When Between The Devil and The Deep Blue Base ...

The Harpercrits produce a non-budget budget.

It looks to me like Harper figured out that if he wrote a budget that pandered to the squirming base of extremists that form the core support for his party that he'd lose the bulk of the rest of his support. However, he didn't dare write a budget that spoke to the bulk of Canadians with real issues either, because he'd lose the support of his "base". (although where they'd end up voting is hard to guess - CHP perhaps?)

So, what does he do? Relatively little it seems. A few tax credits that are likely not worth the powder to blow them to hell in the long run (remember, a tax credit is usually only a percentage of the cash outlay that is claimed - 15% for medical expenseses over $2000 this year), and I suspect that like the medical expenses claim, the devil's in the details. They moved the floor on medical expenses up for 2010 - from $1745 to just over $2000, and oh yes, don't forget that anything the government deems "cosmetic" is no longer eligible.

Keeps government on track for a balanced budget within six years through the combination of economic growth and spending restraints. The end of the federal stimulus program, by itself, will cut the 2011-12 deficit to $27.6 billion from a revised $40.5 billion in 2010-11.

Economic growth (real gross domestic product) of 2.9 per cent, based on the average outlook of private sector economists.

Hmmm...economic growth of 2.9% ... that's a little optimistic. I don't budget my spending on the basis of getting a pay raise of a certain size each year. I always thought that Conservatives were the "live within your means" crowd - it's funny how every time they get into power the deficit goes ballooning out of control.

Layton Flip-Flopping?

I must confess that Jack Layton's antics lately are making less and less sense.

Yesterday, the G&M was reporting that Layton had taken Tax Cuts off the NDP's list of budget demands that the HarperCon$ must meet in order to get the NDP to vote for the budget.

This morning, he seems to be speaking out the other side of his mouth.

The last time I saw something this incoherent out of anyone, I was pretty sure the individual was having a psychotic episode. Layton's changing his position on things so rapidly - and frequently - that it's almost impossible to figure out what direction he is trying to head.

But then again, Layton's behaviour in the HOC has been plain bizarre ever since 2006 - to a degree that makes me question Layton's objectives and his commitment to the principles upon which his party is founded.

A Fantasy Budget

As budgets go, the overall intent of yesterday's budget is more political than it is fiscal.

Harper's hoping that nobody will notice anything except the lofty goal of dropping the deficit to $2 billion from its current $49 billion level over five years.

Of course, that entire scenario is based on assumptions that are entirely beyond the government's direct control.

First of all, it makes the assumption that the Canadian economy will grow - and in fact outperform - all the other economies in the world. That's a lovely little bit of patriotism, but it ignores the interdependencies between Canada and the nations we trade with - especially the United States. About the only economy we trade with right now that isn't in serious trouble is the Chinese economy - and Harper hasn't done relations with China any favours.

Second, the projections assume that the interest rates for government borrowing are going to remain fairly low. This seems highly unlikely. The current trough in interest rates has been a result of trying to keep an already faltering US economy going by encouraging consumer spending during the Bush II reign. However, with EU member countries in substantial debt positions, as well as most governments in North and South America, there's going to be significant upward pressure on interest rates ... and that will affect not only the cost of maintaining the debt, but it will also affect consumer and business borrowing.

Fundamentally, it's a fantasy budget - entirely based on wishful thinking. Ironically, the government could delete better than half the deficit by simply reinstating the 1% rollback on the GST that they did in 2006. As I pointed out back here, for most people the savings in GST are peanuts - it's a rare person who can afford to shell out $20,000 in a year on things other than rent and food. (and most have to borrow that kind of money when they purchase a car!)

I'd say what Harper's really gambling on is that he doesn't expect to be sitting in the PMO in five years - and in fact won't really have to clean up the fiscal and social mess his government is creating with budgets that are mostly wishful thinking.

A government unwilling to examine and use all of the fiscal tools at its disposal is trying to run a marathon with its shoelaces tied together.

