2010 Federal Budget - Cost cutting?

[NAB]

We constantly hear a lot from the "increase taxes and spend more" advocates when it comes to government budgets, although usually very little when it comes to exploring ways to trim government spending (....often defined in one of two ways - ...depending on the program either not spending as much "more" as we otherwise might in better times, ...or actually reducing the amount spent compared to previous years, even cutting programs all together).

The speculation has already started as to where the necessary cuts will come from over the next 5 years. No surprise I guess that among the first targets is our military, with projections that when we pull out of Afghanistan next year we stand to "save" approximately one BILLION dollars per year. There are those on one extreme who suggest we keep spending it (even growing it) anyway, while the other extreme suggests we let our military stagnate a while, effectively putting it in mothballs while attrition, training, equipment, and "having a purpose" once more fade from public attention.

So were we to totally put aside arguments about how to increase revenues via increased taxation on whatever or whoever with a view to saving whatever programs from the cost cutters axe (variously known as "belt tightening" or "austerity" or 'elimination" depending on the degree)... as well as put aside arguments and opinions as to who is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in and instead focus on how to get out of it)... not even speculate that the budget may get defeated forcing an election...

...and anticipating that the upcoming federal Budget and long term plans for the next five years will require significant reductions in expenditures (not just a slowing of expenditure growth) if we are to get back to balanced budgets in 5 - ten years as well as reverse the trend of "ever deeper into debt"...

...Where in your view should the cuts come from, and to what degree in each case (i.e. trim the program or eliminate it completely)? Talking about REAL cuts here compared to previous years - not just "holding the expenditure line" or "limiting increases".

...recognizing too that the focus here is on areas of federal jurisdiction and related expenditures, including I suppose the matter of transfer payments to provinces. A similar thread specifically related to upcoming provincial budgets and potential cost cutting opportunities at that level might make for interesting discussion in the BC forum.

So, If you had no choice but to make severe "across the board" cuts in federal government expenditures next month, what would they be specifically? If we can get enough ideas and opinions, it should be interesting to see how Castanetters cost cutting views and desires compare to what really happens this spring.

[Static]

Government employee wages and pensions could be lowered to levels comparable to the private sector for new employees. I agree with cutting the Afganistan budget to zero because I do not agree with the war.

[steven lloyd]

Government employee wages and pensions could be lowered to levels comparable to the private sector for new employees.

You do understand they would actually have to be raised to reach levels comparable to comparable positions in the private sector, right ? (or maybe that's just provincially)

[NAB]

Budget won't include new spending or tax measures

Focus for 2010 will be on long-term reduction of deficit, which means measures such as the popular home renovation tax credit will not be making a return, government official says

Full article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1477366/
--

[Al Czervic]

Government employee wages and pensions could be lowered to levels comparable to the private sector.

I completely agree, only most workers in the real world do not have pensions period. I assume you are not suggesting anything that drastic.

[NAB]

TORONTO -- The federal equalization program leads to worse public services in three "have" provinces -- Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia -- while "have-not" provinces maintain gold-plated public services and free-spending governments, say the authors of a new report released Wednesday.

"The evidence presented in this paper strongly suggests that, in many important areas, levels of government services in donor provinces such as Alberta and Ontario are significantly below those that exist in the major recipient provinces," the authors, Ben Eisen and Mark Milke, wrote in the report for the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

They argue Ottawa should freeze the program with an eye toward scrapping it altogether.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story. ... z0gUqi3ZlS

[melwilde]

There are some huge opportunities to reduce federal spending without raising taxes or cutting key program spending initiatives.

Canada spends millions of dollars on non government initiatives around the world that never should have been started. Two examples are the center to help democracy in the third world. We have been sending funds to terrorist support groups under the table for to many years. The second example is giving money to the so called UN humans rights groups. This gang of dictators are so anti-Semitic they should get the boot rather than sent a cheque.

Secondly, lets turn to funding for political parties. How can we possibly justify millions in taxes to the Bloque which wants to destroy Canada? Not one cent of our taxes should go to any political party. No citizen any where should subsidize a political self interest group. If any group or party want to campaign for a particular point of view, let them use their own money.

