to (yes, Erik Sorenson, this means you), your alternatives are the Liberals (they got our country into this present mess), the NDP (clueless), or the Greens (worse than clueless). For the senior citizens that are whining and moaning (yes, Erik Sorenson, this means you) - you've been voting longer than me. You let this country get in this mess, and have been bought off with "big government" platitudes and nanny state policies for the last 40 years.

Look at the demographics. Look at energy consumption trends. Look at pension and health care funding projections. It is going to take great care to open the voter's eyes to what needs to be done to leave a functioning country to our children. This budget is a step in that direction - not perfect, but in the right direction.

"deep down, Mulroney was shallow"

LOL !!!

well put.

and even deeper down he IS STILL a godam crook.

when the bre-x indonesian mining stock started to really take off and it was 'time' to start builing the mining facilities, mulruin was the man of the hour to use his connections to steal the privilige of reaping the really big 'profits' of the operation from bre-x.

aahh, but, whoa !!! hold on to the handle buddy!!!!..................... and a geologist takes a swan dive out of the chopper 'cause the crooks got wind he was gonna blab before the plan came to fruition.

mulruin played his part to a T even though he didnt even know it was scripted.

a godam CROOK through and through, ah but a hero to the righties eh?

Joe B...right on!
And eric...We were taken to the cleaners by the Libs for too long....As a SAHM I saw waste and corruption, while we paid higher income tax every year with 4 kids. We have driven on lousy highways, while Fed money for infrastructure was chopped.Add this to the fact that my husband works construction and has been layed off every winter for the last 12 years,(no $$ for infrastructure= no work)after having full time work for 22 years.

And don't get me started on wasteful social programs that kept people from work, and kept beaurocrats on their thrones.
This is a real conservative budget!

Not necessarily, Tenebris, Erik might be able to vote for Wimpy's Krazy Less Real Politik party, if he gets it off the ground ;-)

(PS to Bollocks: Mulroney is not the topic here.)

my prediction?

infrastructure in this country is going to hit the wall.

streets all busted up from too much patching of the patched patches; watermains bursting after a century of delivering the dihydrogen oxide, hydro towers rusting into disuse, what else, hospitals decaying from lack of maintenance in favour of more pressing costs, etc etc.

the end times draws nigh !!!

p.s. I just found ANOTHER random 666 in my financial documents. thats the 5th or 6th one since the 666 on the 2006 census form (which I refused to fill out because of that) hidden in plain sight on a credit card statement. am I the anti-christ or maybe a lieutenant? better be nice to me !!! I got a tendency to dish out some rather harsh retribution !!!

rev. 13:18 here we's comes !!!

Here is something funny:

I got caught off-guard on my way home from work by this CTV reporter and her camera-woman who wanted my comment on the Budget. This was around 4pm so I think the budget had been out perhaps 2 hours. I told her that I couldn't comment because I hadn't reviewed the budget details.

She almost gleefully tells me she can distill it for me to solicit a comment. She basically says that ‘if you have children you get some tax relief, but if you don't have children you get nothing, Saskatchewan didn't get our equalization "deal", and Quebec was getting all of our money.’ She then asks me for comment.

Well, I stuttered something stupid about the fact that I didn't have children so I wouldn't see a lot of benefit from the tax cuts. Instead of being completely negative I changed my tune a bit and stated that the government had a lot of responsibilities and that if they were cutting taxes, it was good. But now I can only remember the reporter giving me this very negative summary of the budget (power of suggestion) and how pointless it was to ask my opinion after I basically told her I didn't have any of the details.

CTV is just as biased in their reporting as the CBC.

Well said Joe B. I'm patiently waiting for a majority gov. budget from him before I get excited.

I loved the part of the budget about ending off-shore tax havens.

re: wait time guarantees - probably a smart move to stay away from a promise like that. With a country-wide shortage of proffessionals, I think it would too costly, probably involve crossing many borders and be fool-hardy in terms of inviting law-suits.

(PS to Bollocks: Mulroney is not the topic here.)

Posted by: Vitruvius at March 19, 2007 11:09 PM "

well vitus, best explain that to the bloke who brought up the name-that-isnt-mentioned FIRST.

Good point about the tax-havens, Cheri. Like the income trusts (though many were upset because they had over-invested in what was becomming a loop-hole problem), it is important to keep the corporate tax system fair. This is good for the free market, as are the benefits in this budget that accrue to small businesses. It is bad for the corporatist oligarchies. Works for me.

