According to Bob Rae, EI has now become a matter of National Unity? Who knew that we have had a national unity crisis festering right under our noses since 1996. The current E.I. qualifying rules were put in place in 1996 under then PM Jean Chretien and finance minister Paul Martin. At the time the Liberals explained it as a necessary change to make the sytem fairer and more equitable.
And today, 13 years later Bob Rae spills the beans. Those rules are unfair, and are a matter of national unity. However, they are only a temporary matter of national unity, as Michael Ignatieff has called for qualifying rules to be changed temporarily. What is even more confusing is those changes were put in place with an unemployment rate of 10%, versus 8% today. Those changes were put in place to create a surplus of money for the general revenues of the government. Today the Liberal's think money should be taken from general revenues for the fund. When those rules were put in place, the Liberal's lowered the maximum weekly benefit from $448 to $413. Who do you think would have been most affected by that change. I'm guessing it would have been middle and upper income earners, mostly in Ontario and Quebec.
Everything I have mentioned serves the purpose of showing what hypocrites both Bob Rae and the Liberal Party are. And this latest comment from Rae just goes to show Liberal's have no limits on hypocrisy. Liberal's call the PM divisive for his strong comments about the Bloc being seperatists. But that's what they are, devisive. They want to divide Canada up. Ignatieff himself finally stated that in May, when he dismissed the coalition as wrong because of the Bloc being a partner in the deal. Of course at the time the coalition was formed he called them duly elected and deserved to have their voice heard.
And today, we have Bob Rae screaming National Unity crisis, because of rules his own party put in place. Mr. Rae points to some provincial premiers coming out in favor of changes. Gee Bob, do you think that might be because they could lower their provincial welfare costs if more people got E.I. Then again, Bob Rae isn't smart enough to figure that out. As Ontario premier, during a financial recession, with more people going on welfare daily, he decided to hike the monthly rate paid.
How'd that work out for ya Bob?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Liberal's Might Want To Think Before They Scream About That March Deficit...
From CTV:
"The department's monthly fiscal monitor shows government revenues hit a wall in March as corporations began taking large refunds on prepaid tax, and more laid-off Canadians stopped paying taxes.
The net effect was that Ottawa lost $3.6 billion in March, closing the books on the 2008-2009 fiscal year $2.2 billion in the hole."
Now I'm guessing that it will be no time at all before Ignatieff, Goodale, and Chevy McCallum are puffing their chest screaming that this is further proof of the finance ministers incompetence. But I think this might be one of those times where they might want to keep their mouth's shut. March is traditionally a bad month for the government in terms of deficit.
And as proof I present Exibit "A"
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.2 billion in March 2008
-There was a budgetary deficit of $0.4 billion in March 2007
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.1 billion in March 2006
-There was a budgetary deficit of $9.5 billion in March 2005
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.2 billion in March 2004
-There was a budgetary deficit of $4.4 billion in March 2003
-There was a budgetary deficit of $4.9 billion in March 2002
-There was a budgetary deficit of $0.5 billion in March 2001
-There was a budgetary deficit of $31 million in March 2000
"The department's monthly fiscal monitor shows government revenues hit a wall in March as corporations began taking large refunds on prepaid tax, and more laid-off Canadians stopped paying taxes.
The net effect was that Ottawa lost $3.6 billion in March, closing the books on the 2008-2009 fiscal year $2.2 billion in the hole."
Now I'm guessing that it will be no time at all before Ignatieff, Goodale, and Chevy McCallum are puffing their chest screaming that this is further proof of the finance ministers incompetence. But I think this might be one of those times where they might want to keep their mouth's shut. March is traditionally a bad month for the government in terms of deficit.
And as proof I present Exibit "A"
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.2 billion in March 2008
-There was a budgetary deficit of $0.4 billion in March 2007
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.1 billion in March 2006
-There was a budgetary deficit of $9.5 billion in March 2005
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.2 billion in March 2004
-There was a budgetary deficit of $4.4 billion in March 2003
-There was a budgetary deficit of $4.9 billion in March 2002
-There was a budgetary deficit of $0.5 billion in March 2001
-There was a budgetary deficit of $31 million in March 2000
-There was a budgetary deficit of $1.7 billion in March 1999
-There was a budgetrary deficit of $1.8 billion March 1997
-There was a bugetary deficit of $1.1 billion in March 1996.
