Trucks are exempt...
so the west is safe

I'm aware of that.

Speaking of the budget, H. L. Mencken said, "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods".

Prime Minister Harper can't change that. The most we can hope for is that he is the best auctioneer. 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 (head of the permanent civil service). Here's how some other economists and such are grading this buget:

A Clement Gignac, Chief Economist, National Bank Financial
B+ Craig Wright, Vice-President and Chief Economist, RBC Financial
B Sherry Cooper, Chief Economist, BMO Nesbitt Burns
B+ Catherine Swift, CEO, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
B Nancy Anthony, President, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
B John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Interestingly, perhaps, almost all the punditocracy are complaining about one thing or another. Of course, they make their livings by getting people upset, so perhaps that's to be expected. If ignorance is bliss, why are so many people unhappy?

Considering the above, and everything I've read to date, I'd have to conclude that this budget is pretty economically reasonable, which the best one can hope for in these sorts of auctions.

Based on the last few decades of Mr. Harper's work, I think that his long-term plan is to begin the devolution of power from the center to the provinces, and I happen to think that is the single most important thing Canada needs to do if it is to retain its current 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 doesn't have that at this time.

I was a founding member of the libertarian party of Alberta in 1972. I think total government spending should be cut to about 1/4 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 particular budget. I'm not *that* selfish.

Mr. Harper is, more importantly than anything else, the Chief Operating Officer of 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 encourage, 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 hits 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.

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 reverse all that momentum in just over a year, and with a minority government.

Those people are being unreasonable.

Right wingers are in denial whenever the "New Government" does things just like the old government. Funding for the environment, funding for childcare, lots of money for Quebec, etc. "Harper is just doing these things to gain popular support," they say. No kidding!! And if he wants to get (and keep) a majority, he'll have to keep on acting like Liberal. I guess that rules out the Libertarian Utopia so many right wingers crave.

Iberia, what a delight to see that your reading & comprehension skills are similar to those of Dion's! Once Harper actually has a majority or two, he will get people on board, just watch.

Mr. Beria, look at the comments in this discussion before your post. Do you see any "right wingers in denial"? Do you see any "libertarian utopianists"? No, you don't. My comment, for example, clearly delineates the realities of government.

So why did you post your egregiously assumptive comment? Because you are a sociopath? Alas, that argument won't work here Mr. Beria, because we've already caught on to your shtik, and, frankly, sir, it doesn't play here. You would be better off going and doing something useful with your life, though, to be fair, that's not for me to say, this is just my comment.

"Once Harper actually has a majority or two, he will get people on board, just watch."

Keep on dreaming, Candace. He's getting them on board now. He won't stay in power if he pushes them off later.

"[W]hiny 'where's mine?' socialists"

Great alliteration! That one's a keeper, Kate.

Vitruvius:

Yes, I've always loved that old Mencken line that "every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."

Vitruvius:

You may also want to look at the comments before you post because I was not specifically addressing you.

But while we are on the topic, you ARE in denial, Vitruvius. To paraphrase you, this budget is the best we (meaning the right wing supporters of Harper) can hope for at this time. An excuse for what the budget wasn't.

Moreover, just because I disagree with your interpretation of the events doesn't mean that I am being sociopathic. Guess what? There is usually more than one opinion on any given subject...I'm just offering mine.

Dion has so much baggage from his days ( or Daze) under the Chretien/Martin Reign that i call him "Dion and the Bell-Hops" , the LPC keeps shifting his baggage around as if we can't see
that Dion is the only Guest at Stornaway and it's HIS Suit cases in the Lobby.

Ding Ding Ding........FRONT! FRONT!

Dion has so much baggage from his days ( or Daze) under the Chretien/Martin Reign that i call him "Dion and the Bell-Hops" , the LPC keeps shifting his baggage around as if we can't see
that Dion is the only Guest at Stornaway and it's HIS Suit cases in the Lobby.

Ding Ding Ding........FRONT! FRONT!

Dion has so much baggage from his days ( or Daze) under the Chretien/Martin Reign that i call him "Dion and the Bell-Hops" , the LPC keeps shifting his baggage around as if we can't see
that Dion is the only Guest at Stornaway and it's HIS Suit cases in the Lobby.

Ding Ding Ding........FRONT! FRONT!

Politics unavoidably involves hypocrisy; it's just a question of degree.

A Conservative government does not just face a 3 (or more) party liberal opposition but the media as well.

The Mulroney Conservatives struggled with the deficit against this combined opposition as well as sub-par economic conditions. By the end of their tenure they had achieved an operational surplus but lost power just as the public finally came to realise that never-ending deficits would lead to ruin. The Liberals took over with everything going for them including an improved economy, and have taken full credit for our surpluses ever since.

If Harper can maintain power for long enough, he can probably change the public's understanding to some degree and actually begin to act like a conservative. I notice with delight his handling of the media to date. This is not a stupid boy.

Dion has so much baggage from his days ( or Daze) under the Chretien/Martin Reign that i call him "Dion and the Bell-Hops" , the LPC keeps shifting his baggage around as if we can't see
that Dion is the only Guest at Stornaway and it's HIS Suit cases in the Lobby.

Ding Ding Ding........FRONT! FRONT!

Trucks are exempt --
It's not just the west, it's every small business owner and farmer all across this country.

BC's lower mainland or greater vancouver region has something of government inside a government. Unelected and unacountable. The transit system is run through here. These crooks have been trying by hook and by crook to capture a massive tax increase.
They were gearing up again just before this budget.

It seems to me that every socialist big spending politician in the country thought Harper would have some massive tax cuts and they were going to dive right in and help themselves.

