They'll likely add 4th trimester abortions, too.
And what would Warren do with a basketball court?

Seriously
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that single-income couples could *at Minimum* transfer some of their income to their spouse, at least enough to top up what they could already earn tax-free?

Nah, they'l throw another $ Billion or two to who-knows-where.

They'll have to put a few mill in there for little Omar Khadr, who will find a way to sue our gov't once we are forced to bring the little bugger back here.

The new 25% net worth billionaire tax will be introduced to put money back into circulation. Swiss and off shore accounts will be included or confiscated when detected.

Quite accurate. I 2nd every of them. The damn unions must be outlaw.

The jungle drums are already starting over matching funds.

Municipality " I have lots of projects but no money, my budgets are already done, We want stable funding, we want some of the GST!!."

Well I guess the provicial governments could put $$ tocreatures that are their responsibility. But in grand Canadian tradition this is supposd to be about spending someone else's money.

I must say I like the time clock on the money, if this is really about a kickstart, as opposed to cash grab, then that makes some sense.

Of course the NDP is complaining about reduction in enviro assessments and other bureacratic delays, while complaining at the same time that the money doesnt flow fast enough. Yet another reason, not that I needed one, to not take them seriously since they aren't serious in their analysis or criticism.

If the cons were smart they have overestimated the deficit and will deliver a smaller one, because I think the BoC has it right, that things will look better in the scond half of the year going into 2010.

Coalition is dead and even Layton realizes that an election is the result of a government defeat in another few months., especially if they make it to next fall.

If we are lucky that means Layton finds it appropriate to resign and we will see the insufferable Mulcair as the leader of the NDP.

Richard Evans is a sour twit; his predictions are as stupid as the rightoid rightards that agree with him.

I'm Ok with some infrastructure spending . . . as long as very little of it goes to Toronto mayor David Miller.

The rest of the proposed spending frenzy just seems like Bob Rae got a hold of Stephen Harper's brain.

Looks like the infrastructure spending has a little catch in it. Any project using federal funding has to be triple funded. That is the province and municipality also have to pitch in. Considering Ontario and Toronto are both running deficits I'd imagine that not a whole lot is going to get done there.

18. Loads-a-dough to Lavelin and Bombardier for "infra-structure".

I still have to protest the media and opposition parties who are being dishonest with Canadians about "debt" and "defecit."

I would like to see it reported honestly that Canada has a $800 BILLION Federal DEBT.

This debt, which started in Trudeau days and every succesive government since has added to it INLUDING Chretien's Liberals - the last year being 1997 when there was an $8 BILLION DEFECIT in GOOD TIMES.

This Federal DEBT grows by leaps and bounds due to interest rates and costs US more than $28 BILLION per year just in paying the interest!!!!

Harper paid down $38 BILLION off the principal in three years.

But, all of this wailing by the opposition about "burdening our children" with a defecit????

We have been burdened since the 1960's and will still be paying on this debt for 100 years or more.

Any HONEST JOURNALISTS out there want to put some reality ahead of the shrill misrepresentations out there?

Any HONEST JOURNALISTS in ther major media out there???

Richard Evans' predictions are indeed very likely bang-on.

What is so depressing about this is that, if the Liberals were in power, he'd have made the same list and we'd all be smirking and thinking, "Of course. What else can you expect from those Liberals? They don't care about principles...it's all about staying in power."

But, the Liberals are not the ones in power. So why are the Conservatives trying to be more liberal that the Liberals? What ever happened to Stephen Harper's conviction that Canadian values are more conservative than they know?

Someone tell me what is left when it comes to differentiating between the Liberals and Conservatives.

A combination of Bob Rae "spend our way out of the recession" fiscal insanity and zero interest, zero loans financial policy perfected by the Japanese Ministry of Finance during their decades long recession will soon put an end to all our problems.

Buy stock in Loan Sharks R' Us. It's going to the moon.

Lorraine:

As far as I understand, there has been $103 billion paid off on Canada's long-term debt, starting in the Chretien era.

It is true that a huge portion of the long-term debt has been retired during the Harper era.

In any event, the total Canadian debt is lower than it was in 1997.

It hasn't come down quickly enough for my liking, but until a majority Conservative government is elected, we'll have to be satisfied with a steady repayment of long-term debt.

One more question ... why is it up to anybody else to find out the facts for you? Figure it out yourself. The stats are readily available.

Quit wasting your energy typing in capital letters.

Set you free - the stats on the debt are readily available - that is why I question the disnonesty in the media for not reporting it.

Instead they report as if this defecit spending will put the country back into "debt"....knowing full well people don't know the difference.

Fife reported that Bob Rae was not happy with his leader Ignatieff, because Ignatieff wants to read the budget first & would not follow Layton & the ndp and just vote down the Budget for the sake of Voting against the Govt.
I have been trying to find this i believe it was last nites CTV National.

Kinda tough to lose the old coat, Eh Bob!

What all politicians need to learn is that we need to focus on the middle class to either keep them there or help them move up, instead of waiting for them to fall down into the lower class. A family of four that is struggling but still managing to maintain their middle class lifestyle is one missed paycheque from needing social programs that cost a fortune, when a simple smaller tax cut could help them move up the chain and stimulate the economy. When we keep more money in the economy, the economy will grow.

Greater penalties to recover 125% of investors losses and International pressure on the Swiss money laundering helpers.

"One American caught by the disclosure rules is Igor Olenicoff, the billionaire founder of Olen Properties, a real estate development company. Last December he pleaded guilty to failing to file the disclosures from 1998 to 2004, when he put around $200 million in overseas accounts, including at UBS. He paid $52 million to resolve the issue.