All figures taken from the Fiscal Monitor. No results from previous years available. Conservative deficits in blue, Liberal deficits in red.
My party has an unimpeachable record in creating $200 Billion Dollars In Debt
Michael Ignatieff- Question Period May 28th, 2009: "My party has an unimpeachable record in fiscal responsibility". Yes Mr. Ignatieff, they sure do.
"Some consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his time as PM. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion (24% of GDP) which was largely left over from World War II; when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms.
Now also keep in mind what $200 billion in debt would factor out to today using inflation over all those years. Imagine all the wonderful Liberal socialist programs we could have if we weren't paying interest on Trudeau's debt for the last 25 years. Why they might have been able to put in a National Daycare program.
And debt is not the only Liberal record that is impeachable. Double-digit unemployment, sky-high interest rates, wage and price controls (the ones Trudeau said he would never do), corruption. The list goes on. I don't know how Michael Ignatieff could be so ignorant as to not be aware of the actual Liberal record.
Then again, Ignatieff left Canada in 1969, one year after Trudeau first took power, and only returned in 2005. I guess Bob Rae and Joe Volpe were right, you really do miss out on things by not being here.
Update: H/T Wilson:
" From Hebert today:'...Over the course of 11 years of mostly Liberal rule, Canada raked in 10 surprise surpluses for an official total of $85 billion worth of unexpected federal revenues. In a 2008 analysis, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada found that if the governments of the day had not gone on year-end spending 'sprees, that windfall would have totalled $135 billion.""
Hmmm, $135 billion minus $85 billion. That works out to $50 billion.
Funny that.
"Some consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his time as PM. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion (24% of GDP) which was largely left over from World War II; when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms.
Now also keep in mind what $200 billion in debt would factor out to today using inflation over all those years. Imagine all the wonderful Liberal socialist programs we could have if we weren't paying interest on Trudeau's debt for the last 25 years. Why they might have been able to put in a National Daycare program.
And debt is not the only Liberal record that is impeachable. Double-digit unemployment, sky-high interest rates, wage and price controls (the ones Trudeau said he would never do), corruption. The list goes on. I don't know how Michael Ignatieff could be so ignorant as to not be aware of the actual Liberal record.
Then again, Ignatieff left Canada in 1969, one year after Trudeau first took power, and only returned in 2005. I guess Bob Rae and Joe Volpe were right, you really do miss out on things by not being here.
Update: H/T Wilson:
" From Hebert today:'...Over the course of 11 years of mostly Liberal rule, Canada raked in 10 surprise surpluses for an official total of $85 billion worth of unexpected federal revenues. In a 2008 analysis, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada found that if the governments of the day had not gone on year-end spending 'sprees, that windfall would have totalled $135 billion.""
Hmmm, $135 billion minus $85 billion. That works out to $50 billion.
Funny that.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
OMG!!! I Agree With Jack Layton
Wow. I am gobsmacked. I actually believe with Jack Layton on something, and think finance minister Jim Flaherty is completely wrong on this:
"According to the fund's annual report just released by the CPP Investment Board, David Denison, the president and CEO of the CPP, along with his top four executives, will take home a total $8.5 million in pay and bonuses for the 2009 fiscal year.
Additionally, the executives are due another $7 million in long-term awards that will be paid out over the next three fiscal years.
Denison earned a total of $2.9 million in the last fiscal year -- down 30 per cent from $4.2 million the prior year -- including a base salary of $490,000, an annual bonus of $735,000 and "long-term incentive plan" awards of $1.6 million.
He also earned $59,023 in pension contributions and $9,571 in other benefits, which the CPPIB said include life insurance, disability benefits, and health and dental plan costs. "
Now I know the argument for the bonuses is going to be that they have contracts that were previously signed and must be honored. The problem is the workers at GM, Chrysler, Air Canada, and a bevy of other companies have been forced to give up concessions, even though some of the previous contracts were signed just months ago.
The other problem I have is rewarding failure. The CPP fund lost billions of dollars from the market meltdown. How that equates to a performance bonus is beyond me. I do know that the salaries of these exec's comes from the plan itself and not government revenues. But that just makes it worse as the average Canadian looking at that deduction on their pay stub every week will be livid knowing these bonuses are being paid.