Next we need to cut and trash so many boards, commissions, referee and adjudicator groups that the total of these funds adds up to many millions of dollars. The feeding time at the trough should end.

For those who argue for an overhaul to provincial transfer payments, I'm with you whole hardheartedly. Just be aware that the media and political cabal will want to hang us.

When times are tough we need to think things through before we offer our heads to our nation of politically correct, please every one all of the time, crowd. We do not need to hurt Canadians in order to manage our finances, we do need to slash and burn the trough feeders.

[grammafreddy]

There are some huge opportunities to reduce federal spending without raising taxes or cutting key program spending initiatives.

Canada spends millions of dollars on non government initiatives around the world that never should have been started. Two examples are the center to help democracy in the third world. We have been sending funds to terrorist support groups under the table for to many years. The second example is giving money to the so called UN humans rights groups. This gang of dictators are so anti-Semitic they should get the boot rather than sent a cheque.

Secondly, lets turn to funding for political parties. How can we possibly justify millions in taxes to the Bloque which wants to destroy Canada? Not one cent of our taxes should go to any political party. No citizen any where should subsidize a political self interest group. If any group or party want to campaign for a particular point of view, let them use their own money.

Next we need to cut and trash so many boards, commissions, referee and adjudicator groups that the total of these funds adds up to many millions of dollars. The feeding time at the trough should end.

For those who argue for an overhaul to provincial transfer payments, I'm with you whole hardheartedly. Just be aware that the media and political cabal will want to hang us.

When times are tough we need to think things through before we offer our heads to our nation of politically correct, please every one all of the time, crowd. We do not need to hurt Canadians in order to manage our finances, we do need to slash and burn the trough feeders.

[NAB]

""Budgets, boomers and ticking time bombs""

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1481980/

""The Parliamentary Budget Office warned last week that an ageing population could lead Canada on a path to economic ruin. But many demographers say the panic raised by that report is premature. In the long run, Canada will certainly have to address rising health costs and a shrinking tax base, but the process is more glacial than explosive. It's unlikely to have an effect on the federal budget to be handed down next week, they say. The question is whether Mr. Harper will lay the groundwork for future prime ministers to tackle what portends to be a defining feature of the next 50 years.""

""Budget deficit rises to $39.4-billion""

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1482516/

""As Finance Minister Jim Flaherty prepares for budget, Ottawa's revenues fall $19.4-billion, expenses rise $22-billion""

****************************
Nab

[westsidebud]

legalize n tax weed. but you new id say that, but i am serius.

do away with fedrel goverment pensions.

toss two official languages. alll we need is english.



toss the fedral fisheries, they dnt do anything till its to late


no more trips for gevener genral



make the senate voted in and limit term 2 years



i coud go on ,but na

[westsidebud]

yea i never realy understood that fedral transfer payment stuff either.

[dandynick5]

Farm subsidies and the arts.

[NAB]

Well, this should be interesting. Wrap up the Olympics, take a day to shake off the hype and wash off the war paint, then straight into a throne speach and a federal budget. No end to the continuous excitement this country provides ;-)

Nab

[grammafreddy]

Yuppers - Canada/Vancouver threw a party for the world and now we gotta pay for it.

The Olympics AND the 2010 World's Fair.

I may as well just hand my purse to Harper and Gordo on paydays.

[Merry]

Government employee wages and pensions could be lowered to levels comparable to the private sector for new employees. I agree with cutting the Afganistan budget to zero because I do not agree with the war.

I'm not sure about the Federal Govt., but my son went to work for the BC govt about a year ago, and his salary went down $15,000 from what he was earning in the private sector. It used to be true that govt. workers got paid more, but these days, in BC at least, they're being paid considerably less.
As for Afghanistan, if I could see a really good reason for our being there I'd support it, but if there IS a good reason the government hasn't done a very good job of communicating what that reason is to the general public. Right now, I cannot support sending our young men and women over there to die when I don't see what it is we're hoping to achieve. I know it was a Taliban training grounds, but all the war has succeeded in doing is to get them to move on to greener pastures (i.e. Pakistan), so how does that help keep the rest of the world any safer? I don't understand therefore I'm not in favour of paying for it.