Mr. Olenicoff was identified in an indictment of a former UBS banker on Tuesday over violations of private banking and tax issues."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/business/15tax.html

"Canada eh?
There has also been an expose of LGT Group in Liechtenstein for tax evasion, with some 100 Canadians implicated.
So where are Canada’s politicians and regulators? Tax officials are supposedly investigating but there should be public hearings with culprits named publicly. UBS undoubtedly also targeted Canada for cheaters so let’s find out who these people are as well as their accountants and lawyers."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2008/07/29/ubs-used-to-be-smart.aspx

lorraine - I agree with you. The public debt is 62.3% of the GDP, which is 1.336 trillion.

What people don't realize is that Harper has been using the surplus to pay down this debt - about 38 billion, something to which the NDP in particular, as well as the Liberals, have strongly objected. The NDP and Liberals didn't want the debt reduced; they wanted the money put into 'social programs'. Well, now they have their wish.

What this current budget is doing is taking back and using some of that debt payment (about 34 billion) for those and other programs. Instead of acknowledging this, the MSM are confusing the public, who don't know the difference between a deficit budget and an action of debt reduction.

With all the proposed spending, the only interesting thing will be how the Liberals debate it. Will they take a conservative approach and say too much spending, or will they throw themselves in with the socialists saying that there's not enough? From the leaks I've read, the Liberals are getting pretty much what they wanted.
I think PMSH has caved quite a bit to retain power (he had little choice with these idiots leading the opposition). I would have liked to see another game of chicken.

Let's just hope this budget puts them on a path to a majority. Then it will be fun to hear the opposition squabble.

"the only serious senior liberal who is pushing for the govt. to be defeated is Bob Rae"
bob fife jan26/09 ctv national news 4:18

like i said, kinda tough to throw away the old coat.

The libs will once again demonstrate that their balls are made of styrofoam, and that they don't have the guts to bring down the government despite their endless sabre rattling.

Watching cowards gets tiring after a while.

All I can say id there is no principled responsible leadership left in government....when the bill for this Klepto-corporate bail out/patronage largess comes due, get it from the trough suckers because I'll be busy lighting my torch grabbing a rope and joining the angry mob.

Today we will witness Harper discard the last of his principles for power.

What a shame.

I for one, look forward to years of guaranteed tax increases in the future.

All this spending will have to come out of our pockets sometime.

A 34 billion dollar deficit is sheer loonacy. I guess that is the price for PMSH to stay in business. The alternative? Let the Libs/Dippers govern and run up a 50 billion deficit,I suppose.

With so-called experts saying the economy will snap back by the fall I can see where running continued deficits will contribute to inflation and, when the stimulation money runs its course in a few years, another downturn in the economy.

It will become a self perpetuating cycle that will lead to more pain. I think we have to bite the bullet now. Harper should bring in middle-class tax cuts to stimulate the economy, provide some infrastructure funding and cut government spending big-time. The economy will come around eventually.

A year ago, Harper ‘stiumlated' the economy by giving Canadians tax cuts.

Does anybody here know for a fact that the leaked amount of $64 billion in spending will be all on bailouts?

Is it possible planned corporate tax rates could be fast-tracked?

Or, that income tax rates will go down?

Those moves are also an expense to the treasury.

I'll bet that at least half the $64 will be in tax decreases.

But then, I've been wrong before.

I'm just going to chill and see what happens.

BTW, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest among any economy in the world, including the US, which will become New France faster than Canada.

Ironic, isn't it?

WL Mackenzie Redux not really.

"from 1998 to 2004, when he put around $200 million in overseas accounts, including at UBS. He paid $52 million to resolve the issue."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/business/15tax.html

Lets do the math

Estimated Swiss Accounts at the $200,000,000.00 at 100% penalty.

USA-19000 at $200 million equals $3.8 trillion

Canada 100 at $200 million equals $20 billion

[i]"the only serious senior liberal who is pushing for the govt. to be defeated is Bob Rae"
bob fife jan26/09 ctv national news 4:18[/i]
That's why I usually call him BOOB RAE......
The GTA hasn't yet realized it is not the tail that wags the Canadian dog.....

Bob Rae, huh?

Even more proof that he's an NDP Trojan Horse who infiltrated the Liberal Party.

Ignatieff seems to me a more traditional Liberal. I have seen no integrity issues with him and he strikes me as an honest man.

Trouble is, he's surrounded by a bunch of thieves.

IMHO, Iggy would be better off in the Conservative Party.

At least the Liberals have the decency to look at the budget before deciding whether or not to support it. Apparently the NDP have already decided to vote against it without even knowing what it contains. Why does the media not question Layton on these tactics? How can anyone in his/her right mind take the NDP seriously when they carry on in this manner? Every time that I decide that Jack Layton can not possibly be a bigger asshat, he always proves me wrong. If the NDP ever aspire to be more than just a fringe party, they should take the first step and dump this imbecile.

biffjr.

Does it surprise anybody that all Layton wants is control and power?

Six cabinet seats for a party that polled just 18% last election?

The latest numbers are 13%. Apparently, even diehard NDP supporters in Western Canada understand that Layton does not represent their values.

Harper is doing exactly what a minority government is supposed to do.

The calculated risk he is making is how much of a McCain-ing can his base take. PMSH isn't simply adding a few straws to the "c"onservative camel's back but an anvil.

PMSH is as conservative as the rest of us, but he is playing a much more complicated game than we give him credit for. Lets just hope he's calculated correctly how far his base can bend without breaking.

Don't forget to add on the $75B that Harper has already given to the banks, and the other $215B that has been "set aside".

That brings total spending to roughly $354B over 2 years. That is assuming, of course, that further bailouts to the car companies aren't coming, and that the gov't actually forecasts correctly, which is highly unlikely.

My prediction: boondoggle spending ala Libs, ever increasing debt loads with fewer to pay the tab, and a return of the disco era.

Aiz - the $75 Billion was not given to banks. CMHC bought secured mortgages which are revenue producing assets to free up the bank's capital so they can make new loans helping today's industries and consumers.