I know this is Canada and we tend to bitch to ourselves rather than those who deserve it, but I would imagine that if there was a major public backlash like what happened in the States with A.I.G exec's bonuses, either the exec's or those above them would do the right thing and roll back the bonuses.
"According to the fund's annual report just released by the CPP Investment Board, David Denison, the president and CEO of the CPP, along with his top four executives, will take home a total $8.5 million in pay and bonuses for the 2009 fiscal year.
Additionally, the executives are due another $7 million in long-term awards that will be paid out over the next three fiscal years.
Denison earned a total of $2.9 million in the last fiscal year -- down 30 per cent from $4.2 million the prior year -- including a base salary of $490,000, an annual bonus of $735,000 and "long-term incentive plan" awards of $1.6 million.
He also earned $59,023 in pension contributions and $9,571 in other benefits, which the CPPIB said include life insurance, disability benefits, and health and dental plan costs. "
Now I know the argument for the bonuses is going to be that they have contracts that were previously signed and must be honored. The problem is the workers at GM, Chrysler, Air Canada, and a bevy of other companies have been forced to give up concessions, even though some of the previous contracts were signed just months ago.
The other problem I have is rewarding failure. The CPP fund lost billions of dollars from the market meltdown. How that equates to a performance bonus is beyond me. I do know that the salaries of these exec's comes from the plan itself and not government revenues. But that just makes it worse as the average Canadian looking at that deduction on their pay stub every week will be livid knowing these bonuses are being paid.
I know this is Canada and we tend to bitch to ourselves rather than those who deserve it, but I would imagine that if there was a major public backlash like what happened in the States with A.I.G exec's bonuses, either the exec's or those above them would do the right thing and roll back the bonuses.
Table This Non-Confidence Motion
So the opposition parties are outraged that Jim Flaherty was off by a wide margin in his deficit prediction in the January budget. In fact there are rumblings that Iggy might table a non-confidence vote in late June over the size of the deficit. I'll save the fact the NDP, oops. sorry, Ignatieff's planned changes for E.I. would add another $1.5 billion to the deficit for another post.
Now I admit I don't even know if this is even possible under Parliament rules. The major reason for the unexpected increase in the federal budget is a result of the additional money required for the GM and Chrysler bailout. Mr. Ignatieff has had a free ride over the auto-sector bailouts. In fact, I can't remember the last time any journalist even asked him about it. Same for Jack Layton. They have a free ride to critcize the government for increased funding with absolutely no blowback to themselves or their parties. So here is the plan.
The Conservative's can state that the January budget only included set amounts for the auto sector bailout, and that because of the large increase in funding and opposition outrage over the inflated yearly deficit, they put forth a new stimulus bill (something John "Chevy" McCallum) has called for in the past) in the house including additional auto sector funding. The bill would be a money bill and would therefore be a confidence vote.
Jack Layton would be hard pressed to vote against it. Michael Ignatieff might vote against it, but in doing so would lose all that free union support and advertising, and voting against it would cost him votes in southern Ontario cities and towns that rely heavily on the auto sector for jobs. Duceppe would vote against it because the auto sector is mostly in Ontario, and outside of Quebec's borders he views any federal spending as a waste.
If it passes, which I think it would, the opposition will have effectively endorsed the increased deficit.
Now I admit I don't even know if this is even possible under Parliament rules. The major reason for the unexpected increase in the federal budget is a result of the additional money required for the GM and Chrysler bailout. Mr. Ignatieff has had a free ride over the auto-sector bailouts. In fact, I can't remember the last time any journalist even asked him about it. Same for Jack Layton. They have a free ride to critcize the government for increased funding with absolutely no blowback to themselves or their parties. So here is the plan.
The Conservative's can state that the January budget only included set amounts for the auto sector bailout, and that because of the large increase in funding and opposition outrage over the inflated yearly deficit, they put forth a new stimulus bill (something John "Chevy" McCallum) has called for in the past) in the house including additional auto sector funding. The bill would be a money bill and would therefore be a confidence vote.