Alberta's Budget

Alberta's government tabled its second deficit budget yesterday.

Several things struck me as being of interest in it.

First of all, was the deep delve into the 'Sustainability Fund'. I don't actually object to that per se - rainy day savings are something that are always a good idea. That said, I think it is highly questionable that we have not one, but two such funds - the one Ralph Klein created and the Heritage Savings Trust Fund created by Peter Lougheed. If we are to be looking for economic efficiencies in such times as today, should we not be consolidating such funds to reduce administrative duplication?

The second piece is a 'what's missing' moment. We have a government staring down the business end of a $4 Billion deficit, even after raiding the sustainability fund cookie jar. Basically, the Alberta government is basing it's entire 'get out of deficit' plan on rising resource prices. This is a really poor plan when you think about it, as it is entirely based on revenue streams that the government has little or no ability to influence. Resource prices move on the open market - which may or may not go up in the next few years.

This is solely because the Alberta government under Ed Stelmach is unwilling or afraid to levy taxes. While I don't necessarily like taxes, it strikes me that relying on resource revenues (a diminishing income source in the long run) to balance our budgets is missing the point that both the Sustainability Fund and the Heritage Savings Trust Fund were created to address - namely that we cannot afford to be shackled for all time to finite resources - and doing so is fiscally myopic.

The last piece I will pick on in the budget is the lack of meaningful effort put into moving Alberta's economy out of being resource-centric. If there is one thing that governments in this province have missed the boat on repeatedly in this province it is the very notion of getting our focus out of being purely resource centric. In fact, their "plan" for getting out of what is clearly a systemic deficit position itself shows us that the Stelmach PCs have absolutely no clue how vital this is to Alberta's long term viability.

So...to paraphrase Brian Mason after the Throne Speech last week, I think the Stelmach government has successfully delivered the greenest budget in decades - mostly by recycling old budgets from the Ralph years. Sadly, they haven't realized that those budgets didn't work so well either.

One More Step Back To The Dark Ages

Good grief, is it possible for the Alberta Government to be any more malicious?

Mental-health patients at Alberta Hospital will no longer get free toothbrushes, face soap, sanitary napkins, coffee or snacks after Alberta Health Services stopped covering the cost.

For those unfamiliar, the Alberta Hospital is the provinces primary mental health hospital. If somebody's mental health issues are serious enough to require hospitalization, then chances are they have very limited - if any - resources at all.

Tadra Boulton, spokeswoman for Alberta Health Services, said Alberta Hospital Edmonton was the only hospital in the province supplying patients with personal hygiene items and with slippers or sunscreen for comfort. That cost the system $70,000 each year.

Cutting that was "part of aligning and standardizing our supplies across the province," Boulton said. "In other hospitals and care facilities, patients bring in their own items or they have their own family bring in their own items."

Do I really need to point out that there are significant differences between mental health hospitalization and acute care hospitalization? If I go into hospital for surgery, chances are that I will be released within a few days. If I'm hospitalized for mental health issues, chances are that it isn't a well defined "few days" to stabilize the situation.

Even more distressing is that mental health issues often result in long term poverty for the afflicted because of a combination of inability to work consistently (or at all) and the collective misconception society has about mental illness in general.

"They're such a vulnerable group and frequently they are folks who lack financial resources to support themselves in the community, let alone when they're in the hospital," Harrison said. Often, their families have broken apart because of the burden of mental illness.

"Gosh, this seems like one more stress and pressure for the families and patients who are already stressed due to their illness and the burden on the family but also about the uncertainty about the future of Alberta Hospital Edmonton," Harrison said.

Once again, the Stelmach government is balancing its budget by attacking those who are among the most vulnerable in our society, and those who have little or no political voice.

That Was Predictable

The next group to bear the brunt of the Alberta PC government's mendacity has just been revealed.

Alberta's plan to cut about $12 million from its People with Developmental Disabilities program is scaring disabled people and their families.