You disagree with this?

This is how the Reform party came to be. Conservatives acting like liberals. I didn't leave the conservatives, they left me. As a Westerner I see only one option. Separation.

I like Harper for his stand on Israel, but this budget is a complete and utter cave-in to the socialists and it makes me sick to my stomach.

It's for damn sure I won't be governed by commies like layton and duceppe and an unelected liberal. I will do everything I can to disrupt their coalition if it comes to pass.

Here we are, in the hands of an unelected Haitian, an American, a commie and a french separatist. F*ck me, this could only happen in Canada. What a third world cess pool we've become. Our dead soldiers must be rolling over in their graves.

How long do you think this blog will be up and running if the three stooges are in power? How long until they pass a law banning conservative web sites or radio etc.?

We are being pushed toward civil war. Call me crazy if you like, but the writing is on the wall. Keep your powder dry.

What people don't realize is that Harper has been using the surplus to pay down this debt

Not quite, ET. Harper used a small portion of the surplus to pay down a minute amount of debt. The rest of the surplus he squandered on irresponsible tax cuts and record level spending. Ideology and special interest buy offs trumped sound fiscal management, which would have stood us in good stead to weather the current situation. Instead, all of those years of financial sacrifice is for naught.

I don't know which is more pathetic- Harper's performance or his supporter's mindless determination to live with their heads in the sand.

Philboyd - which special interest groups do you accuse Harper of "squandering" money on?

Chinese head tax? Aboriginal residential schools victims?

Which others do you not agree with?

And, by letting us keep more of our own money with some tax cuts you call this "squandering"?

How so?

Indiana Homez.. PMSH cut himself off the base long time ago with top-down management of the party. From organizational point of view that has been his strength, although as any strength it swings like double-edged sword. I think we are witnessing undoing of Harper, who once had a chance to be the greatest Prime Minister of Canada.
My CPC membership is placed on window ledge waiting for the budget announcement. Unless someone stands up and shouts "Ezra Levant for Prime Minister!", I'll become disinterested observer.

"irresponsible tax cuts "

What a marroooon!

And, by letting us keep more of our own money with some tax cuts you call this "squandering"?

If tax cuts are unsustainable, they are by definition irresponsible. If they give with one hand and take with the other, if they rob Peter to pay Paul, they're running a scam. Why fall for something so obvious?

philboyd, put the communist manifesto aside and and start reading some real economics material.

Income-splitting, income-splitting, income-splitting please god let there be income-splitting.

And watch iggy try and choke down his opposition to it.

"If they give with one hand and take with the other, if they rob Peter to pay Paul, they're running a scam."

Would you say them same when the government takes more from the middle class and higher to pay for services aimed at special interest groups and the poor?

Gord...

exactly right.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/01/27/8166596-cp.html

There's a poll up about deficit spending.

Gord,

As fantastic as that would be, it's just too much to hope for....

Jim

"if they rob Peter to pay Paul"

Phil, in your def'n, who is Peter and who is Paul?

Is Peter the socialist cottilion, and Paul the tax paying "middle class working family" (to use Jack's favourite buzzwords...?

Jim

philboyd (is that a new name for 'hardboiled') - I think you have to quantify your qualitative adjectives of "a small portion of the surplus to pay down a minute amount of debt".

He put 38 billion to the debt since they were elected in 2006. You may consider this a 'small portion' and a 'minute amount of debt' but others don't.

Phil, in your def'n, who is Peter and who is Paul?

Paul would be special interests like gord and wes and jim clamoring for income splitting so wifey can stay at home eating bon bons and watching oprah. Peter would be every other taxpayer who can't get in on the scam.
Paul would be those special interests who can get in on the rec room renovation subsidy....etc.

Oh my. The rec room reno subsidy is indeed a reality. Shades of Grant Devine.

2009 Payroll Tables
Tax Brackets
15% 22% >$38,832 26% >$77,664 29% >$126,264

Personal Exemption Federal $10,100.00

Budget not a great change.

He put 38 billion to the debt since they were elected in 2006. You may consider this a 'small portion' and a 'minute amount of debt' but others don't.

Indeed, ET, it's all a matter of perspective. But pull your head out of the sand before you give your stamp of approval.
BTW, looking to Devine for inspiration....we are truly screwed...put a fork in us, we're done.

2009 Payroll Exemption Tables
Tax Brackets

15%

22%>$38,832.00

26%>$77,664.00

29%>$126,264.00

Personal Exemption $10,100.00

Not a great personal tax change.

Second try is a charm.

Still did not post right. What the h'll.

Kenyan Parliament Acknowledges Obama's Birth There

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/kenyan-parliament-on-obamas-birth-there-from-devvy-kidd/

Kenyan Parliament on Obama’s Birth There
From Devvy Kidd
1-26-9

This is the official web site of the Kenyan Parliament:
http://www.bunge.go.ke

This is from a session November 5, 2008:
http://www.bunge.go.ke/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/5.11.08A.pdf

“Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue….”

“What I have in mind is the famous Kennedy airlifts of the 1960s when many Kenyans were, due the friendship with the then Government and the late Tom Joseph Mboya, given the opportunity to travel to the United States of America as a result of [The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs] which we now have an African American of Kenyan origin being President-elect. This is momentous. At 4.00 o’clock this morning, Senator Barrack Obama called me at midnight and told me: “Mr. Vice President, could you make sure you sort out this problem?” I want to assure him that the problem has since been sorted out….”

“Kenya is going to receive a lot of attention, but let it not be negative because we are the home of the President-Elect of the USA.”

“Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA?”

“..than a time when the Great America has a President-elect who has his roots in the great Republic of Kenya.”

Monday, January 26, 2009
Obama - Son of Kenya Soil
http://www.bunge.go.ke/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/5.11.08A.pdf

Parliament of the Republic of Kenya
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT [Kenya] Wednesday, 5th November, 2008
The House met at 9.00 a.m.