It appears without any real tax cut out of the feds this time all those social lunatics dancing on the head of pin looking for more $$$'s to hoover up to blow mindlessly has just crashed and burned.

It's amazing it always takes me a couple days to figure out what he is up to but he just pulled the rug out from a lot of social spending types. Here in BC they are going crazy they already raised taxes thinking it would be offset by the feds HAH.

Joe Comuzzi put on a great show on Duffy last evening. He said he wouldn't be taking any lessons from Ralph Goodale!! It is refreshing to see someone stand on principle and vote the wishes and needs of his constituents instead of playing top down, dictatorial politics.

There are none braver than those not intending to seek reelection,however, let's enjoy the "Mutiny" anyway!

With regard to the equalization aspect of the budget, it is my understanding (limited as it may be!)that Sask. has the choice of the following 3 options:
1. the old formula
2. the new formula with 50% of resource revenue included;
3. the new formula with no resource revenue included, but with a cap.
The cap was applied so that have-not provinces would not end up receiving transfer payments that make them richer than have provinces, such as Ontario. Considering that we would achieve this using taxes raised in the have provinces, I do not find this to be unfair. If the cap is the source of all the complaints here in Sask, why is it unreasonable?.........not a rhetorical question cause I'm not an expert here. Is this just a lack of understanding regarding how this works?

I'm open to hear comments from anyone who will seriously address these issues.

The only way to deliver massive tax cuts, as advocated by some here, is to either proceed with equally massive program cuts, or go into deficit.

True-blue Conservatives like Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush did deliver broad tax cuts, but had no stomach to reduce spending, and under their administrations the US federal debt ballooned.

The reality is that some 50% of voters hardly pay any income tax. You can't buy their votes with tax cuts, but you need their votes to win. Harper understands that.

it appears that ForLorne Calvert is always on the outside looking in. not in touch with the feds and not invited to the party.

According to Tequila Sheila,the truck exemption will "buttress Harper's gun-toting rural base"Yup,out here in rural Manitoba,we all drive trucks,and isn't it mandatory that they all have gun racks???? Get a grip sheila..but she is all orgasmic about more money for Heritage Canada.

Everyone who is pissed about the budget should go to the CPC website and look at Platform 2006.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2590/

You will find that he did not run on a platform of massive broad-based tax cuts or cutting government (other than to promise to limit spending which Flaherty says he is still on track to do).

A cut and paste of the tax section is short and consists of:
"A Conservative government will:
• Reduce the GST by one point right away, to six percent. And we will reduce the GST by another point,
to five percent, over five years. The GST affects everyone – families, seniors, and young people just
getting started in life. Cutting the GST will help everyone deal with the rising cost of living, put money in
people’s pockets, and spur the economy immediately.
• Maintain the GST/HST credit in the federal personal income tax.
• Eliminate the capital gains tax for individuals on the sale of assets when the proceeds are reinvested
within six months. Canadians who invest, or inherit cottages or family heirlooms, should be able to sell
those assets and plough their profits back into the economy without taking a tax hit. It is time government
rewarded Canadians who reinvest their money and create jobs."

The fact that they went beyond their mandate to include conservative principles in the budget such as the tax breaks for family and seniors should be welcomed by conservatives. He did not run on a platform of cutting taxes and services.

Everyone should go read it and you will have a new appreciation for Stephen Harper and his principaled leadership. You will be impressed on what he has been able to deliver from his platform in spite of a obstructionist opposition in a minority government.

Platform 2007 may also not be a overtly conservative platform. Harper needs to win Canadians over and make this government functional again before he can go to the people to ask them to follow him down some more difficult roads.

Everything I have seen this man do inspires confidence and trust. It saddens me to see all the pissing and moaning from people who should know better.

Go read Platform 2006.

Especially the parts on Open Federalism.

GreenNeck:

I grudgingly have to agree with you...when most of the electorate pays so little tax and gets so much from the government teat, it is difficult to sway them with tax cuts.

But that is more of a sad statement on what the liberal welfare state has brought us to. And whether it changes because the people are finally taught how to develop a brain or because the society falls due to an economic collapse...one way or another, it can't last forever.

Wildrose - I really don't have a problem with the cap. I believe that Saskatchewan should make it a goal to become a Have province and keep that status from here on out. We are second only to Alberta in revenue generation per capita according to the budget graphs. The only problem that I would have with capping our welfare payments is in the event that our population actually grows substantially, our revenue generation doesn't grow proportionally. We might, in that scenario, end up getting screwed, although it would be our own fault if our revenue generation didn't grow with population.

I need a shower now... trying to put myself into the mindset of a socialist makes me feel dirty...

Excellent analysis vitruvius.

I applaud your understanding and explanation of momentum and change - people just don't 'get it'. Societies are not simple mechanisms; you can't change behaviour or processes on the flip of a switch. It takes time to change, because it's a deep structural change, not a short term surface event.

Harper is working on the most important structural change this country has seen for a century - the devolution from the dysfunctional big government centralized institutional process of state centric, autocratic governance set up during the world wars - and entrenched within the Liberal and Trudeaupian era of the demolition of provincial powers - and the demolition of individual rights in favour of group or identity politics.

Canada is geographically too large and environmentally diverse, and its population now too large and spread out, for a centralist governance located in Ottawa and focused around the domination of Ontario-Quebec to work.

Canada requires a political structure that enables more rapid responses to local requirements than a huge centralist bureaucracy. eg - Dion's notion of a carbon 'tax' system would require a huge centralist bureaucracy that would bleed off most of the money from the 'carbon credit purchases/fines' and leave little for actual env't investment.