Mary Anne Jablonski, minister of seniors and community supports, blames the cuts — which amount to about two per cent of the program's $604 million budget — on the economic downturn.

There's a pattern at play here - and the pattern is firmly rooted in a combination of mendacity and cowardice. The Stelmach government picks target populations with little or no political voice to be the front line of their agenda to cut, cut, cut. All the while refusing to examine seriously consider how the government could improve its cash flow.

So ... who's gonna be next? You?

This Is NOT To Be Confused With Fiscal Prudence

So, uncle Ed is going to take a 15% pay cut.

It almost sounds good, doesn't it?

Until you remember the 34% pay RAISE he gave himself a year ago.

Cabinet ministers will give back 10 per cent of their cabinet allowances (a cut of $6,391 per minister), but also does not include base salary and committee pay.

The premier's overall pay cut amounts to about six per cent of his total salary, which was about $213,000 prior to today's announcement. Cabinet ministers will each give back about three per cent of their total individual salary, which was $184,000 heading into today.

This is important - it's not really a 15% cut - it's less than that when you account for the extra "perks" our politicians receive for sitting on committees and other bits of pay that make up a sizeable fraction of the total pay that our politicians get. $6,000 for a cabinet minister (on an overall salary of $184,000) is peanuts - it's symbolic at most, and makes virtually no difference to the cost of operating the legislature that Alberta's taxpayers fund.

But, it's not like I've seen anything from Team Ed that suggests any ability to balance the books or otherwise manage finances.

Do They Know What A Balance Sheet Is?

So ... Liepert's little orgy of staff terminations last year cost taxpayers $22 Million last year, and a total of $80 Million to found his "superboard". But that's not all, because the Health Superboard overpaid their severance on top of it all.

Then, we also have Stelmach handing out plenty of fat pay raises to his staff ... during the worst economic downturn Alberta has seen in years.

I've said it before - the Alberta PCs have lost sight of their responsibilities and obligations to Albertans. Their sense of self-entitlement has gotten to be such that they can't even balance their own books.

As A Taxpayer, This Stinks

From the Accountable Government file, we have the Federal Government claiming national security concerns to avoid divulging how much Stevie's Excellent Adventure in Afghanistan is costing us:

The Defence Department cited a national security exemption when it censored a request under Access to Information by the federal NDP for the military costs of Canada’s military participation in the NATO-led, United Nations-sanctioned military mission to Afghanistan.

Hmmm...why does the government getting secretive about defense spending worry me? Well, let's start with the generally dishonest approach the HarperCon$ have had towards disclosing anything, and then compound it with an approach to budgets and fiscal planning that a ten year old can poke holes in. The real question is what are they hiding?

While I'm sure that the governing party will gleefully hide behind the claim that this was done "by the bureaucracy", the governing party sets the tone for policy and action within the government.

In a recent speech, Defence Minister Peter MacKay touted the price tag of the government’s program to buy new equipment for the military, telling an audience of defence contractors and lobbyists that the government would spend $60 billion on new capital acquisitions by 2028.

It's not hard to spend $60bn on military equipment. The question was, is and should be, whether that $60bn is being spent appropriately. The fact that they are now directing the DND to be increasingly secretive should give us all pause - governments that are being secretive are like children that are too quiet - they are all too often up to something you don't want them to do.

Did Ignatieff Cave?

... or is there a more coherent plan afoot?

Yesterday, the government was able to pass its emergency stimulus fund without the accountability provisions that the Liberals had been demanding.

On the surface, it appears as though Ignatieff has caved in here and backed down from what is a perfectly reasonable demand. Certainly one that any reasonable PM would have acceded to as a "political bargain"

If I was to step back for a minute from this and ask myself "why did the Liberals let this one go by?", I come up on a couple of reasons.