-Snip-

House Adjourn To Discuss Election Of Mr. Barrack Obama

Ms. Odhiambo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. It is not on this issue. I stand on a point of order under Standing Order No.20 to seek leave for adjournment of the House to discuss the American presidential election results.

(Applause)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order! Order!

Ms. Odhiambo, Standing Order No.20 says:- "Any hon. Member may at any time rise in his place and seek leave to move the adjournment of the House for purposes of discussing a definite matter of urgent national importance."

This means national "Kenyan" importance. The election of Senator Barrack Obama-

-- An hon. Member: It is President Obama! Mr. Deputy Speaker: president-elect has not been sworn-in yet. The election of President-elect Obama is of utmost national importance to the United States of America. Ms. Odhiambo, you are a lawyer. You had better be very careful where you transgress between watching your own sovereignty and what can be interpreted in some quarters as some form of treason. We appreciate and respect him. We are happy and we were looking forward to his election. It is not a matter of urgent definite national importance to Kenya.

In any case, whereas the ruling from the Chair would not have been any different, you are supposed to approach the Chair at least two hours in advance and give a notice of that information. Nonetheless, let us hold our horses. Let the excitement not make us look like American citizens. We are citizens of the sovereign Republic of Kenya.

-snip-

"The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. Musyoka): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while thanking you for that Communication from the Chair, I want to join the rest of the world and, indeed, all of us - and it is understandable that the rest of African Continent and the whole world is celebrating a dawn of a new era---

As we congratulate the American people and more, specifically, Senator Barrack Obama who is now President-elect, it is important to reflect on the journey that he has travelled so far. When countries get their foreign policy right, a lot of hope can ensue. What I have in mind is the famous Kennedy airlifts of the 1960s when many Kenyans were, due the friendship with the then Government and the late Tom Joseph Mboya, given the opportunity to travel to the United States of America as a result of [The Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs]

which we now have an African American of Kenyan origin being President-elect. This is momentous. At 4.00 o'clock this morning, Senator Barrack Obama called me at midnight and told me: "Mr. Vice President, could you make sure you sort out this problem?" I want to assure him that the problem has since been sorted out. (Several hon. Members stood up)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: You are all out of order! Next Order! Order! Hon. Members,"

-end snip-

philboyd:

"income splitting so wifey can stay home and eat bon bons and watch Oprah"?!?!? How about income splitting so either Mommy or Daddy doesn't have to work full time in order that someone else isn't raising their children for them? With childcare costs as they are, it's almost impossible to not have to work full time just to make ends meet. So, I guess that would make you Peter, too bad you're not able to get in on the "scam".

I just walked in while my wife was watching mothercorp. NDP Finance Critic, Thomas Mulcair "most Canadians are one paycheck away from poverty".
WTF?

Philboyd, Michael Ignatieff must be your hero. Like him, you engage is useless platitudes and phrases ($30b of debt paid off is insignificant, though you never bothered to mention the number).

Sorry, real action is needed, not just Liberal talking points about helping "the most vulnerable" or other wordsmith crap.

Philboyd, be specific, what actual budget measure do you disagree with, and more importantly, what can you suggest instead?

IOW, spare us your non-specific BS. You sound like an idiot with your useless blathering.

I have yet to hear one specific proposal (actual policy not talking points) from any of the opposition parties. Like I said, Philboyd would fit right in.

It's easy to criticize when you are not accountable (NDP, Bloc who will never gain power), or lazy and dishonest - to not forward a single, specific alternative.

BTW, good luck with coalition, with Liberals having new leader, no program, and public opinion solidly against. Ignatieff knows this gambit will fail, and he will force election, and then get pummelled by electorate.

That's why he will "support" the budget; there is no other reason.

No staunch conservative can be happy about this budget, but if the result of its defeat was to trigger an election (instead of having the coalition simply install themselves in power), I think we would have seen a decidedly different budget.

My biggest problem here is that due to the fact that the coalition is "technically" legal, the media has validated it as a reasonable option - for it severly curtails the ability of Harper to implement the Conservative platform, which pleases the Liberal media very much.

As such the Opposition is now no longer responsible to the electorate if it chooses to defeat a duly elected government. They have created a strategy to disenfranchise the Canadian voter.

The electorate had severly curtailed the Liberals power and influence in the last 3 elections. The Liberals and rest of the opposition have awarded it back to themselves, with the media happily ignoring what it should be reporting as a constitutional crisis.

Were the Coalition to award itself power there would be no mechanism to remove it from power, nor blunt its abuse of it.

So Harpers choice was to deliver a Conservative budget which the opposition would have used as an excuse to install themselves as a government answerable to no one, or to deliver a budget that would blunt the coalitions grab for power as much as possible.

In my view he had little choice in the matter.

As far as I can see the deficit spending is roughly equivalent to the amount paid on the debt in the previous budgets. Although I do not agree with some of the measures, they don't put us much more behind the 8 ball as we were before. I feel PMSH didn't have a lot of choice. The people that cried about no stimulus will cry about the stimulous. The good point is the funding , like milk has an expiry date and the people that want the money have to come up with some. In plain talk you can't have your cake, eat it too and have someone else pick up the tab.

If anyone finds a missing $38,832.00 and 3 equal signs, let me know. The cyber space monster most likely ate them.

I can't believe I voted for these idiots. Stimulus spending doesn't work. Never has. Never will. Take a look at Britain in the 70s, France in the 80s and Japan in the 90s. Canada was in good shape until now. What a disaster... Harper can kiss his government goodbye in the next election, since he just decided to write off his base. Are there no more fiscal conservatives left in this country?

Belisarius: Yes, but the majority of them for Harper anyway, because he still appears to them to be the lesser of several evils.

set you free - just out of curiosity, where do you come up with the conclusion that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any economy in the world. This is most certainly not true.