Canada requires decentralization - a structure the centralist Liberals and NDP will fight to reject.

As noted, it will probably take a least two majorities to change the structure - which includes a reduction of federal powers and intrusion and taxation, a complete structural change to the Senate (which has recently become the tool of the centralists) ..and so on.

Thanks vitruvius, for your excellent analysis.

Green Levy on fuel-inefficient vehicles introduced by Flaherty; call it what you want, but Harper's government just introduced Canada's first carbon tax.

Why wouldn't liberals vote for it?....it could have been written by a Martin or Chretien Liberal...has all the earmarks; pinative taxation and welfare state handouts...no further GST break...Quebec gets salved at the expense of Alberta...it's all there...a true Liberal budget.

For that matter why would the libs want the disaster of an election whan they essentially rule from the opposition benches getting Harper to pass Liberal policy into law with little more than some maudlin bluster in the house and a phone call to the media wing of the party...comfy in the opp seats....a pseudo-liberal in the PMO and a putty cabinate ready to please every whim of the statist Liberal kleptocracy.

Add to this liberal budget the fact that democratic reform is stalled, the Gun registry still exists in all its money sucking glory, Alberta is still shafted in the equalization scam and Kyoto appears to be in full swing with the carbon taxation regime in the budget.

What has really changed?

We are full circle to where we were 18 years ago when Mulroney turned into a Quebec klepto-Liberal...we must go into a polling booth holding our nose and vote for the liberal party which promises to do us the least harm.

Nonsense, albatross. Taxes on gasoline could also be defined as 'carbon taxes'. The more gas you use, the more tax you pay. It's easy to be semantically slick. Kindly refrain from destroying the meaning of a term by declaring that it applies to everything.

"...we must go into a polling booth holding our nose and vote for the liberal party which promises to do us the least harm."

That comment should be taken outside and shot.

i agree with wl mackenzie, this is a true liberal budget. the cost of socialism continues to rise with money for every group in the country. they call it government money but they forget where it came from....there is only one taxpayer.trudeau introduced the first carbon tax with a 100.00 tax on airconditioning in new vehicles because it reduced fuel mileage when we had the so called energy crisis.
quebec is the big winner again in the budget but there is one plus to it. i get to listen to poor lorne calvert cry about how poorly the new have province of sask is being treated. boo hoo. his new plan for more gov't hiring will have to be put on hold.

WLM:

I am as frustrated as you are, but re-read Vitruvius' first comment/analysis...
I don't think Harper has been prime minister long enough to get "Ottawa Disease" yet, if he isn't already immune to the scourge.
It will take a lot of time and energy to change the course of this "Ship of State". Patience, sir.

albatros39a....how is that different from what the Libs did waaay back in the 70's with the "luxury tax on air conditioning".
seems to me they are targeting the urban SUV types that greenies whine about.
pickups exempt LOL

After reading the columnists comments on the budget it seems to me their comprehension is not really that much more in-depth and understanding than that of the average reader. A lot of their knee jerk comments lead/follow that of the general public.

To all of you complaining about the fact we still have the gun registry and other things, in order to pass laws one needs the opposition support in a minority government. The liberals, and the senate have stonewalled everything PMSH wants to do. Don't blame our PM, blame the liberals.

Al Gore has plenty of gas guzzlers in his garages but not one single hybrid then this hypotcrit is asking us to use less engery and this is the twit who have invented the internet PATHETIC HUMAN IM FLYING YOUR WAY SQUAWK SQUAWK and DAVID SUZUKI another blabbering fool shooting off his piehole

Patience children...

you have to walk before you run
you have to crawl before you walk

Mr. Harper is helping us crawl out from under the Big Brother rock that liberalism has pushed us under for over 30 years!

It is nice to walk again, realising that we have a government that respects us and our rights.

Some day we can run freely without carrying the rock of Big Bro'

I said:"...we must go into a polling booth holding our nose and vote for the liberal party which promises to do us the least harm."

Irwin said: "That comment should be taken outside and shot."

>> Sorry Irwin but this is the prevailing attitude towards Harper's liberal budget in his strong hold of Alberta and the BC interrior...take it up with them.

To the other Harper apologists: Yes I've been around long enough to realize that you do not turn the ship of state around on a dime...it is a gradual process.

That said;

I continue to be a life long committed Reformer... dedicated to the mission of federal democratic/constitutional reform and devolving the kleptocratic patronage state. For anyone so oriented this budget was like watching another load of bat guano being heaped on the existing stack of festering crap littering the cave floor.

I want the cave cleaned and some fresh air and light returned to the dark environs Canadians have staked out as they slid into the rabbit hole of kleptocratic-statism....there wasn't even the hint of a clean breeze in this budget...just the usual tax and spend klepto-patronage corruption.

I don't HAVE to like it when I see a man committed to change feeding the kleptocracy...I don't HAVE to be quiet and accept it. I DO feel he needs to be told about his compromises in no uncertain terms.

Harper filed a Liberal budget because the Liberal-socilist opposition has more influence on policy than the elected government...a saving grace for democracy but a roadblock to change.

So as a soft separatist from Alberta I have to look at this situation and decide if this is the nature of the beast...is change possible?...is this all we can expect of Harper?...is the system so adverse to change that it molds reformers to its will if they hope to stay in power...and is this power at all costs compromising really condusive to positive ethical change?

Perhaps the provinces are the place systemic change has to start...perhaps the federal system is a write off.

"Once Harper actually has a majority or two, he will get people on board, just watch."