The first is purely tactical. Financially, the Liberals are not in great shape yet. Triggering an election when they are in a bad financial state could easily trigger exactly what Harper has been aiming to do for years - wipe them out. Harper has said on many occasions in the past that he wants to eliminate the opposition parties - especially the Liberals, and he's certainly made plays for this in the past.

The second reason is more strategic. If you are looking for a chink in the Conservative armor, it's Harper's hypocrisy on accountability. If the Liberals play this right, the HarperCon$ are apt as not to walk into a trap of their own making. The first pieces of that puzzle fell into place with the Budget amendments which the HarperCon$ agreed to. This is a second piece of that same tactic - demand that the government be accountable in fact, not just claim, to the House of Commons (and therefore the public at large) on another large spending bill. Harper has fought this accountability issue tooth and nail. There's lot's of room in there for casting doubt on Harper's motives during an election ... and all of it comes falling forth from Harper's own mouth.

Whether I'm right in this guess is hard to say ... I hope I am, it would be good for North America to shed the last of the NeoCons from positions of power.

Conservatives, Research and Drama Queens

You know they're stuck on their own dogma when the minister responsible has a drama queen meltdown when confronted:

Two officials with Canadian Association of University Teachers sat on one side of a boardroom table and on the other sat Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology, his policy adviser Wesley Moore and a civil servant ready to take notes.
...
"The minister was very angry," said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. "He was raising his voice and pointing his finger ... He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, 'A lot of our members don't love it'... and he said, 'That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.' "
...
James Turk, CAUT executive director, said the meeting with the minister typifies the chill many scientists feel coming from the government, calling the reception "nasty pit-bull" behaviour.

"If they treated us like that - and they have no control over us - you can imagine how they're treating the presidents [of the federal granting councils]," said Mr. Turk. "Their intention is to intimidate their critics."

Of course, the Conservatives, when confronted with their own disinterest in funding research programs, point the following:

The Harper Conservatives are fiercely proud of their record on science and technology. The 2009 federal budget promised $3.5-billion in new money to finance research-related building projects, competitions and scholarships.

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

Until somebody lifts the barrel up and shows you that the bottom's rotten:

Since 2002, James Drummond, with both the Universities of Toronto and Dalhousie, has been the chief scientist at PEARL, the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Lab in Eureka, one of the most northerly points on the planet.

When he read the federal budget, he was pleased to see $85-million set aside to upgrade Canadian research facilities in the Arctic, not realizing at the time, some of that money was being shifted from the granting councils.

"This is good," he said, "conditions in the north are extremely harsh and things degrade rapidly."

PEARL, where researchers monitor the ozone and study air quality and climate change, is an expensive shop to run at about $2-million a year. But none of the new infrastructure funds can be used for actually running the facility. And so the paradox, Dr. Drummond says, is that he will be able to improve a lab that he cannot afford to operate.

Ummm...yeah...good funding plan there, Stephen old boy. So, essentially the Con$ are funding repairing a leaking roof, but they are taking away the funding for the very activity that the roof sheltered. Brilliant. But then, coming from the GWB school of anti-intellectualism, it should be no surprise that Harper and his gang of bandits think this is just peachy.

One last closing thought - is a minister who loses his cool in a meeting really the kind of person that you want in cabinet? Or is the talent pool in the Conservative caucus that shallow these days?

Microsoft and R&D Spending

I'm far from being the world's biggest fan of Microsoft, but when shareholders are whining about R&D spending, I tend to sit up and take a bit of notice.

At $8 billion per year, Microsoft's R&D budget is enormous - especially when their revenues are $60 billion - that's about 13% of revenues. A lot by any measurement.

However, the investment community is being a bit silly here. Consider the following logic:

"During 2007, Apple spent $782 million on R&D, Oracle spent $85 million while Microsoft spent about $7.5 billion. In 2007, Apple annual revenue amounted to $24 billion and net income totaled $3.5 billion," says Montgomery. "According to 2008 annual report, Apple increased revenue to $32 billion and net income to $4.8 billion. During the same period Microsoft spent $8 billion on R&D and increased revenue from $51 billion to $60 billion. Therefore, Apple has a R&D budget that equates to approximately 10% of Microsoft’s; however, during this period Apple increased revenue by $8 billion and Microsoft increased revenue by $9 billion."

