Release the Budget at the Beginning of the Year

Not having information to make decisions concerning our country can be quite dangerous sometimes. Especially when it has to do with government spending and more importantly, where the government is spending.

This is caused by estimates of government spending being released before the budget. So, it's impossible to estimate the costs of the budget, the most important piece of legislation each year. The way to fix this is simply time limits. The budget sets out government spending for the year. So, it only makes sense that it should be released at the beginning of the year. While the committee suggests February 1 as a due date, I would go even further. I would set it at about mid-January. That way, it is clear at the beginning of the year what the government will do and it will be easy to estimate exactly where the money is being spent.

The other proposal, which was to give the Parliamentary Budget officer more power is also a good idea. There is never too much transparency on fiscal matters.

Read about it at the Globe and Mail.

A Doctor, A Rabbi and A Nobel Laureate Walk Into.. (part 2)

The Governments response to leaving many well deserving people of help is that (given by a spokesperson):

   “Right now, nearly 95 per cent of people who come here from the European Union and claim asylum either withdraw or abandon their own claim,” said the spokesman, because they cannot make a legitimate case for asylum. He added that 100 per cent of people who come from the European Union register for welfare.

First just because 95% percent of people can't support their refugee claim does that make the other 5% not deserving at all, and second saying that 100 percent of them register for welfare is a silly fact. This is because it should come to no surprise to Harper that people who are refugee's and have suffered and treated badly in their own country do require help. How is this bad! This is reality! People who are poor require help!


I think it is outrages that a country that has been practically portrayed itself as an immigrant country doesn't do as much as it can to ensure that people who are treated badly in other countries have a place where they can start a whole new life. 


Yet according to our government this "reform" is needed and will save 20 million dollars. 20 million dollars is what we are talking about here. Hey I have an idea had Harper not spent the 20 million dollars on those consultants (remember those to help balance the budget, which according to Harper during the 2011 election he and only he could do) we could afford helping people who are in need. 




I believe that their is a legitimate concern about pointless refugee claims, but this reform is in no way going to ensure that people who have a legitimate claim to seek refuge here will receive it. 

Mr. Wiesel, who survived the Auschwitz death camp to become a renowned scholar and political activist in the United States, said this week in a written statement obtained by The Globe and Mail that he stands in solidarity with the Toronto Rabbis. The rabbis said it is wrong for the government to designate some countries as being “safe” and to deny payments for medical treatments obtained by asylum seekers from those places.

Read more here

A Doctor, A Rabbi and A Nobel Laureate Walk Into... (Part 1)

The Conservative cuts to refugee Health Care have sparked some controversy. And now doctors all around Canada as well as a Toronto Rabbi group from Toronto and even Elie Wisel a Nobel Laureate are joining together against these cuts.

The "reform" the Harper Government is proposing will designate which countries Canada considers safe and which Canada considers not safe. The people who come from the countries that Canada considers safe will receive no benefits what so ever. The safe country list and the not safe country list will be presented soon, but it is expected that Hungary will be on the safe list.

The Problem is that Canada main source of Asylum seekers are from Hungary and many of which are roma. A group that has been treated very badly especially in the last few years by the society in Hungary. The reforms will also effect countries that are not on the safe list no longer are able to get many services including:

payments for prescription drugs, vision care and dental coverage. They are entitled to medical health coverage only if it is of “an urgent or essential nature.”

This "reform" will take away help from legitimate refugee's and will again tarnish Canada's record on the world stage.

The top country of origin for refugee claimants in Canada is Hungary, and the majority of those refugees are Roma, a group that has had a strong bond with the Jews dating back to the Second World War.

As a former refugee, together with the Toronto Board of Rabbis, I feel morally compelled to remain on the side of other uprooted men and women everywhere,” said Mr. Wiesel, who was a keynote speaker two years ago at a conference on anti-Semitism in Ottawa that was organized with the help of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, the minister behind the refugee reforms. “Today, as yesterday, a nation is judged by its attitude towards refugees,” Mr. Wiesel wrote.

Read More here

Cut Money To Health for Aboriginals (Apprently their Healthy enough)

Aboriginal communities require an enormous amount of aid. We known for many many years that aboriginal communities have one of the highest rates of poverty and have very high rates of health problems. Bob Rae hit the right nail on the head when he said Attawapiskat is our third world.