Um, no. I remain committed to the cause of Alberta separatism. All the latest budget does is confirm my belief that it doesn't pay for us to remain part of confederation.

Harper can stay down east. Walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, breaks election promises like a socialist, SPENDS like a socialist... They can have 'im.

I guess I'll have to buy my Hummer down here before I return to Canuckistan. I do agree (believe it or not) albatross39, by any other name this is a carbon or sin tax. While the taxes on gas can be viewed as more of a user tax, the more you use the more you pay, this $4000 greens fee is taken whether I use my SUV once a year for the annual family fishing trip or drive it daily to Timmy's.
In all honesty, given the size and climate of Canada, one of those green ecomobiles. More than two passengers or an inch of snow and it is useless.

Sure it's a liberal budget. That is what is so politically brilliant about it. It causes Dion to look bad. Suddenly he's talking about the fact that there were "no broad based tax cuts...". You can almost hear people's eyes rolling into the backs of their heads to hear that coming from him. And Liberal MP's are already breaking ranks. So, Dion looks like an opportunist who will oppose his own principles if that is what he needs to do to oppose Harper, but one who is not smart enough to know when doing so will cause him harm. And he looks increasingly like a man who cannot lead his own party, let alone the country.

Harper on the other hand has quietly stolen the bullets one by one from the opposition gun (eg: child care, the environment, etc), leaving the Liberals only the conservatives own unexploded grenades to lob back at them (eg: broad based tax cuts)

Lets get a majority, and then we can have our first truly conservative budget.

WL Mackenzie Redux:

The whole situation is like St. Augustine said:

"God grant me chastity, but not yet."

People have become addicted to being screwed.

They need to detoxify gradually, taxwise I mean.

Don't get sucked into intransigent ideological trenches, every once in a while it is useful to get out of the trenches and celebrate Christmas.

Kind of like the Christmas truce of 1914. The guys in the trenches weren't stupid, but their leaders had more than a few shortcomings.

I would liken this to the "Christmas Truce 1914 Budget". Sometimes you need a good meal, a little sport and even the occasional present to the enemy.

You can save Vimy Ridge for later.

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Curious - will the 'gas-guzzler' levy apply to used car purchases or just new car purchases?

I really resent the levy in that it punishes those of us who NEED a 4WD SUV - for even part of the year. And I'm not talking about just country-folk. Consider the suburban Vancouverite whose home is sitting at the 1000ft elevation. Can you guess the steepness of the streets it takes to get home? Can you guess what it's like driving on those streets after even a one inch snowfall?

It's no fun parking your car 3 blocks down the hill (because you are about to slide back down said hill) and trying to walk up to your home with kids and bags of groceries in hand.

Sooz, presumably the tax would be applied based on the stated gas mileage from the Energuide for a combined City/Highway mileage. As an example, the Honda Pilot AWD has a fuel economy rating of 14.1 l/100km City and 9.7 l/100km Highway...the combined should be less than the 13 l/100km identified in the budget.

The Honda Pilot is a mid-size SUV good for 6 adults. How much bigger do you need to haul groceries in Vancouver?

What it does, probably unintentionally, is punish North American SUV's.

I was hoping they'd leave my 3/4ton trucks alone. Had me worried there for a bit.

Harper is playing Dion like the chump that he is. Dion (walking away from reporters) looked like the mouthy little twerp in school that all of a sudden realizes everyone hates his guts. Dazed and confused and more than a little hurt that people were not worshipping him.

Isn't it ironic. Harper tables a "Liberal" budget, while Dion moves his party to the same space as NDP and Bloc (sorry, Green don't count yet). ET and others are right; you can't expect the electorate to wean off the state immediately. Harper, though, has kicked started the process. BTW, you can be sure it was Dion's Libs who actually wanted a right wing budget. Then they could get power back. His argument that the country was doing fine until Jan 06, then went to hell in a handbasket, is pathetic. The few policies (not counting reversing his own positions and legislation), have been poorly thought out, and have moved his party to the left of Trudeau, Chretien and Martin, which in itself is quite a feat (meaning the party let him).

Libs are spitting mad (witness Ralph Goodale selling off his integrity), the Tories have learned the power game. Of course they will argue Tories "stole" their policies; but, this is another tactical error - why don't they want to support this Lib budget? Dion is screwed no matter which way he turns. Harper has outfoxed them at every turn. The only thing saving his bacon, for the moment, is that 25% of Canadians would vote Liberal if Stalin was their leader.

BTW, waiting for Globe and Star articles about Dion's poor leadership and grip on party, what with defections. To Keith Martin I say, come back to the party, run away very fast from the Dion Dummies. If you stay, you risk Tories bringing forward a star (real) candidate who has a chance of defeating you. The chair is waiting; take it.

Best laugh of the day :

"Folks who NEED a 4WD SUV" - for driving in Vancouver .... priceless.

ask your dad how he got up those mean streets of vancouver before SUVs.

harper I am sure has the analysis on this one down pat. He will not lose right wing voters in any significant numbers since most of us will never vote Librano or Dipper no matter what. And secondly we are willing to wait and give him a chance with a majority gov't.

That leaves the center and center left voters. Harper and Dion have pushed the libs into dipper territory. The Dippers, Greens, and Libs are now occupying a very small piece of political geography, while Harper has taken over the rest. I would hazard a guess that he can take a majority (although a slim one) anytime an election is called.

I'm not sure how much longer Dion will continue to play the part of Dunce. One would think that he would eventually catch on to the game and smarten up, then again...maybe not.