Let's get a couple of things straight here. R&D produces two things. Ideas, and product. (How much of Microsoft's $8 billion is upkeep on existing software? - who knows) However, neither of those equates to market share gains. R&D groups don't typically do a lot of marketing themselves.

Business growth is the responsibility of the marketing and sales arms of the organization - not R&D. Much of what an R&D organization does (especially in software) may not pay dividends for years - if ever. If Microsoft needs to be criticized by its shareholders, it's not on the subject of R&D spending, it's on the utterly clumsy marketing job they've done since about the mid-point of Windows XP's lifecycle.

Vista was a turkey beyond all turkeys. The packaging for it was awful - I still haven't figured out which version of Vista I would recommend for someone buying a new PC. Whoever came up with that marketing strategy should be fired - what a disaster!

Quite frankly, more recent offerings of the Office platform haven't won them any friends either. Lots of change, but nothing compelling enough to justify the cost of an upgrade; and completely new licenses are abusively expensive. Which leaves people looking at alternatives like OpenOffice.

If Microsoft has a problem, it's not R&D - it's in their marketing and image machine. Whoever's running that show just doesn't get it.

He Just Had To Poke Someone In The Eye

I was waiting for confirmation of this, but one of the clauses in the budget reduced transfer payments to Newfoundland/Labrador.

You had to know that Harper was going to find an outlet for his instinctive urge to kick somebody around. Since he learned that kicking the opposition too hard was going to get him dethroned, he's decided to start exacting retribution from provinces whose premiers are "difficult" for him to deal with.

He's already written off Quebec entirely - mostly with some really stupid comments about arts funding in Quebec. So, now he's set his sights on Danny Williams. Make no mistake about it, this is another of Harper's politics of retribution maneuvers. Danny Williams has made it clear that he thinks Harper is bad for Newfoundland, and now Harper - in his zeal to make "political points" - is about to prove to Newfoundlanders just how bad he is for them. Talk about self fulfilling prophecy.

As for Ignatieff, he's got an interesting challenge ahead. If he's smart, Ignatieff will do nothing substantive to the Newfoundland MPs who are planning to vote against the budget. He might censure them in caucus or something relatively minor like that, but that's as far as he should take it.

By doing so, he will signal a couple of things that are important. First, he will demonstrate that he can respect the reasons for this difference of opinion; second, he will also show Canadians that he is not a vindictive autocrat - something which will distinguish him from his counterpart currently residing at 24 Sussex.

A Shortsighted Budget

I think I understand why Ignatieff has not spoken up about this issue, but it still needs to be discussed.

One of the subtle aspects of the recent government budget was the quiet cuts to all kinds of advanced research - except perhaps for the latest philosopher's stone - "Carbon Capture".

This is not particularly surprising - the current crop of conservatives is remarkably short sighted. Research is the kind of investment that pays off in five to ten years, not five or six months.

Cutting back on advanced research inhibits Canada's ability to grow in the future. I appreciate that the issues 'here and now' are all about making sure that not too many people do not lose their jobs in the short term.

If the government is going to spend vast sums of money to prop up the economy, and (apparently) they are planning to auction off crown assets to fund some of this, then we have to ask just what kind of investments the government is making. Roads, waterworks and the like are pretty simple, tangible projects with legitimate payoffs; but then projects like the Human Genome Project are vitally important too - there is so much to understand about how the genome works, and the country that continues to invest in this area stands poised to become the next leader in medical technology.

So Harper's Lease on Political Life Has Been Extended

So, Ignatieff decided to let the Con$ have their budget ... sort of.

I won't say I'm thrilled with this - Harper is a destructive PM, and the sooner he's gone the better in my opinion.