Jack Layton would be hard pressed to vote against it. Michael Ignatieff might vote against it, but in doing so would lose all that free union support and advertising, and voting against it would cost him votes in southern Ontario cities and towns that rely heavily on the auto sector for jobs. Duceppe would vote against it because the auto sector is mostly in Ontario, and outside of Quebec's borders he views any federal spending as a waste.
If it passes, which I think it would, the opposition will have effectively endorsed the increased deficit.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
What Do Jim Flaherty and Don Drummond Have In Common?
Both were way off on their projections for the 2009 federal deficit. Where do they differ? Well, Michael Ignatieff thinks Flaherty is incompetent and should be fired for not getting the figures right.
On the other hand, Ignatieff thinks enough of Drummond's skills that he has consulted him on the Liberal platform involving Canada's economy. So I wonder if Mr. Ignatieff will now dismiss Don Drummond as incompetent for getting his figures off by $10 billion in two months?
Monday, March 16, 2009
The recession is going to force the federal government much deeper into deficit than it forecast in its last budget, according to the Toronto-Dominion bank."The result is [an] all-time high deficit of $39.2 billion in fiscal 2009-10 and $42.3 billion in fiscal 2010-11," said Toronto-Dominion chief economist Don Drummond in a statement.
"[It's] well above the red ink of $33.7 billion and $29.8 billion shown in the budget. Still, as a share of GDP, the budget shortfalls will be considerably lower than the 5-8% levels recorded during the 1980s and early 1990s."
p.s. This post is not meant to disparage Don Drummond, who I think is one of the best economists in our country. What it is meant to do is show the top experts in finance are still struggling to figure out what's going to happen, Flaherty included.
On the other hand, Ignatieff thinks enough of Drummond's skills that he has consulted him on the Liberal platform involving Canada's economy. So I wonder if Mr. Ignatieff will now dismiss Don Drummond as incompetent for getting his figures off by $10 billion in two months?
Monday, March 16, 2009
The recession is going to force the federal government much deeper into deficit than it forecast in its last budget, according to the Toronto-Dominion bank."The result is [an] all-time high deficit of $39.2 billion in fiscal 2009-10 and $42.3 billion in fiscal 2010-11," said Toronto-Dominion chief economist Don Drummond in a statement.
"[It's] well above the red ink of $33.7 billion and $29.8 billion shown in the budget. Still, as a share of GDP, the budget shortfalls will be considerably lower than the 5-8% levels recorded during the 1980s and early 1990s."
p.s. This post is not meant to disparage Don Drummond, who I think is one of the best economists in our country. What it is meant to do is show the top experts in finance are still struggling to figure out what's going to happen, Flaherty included.
Gerard Kennedy Leader Of The Liberal Party Of Canada
Warren Kinsella Liberal Leadership Convention 2006:
"Gerard Kennedy for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Has a ring to it, right about now. I haven’t been enthusiastic about Gerard for the past few months, mainly because of some of the MPs who supported him. As Calgary Grit told me, you can’t always choose your supporters. True enough. As of right now, Gerard Kennedy is the guy who most deserves to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He deserves to win. If I was a delegate, I’d sure as Hell be voting for him. What he has done, here took guts, and character, and leadership – something the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs. Canada, too. Gerard will be under tremendous pressure from the elites to reverse his position, or qualify it. I don’t think he will. On Sunday, I communicated with many of the senior people around him. They say he will not reverse his position, as others have done this week. Folks, this is a big, big development. One week from now, I think this guy just might be the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada! "
Bet Iggy appreciates the endorsement.
"Gerard Kennedy for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Has a ring to it, right about now. I haven’t been enthusiastic about Gerard for the past few months, mainly because of some of the MPs who supported him. As Calgary Grit told me, you can’t always choose your supporters. True enough. As of right now, Gerard Kennedy is the guy who most deserves to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He deserves to win. If I was a delegate, I’d sure as Hell be voting for him. What he has done, here took guts, and character, and leadership – something the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs. Canada, too. Gerard will be under tremendous pressure from the elites to reverse his position, or qualify it. I don’t think he will. On Sunday, I communicated with many of the senior people around him. They say he will not reverse his position, as others have done this week. Folks, this is a big, big development. One week from now, I think this guy just might be the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada! "
Bet Iggy appreciates the endorsement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)