I think Harper will go down as one of the greatest political tacticians in Cdn history. Dion will undoubtedly go down.

WAIT A FRIGG'IN MINUTE !!!

For all you complaining about PMSH's so-called Liberal ways.

Under a Dion govmit, we would have Kyoto. Which means;

# Following Mo Strong's orders to transfer $$Billions to countries like Russia, Romania.

# Oil sands production severly curtailed. You won't have to worry about a gas guzzler tax. Gas would be double the price if you could find any.

# The United Nations would be in charge of setting economic policies in Canada.

# Al Gore's fictional movie would be the mandatory and exclusive school room curicular on climate.

# Dion, as former environment minister, planned on giving $10,000,000,000.00 to Environment Canada to spend as they saw fit. Where ?? Suzuki, Sierra Club, Pembina Institute, Greenpeace, and a couple of bucks, maybe, to help pick up roadside garbage.

# Your air travel would be restricted, as proposed by Gore, Suzuki, strong.

# Your house thermostate would have to be set a lot lower. Like, near freezing.

# Our public utilities would be forced to hand over so-called carbon-credit $$ to other countries. Your Natural gas, hydro bills would be double, triple.

# Like Mo Strong, Suzuki suggest, we would be restricted to one car families.

# Kyoto would be the first step to Global Governance, as Jacques Chirac said.

Why all this ?? In order to make Canada COLDER !!

Which budget to you prefer now ?? Get a grip, pooleeze.

Dufus Dion just dumped Comuzzi from caucus and he will sit as independent! Guess his dissing Ralphy Goodale on Duffy last night didn't help either.
He isn't running again, so no bravery on either side.
As for Keith Martin, doubt he'll be so brave!

cozzi gets the punt

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070321/comuzzi_caucus_0700321/20070321?hub=TopStories

votes his constituents not the way that Borat Dion wants.

johnboy and karl - I agree; Harper is quite the tactician. And that's what's needed when you are dealing with a minority parl't, with three leftwing opposition parties.

Right- can you imagine, Dion is now ranting that there aren't broad based tax cuts - when he himself has voiced disapproval of such?

WLMR- you may say that you understand that an enormous infrastructure can't be 'changed on a dime' but such voicing requires that you believe it. After all, you acknowledged this understanding and then immediately swept on to demanding instant change.

It can't be done. You are ignoring that the centralist autocratic gov't is entrenched in Canada. It's entrenched in the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

It's entrenched in the enormous bureaucracy - primarily made up of Liberal appointees and all working within that centralist mindset.

It's entrenched in the Charter, which marginalizes individual rights, has no property rights and privileges group rights over that of the individual.

It's entrenched in the Senate which has been holding up and/or watering down all of Harper's decentralizing agendas since he made them.
It's entrenched in the Supreme Court, with its activist judges.

It's entrenched in the pundits and columnists and MSM. And in the Canadian psyche, which, by and large, hands over all responsibilities to Big Government.

It's entrenched in the ideology of economic statism, as expressed within the rejection of private enterprise - expecting the state to start up businesses, to sustain businesses, to subsidize businesses.

It's entrenched in the rejection of private health care, the rejection of individual responsibility for criminal behaviour..etc.

The centralists, who are deeply embedded in our entire operating structure and psyche, are not going to give up their powers without a fight, and handing them over a budget that would be defeated 'on that dime' - with a Call to Arms for the Retention of The Welfare State - would be a juvenile act on the part of Harper.

You don't achieve your long term goals by insisting that the goal be reached today, but by setting up the infrastructure that enables that goal to become a viable and accessible destiny. That's what Harper is doing; he has to get a majority to start to change the infrastructure.

A minority gov't can't do it - witness how difficult getting the Senate to pass a two paragraph bill on limited terms for Senators, from 45 years to 8 years; the Senate has been reviewing those two paragraphs for ten months. I wonder why.

Fair comment regarding needing an SUV for 90% of the year in Vancouver; however, this past winter we had about several weeks of below freezing weather.

For those of us who live at higher elevation that means snow. And also, for those of us at higher elevations, our streets are often steep up and down hills. 50 + years ago, Vancouver's population was a wee bit smaller and our 'dads' were living primarily at lower elevations and one would presume
a. they don't get as much snowfall at lower elevations near the water.
b. the roads at lower elevations are less steep.

So 'dad' was ok to plug along in his old chevy sedan.

I do have more than one car. One is a Mazda 3 which we primarily use for our day to day driving as it is more fuel efficient for doing the run to school, grocery store, etc.

However, because I live at a higher elevation, my street is a steep street that becomes impassible on snowy days for normal front wheel drive cars (i.e. my Mazda 3) and we also enjoy going on ski trips and must use the sea-to-sky and coquihalla hwy, so we also have a 2nd car - an AWD van - it's used for long haul trips and for extreme weather. I have 4 kids so 6 passenger SUV's aren't really practical when you are packing up the entire family for a weekend trip with bags, skis and groceries.

SUV's aren't a necessity for all of us for Every day - but I just wanted to put out a reality based urban situation where my desire for a larger SUV isn't based on status or image but practical realities that I live with.

So thanks for the snarky comment Richard.

While these troubles in the Liberal ranks are amusing, I'm not sure having Liberals endorse the budget says much in its favour.

This is not the first time that Joe Comuzzi has disagreed with the party. He resigned his cabinet position over the SSM issue.

Bryceman:

Not all those who pay little tax live off the government teat. A lot of people just don't make much income.