However, Ignatieff has done something that Dion never managed to do - position Harper so that he has to compromise.

Ignatieff's comments are interesting and articulate:

In the face of this crisis, we have a government that has mismanaged our public finances for the last two years.

The Conservatives chose reckless spending and irresponsible tax policy over prudence and fiscal discipline. They drove Canada towards a deficit—long before this recession began. And, in so doing, they harmed the federal government's ability to act in the national interest in times of crisis.

For that failure—the failure to plan and act responsibly as a government—we hold them responsible.

This is the first time any of the opposition parties have held the Con$ up to responsibility for their behaviour since taking power. Ignatieff has signalled that he's willing to reach back and slap the conservatives about for their irresponsibility from day one.

Yesterday's budget is a flawed document.

It doesn't go far enough to protect Canadians who have lost—or will lose—their jobs.

It extends EI benefits but fails to extend EI eligibility.

It opens the door for attacks on pay equity for women.

It does not seize on the wealth of opportunities in the green economy.

It breaks their promise to all provinces from only two years ago on equalization.

It attaches strings to infrastructure dollars that may delay projects and delay jobs.

It promises to sell government assets for cash, without saying which assets and for how much.

And it lacks a credible plan for getting us out of the $85-billion hole the government will dig us into over the next five years.

I like this summary of the budget's shortcomings. Ignatieff has called the Con$ervatives out on their failings in this budget, and in doing so has shown Canadians that unlike Dion he is able to articulate the failings of the Con$ clearly, and concisely.

Accountability is something that Stephen Harper has always said is important. I agree with him.

But this budget does not include one word about accountability.

We will require regular reports to Parliament on the budget's implementation and its cost — one in March, one in June and one in December.

Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.

We will vigilantly monitor its effects on our economy and on every region of our country.

We will be watching like hawks to make sure the investments Canadians need actually reach them.

To be absolutely clear, this is the opposition doing their jobs - correctly. I must applaud this, because Ignatieff has just put Mr. Harper in a position where he is obliged not only to carry out the actions he has promised, but Ignatieff has guaranteed that there are multiple points of review - any one of which can be used to take down a government that is failing to enact its promises.

Ignatieff has just put Mr. Harper into the position of having to live up to his often promised, never delivered accountability - at a time when Canadians will be paying very, very close attention to their government's behaviours.

Yesterday's Words Didn't Happen

Last week, Stelmach was threatening major budget cuts - a la the Klein approach of the early 90s. Of course, we all know how well that went - Calgary's still paying the price for that era.

"I don't want to underestimate the difficulties we're going to face as Albertans," Stelmach told the Calgary Herald. "We may go back to the same strategies we used in the early 1990s," he added.

The so-called Klein Revolution saw the government roll back wages and cut thousands of public-sector jobs to help escape deficits and pay off a $23-billion debt.

Those statements are apparently inoperative now. Or, so Stelmach would like us to believe:

Just last week, Premier Ed Stelmach told reporters in Ottawa the province may need to consider rolling back spending, akin to the days of former premier Ralph Klein, when it comes to budgeting for next year.

Back in Edmonton, the premier insisted he never used the word "cuts." On Thursday afternoon, cabinet ministers were not going to do it for him.

No, Ed, you simply invoked what Klein did in the early 90s - do you really think we're that stupid? If you're going to lie, try telling a fib we can't check the facts on so easily.

Personally, I think if we're going to talk about cutting back government, I'd say we start with blatant wastefulness like this.

Don't Plan on a Spring Election

Somehow, I don't think we'll be seeing a spring election, if this is correct ... nor will we see a coalition taking the reins in Ottawa.

Mr. Ignatieff has said the Liberals would support a “modest” temporary deficit to stimulate the economy, but has refused to specify exactly what “modest” means.

The Prime Minister, who met with Mr. Ignatieff on Monday, appeared to include the Liberals in his definition of an emerging compromise on the budget, which is needed to keep his minority government alive.