"We talk a lot about the Third World, we talk about Haiti, we talk about poverty in other parts of the world," he said. "This is our Third World. It's right here at home. These are our fellow citizens."

Governments have for years haven't done much for the aboriginal communities. Harper unfortunately has no excuse to continue this inaction. The National Aboriginal Health Organization has been told the government will not be funding the 4.4 million dollars to this organization. 4.4 million. To put that in prospective the elimination of the penny is going to save the government 11 million. Also the F35 contracts cost 15-25 billion.

I think this shows the priorities of our Conservative government. they are willing to do almost anything imaginable to balance the budget from eliminating trivial things like the penny to eliminating funding to a first nations group that is of no doubt requires much more money then just a minor 4 million, but when you talk about fighter jets or Corporate tax cuts money isn't an object all of a sudden. Fiscally responsible NO! Morally responsible Hell NO!    

Read More here

Meanwhile In Onatario

The recently elected minority in Ontario is going to have to present a budget that is going to need at least 2 members of the opposition to vote in favor in order to stop an election. Dalton Mcguinty is going to need help from the NDP since the Conservatives have stated that they won't support the budget. The NDP haven't quite given an official statement on whether they will vote for the budget or not, but they have brought some ideas to the table. Some of them I like! One of them is to increase the taxes on the richest people in the province. I am in favor of making people who have gotten so much out of the province paying some more to help balance the budget. We need shared sacrifice to pay off our deficits.Dalton Mcguinty is willing to work with the NDP to make the budget.

A poll I wrote about yesterday said a majority are behind the idea that people who are rich should pay more taxes. I think with the Liberals and the NDP working together in Ontario (even though I still think their are many things they should still do) Ontario could get a real progressive budget.

Compromise!?

Obama wants to push the so called compromise of extending the payroll tax cuts by another 2 years. If this is considered a compromise it a joke. Because first both sides for the most part agree with the idea, but yet there was still a lot of fighting over the bill? This bill extends tax cuts and there fighting over it! I wonder how long it would take to talk about balancing the budget? Now if they don't want to increase the payroll tax rates and do other things to balance the budget it will effect the middle class even more. See income tax cuts do help people, but if their wages go down even though the tax rate went down they make less money. WHY? Because if you don't help increase the median wage and allow the outsourcing of jobs, elimination of unions people will make less money even though the tax rates went down. With the Bush tax cuts the poor and middle class made less money then were the tax rates were higher. That why the Bush tax cuts must expire even for the middle class, because it doesn't work and the money can be better put to help people's wages go up or help reduce people's expenses like Health care. Same goes with the payroll tax it's a short term fix, and if middle class keeps dying the tax cut does nothing. That why the Payroll tax should increase to 6.2% and eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone. This will not only help balance the budget, but the country can help the middle class by reducing many families biggest cost like tuition, health care, and bring new good paying jobs.

Harper's Secret Taxes!

After Harper said he would like the provinces to pay half for his new (billion dollar) Prison system in which he intends to increase crime and reduce justice, Ontario and Quebec are screaming all the way to the parliament building saying NO! Harper doesn't care for his budget it's in deficit and there isn't much so far that has been announced that will make it go to surplus, but in Quebec and Ontario the primers are trying to balance the budget. something that is standing in the way is a billion dollar price tag for prisons they don't even want. If Harper get's his way our provinces will have to make deeper cuts or increase taxes to pay for the cost of the prisons that will only add more cost in the long run. So this is Harper's secret tax. Make the primers look like the bad guys increasing taxes and reducing services and Harper who doesn't care for fiscal responsibility do nothing. (probably blame the Liberals for not giving him 30 billion dollar surpluses)

I think the only fair way Harper can expect the provinces to agree to fork up the bill is if they get a say on the bill, but Harper doesn't want to. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to make a crime bill and force the provinces to pay for half of it, and the provinces don't get much influence on the matter what so ever.

Noting that it is “virtually impossible” to project actual increases, the document pegs the total cost of changes to legislation on young offenders at $717-million over a five-year period. It adds that the federal government would likely end up paying half of the price tag.