If I look at my family, of 4 people I'm the only one who paid income tax in 2006. My 2 daughters (in their early 20s) made just better than minimum wage. With some tax credits and student debt repayment they manage to reduce taxable income to zero. Similar story for my wife. None of them 3 gets any direct transfers from any level of government except the GST credit for the girls (about 240$ a year).

It is the same in the US, not just here in 'liberal' Canada. I read somewhere (can't recall where) that the bottom 50% in the US, income wise, paid 4% of the federal income tax; the top 5% paid 57%.

Unlike some here, I don't think our tax burden is outrageous. The oft-quoted '50% taxation rate' doesn't bear any resemblance with reality, but if we hear it often enough, we believe it.

"Which budget to you prefer now ?? Get a grip, pooleeze."

I'd prefer one that doesn't involve Ottawa in any fashion. I can live without any of the federal parties, thanks.

BHA sez: "Which budget to you prefer now ?? Get a grip, pooleeze."

Like I said we are back to holding our nose and voting for one of the 3 liberal parties that will do us the least harm....this is no way to live.

WLMR, I guess you are stuck, though you should go on living. No matter, you can vote for whomever, as a matter of conscience, policy or whatever. The fact remains that the other parties would have brought in a far more interventionist budget, given their positions on big government programs, including Kyoto.

WRT Comuzzi, while I am a critic of Dion, his move to expel this rebel is reasonable. He has decided not to suppport the party on the budget, and, being a money and whipped vote, he must have known there would be consequences. No big deal here, especially given he will not be running again.

Why is it the governments responsibility to cure the high cost of housing in BC. Seems Layton would have a hard time explaining to sellers that they had to sell for a certain price, regardless of location etc. How many student jobs would be lost if the 10.00 minimum wage was put in by the government. Several years ago, when all that Asian money was flowing into BC for property, no one complained. How has dion punished his caucus members who were absent or voted with the govt on the terror bill. Wonder what Garth thinks about his dictator leader now. Can dion ask or answer a question in the HofC without reading it. Will he have all his questions in writing, and write his answers before the debate. Monday evening should be interesting to watch the election results. Didn't dion tell his liberals to vote for the ADQ.
There was a hint in question period today, that this money for Quebec in the budget, is not guaranteed for future years.

Shamrock:

Well at least Commuzzi is going down with "GRIT" and substance on the cancer research centre in his riding.

Given his stand on SSM, it shows he has got some moral fiber.

After all the insidious drivel and nonsense about the sponsorship rubbish we can begin the process of lowering the "Jolly Roger" from the Ottawa peace tower.

Wonder if Coyne's going to re-use the Hindenburg analogy ? ...... Titanic might be better tho ...

The iron fist of Stephane Dion.
Never mind what is good for your constituentslike300 or so jobs [for people we pretend to represent] You will do what I tell you!
People have been leaving T Bay in droves [so much for 13 years of Liberal governments]
Why didn't Stephane kick Mr Cottler out?
So it is Dions' way or the highway unless there would a political backlash.
Leadership? I think not!

I'm of mixed minds about this gas guzzler tax. I own a 3/4 ton with a 454 which we need for work, also have a holiday trailer. I'll be the first to admit, I have a lead foot at times and should have better driving habits. We own our own business so we could potentially write-off any penalties, etc. As is the case with our single axle. The same truck we ordered last spring, would now be $20,000 more due to emissions standards. A huge penalty and/or gas tax would likely force us to ONLY use the 3/4T for work and an annual camping trip. If gas were even more than it is now, say double, it would be parked unless absolutely necessary. If it got real crazy, we'd likely give that up for a hotel room or a lake lot.

This brings me to the necessity for diesels. There are a lot of people who have bought diesels, who do not work in the patch,farm, or similar, only for around town, easy commuting, and recreational hauling. At one time the price between gas and diesel was quite a difference, that is no longer the case. I am not saying they should be penalized. I just think we could all stand to do a little analyzing of our driving needs and habits.

For the families that need something for towing and only use that vehicle semi-annually, how about offering them a tax write-off to rent that vehicle instead of having to buy it? I admit I haven't done the math, it's just an idea. As said previous, I admit I have to personally re-examine my own habits.

sooz - do you use snow tires in the winter? They make all the difference.

re: Aboriginal Viewpoint - there's a blog to watch. Quite re-freshing.

Does the lack of attention in this sector mean that the P.M. has other things in mind? Such as a thorough examination and re-orginization of spending at I.A.&N.D.?

I heard in question period today that natives now receive 12,000 for every man, woman and child.
Do they really need more attention?

Vitruvious and all,

Is this the most expensive budget ever in Canadian history? Yes.

Does this budget continue to micro-manage what people should spend their money on? Yes.

Is this a socialist and collectivist budget? Yes.

The only hope is here:
http://www.libertarian.ca/

Lee; Haven't heard that. Don't know or care. I'm only interested in an audit by the AG. I'm hopefull it is forthcoming.

Whom ever promises to rob Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.

Kate, you know you're wrong about Keith Martin, right?

Do you like this budget?

Mary T., should someone send you a bag of question marks. Look, I just saved one.

Lee / Cheri, a news article supposedly referenced Prentice saying it was $16,500 or so per aboriginal. If that is actually per person and not per adult, then it seems to be quite a hefty amount. A family of four (two adults, two kids) would pull in $66K...that seems pretty good to me!

"[W]hiny 'where's mine?' socialists"

Great alliteration! That one's a keeper, Kate. "

Indeed. That describes the typical Sask. Party supporter to a tee.

Careful with the $16k or so to Aboriginals. Like every other govmit, especialy Liberal, the Bureaucrats probably get the lions share.