Unless, of course, Harper can't resist another "poke in the eye" partisan maneuver when Parliament reconvenes - in which case, I fully expect the opposition to take him down.

[Update: 7:52]:
I suspect that this is more posturing - although it is interesting to note that Ignatieff is not parroting the line that Layton and Duceppe have been using today.

While I suspect the coalition could be revived fairly quickly if need be, I don't think that's where this situation is likely headed.
[/Update]

Tax Cuts Are Not Economic Stimulus

So, Harper wants to use tax cuts as part of the budget.

Mr. Harper vowed that the hefty spending, which will include tax cuts and relief for the middle class, will be temporary so as not to mire Canada permanently in deficit.

But some economic tools under consideration — including temporary tax cuts and other incentives to spend — could backfire, say a group of six high-profile economists. Such measures often don't result in extra spending by tight-fisted consumers during tough times. The budget should instead aim to fix employment insurance and other programs that protect the most vulnerable in a recession, they said.

Let's consider this for a moment. The idea is that tax cuts will stimulate spending on the part of consumers. That's a nice theory, but it only applies when people are feeling confident that they will have a job to afford that spending over the long run. (right now, next month may be "long run" for those working sectors like automobile manufacturing) You will not get people spending while they are worried about next month's mortgage payment - it's that simple.

There is a second aspect of this - which is simply a matter of basic accounting. With the unemployment rate rising quite dramatically, that will have a corresponding negative impact on government revenues since the bulk of those revenues come from middle income earners in one form or another. This places a second drain on government coffers as people claim EI benefits to carry them in the short term.

Then we have a government talking about opening the purse strings quite dramatically, increasing government expenditures. I do not necessarily object to deficit spending, but it is not prudent to further reduce government revenues at the same time - in fact it places the long term interests of Canadians in jeopardy.

Thinking on it, I begin to speculate that Harper is invoking Grover Norquist's thinking on government:

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

This is a mentality that only someone who is in love with Ayn Rand's selfish world described in Atlas Shrugged - and it's well enough known that the current era "Neo Conservative" draws much of their social policy views from Rand-inspired ideals. Harper is a NeoCon - you do the math.

Undoing the long term damage that such a move will do is going to be quite nasty. It will involve tax increases, because paying off the debt resulting from the current economic situation will take revenue.

One last thought - it has been a series of failures of the "free market" to adequately regulate itself that has provoked the current crisis. Why would we want the government to govern less in the future?

Two Words Flaherty Apparently Doesn't Understand

Cash Flow.

So, we have a Conservative government on the threshold of pouring billions into the economy, and because of increased unemployment, government revenues will already be down, and this dimwit is thinking about tax cuts???.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Friday he's reviewing options for putting more money in people's pockets through tax cuts as part of a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that will include infrastructure spending and help for laid-off workers.

The comments come as the finance minister prepares for a second meeting with his freshly minted council of economic advisers next week and amid fresh evidence that Canadian consumers are growing more pessimistic.

Do I really need to point out that the government needs the cash flow to pay out the billions in spending it's planning? To use a simple analogy, you don't downsize your job from a professional income and take out a bigger mortgage on your house at the same time - it isn't exactly great financial planning.

But, then, coming from a party which doesn't understand accountability in government, why should they have even an inkling what accounting and budgets are all about.

The Cost Of Failing To Plan

Calgary has been notoriously short sighted in its budgeting since the 1990s, and when combined with a provincial government which philosophically objects to spending money of any kind, we find ourselves facing quite a deficit on many different fronts.

The budget for Calgary's next three years contains quite the hike in tax revenues.

Just as the costs of building a new hospital in Calgary have exploded in the ten years since the General Hospital was demolished, the immediate costs of expanding our transit system, and other infrastructure have also increased compared to what they would have been had the city invested in its future needs as it grew.

Calgary's tax payers are about to carry the costs of a style of government that has been terminally myopic for almost two decades. I, for one, am less than impressed with this.