Every one and awhile I lose my patience with people that refuse to think beyond their nose. I think I shall go cut the CPC another cheque.

Then I shall have to try and explain the budget to my 11-year-old son, who is so deep into politics he went campaigning with O'Connor. He's pretty with it, but has trouble differentiating clean theory from operable reality. He's still having trouble with the idea that economics is not a zero-sum game.

Neither is politics!

liar, lair, liar. equalization for Sask. and for the rest of the country seem to mean different things. all those Sask. MP's should resign and run again just a S Cops did over the GST promise. come on Sask. MP's have a little pride in what you say and do.

this here one mr vitus:

"I agree with your premise.

Personally, I loathed Mulroney...
______________________^^^^^^^^

and I wasn't that fond of Mila either (although she WAS hot). Reason being...

and here's where I nabbed the quote ...

deep down, Mulroney was shallow...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

he was a conservative pretending to be a liberal. Simply for political gain. He was probably one of the most unprincipled politicians we have ever seen in Canada...other than Chretien.

I used to be a Trudeau supporter...and being a vocal supporter of him in Calgary during the NEP era was very unpleasant. At the time, I liked him because, in my mind, he had balls, he had fundamental beliefs and he stuck to them, regardless of opposition...

Personally, now I have evolved. The difference for me is that I can support Harper being pragmatic, given that he actually believes in core values, versus Mulroney, who had none...

note the name and the time ....
Posted by: Bruce at March 19, 2007 8:50 PM
___________^^^^^___________________^^^^

friend of yours perhaps?

p.s. ol' vitus, do you know how to do a quicky text search on a huge thread like this? or the archive? hint: the date/time stamps help .....

Tenebris: spoken like a true, blue CPC supporter, led by the nose:

"... in a democracy one must compromise tactically in order to achieve one's strategic goals ..."

Yeah. Sure. So promises, policies, platforms, beliefs, and "taking care of Job One" are suspended while this "tactical cleansing" takes place, eh? Boy, have you got a lot to learn, sonny. Get your nose out of PolySci books and grow up.

You think they are different than the Liberals? Wait and see. Once they have a majority, they won't change their spots. I had hoped, wished, that they were different. But no, the signs are there.

They have so much tax revenue/surplus headroom that they can take care of Job One. But, no. It's the Paulas and Petes and their 1.27459 kids that they want to "take care of". Not seniors. Not one and two working spouse (no kid) families.

Not once in the past 30 years did I vote Liberal or NDP federally. So find another misdirectional hobby horse to carry your "logic" for you. You must have gone to Liberal blogger school to use that shoddy technique.

And I should care about the next generation, when the one or two behind me are demonstrating amply they don't give a rodent's posterior about us seniors? Go find another sucker ... besides yourself. I'll vote for the Liberals next time. Hold my nose tightly and do so. Because I hate being screwed over so totally by someone I trusted.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER WRITES PREMIER DANNY WILLIAMS ON PLAN TO RESTORE FISCAL BALANCE IN CANADA

March 19, 2007
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today wrote Premier Danny Williams to outline the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador in the fiscal balance plan set out in Budget 2007.

The plan announced today is based on national principles, while treating each province fairly and meeting the government’s commitments.

Prime Minister Harper’s letter highlighted the following issues:

Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to receive the full benefits provided under its offshore Accord, without a cap, while keeping the Equalization regime it had when it signed those Accords.

The province will have the right to opt into the new Equalization regime permanently at any time it chooses to do so in the future.

Our formula for allocating infrastructure transfers provides all jurisdictions with floor funding of $25 million per year. This recognizes the particular challenges facing provinces and territories with smaller populations.

Prime Minister Harper concluded that “our plan delivers what we promised to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

It's not for me to advise you on how to explain this to your son, Tenebris, but if you think it will help him grok what's going on, I'd say that it's important to explain that Mr. Harper is, more importantly than anything else, the Chief Operating Officer for a large dynamic system known as the government of Canada.

Like other large, dynamic systems, such as the power grid, one can't turn it on a dime. Throw the wrong switch, and the north-east quarter of the continent loses power. What Mr. Harper can do is apply pressure toward effecting the shifts he wishes to implement, and the biggest resource he has to that end is how to collect and deploy federal tax dollars.