In my past business I had a 4WD truck and an Accord, V6, FWD, traction control. The Accord used exactly half the fuel. Unless the snow was deep the Honda was far,far better than the truck. One had to be on your toes to keep the truck between the ditches !! Useful only because it had a box.

Question to Redux the Reformer and Johan the Libertarian: how many seats does your party have in the house right now? Look, I agree with you both in principle, but politics is not about principle, and this budget is for the comming year, it is not some sort of term paper for a philosophy course.

Thanks for you entrenchment notes, ET. This is not so much a matter of turning the ship of state on a dime, it's a matter of turning Canada's 20th century socialist ship of state into a 21st century free-market airplane. That takes a lot of re-engineering and a long time.

Thanks Eeyore; I have to admit I haven't noticed any details in that regards to the budget. All I'm going on is the whining from the media and various radio programs. For lack of better words, I was trying not to sound racist. I meant "lack of attention" seems to be their analysis. Not mine.

: Vitruvius at March 21, 2007 2:17 AM

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 reverse all that momentum in just over a year, and with a minority government.

Thanks for a very well thought out analysis of the budget with it political overtones. The best we could get with this minority as it stands.

The real proof of his intentions will come when he does have a majority. This Country has been heading for a crash since PET. It will take hucccculean eforts to reverse this drift into the waters of lethe.

Most people have forgotten what real indeoppendance & responsable liberty is, or for that matter privacy or respect. Us that do remember know how hard it is to reverse the engeneired adolecence of a population for over 30 years. To turn a whole Nation into a few elites playground.

Is it possible or not to late to save Canada in any of its present form? Time will tell, but Harper is a canny man. So there is smiggion of hope.

For Albertans there is always two options if the worst happens. In a word, treachery.
If Harper stands his ground for samll government than we may recover.

No Rino's wanted here. The Republicans blew it big time. I Think myself, both Reagan & Harper are those rare political sports. Real populists.

Sorry my edited version replaced itself with my unedited version. The Internet is a funny thing.

was it Vitruvius that mentioned punditocracy?? strange word eh? so I asked wikipedia and there is nothing for punditocracy, it's an anomaly.

WL Mac

Like you, I’m a longtime conservative and also like you, I’m disappointed in some parts of the recent budget. So I can understand your distaste, however, like Vitruvius mentions in his first post, you have to look at the big picture.

First off, you may not have noticed but there’s a provincial election coming up next week in Quebec. Right now it looks like its going to be a tight race between the three main parties (Liberals, ADQ and PQ) and while things are too close to call, it looks like the PQ are going to take a licking which is a good thing. If that happens, the balance of power would be held by a centralist party (Charest’s Liberals) and a right-wing party (Dumont’s ADQ). With the combination of Charest/Dumont can (I do not rule out the possibility of an upset with Dumont coming out on top) maybe, just maybe, (if they have the guts) they can start making some changes to the way things are done in Quebec where special interest groups (leftists groups, unions, marketing boards, etc) rule the roost.

Lets face it, there is no need for Quebec to be receiving billions of dollars in transfer payments, its has some major industries (automobile plants, 60 % of Canada’s aircraft production, hydro) that it could be a “have” province; somebody just has to ween them off their socialist tendencies.

As much as we may dislike it, the reality is that the chances of a minority government getting re-elected in this country without winning a bunch of seats in Quebec (and Ontario) are next to nil. In the last election Harper’s conservatives made significant inroads in Quebec and they hope to improve on that in the next election whenever it comes. Hence, the big payoff to Quebec.

A couple of final comments. First, I agree with Vitruvius’ assessment that this is part of Harper’s long-range plan to de-centralize power down to the provinces where, lets face it, where it belongs.

My other comment is about the all the money going to Quebec. As some commentary’s have mentioned this was probably arranged before hand between Harper and Charest and as with anything in politics there will likely be a little quid pro quo. So don’t be surprised that in the next federal election if you see provincial Liberals campaigning with Federal Conservatives against the Federal Liberals and the Blocheads.

Revnant Dream said: "The real proof of his intentions will come when he does have a majority."

I would use the words "if he were ever to win a majority", and then I would agree with you 100%, and it scares the hell out of me. I dearly hope we never find out.

Kelly ~ pun·di·to·cra·cy (pŭn'dĭ-tŏk'rə-sē):

A group of pundits who wield great political influence.

See: www.answers.com/punditocracy

Now, bureausclerosis, that's a neologism I will take personal pogonotrophic responsibility for, speaking as a borborygmic logophile, at least in the prevenient nudistertianly antejentacular sense. I may be a pertinacious eudemonic axiologist, but I am not an omphaloskeptic misologist, nor am I retromingent.

Yet punditocracy is not mine, it's in the dictionary.

I read some comments by Harper about the budget in the Sun. I think he knows what he is doing. There was a lot of spending -- but a big chunk was for transfer payments to the Provinces, which (theoretically anyway) have useful things to spend the money on. I think attempting to solve the fiscal imbalance is helpful. What annoyed me about Libs is that they just sat on their big pots of money and spent on pet projects, friends, nothing that made much sense for the country as a whole. I am sick of people who whine all the time about social programs and then toss some money in the direction of where social programs reside (Provinces) and then it's start to whine about tax cuts (Libs whining about this now). I believe that in a majority gov., Harper will be as fiscally prudent as he dare be -- minority government he is stuck having to try to please everybody.

You think you know what Harper is doing? Harper has made a nice deal with Charest, and Charest is promising close to $1 billion in tax cuts to Quebeckers, if re-elected, $700 million of which is coming directly from increased transfer payments. The ROC gets to subsidize Quebec's social programs while Quebeckers get a tax break. Of course, Quebeckers will willingly give it all up when Harper gets his majority.