 Quebec’s Ministry of Public Security has estimated that Bill C-10 will cost the province an extra $294-million to $545-million to expand the province’s prisons and $40-million to $74-million every year to service the additional inmates.

 “Our position remains the same,” David Couturier, a spokesman for Mr. Fournier said when contacted by The Globe and Mail on Wednesday. “It’s their legislation … it’s up to them to pay the bills.”

 Ontario has also called on the federal government to cover the entire cost of the bill.

What Super Committee?

It seems the so called committee that was going to save the U.S deficit crisis (yeah right) ended up doing nothing. And those so called triggers that would have come into effect in order to force politicians to work together was a big joke apparently, because since most automatic spending cuts are going to take place in 2013 the politicians can actually change the law to make the spending cuts zero. So no Harm no fowl right! Wrong the Super committee should have at least cut by 1.2 trillion over two years, and quite frankly that's nothing. They need to cut the deficit by 10 trillion over the next ten years to balance the budget. That means ten times the amount the super committee can't even accomplish. This is going to be very interesting how we go from here.

Wow I Was Right!

I stated just a few post's ago that the Conservative would reduce their budget targets. Now This time around Jim Flaherty thinks he has a good case. Saying the economy isn't good and the budget is going to suffer. True, but why didn't you know about this decline before. Economics have been talking about a economic instability since even before the recession. Why then put in your election platform a promise to eliminate the deficit in 2014. Now the conservatives say they will balance it by 2015. Now I would understand this if a bad economy came out of nowhere, but why say in October of this year that the economy is strong when it's by are now Flip flopping Minster bad enough to delay deficit targets. Now I think this will be just the first delay in the Conservative budget target. Soon the cost of the Corporate tax cut, Mega prisons and fighter jets will force our minister to tell us that we must move the deficit target yet again.

By the way I thought our minister would take at least one year to move the deficit target, but I guess that will be the next time our minister tells us we will delay our deficit target.

Read more here

What Waste!

The Conservatives are planning to eliminate the long gun registry very soon. ironic enough the public safety minister Vic Toews is saying that he is proud his government is eliminating the long gun registry. It's ironic that the minister that is suppose to try and keep people safe is saying he is proud to abolish a program that has been proven to save lives. Police say that the registry is effective, but still our public safety minister isn't listening to the people that keep us safe. The most silly part is these statements.

"That waste is finally coming to an end,"


"The long-gun registry is not gun control, and because of that it is an ineffective and a waste of taxpayers hard-earned dollars,"


the First quote is by our public safety minister who saying that it's a waste to the long gun registry. But apparently not a waste to blow billions more dollars on noncompetitive fighter jets purchases.the second is done by another Tory MP. The silly part of this quote is the end, because a part of the bill will not only scrap the long gun registry , but will abolish all records. That is a waste. They could have simply eliminated the registry and kept the files. What is the point of eliminating the files. The reason is, because this government is going to waste the millions of dollars and time that it took to make those records over the years into the gunners, and of course making the job of cleaning the Tory mess harder. Don't you just love there policies!


This government is really getting on my nerves with fiances. It continues to babel over a few million in spending every year and calling it fiscal responsibility, and doesn't even mention the billions it's wasting on fighter jets, prisons and corporate tax giveaways.  

read more here

9-9-9 plan means MORE TAXES!

A new study shows what the 9-9-9 plan actually does. This study shows who will benefit and who will not benefit in this tax plan. Under the current policy there is no sales tax. Under this plan there will be a 9% G.S.T , but supposedly the extra tax will be off set by creating a flat 9% income tax. Under this plan there will be a 9% sales tax on everything people buy. Under this study the average tax payment per person in the U.S will be 1,200 dollars lower. So is this plan really going to reduce tax payments to people. Yes some will benefit . So who are they? They are the rich go figure. As I stated just a few days ago, people who are rich will benefit and middle income and poor will not. So people who make more than 1 million a year in income will have there tax burden reduced by 581,000 dollars. People who make between half a million to a million will pay 80,000 dollars less every year. the next two tax brackets will have there taxes reduced two, But every single person making less than 100 k will have to pay more in taxes so that the rich in the country pay over half a million dollars less in taxes. In fact the federal tax rate on the people making more than a million dollars in income would be the lowest tax rate of any other bracket. While the people in the lowest tax bracket will have not only above average tax rates, but will also be the people having there tax rate increase by the most. Under this plan about 82% of Americans will pay more in taxes to give the top 18% a tax brake. But in reality the top 5% will get the most of the money from middle income and poor Americans. So yes the Rich pay less while the poor pay more and the middle class pay more. And by the way this plan will increase the deficit by 300 billion in one year.