So, for example, the provincial equalization changes, with his proviso that the provinces are responsible for funding their municipalities, is applying pressure in the decentralization direction. The gas-guzzler initiative applies pressure on manufacturers to continue to improve vehicular efficiency. The tax-haven measure puts pressure on the oligarchies to behave like proper corporate citizens. And the overall effect is to put pressure on Canada to not have another election right now: we're getting tired of elections every 18 months, and it would not be great for the Conservatives anyway.

Managing a large dynamic system requires strategies, tactics, and operations. If one hit's the brakes too hard on a long train moving at high speed, one gets a train wreck. There are limits to what the operator can force on a spooled-up system.

TOO MUCH SPENDING.

GIVE THE PEOPLE THEIR MONEY BACK!

eric...can you tell us how this budget is screwing you? And how the Libs didn't...???
Just what was 'Job One'?
BTW...you sound like Layton and his list of who wasn't named in the budget.
Seniors, TWINKS, and moonbats, all stand to benefit when the tax money returns in the form of infrastructure spending and other allotments. I'm not an economist but this isn' rocket science. Looking forward to hearing you spout some more when it's a CPC majority.

the same sh*t...power hungry.
tax cut? maybe from greens?
only this left ...not from cp not from lib not from ndp

Ronbertbullocks:

I have no idea what your point was in copying my post on your 11:32 post.

However, having been involved in a small part in the Bre-X investigation, let me offer this...anyone who thinks tnat the "offending geologist" actually dove out of that helicopter should also believe in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy...he is alive, doing well, and living in the Philippines, the Caymans and Costa Rica....

Oh it looks like little Stevie Tubby Guts has angered his con supporters with this budget.
While you guys are steaming over that I'll just finish what I was doing. Oh yes I remember now - payable in the amount of $250.00 to the Liberal Party of Canada.

What exactly is wrong with some of you people? Do you not see the post Kate wrote at the top of this page: An open thread for your links and reaction. (Stay on topic, please). The topic here is not global warming, it is not Mulrouney, it is not Bre-X, it's the next fiscal budget for the federal government of Canada.

Josh & George, there are $8.2-billion in personal and business tax cuts in this budget.

My politi-speak is a bit rusty. I've been perusing the budget and have got stuck on this:

Fulfilling the Commitment to Exclude Non-Renewable Resource Revenues

The core elements of the O’Brien report—a 10-province standard with a 50-per-cent exclusion rate for natural resource revenues and a fiscal capacity cap—provide a higher Equalization standard than either the previous system or one that fully excludes non-renewable resources. As a result, the O’Brien formula provides both a substantial incentive to provinces to develop their natural resources and higher payments to most provinces than one that fully excludes non-renewable resources.

Consistent with the Government’s commitment, Budget 2007 proposes to ensure that, under the new Equalization formula, all provinces will receive the greater of the Equalization entitlements under the formula based on a 50-per-cent exclusion rate, and the amounts they would receive under the same formula based on full exclusion of all natural resource revenues. This will further improve incentives for resource-producing provinces and provide them additional protection against future declines in resource prices and production levels, and fulfill the Government’s commitment to fully exclude non-renewable natural resources revenues from the calculation of Equalization—without lowering the payments to any province.

I STILL can't make heads or tails of this. Do they not understand the difference between Resource revenues & NON-RENEWABLE resource revenues?

Help! Anyone? Please?

It has to do with clause 92(A) of the Constitution, Jan. Basically, there are proposed four options that are available to each province, including the option for the 100% exclusion requirement of clause 92(A). Assuming each province chooses the best option for their circumstances, this accounts for the $6.9-billion more for the provinces in this budget, to end the fiscal imbalance. I don't know all the per-province details yet, presumably that will become more clear in tomorrow's analysis (or perhaps not, given the state of our main-stream media).

Erik Sorenson @ 11.44PM Thank you and well said.
To anyone as I'm not internet savy where do I find the actual budget. I went to the conservative web site and all I got was the RA RA RA verson. To thoes of you who say that Harper is a smart and savy politician I counter that so was Trudeau and look what that A**hole snake-oil salesman did to Canada.

It's here, Tony: www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bptoce.html

eric is suffering the COTU complex...no extra jingle in his pocket, maybe no kids or grandkids who will benefit from this budget. His life must be centred on that jingle in his pocket.Don't get me wrong eric...I work hard for my jingle too...and I hated to see it stolen and wasted by the Libs.
You and Flipper(that's what you called him) have a nice time together now.
Just remember other seniors will se more benfits in this budget in the long run....and when the CPC majority budget is presented in the future you will get that tax break...and you won't be thanking Flipper for it.