What concerns me about this budget and PMSH is that he has become fixated on doing what it takes to win a majority in the next election. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be quite happy to boot Quebec out of the country and make sure that they took their share of the national debt. Under the perverse system of seat apportionment in Canada, it makes tactical sense for PMSH to pander to Quebec and score political points by making Dion vote against money to his own province. Intellectually I can appreciate what PMSH is doing and so far he has been consistently brilliant. What concerns me is that he may become enthralled with playing the Canadian political system and forget why he went to Ottawa in the first place. I still hold out hope that once he wins a majority, he can start to enact policies which will reduce the size of government to a fraction of its present size. The question is whether this will be possible if he has a large number of Quebec MP's who can't concieve of any form of existence except sucking on the government teat.

Vitruvius has pointed out some of the risks in making sudden changes in a complex dynamic system, but I think he is being overly cautious. Society consists of a majority of self-organized groups of individuals who are quite capable of functioning without government, and would function far more efficiently in the absence of government. The role of government over the years appears to have been to increase the number of individuals who are incapable of functioning on their own and are dependent on government for their existence. IMHO, the self-organizational capacity of Canada is still sufficient to cope with a drastic change in government policy in the form of a dramatic reduction in the role of government. There would be problems of what to do with all the unemployed civil servents, but I'm sure a good number could be retrained to work in various trades where they might actually perform a usefull function. The Soviet Union, with a population whose capacity for self-organization was far less than that of Canada survived a total meltdown of its political system. Dynamical systems can suddenly change states and I'm hoping to see a sudden conversion to a more libertarian society. Phase changes like this are possible although the exact means of carrying them out have thus far eluded those of us who want them to happen.

The only question now is at what point is the process of incremental statism irreversible; PMSH has advanced statist goals with this latest budget and it remains to be seen whether he can roll them back if he gets a majority in the next election. I view government regulation and spending as analagous to the buildup of amyloid in the Alzheimer's brain. At some point the amyloid burden becomes so great that neurons begin to die off and the system has gone into irreversible decline. That's why I'm still a western separatist but I'll temporarily go along with PMSH until such a time that I figure his path leads to a dead end.

loki said: "As far as I'm concerned, I'd be quite happy to boot Quebec out of the country and make sure that they took their share of the national debt."

Prime Minister Harper said:

Don't Be 'Jealous' Of Quebec
Prime Minister Stephen Harper took to the British Columbia airwaves yesterday to reject allegations his government is using billions in tax dollars to buy Quebec votes. "You know ... we can always ignore what we're getting ourselves, look at the other guy and say, 'Oh, he's getting everything,' " Mr Harper told British Columbia radio host Bill Good. (national newswatch)

Dion wouldn't expel Cotler, he's 'more equal', he's running again, Comuzzi is expendable because he isn't.
Thunder Bay may be a place Stephi will find a "woemans",(Dion speak), to run. He's got a huge gap to fill with his pledge of 33% women in his caucus.

Harper got fed up with the likes of Coderre and Dippers demanding answers on the treatment of Taliban prisoners and who wouldn't!!

Harper got them between the eyes when he told them they should care more about our soldiers than the
Taliban. Amen to that.

Great cries and howling for an apology from the sorry lot, fat chance. Why should Harper apologize to the likes of Coderre who marches in step with the Hezbollah?

Prime Minister Harper:

"I'll deal with a federalist government in Quebec only."
...-

Harper ne négociera qu'avec un gouvernement fédéraliste

[...]

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070321/CPACTUALITES02/70321211/6488/CPACTUALITES

Hey, Pogo, err, pogontrophic Vitruvius, I really like that bureausclerosis term. Sounds like a creeping oozing viral disease slithering over the surface, smothering the infrastructure. Impossible to restrain or get rid of. Perfect description. I must remember it.

loki - I think you are making false assumptions about society.

You claim that it would be best to boot Quebec out. I often agree; the problem is that the 'boot' would involve massive economic disruption for Canada. This would include millions of emigrants from Quebec to Canada; how would we deal with jobs etc for them? Quebec would be in serious economic trouble as major companies pulled their head offices out, etc, etc. And - as 'interested scavengers' moved in to pick up the suddenly cheap homes, businesses etc (China, India etc).

The seat allocation is indeed unfair and has to wait until the next reallocation in 2011.

Society is not made up of self-organized groups who can function without government; no population can survive without normative rules of behaviour - and since our global world has moved beyond the 'group-economies' of hunter/gatherers, we require collaborative infrastructures set up by gov't.

Yes, Canada can over the long run, cope with a drastic change in gov't (to decentralization rather than centralization) but a Minority Gov't can set up these changes. As you know, even the small request for limiting Senate terms from 45 years to 8 years - has been held up in the Senate for TEN MONTHS. They have no intention of passing this two paragraph motion.

The Soviet Union survived a total meltdown of its system? At the loss of how many lives? The change from a feudal tsardom to a communist system cost millions of lives. The change from the communist to a capitalist broke up the Soviet Union.

No, dynamical systems cannot suddenly change their structures without both massive input of energy and massive output of energy. Compare a building going up - that takes time, time, time and a lot of energy in work and material and planning. Compare the destruction of a building, not over time but rapid destruction. That takes a lot of energy (the dynamite) and there's a massive explosion. Same with societies. If you want to change a society 'in the blink of an eye', you require massive input of energy - and the result will be a massive expenditure of energy, primarily lives lost.