US GDP: 14.58 trillion
Debt: 60.8% of GDP

Canada GDP: 1.336 trillion
Debt: 62.3% of GDP

India GDP: 3.319 trillion
Debt: 59% of GDP

China GDP: 7.8 trillion
Debt: 15.7%

Australia GDP: 824.9 billion
Debt: 15.4% of GDP

I agree with others; I think that Harper had little choice but to save his government from the Coalition - a vicious attack on our democracy - and the Liberals. It's extremely hard getting a conservative small-government, decentralized infrastructure into place in Canada, after over a century of centralist big-government infrastructure. It takes TIME, for all those who reject Harper and the CPC; it can't be changed in two years.

You have a choice. Get rid of him and you'll get the centralist socialist style of governance we've had; one that ignores the West; that is based only in the bubble of Ottawa-Montreal; or stick with him through the hard times so that he can get a majority and get some real change through that socialist-dominated House of Commons.

Coyne nails it:

Say what you like about the Tories: they don’t do things by halves. When they spend, they spend. When they go into debt, they do it $100-billion at a time. And when they decide to put an end to conservatism in Canada — as a philosophy, as a movement—they go out with a bang.

We can safely say that the strategy of incrementalism, at least, has been put to bed. With this historic budget, the Conservatives’ already headlong retreat from principle has become a rout: a great final leap into the void. For there will be no going back from this, for the party or for the country. Whatever the budget’s soothing talk of “temporary” this and “extraordinary” that, and for all its well-mannered charts showing spending obediently returning to its pen, deficits meekly subsiding, “investments” repaid in full, we are in fact headed somewhere we have never been before. We are on course towards a massive and permanent increase in the size and scope of government: record spending, sky-high borrowing, and — ultimately, inevitably — higher taxes. And all this before the first of the Baby Boomers have had a chance to retire, and cough up a lung.

Gus at 4:43

I just walked in while my wife was watching mothercorp. NDP Finance Critic, Thomas Mulcair "most Canadians are one paycheck away from poverty".
WTF?

Shouldn't that make the NDP happy?...It puts us a little closer to all having $20 and a grey blanket just like the NDP wants.

"Paul would be special interests like gord and wes and jim clamoring for income splitting so wifey can stay at home eating bon bons and watching oprah."

Phil

Please explain to me why a family with a stay at home parent should have a larger % of their total family income taxed compared to families with two incomes?

Nicholls ain't too happy either:

CINO

Well now it's official.

The Conservative Party is conservative in name only.

Makes me yearn for the days when we had relatively fiscally conservative leaders, like Jean Chretien.

Indiana, please explain where income splitting says anything about parenting or families?

"BTW, looking to Devine for inspiration....we are truly screwed...put a fork in us, we're done."

Enough with the Grant Devine comparisons already! The demonization of Grant Devine is the domain of sore loser socialists still in shock over the trouncing that the NDP received from the Sask Party in the last Sask election.

Are you Lorne Calvert?

"set you free - just out of curiosity, where do you come up with the conclusion that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any economy in the world. This is most certainly not true."

ET I do not know where you are getting your numbers from...figures for 2007-2008 state that Canada's federal debt to GDP ratio is 31.7%.

The demonization of Grant Devine is the domain of sore loser socialists .....

It's called remembering your past so that you don't doom yourself to repeat it...meanwhile, there's a hole in the sand that awaits the return of your head, biff.

Gerry Nicholls is an extreme Conservative, he has no home. He doesn't like the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper and he really can't bring himself to join the Liberals.

He really should form a new party or maybe reinvent a Reformed Reform Party.
He could talk about bringing back the death penalty, ban abortions, ban gay marriage, etc. He may have a following but not enough to allow him to enact his idea of conservatism.

He opposes his former friend and cohort, Stephen Harper because he has made appeasements to gradually gain power allowing him to bring some more conservative values into law.

Gerry Nicholls, a nice fellow, is out to lunch.

ET, you nailed it.

"Please explain to me why a family with a stay at home parent should have a larger % of their total family income taxed compared to families with two incomes?"

Can I? It's because individual people earn income, Not whatever group of people is currently defined as a "family".

This budget is a complete disaster.

It increases spending, financing it by debt. This is the exact sort of economic principle that caused the global downturn.

I provides tax cuts at a time when government costs are increasing. Tax cuts make sense, but not when you're simultaneously increasing costs.

It doesn't hold government unions accountable. Unions can force taxpayers to pay whatever wages they want because government can simply tax to pay,

It isn't fiscally conservative, doesn't decrease political entitlements, and increases the size of government.

And now for shameless self-promotion, my full initial comments on the budget are on my new blog: http://www.politicks.ca/?p=12

Phil

I'd be happy to answer your question, I wonder if you will grant me the same courtesy.

Canadian Library of Parliament
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0636-e.pdf

""Income splitting" is referred to as the ability of spouses to divide their total taxable *family* income for tax purposes in order to reduce their total *family* income tax liability. Because of the progressive nature of the Canadian tax system, the higher-income spouse may taxed at a higher marginal tax rate than the lower-income spouse. By splitting their taxable income, some couples would benefit from a lower effective tax rate." (Library of Parliament)

I'd like to think you're not being disingenuous with your comments because obviously it is a waste of time to have a discussion with someone who is being disingenuous.

Ray K: "Can I? It's because individual people earn income, Not whatever group of people is currently defined as a "family"."

Funny, however an individual defines one's own "family" is how income is spent, not on an individual. Unless you'd like to either:

1. Give welfare to children because they don't have individual incomes; or
2. Force children to work for a living dognabbit.

The current public debt stands at approximately $538 billion, NOT 800 $bln.
These are the results of accumulated DEFICITS.

A deficit of $30+ billion might be understandable if the BoC weren't predicting 3.8% growth in 2010 without any government intervention.