So in summery taxing consumers to hurt the economy more, so that rich CEO's pay less money and have more in the bank. Will defiantly solve the economic problems of the U.S. This plan isn't going to help anybody except the rich and even them are going to have long term problems, because the rich need the poor to survive.

If you need some thing more visual click on this graph

A Rich Tax!

The U.S needs to look at ways to reduce the deficit without harming many Americans . An easy way is to tax the rich! Eliminating the Bush Tax cuts of the rich and putting a new 5.6% surcharge on millionaires will bring in a lot of revenue without big economic damages. Now the U.S is going to have to balance the budget by having to make tough decisions. Cutting around the edges in spending and taxing the rich more is a good start, but won't solve the U.S fiscal crisis. But we shouldn't completely disregard these simple ideas that do the less damage. In Canada we should also look at increasing taxes on the rich in order to try and make our fiscal house in order. In Canada we should implement a U.S style death where when people die they pay a 35% tax on there estate on everything over the value of 5 million, but a U.S style system of a death tax has so many lousy deductions that some rich people who would only be effected on this would pay little to nothing. It could bring in about 3 billion dollars in Canada and hurt no one to be quite honest. When countries look at balancing budget's they should start with the easy taxes on the rich. It barely effects the economy and brings in a lot of revenue. Granted never enough to fully solve the problem, but it does help the fiscal situation. Unfortunately the Republicans down south would rather see medicare destroyed then have the rich pay a single penny. The U.S  needs to increase taxes first on the rich and go from there, but the Republicans want the pain should start on the poor and should never dare to go up to the rich, because they create jobs, while poor people don't. Even though poor people are a bigger chunk of the population and create more jobs because they spend there money while Rich people don't spend there money, and are a very small part of the population.

Cains 9-9-9 plan

I decided to refute Cains 9-9-9 plan considering he is apparently now a rising star. Mr Cain has been screaming about 9-9-9 for quite some time , but is it really going to do what he says it does. First let's see the logic behind it. Cain would reduce the Corporate tax rate from 50% to 9%. That's a 41% decrease mostly for multinationals who don't even pay the 50%, because of loopholes, but it will reduce revenue from the Business section. Then he will create a flat Income tax. Meaning everyone pays the same tax no matter how rich or how poor. The income tax bracket is 9%. Biggest winners here will be the Rich who only pay 35% will now get a 26% decrease in taxes while the poor who pay 15% will have a 6%. That sounds fair right! So how will he pay for the loads of cash he is giving to already extremely profitable business, and reduce the tax rates of the rich to the lowest it has ever been. Well Cain suggest a G.S.T will do the fix. A 9% G.S.T! So who will that hurt. Well people who buy things! Consumers the one's that drive the economy. The G.S.T tends to attacks the poor and middle class. The economic policy means. That the middle class pay more in taxes while the rich pay less. So the consumers have less money and the poor have more. Yep that will fix the inequality in pay. The top 500 earners in the U.S make more money then the bottom 50%.Think of it even though the income tax is being reduced the G.S.T is being created and taking any money the middle class would get and take even more. The Rich would pay much less in taxes and the G.S.T would only take some profits away. Cain even admitted that the 9-9-9 plan would make difficulties for people.

 "Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," 


he has that a bit backwards. The top 10% will pay less while the bottom 90% will pay more. The sad part about it is, because of all the money this plan will give to the rich. this plan will actually reduce revenue by 200 billion. How is that going to solve the deficit. How is not taxing the rich going to help reduce the deficit? How is taxing consumers and increasing the deficit going to solve the problem in America.

Rick Mercer Thank You

Rick Mercer has outdone himself now. He ranted about the money the Finance minister is spending to try and cut government spending. 20 million dollars to find out how to cut spending. 90,000 dollars a day!