Skimming through these comments, all I can say is that it's clear that some of you didn't enjoy enough years in opposition.

And now, 14 months into a minority mandate, you are demanding Harper take you back.

There's conservative utopia - and there's reality. Would I tweak the budget details? Sure. Are there things I don't like? Absolutely. But I haven't offered my name for nomination and until I do, I'd better be satisfied that as an observer, I can't always get what I want, I don't always get what I need, but in the end one comes to realize that you must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good - or of a majority.

Yea, verily, Kate. Indeed, is was Voltaire who said, "The best is the enemy of the good". Anyway, thank you everyone for listening to my opinions, thank you Kate for putting up with the number of comments I have posted in this thread, and good night, everyone, I wish you well.

Vitruvius thanks for the site. I got thru chapter 1 now I need to lie down for a while till the world stops spinning. All I can say is the people who go into lock-up for 2 hours and then know the budget inside out are either a lot smarter than me or their so full of it their eyes are brown.

"Oh it looks like little Stevie Tubby Guts has angered his con supporters with this budget."

Now there's intelligence working overtime!

"Oh it looks like little Stevie Tubby Guts has angered his con supporters with this budget."

Now there's intelligence working overtime!

Posted by: multirec at March 20, 2007 3:47 AM "

ya multi, just like all the righties commenting on how fat rosie dimanno is and elizabeth may's physical features.

tit for tat sirrah.

The sooner we get a majority, the better!

Vitruvious: the details are at my site. Follow the name link. PS. If you don't know what you are talking about, plwase don't open your mouth.

Did anyone catch what Duceppe said?
Words to the effect that when the PQ wins the Quebec election, They and the Bloc would use the 3.2 Billion to fight for a referendum on Quebec separation.
No worries about any of the problems facing the province.

With over 30 yrs experience of doing tax returns, there is one fact that most people do not understand. X number of dollars of income, either earned, pension, investment etc, coming into a family, generates Y amount of taxes. Splitting this income, moving it from one to another, usually results in less taxes for one spouse and more for the other, with the same amt of taxes being paid. Splitting pension income among seniors will result in some deductions that are transferable being lost. It could also result in some subsidy being lost or reduced. All this stuff is based on income. And, many deductions have to be taken by the spouse with the lowest income. I have one client where she makes mega bucks, pays mega child care, and the husband, with a low income, has to claim the child care. He doesn't need it to be non taxable, but she can't claim it. For those of you with the computer program to do taxes, set up a dummy return and try splitting everything and see for yourselves.

just listened to the morning Pravda show driving in. they managed to find a couple of ordinary folks to follow the usual CBCpravda story of finding ever critic. any who, they talk to some broad and she says she isnt sure it would switch her vote to tory. so there it was, they found the only liberal in calgary to comment on the budget.

CBCpravda calgary has a stable of interviewees that they use. what they dont realize is it only represents their own types.

dont know why I flip stations, by the 14th street bridge they usually have me in a snit.

I still see a lot of "lets be realistic until we get the majority" sentiment here. Well, someone tell me how we are magically going to move sharply to the right fiscally when we have to keep the majority. Interest groups and regions will always have a grievance and want bought off. There are a lot of troubling messages in this budget about what this government is willing to compromise in its quest for power. Vote buying isnt cheap and it a shabby old Liberal tactic. I didn't expect tax cut utopia but Christ on a canape i didn't expect a pork-laden green-hysteria induced spending binge either.

With a majority you have 3 years of grace before you need to throw an election budget out there.

I'm not very stressed.

This is a de-centralize Canada, centralize the CPC budget and the best we can expect in a majority. Harper can make all you fiscal conservatives happier when he secures power.

Right now it's all part of the rebalancing act he has to achieve. It bothers me that the same folks who say they trust Harper's vision can't trust him to carry it out. It bothers me when people who trumpet how strategic and incremental he is won't allow him the room to be strategic and incremental.

Rome wasn't built in a day and the Nanny State won't be dismantled in two minority budgets.

I meant to say 'This is a de-centralize Canada, centralize the CPC budget and the best we can expect in a minority'.

Well said molar, get real people, get behind the budget, he campaigned on four years and I will give him that four years to do what he says. A lot of us in here our sounding like liberals, except delete social programs and insert tax cuts. He tried to find a happy medium and I think he might have done it.