Nogody is mentioning that this is a structural deficit caused by among other things massive immigration and an aging population.

This budget will make it difficult for the Conservatives to campaign on fiscal responsibility in the future and I'd rather see a restrained budget defeated and an election called, which I believe the Conservatives would win.

Basically what happened is the media, corporations, and unions colluded to fearmonger Canadians for months in order to justify a budget Canadians don't want and wouldn't vote for. Not a great day for Canada.

Ray K

You're answer is BS and here is why:

If I accept your premise, divorced wives should not be entitled to any child or wife support because it is the individuals income, not the families. In fact, the husband(or wife) is simply providing charity to the other people he shares "room & board" with. Charity is optional as is evident with the very low % of charitable donations made by those who consider themselves "progressive"; so, if "families" don't factor into "income" why are so many men forced to share their income with their former "roommates"?

Families are an accepted unit in our society(and the rest of the world), it is only the very small fringe of people on this planet that share the leftarded view in this regard.

Please explain to me why a family with a stay at home parent should have a larger % of their total family income taxed compared to families with two incomes?"

Indiana, you are talking about two different scenarios.
In the former, you are talking about parents.
Here:""Income splitting" is referred to as the ability of spouses to divide their total taxable *family* income for tax purposes in order to reduce their total *family* income tax liability. Because of the progressive nature of the Canadian tax system, the higher-income spouse may taxed at a higher marginal tax rate than the lower-income spouse. By splitting their taxable income, some couples would benefit from a lower effective tax rate." (Library of Parliament)....
you are talking about spouses.... as in a dual income couple each making $45 K paying a higher rate so a single income couple with one making $125K and the other at home watching Oprah gets a tax break. It don't fly by any analysis.

Stricker,
How money is spent has nothing to do with income tax.

sorry late coming to this thread. I was going to suggest instead of pipelines and sewage lines for infrastructure we build soup lines.

I'm guessing, but i suspect that philboyd is a fan of Obama. If so, then he surely would agree to the idea that CDA harmonize how it does things with the US. The US allows income-splitting.

Looking at the budget, the thing that leaps out at me - and apparently is missed by Coyne - is the very low estimates for tax revenues.

Much of the (projected) deficit is from reduced inflows rather than additional spending. And what spending there is is one time stuff - not the creation of new programs or expansions of dept operating budgets (to the contrary, they have been capped).

Should the economy do better than they predict (and oil returning to north of 65$ by the fall, as I am hearing from my sources in the patch, will go a long way to causing just that) the deficit will be much smaller in the later years.

Having stated that, i have to say that i am somewhat disappointed by it, although i realize the political conditions that probably made this budget less than it could have been. Most of the spending measures were very modest, piece-meal things as were the tax-cuts and changes to EI. (contrary to Coyne's view, incrementalism not only lives it is a systemic contagion, apparently)

What would have been a boost to the base and put the wind in the sails of canadians (and put Liberals and their separatist coaltion on their heels) would have been bold things like income-splitting, capital gains deferral on investments that are reinvested, allowing income trusts for the resource sector, and not piecemeal infrastructure, but mega-project stuff - stuff that has huge long-term economic impact and makes a federal mark on the country such as:

Twinning the TCH from coast to coast and
building a transportation/energy corridor from northern Quebec and Labrador across the strait to Newfoundland (and thus drastically reducing the hugely expensive North sydney to Port aux Basques ferry service).

They would be memorable initiatives as would income-splitting that would be part of a memorable and well-regarded conservative legacy.

Maybe next time...

Homez,
Child support is not income tax.

bruce - my figures come from the CIA world factbook. Yo can check out each country's economic statistics. Where does your 31.7% ratio come from?

Look at chart A1.5 on this site.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/plan/ann1-eng.asp

Looks to be around 30% or slightly higher to me.

What would have been a boost to the base and put the wind in the sails of canadians (and put Liberals and their separatist coaltion on their heels) would have been bold things like income-splitting, capital gains deferral on investments that are reinvested, allowing income trusts for the resource sector, and not piecemeal infrastructure, but mega-project stuff - stuff that has huge long-term economic impact and makes a federal mark on the country such as:

There you have it, Lorraine: Preferential Income-splitting tax status, preferential capital gains tax status, preferential income trust tax status, robbing Peter to pay Paul special interest pandering in a conservative nutshell.

A few months ago the opposition parties were outraged. They said the Conservatives were uncaring and inept, and weren't taking the economic "crisis" seriously, as evidenced by the fact that the Conservatives hadn't come up with a stimulus package.

Now, a giant stimulus package has been unveiled, and they're....yes, outraged.

One of the announcements on infrastructure spending apparently involves twinning the highway through Banff; Lizzie May said -- I'm dead serious, I just saw it on CPAC -- that the Conservatives are "...doubling the roadkill problem for endangered grizzlies..."

Does the woman never stop?

Thomas Mulclair: "The Conservatives continue to attack women's rights..."

The economic problems were caused by huge amounts of unpaid debt so Canada's response is to incur huge amounts of unpaid debt.

I'm so glad we have the best and the brightest watching out for us. I can't imagine the stupidity that would have come from lesser lights.

If we had only a small recession before. This plan will bloom into an out right Depression. Get out of Corporate welfare!!! Its the road to penury. If we had road this out for 6 months most of the pain would have gone away. Now the liberal besides instituting an attempted coup. Have now convinced the Conservatives to become the NDP. Hell Harper why not just nationalize every company in Canada.
This is disgusting. As Rush said. Stimulus packages never work & we all know it. The REALO last Depression should have taught us that. This is purely a money grab. It will only exasperate an already deflated economy. Made that way by crooks with exaggerated pricing for years. Now they want to reward the very authors of the disaster? The very fear mongers who have used this morgage crisis in the US to engorge themselves on taxpayer monies there & here. Nuts to that!
JMO

I JUST WISH FOR ONE FREAKIN' TIME THEY WOULD ROB PAUL TO PAY PETER !!!