Rick Mercer is right Martin balanced a 43 billion dollar structural deficit in 4 years. Harper has taken the 13 billion Martin left him and brought us into deficit even before the recession. Better than giving Martin a call like Rick suggested. Why don't we kick out Harper and get back to the fiscal responsibility of the Liberal party.

What Cuts?

The Conservatives are planning to find 4 billion in permanent cuts to try and balance the budget. The Only problem is do we see these cuts in the deficit? No the way this government works with finances the deficit isn't going to get better. First the Corporate tax cuts that they are reducing again is going to cost billions more than 4 billion. Add that with the Billions the Harper government is giving Quebec (even though we really need a bridge) this government isn't at all fiscally responsible for cutting spending. Because like the Republicans in the U.S yes cuts do help cutting the deficit, but the right is fixated on cutting taxes and assume that it is free. If you cut 1$ in taxes and cut 1$ in spending guess what the deficit ain't changing. What would have been fiscally responsible of the Conservatives would be to cut more than they reduce in corporate taxes and maybe not cut corporate taxes! considering they are already low enough. We can save 10 billion in catastrophe spendign not passing Harper's stupid "on crime bill." The Conservatives are bad with money and they always disproportionally put the deficit on the poor. 4 years from now the Conservatives will be saying the reason there is a deficit is, because of too much money on social programs. Even though this government is cutting social programs left and right, and will be for the next 4 years. If this is all Harper has planned to balance the budget there will be a deficit in 4 years and it will be, because of reckless spending on useless prisons, fighter jets and Corporate tax cuts. So the question I have for Harper is what cuts are you really making to the deficit?

Canada #1

Canada was proclaimed #1 place for business in the world by Forbes. It mentions how Canada has faced the recession very well compared to the U.S and Europe. This of course thanks to the regulations the Liberals put on companies to make sure they would be solid in a worse case scenario. The magazine also mentions the HST which simplifies the tax code and takes taxes off manufacturing. Unfortunately B.C took it back. It didn't just look at taxes on business it looked at

11 areas in 134 countries, including property rights, innovation, taxes, tech, corruption, personal, trade and monetary freedoms, red tape, investor protection and the performance of stocks.

So as you can see the Corporate tax cuts weren't the only reasons Canada became number one. So it seems considering Canada is #1 place for business it only makes sense that we start looking to improve other things in our country.  So continuing to cut Corporate taxes is silly considering there are many other things to do with that money. Our Country has an enormous lead when it comes to taxes compared to are trading partners. So if we increase the Corporate taxes to balance the budget it seems it will have little effect on our rating. As it seems we are already number one. I think balancing the budget can help business in the long run, because cutting Corporate taxes that we can't afford to cut will only mean higher taxes on people or Companies later on which will effect business. In order for Canada to ensure the business community that there taxes don't go up we must cut taxes that we know we can afford. The Liberal party proved this as it cut the Corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the world to now one of the most competitive in North America and the G8. The Corporate tax rate needs to go back to 18% so we can balance the budget then after we have a surplus like the Liberals we will cut the Corporate taxes. Cutting them now gives business false hope.

Read more here

Repealing HST Bad Move

BC moves to eliminate the tax that would now increase the deficit. In fact the B.C deficit is now tripled. The big loss is of course the 1.6 billion BC now has to give back to Ottawa. BC is still moving to eliminate the deficit by 2014. BC could have a much easier time going into surplus if they would have kept the tax that would create jobs (over 100,000 in the next ten years), and would increase revenue. It seems that the HST was good policy, but the Liberals in BC are crazy over popularity. Even though 45% of people were in favor of keeping the tax. I mean take a vote of the G.S.T and the federal government would be lucky to get close to these numbers. I mean there is only a slight win in this politically, because many people who want the H.S.T gone are guess what with the NDP! There isn't much political gain especially for something that would have done a lot of good for the province of BC. It seems like BC are moving a few steps behind so far this year. I hope these Liberals get there act together very soon.

In his latest quarterly report, Minister Kevin Falcon says scrapping the HST will cost the province $2.3 billion over three years

"This includes $1.6 billion in 2011-12 associated with reimbursing the federal HST transition funding and a more than $700 million loss from lower tax revenue and increased spending over the three years ending 2013-14."