I as a single working indivdual did not recieve anything in particular in the budget, I however will continue to support PMSH and the party because he has brought with him relative stability in quebec and I feel that is good for the economy overall, I also think that the 3 billion that was put into paying down the debt will help in the future and there was know overlap brought in by duplicating a provincial program with another federal program like the Liberal's did so often and interfered with provincial matter's. I think what you should remember is that our provincial government's were given a lot of money yesterday and if they were to spend it wisely it may give added benefit, because I am from Saskatchewan I don't actually believe it to be the case, they will spend it on something stupid, they always do, however I will take Stephen Harper's version of Canada anyday versus the Liberal version, which only brought scandel and money for all there special interests and pet projects.

This 'new econo car' versus 'old gas guzzler' BS has to end. I own an old car, and rented new ones and every time I was UNIMPRESSED with the amount of gas I had to pay for before returning the rental. My old one is better quality and uses a tad more gas and flies thru the emissions test every two years. Before I can see the difference in fuel economy affecting my wallet, ten years will pass and the new car will become POS - it makes no sense at all to change an old working car for a new cat in a sack. Considering how they use water based paints and plastic in place of enamels and metal, and how the new models come with insane amount of horspowers and dual mufflers, no F-ing way I am switching to a new car - it will cost me way more to own it and I don't need 100 horspower more than I currently have. If they introduced the same power as I have now, at the benefit of 50% better fuel economy, maybe then, but certainly not now.

The overall thread seems to be, your on the band wagon with Steve or your a closet liberal. It seems that conservatives have to use lies and deciept to gain majority. Is this not what the liberals and past conservatives have done? What is wrong with expecting honesty. Is seems like honest politician is a oximoran. The budget as I've read so far seems like a liberal fence sitter. I guess when they fought it out to see who would support it the bloc won. As far as I know the only thing you get from sitting on the fence is a sore crotch.

Well, I just checked my dealers website and the "gently used" SUV demo I was considering jumped in price since yesterday (they actually raised the price $7K, not $4K). They've obviously figured out there's going to be a run on used SUV's now. I fully expect that the vehicles subject to the $2K rebate will also magically go up in price by $2K. The real question is will new SUV's street prices come down by $4K to make up for the new tax.

In the end all the rebate will probably do is add to the bottom line of manufacturers and dealers. The gas guzzler tax will hit the SUV market with reduced sales or reduced profits.

Electronic health records is something we have to fear. As long as it is on paper, it is safe. Electronic format will be another 'gun registry fiasco', prone to outages, errors, theft, abuses, you name it - I am an IT professional with 18 years experience developing data bases just like that and I am against it! Over my dead body my health records will leave my doctor's office in any form, other than paper. Every honest and diligent Canadian has to oppose that project.

Otherwise I do not see how a sane person can call this budget liberal and oppose it in its entirety.

I admit I'm not doing handstands over this budget, it has a spend and tax look to it and CO2 sequestration (non-chemical, just trapping and transporting) is a really, really bad idea. Having said that, as Kate has pointed out, a truly conservative budget would mean Dion as PM, and a really big mess. In summary, a sort-of Liberal budget, without corruption, and more importantly, no NATIONAL:

- day care program
- gun registry
- HDRDC boondogle
- pullout of Afghan plan (cause we wear blue berets don't you know)
- energy plan (confiscation)
- Kyoto plan
- welfare (oops low income) housing (where will Jack live now?
- cynical pit regions against each other, plan
- etc

That's a big departure from Liberal budgets. There is an old saying in politics that, when you please nobody, you may have done something right. Now I will wait for the Lib-alternative, Kyoto, screw oil companies, budget.

"Otherwise I do not see how a sane person can call this budget liberal and oppose it in its entirety."

That has me wondering as well. I've been to a few sites reading comments about the budget. Quoting from the Globe and Mail section, " it's a liberal budget but I'll never vote for Harper."
Does that make any sense? I'm beginning to wonder about liberal supporters. It's not about the message, it's all about the messenger.It's scary how stupid these people are.

"...finish what I was doing. Oh yes I remember now - payable in the amount of $250.00 to the Liberal Party of Canada"

Good strategy, that. Because if the libs didn't steal enough of your dough via Adscam, why not open your wallet to give 'em more?

Realistically, albatros should be thanking harper, since an election - now - with dion at the liberal helm, might spell CPC majority, and just think of the kewl names he'd have to call him then!