ET:

I suspect that the CIA factbook neglected to revise its summary numbers from years ago. Here is a quote from the text of their most recent assessment:

"As of 2008, Canada’s total government debt burden is the lowest in the G8. The OECD projects that Canada’s net debt-to-GDP ratio will decline to 19.5% in 2009, less than half of the projected average of 51.9% for all G8 countries. According to these projections, Canada’s debt burden will have fallen over 50 percentage points from the peak in 1995, when it was the second highest in the G8."

With regard to debt-to-GDP ratio, I've seen a Federal Debt Burden graph from the Department of Finance, Canada, to shows the ratio to be about 31-32%.

Why is it different from the CIA facts?

Not sure unless the CIA data refers to the total national debt, including provincial, while the graph refers only to the federal debt.

AND, I've also seen references to 'net debt' which deducts assets such as the 100 billion Pension Plan. This is used to come up with a ratio percentage in the 30s, and even lower.

"There are many measures of debt. One that's in use, and published annually by Statistics Canada, is called the consolidated net financial debt.

This measure takes in financial accounts of all levels of government "to yield aggregate unduplicated financial statistics."

According to this measure of debt, in 2004, consolidated debt was at $798.4. More telling is perhaps the per cent of debt-to-GDP ratio, which in 2004 was at 63.7 per cent. In recent years, the consolidated debt has been dropping. "

Then, you look at another chart and it says that the debt was 562.8 billion in 1996; the ratio was 67.3% in 1996.In 2005-6, debt was 481.5 billion. The ratio was 35.1%.

Therefore - all I can say is that there are a lot of charts, and until it's clear what they refer to (federal only, federal and provincial debt); what is included (do the statistics include assets such as the CPP?) - it's hard to come up with a comparable ratio to that of other countries. When I use only the CIA data, Canada's debt ratio is high.

When one uses the Statistics Canada data, the ratio is low, and getting lower.

Yes of course, EBD, as I predicted in the last LNR.

Sending money to save the economy isn't the answer but it is what everyone is programed to believe. The Conservatives have to act like spendthrift Lieberals lest the get kicked out for telling the sheeple the truth. The Reform Party never got widespread acceptance because nobody wanted to hear the facts. Passing out your own money is the classic progressive way of making everyone feel good.

Of course the Tory government bowed to the spend-our-way-out gang but now the same whiners that were saying the government wasn't doing anything are now whining that the Tories are spending into debt. Damned if you do, eh.

It is all moot if there is an election.

One of the finest Budgets I have ever seen introduced by a Liberal government.

For what it is worth Wiki has "Government debt (also known as public debt or national debt) is money (or credit) owed by any level of government; either central government, federal government, municipal government or local government."
That seems more accurate that it includes all debt of provinces.

This guys blog seems to have decent numbers. http://blog.scott.tylers.info/index.php?/archives/49-Provincial-Debt-Table.html

ET - the difference in the Debt ratio numbers you have been posting is that we are only talking about the Federal government debt which is $800 Billion or so with interest payments of about $28 Billion per year.

The goal is to have the interest payments at only 25% of the total Federal government expenditures.

I believe your numbers include all levels of government debts compared to the entire county's income- which is the Gross National Product not just the Federal government's income.

EBD, Tex and vit: Exactly!
And it makes me wish PMSH had not caved to the pressure.
Any cuts at all?CBC gets a free ride again?
It would have been great to see the cuts to funding for political parties just to turn the lefty-winey cranks, as if they needed turning.

Best case scenario (and therefore most unlikely): Iggy hacks up a hairball and votes the government down, we get an election and Harper is returned with a majority that lets him safely ignore the Opposition for four years; he gets a do-over of the budget and decides to save his way out of the Recession instead.

I will not be holding my breath.

With apologies to Don McLean, it's the day that conservatism died...

why is it so hard for the government to cut spending. There should be plenty of places to trim lots of accumulated 'fat' in all departments and programs. Even DND spends money like a drunken sailor on some really stupid shit. Buy ships, tanks and jets, but millions on finding helmets that fit 'canadian' sized heads?

Anyway, cut spending and taxes... the best first steps, for any governments.

Phil: You think that a 38 billion paydown on the debt in three years is paltry. Compared to what? At least now you're acknowledging that the Conservatives paid down debt these last three years -- an improvement over your position yesterday. Your only complaint on that score now seems to be that they didn't pay down enough. So we're getting somewhere.

I disagree with your characterization of this paydown, but I do agree that the Conservatives spent far too much in these three years. But then, that's what minority governments, goaded on by the opposition, tend to do. Let's face it, the Liberals would never have gone into surplus if they had had minority, not majority, governments. But I don't absolve the Conservatives of responsibility.

You've written about "robbing Peter to pay Paul" as though you've discovered something noteworthy in today's budget or in the arguments by commenters here. But robbing Peter to pay Paul is more commonly called a tax system. It's coercive, robbery at gunpoint -- that's why we get fined or put in jail if we put up a fight.

"ET - the difference in the Debt ratio numbers you have been posting is that we are only talking about the Federal government debt which is $800 Billion or so with interest payments of about $28 Billion per year."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "$800 billion or so" is the total of federal, provincial and municipal debt -- i.e., "public" debt.

If he really wanted to "progressive" PMSH should not have changed a thing in his budget. To me progression means going forward not bowing to the old unionist thinking.We are a country of go-getters,not a country of already gotters.If companies can't go get new ideas, new buyers,new products, why should I as a tax payer subsidize thier mediocrity? If you want me to buy or try something it better be more than I got from your competitor.I will not support your endeavour just to keep you in business. Build a better mouse-trap,or the mice will catch on. PMSH we have seen this trap before.
SO far Kate has the best mouse-trap going. Thank you Kate.