 Read more here

PC over Promising.

In PEI the PC's in the province who are losing terribly in the polls are trying to gain support promising something that PEI can't afford. The Pc leader Olive Crane said if elected she would reduce the P.S.T in the province from 10% to 9%.

"For a one percentage change, it means there is $20 million available to invest in Islanders. And, as you know … Islanders can make good choices with their dollars," said Crane.

And although reducing the P.S.T in the province would help the economy no doubt I think she neglects to mention that P.E.I has a deficit of 42 million. The Liberals in the province are trying to reduce the deficit and eliminate it under there projection by 2013. It seems yet again that the Liberals are the fiscally responsible one's and the Tories wants to continue to use money they don't have.

read more here

Super Commitee best of the worst!

The debt deal that passed the U.S congress was seen as a compromise that no base of either side was happy about. I think that the first part was okay as it did address some problems with the deficit, but it didn't hit it's core. The core of the Deficit is much bigger than this deal. In fact even if the super committee comes with double than what they were asked for the deficit will still be unsustainable. The Super committee is being asked to find 1.5 trillion over ten years. That's 150 billion a year the deficit is much bigger than that. I like the idea of finally addressing the deficit, but 150 billion plus 100 billion equal 250 billion a year on average. Now this would cut the average Bush deficit in half, but now and in the future the deficit would still be much bigger. The U.S needs to increase taxes. The problem is that the people in the super committee are too close to the base. The Republicans are going to be against any tax increases or loop holes elimination, the Democrats are going to protect social security and medicare, and what going to happen is that they are going to agree in cutting 150 billion a year in discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is about only a quarter of all spending and declining because other parts of the budget are rising faster (Medicare, Military and Interest on the debt). Continue to attacking discretionary spending won't make long lasting effects on the deficit. Super committee isn't good , but the Congress is even worse. The only thing the super committee has going for it is that it is only 12 people not 535.

The Super Committee could work if it's job is to find at least 8.5 trillion dollars to cut or tax over the next 10 years, and that will force the super committee to find more than just discretionary spending to cut. If their job was to balance the budget not to just cut minor amounts here and their then they would be forced to look at the big picture, but right now the best I can see the committee doing is nothing more than just cutting discretionary spending by 150 billion. As taxes is out of the question for the Republicans, and Medicare and Social security is out of the question for the Democrats. The U.SA will very soon be forced to tackle the deficit right now their still playing with it.

Another Stimulus?

With more fear with the stock market some people in the U.S have been asking for another stimulus or spending package. Although putting money into the economy will create jobs the U.S can't afford it! Debt to GDP ratio is at 98%. The U.S doesn't have much wiggle room right now to lower taxes or to increase spending without paying for it. The U.S needs to reduce spending and raise taxes in order to lower the deficit. If the U.S doesn't reduce the deficit then it can face future downgrades, and will increase the interest of the debt. the Interest on the debt this year for the U.S is 200 billion and growing. With more downgrade and more stimulus that number will get bigger and force future cuts to be more sever and taxes to be raised more heavily in order to balance the budget. In 2020 under current projections the Interest on the debt will explode and be more expensive than the military, medicaid and medicare, and almost the exact same as social security. Another stimulus will make things harder in the future. The first stimulus wasn't all good either their was not enough spending on infrastructure and construction, and most of all it wasn't planned to be paid for. The Stimulus did create jobs and things would have been worse without it, but the U.S has no money or room to take any more cash for another stimulus. The U.S should invest in infrastructure and should extend the unemployment benefits , but this time they should pay for it. They need to have a plan that will eliminate the deficit all together within 7-8 years, and then if they want to spend any more they should have a new tax or cut to pay for the new spending. Stimulus season is over! The U.S made over 200,000 jobs last month in the recession they lost 700,000 a month in 2009 a stimulus made sense now not only is the U.S making jobs, but making another stimulus will make the deficit hard to handle .This May be an economic slowdown and the U.S might not employ to many people this month, but they are moving (slowly) in the right direction. the U.S may have to deal with sluggish employment for a while if they want to avoid being Greece!