Very witty and piercing drive-by slur at Harper, too. We're all impressed.

To those who are complaining at the increased spending (especially the green portion), I share your disappointment. Regrettably, 13 years of liberal propaganda have biased voters against the idea of conservatism, and this will take longer than the first year to change. I agree with Vitruvius, but hasten to add, that if 4-5 years after a CPC majority we've not reversed the pork trend and seriously addressed tax cuts, then I'm getting steamed.

But all the present complaining and bitterness means nothing if the CPC doesn't get its majority, folks.

mhb23re
[at gmail d0t calm]

Freedom south of soviet canuckistan is looking sweeter and sweeter.

I have two kids, so I come out ahead. Sorry, make that, the government takes less of my money than it did before. Which is the correct direction.

If anybody reading this has real qualms about wanting increased social spending, cough it up out of your own damned pocket. You can donate to charities you know. Don't tell me what to do with my money. We'll see more good things from Harper in the future; income splitting for all families, removing Capital gains taxes for individuals, etc. Cut mismanagement and useless programs to save money. Our gov't is BLOATED and a juggernaut; it can't be shut off instantly. Harper still has to pay for a ton of stinkin' Liberal programs, which will hopefully be whittled away in future.

Tony...where are the lies and deceipt in this budget?
Aaron...for someone in IT you are out of the loop.Hate to break it to you..we have been using 'electronic records' in health care for many years...
shamrock...keep that list handy. I was hoping we would be able to graduate to the days when we don't have to keep remining people(especially conservatives) just how corrupt the Libs are...looks like we aren't there yet.

VF, I am very familiar with the matter, in Canada and internationally. You are not going to break anything for me, just answer a question: how easy do you think it is to falsify medical records if they are electronic, and now how hard it is if they are on paper? Try to learn to look farther than your nose. If you are still convinced you can patronize me, I have a few more questions to you, increasingly harder.

VF I was commenting on the thread of this blog. It is the bandwagon conservatives that are sujesting the liberal approach. I have not as yet finished reading the budget therefore cannot comment although what I've read sofar is not very promising.

I think it was the best he could come up with. Due to the minority nature of the situation politicaly as it now stands.

The real test will be when he does have a majority & does or not implement conservative policies with cuts to government.

This is the least harmless budjet for the Country that could be divised for a deffered election.

Besides it undermines Dion in Quebec. From his own self no less.

I am in a hurry to reverse the damage done by "progressives" as well. It takes more time than this to undue the harm of over 30 years of socialism with its attendant ills.

Come a majority if it happens this Nation needs a complete overhaul. In every institution.

Strange question aaron...and since this thread is about the budget,I'll respect Kate's request.Just a hint tho...human's are involved in each process.

I've done my dd on this budget and I've come to the conclusion that I don't like it much. It seems to be a budget that was set up to garner votes, which goes against the grain - at least mine.

It gives no income deductions to the average middle class Canadian. We have been paying a s$** load of taxes all our lives and to give pension splitting to one group and a baby bonus to another does not make this fair.

I'm a card carrying conservative and will vote for them come next election only because the alternatives are worse. They can keep sending me those donor cards if they so choose but they get not one red cent from me until they behave like Conservatives.

If and when they get a majority they had better return to normalcy, from what I can see this is all about an election.

I still have full confidence in PMSH and i feel he did the very best under the circumstances of being in a minority situation with a bunch of whiners in opposition (that is whiners not winners!!)
The money that has been allocated to the provinces should trickle down to benefit all of us...however, living in Ontario..(that's short for Toronto) I do not have any faith in the Dalton liberals to do anything but squander it. We need the conservatives in Ontario too!!!

Inflation spikes up in February, as home costs, gasoline prices rise

ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/20032007/2/biz-finance-inflation-spikes-february-home-costs-gasoline-prices-rise.html

Critics raise concerns over budget spending

ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/canada_budget_spending_col

Big Three automakers to get burned by hybrid sales incentives, observers say

ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070320/business/fedbudget_auto_manufacturing

(There were better ways of cutting emissions than this)

Thanks to Harper and Flarity, we're on our way to a recession.

Hmm, Albatros39a, so "we're on our way to a recession." So high government spending and using hybrid vehicles will trigger a recession. Using your logic, conforming with Kyoto will cause the country to economically implode!

How do Liberals view the budget? Shotgun approach with no long-term plans? You mean, like 5 year plans, made famous by Stalin and Mao? You mean, no giant dayca