A depressing budget, to be sure, for any red-blooded conservative. It contains only the most token of tax cuts. It projects 5 years of deficits with a surplus projected in year six that allows for zero margin for error.

I'd like to thank the Quebec voters for their anti-conservative reaction to $45million in arts cuts in the last election. It has resulted in the first Liberal budget in 3 years.

I think the budget was OK.

What we are really dealing with is a global panic that has gone in to a bit of a death spiral.

Mr. Harper's gov't in their budget gives nods to everyone and will be a hard thing for the Opposition to run against in an election. From that perspective, the Tories have done their job and I think this is reflected in the fairly even handed coverage the budget as thus far received.

Jack and Gilles looked silly and angry. Mike has wisely chosen to keep his powder dry until tomorrow but my guess is that he will support the budget.

The unfortunate reality is that with all the media and their political surrogates playing the drumbeats of despair, Harper needs to play politics rather than go with his instincts.

I hope he is right. I think the chances though of him being right far outweigh those of Jack, Iggy and Gilles being so.

BTW with that $1350, I;m going to redo my bathroom.

But robbing Peter to pay Paul is more commonly called a tax system.

Really, MJ? All tax expenditures have equal value?
Funding pavilions at folkfest is the same as spending on our armed forces? That subsidy I'm going to get for putting a hot tub on my new deck (which I was going to do anyway) is the same as spending on highways? Glad you think so, sucker.

Phil: "Really, MJ? All tax expenditures have equal value?"

Read what I wrote and tell me if I said that. You're arguing with yourself.

Oh well, we are going down with the States.....and without second amendment.
This government doesn't understand that the world is facing chain of recessions (some inter-trim improvement between 2014-2018) that will span over 20+ years. This government doesn't understand that Canada is competing in global economy and priority number one should be to make every effort to attract capital flow. Harper can talk about tax cuts, small business, family all he wants, but without reducing the public sector, abolishing income tax and bringing on property rights and right to defend it, he will go down the tube of history with the rest of socialists/statists cohorts.

Loved Richard's predictions, except that Alberta's oil money isn't paying these bills ... Ed's "Fair share" has so far resulted in minimal land sales in AB, conventional oil and gas drilling down 50% and 25 billion gone from Oil sands investment ... Low oil prices explain the oils sand situation, but they don't cover the conventional oil and gas situation. And by the way the 8 billion Suncor pulled in the last 8 weeks amounts to about 3000 jobs in Ft. Mac so multiply that by all the Oil Sands players that cut projects ... then think about the steel industry ... nothing there for Alberta oil ... Yikes ... Brace yourself guys ... this budget is a failure. Unemployment is going up dramtically ... in the maritimes, in the steel industry and Alberta ... all this equals "Collosal Failure"

As a businessman for the past 45 years I look at this budget, or any other, in very simplistic terms. Tax to much of my hard work, reduce or restrict a favorable environment in which to carry on my business, impose to many rules or just plain piss me off and I will do one of three things, close it, move it or sell it, simple, I’ve done it in the past. To stay solvent and secure now and in the future make sure your business or trade is portable.

Iggy may not be PM, but it's now confirmed. Canada has a Liberal government. No coalition needed.

To PMSH: You want me to spend and get the economy moving? Give me back my _ing money!

Unbelievable how people cannot understand we have a federal system in Canada. The $500 Billion debt figure is the FEDERAL debt, i.e. Dominion government obligations. The CIA's $800 Billion figure is ALL governments in Canada i.e. Dominion, provincial and municipal.

MJ, ignore PhilTard. He has nothing useful to contribute.

Stephen wrote: "If we are lucky that means Layton finds it appropriate to resign and we will see the insufferable Mulcair as the leader of the NDP"...

Which of the two is worse? Very hard to say! They're both pompous asses with no genuine concern for Canada.

I've been away in the U.S. and only getting up to speed now on events in Canada. I do like this new provision on Page 23 of the budget:

"Introducing a temporary 100-per-cent capital cost allowance (CCA) rate for computers acquired after January 27, 2009 and before February 1, 2011."

"Any HONEST JOURNALISTS in ther major media out there???

Posted by: Lorraine at January 27, 2009 11:10 AM"

I miss Mike Duffy Live.

Margaret Wente of the G&M thinks her column is a personal venting blog.

A quick, and serious, question: how many times does Harper have to throw you guys under the bus before you wise up?

Canada is in a recession for a reason. The recession was not caused by some unforseen, tragic accident. It's a result of the decline of our industrial infrastructure, which has been throttled by high taxes, regulations and powerful unions. Like the United States, we are bleeding jobs to countries like China, Mexico, Brazil and India.

It used to be the case that these jobs were in so-called "sweatshop" industries, but that is not so much the case any longer. A lot of the industries moving offshore are highly capitalized, high-tech concerns.

The budget failed miserably to address any of these problems. I have an important question for PM Harper: just how is Canada's lack of industrial competitiveness going to be enhanced by building hockey rinks and "social" housing?

The economic turmoil we are seeing now is primarily the result of greedy American power moguls attempting to redistribute the wealth of the world back into the hands of the corporate and political elitist crooks where they believe it rightly belongs. All of the bail-outs in the USA only serve to bolster unworthy, unregulated, greedy corporate crooks and in some cases unrealistic expectations on the part of unions. And the US taxpayer, along with the rest of the world, be damned.

Posted by: Joe Canuck at January 28, 2009 11:35 AM

So that is why the Elite have never pressured the Swiss on the trillions from the proceeds of crimes being held in the Swiss accounts to be disclosed.

Now if all the Swiss account holders gift and move a few billion into an account in my name, I will leave them alone, rather than starting petitions and lobbying. Less expensive than moving money into all the world politicians accounts.

Contact me.

New Tax System, I hope your comments were tongue-in-cheek. If not, then you are simply adopting the tactics of the corrupt elite.