• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2010 Budget - Let the Hand Wringing Begin...

Thucydides said:
2. Competition with the private sector. This includes Crown corporations (an immediate $8 billion/year in savings) but also subsidies to business. Propping up inefficient business or obsolete jobs by taking money away from the productive is malinvestment at its worst, and saves over $30 billion/year.

I'm not so sure that I'd write all of them off. Alberta dumped the liquor stores back in the 90's, back when they were netting the province money. I'd say the feds should dump crown corporations that aren't pulling in net cash, which may well be most of them.
 
Brasidas said:
I'm not so sure that I'd write all of them off. Alberta dumped the liquor stores back in the 90's, back when they were netting the province money. I'd say the feds should dump crown corporations that aren't pulling in net cash, which may well be most of them.

Start with the CBC.....there's a billion right there!!!
 
I'm not so sure that I'd write all of them off. Alberta dumped the liquor stores back in the 90's, back when they were netting the province money. I'd say the feds should dump crown corporations that aren't pulling in net cash, which may well be most of them.

I would.  The Alberta Government still gets all the tax proceeds for liquor sales upfront, in that all liquor must be bought from the Government warehouse.  After that, the Government no longer has to deal with running a retail chain and dealing with thousands of (very) militant unionized employees, who had a particularly nasty and favorite tactic of going on strike the day before a long weekend.  Now the retail chain is in private hands, the selection is better, prices are better, and the hours are better.  For anyone who lived in Alberta in the 80s or earlier- there is no comparison.  I really cannot understand why any provincial government is still in the retail liquor business.  The warehouse business provides the best return for fewest headaches.
 
TimBit said:
Tango2Bravo

...wars are won at the front, not in Ottawa.  ..............

To a certain extant I would disagree with you. While the troops (and airman and sailors) at the sharp end are doing the fighting, remember its the mandarins and senior military staff sitting in Ottawa who will make the decisions as to how the war is conducted. Without that strategic direction the troops are just running around in circles wasting time and lives. 
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I would.  The Alberta Government still gets all the tax proceeds for liquor sales upfront, in that all liquor must be bought from the Government warehouse.  After that, the Government no longer has to deal with running a retail chain and dealing with thousands of (very) militant unionized employees, who had a particularly nasty and favorite tactic of going on strike the day before a long weekend.  Now the retail chain is in private hands, the selection is better, prices are better, and the hours are better.  For anyone who lived in Alberta in the 80s or earlier- there is no comparison.  I really cannot understand why any provincial government is still in the retail liquor business.  The warehouse business provides the best return for fewest headaches.

You stole some of my thunder. ;D  But, you make some good points. I was stationed out west during the late '70s and late '80s and every summer at least one province would have its liquor workers on strike. One summer,  except for Saskatchewan, all the workers in Manitoba, Alberta and B.C. were all on strike. Note a good time for beer drinkers unless you liked Schlitz or Olympia.

Alberta dumped the liquor stores back in the 90's, back when they were netting the province money.

Yes, the liquor stores do bring in money for the provinces, but they also cost the province money (e.g. wages, infrastructure, advertising, stock, etc.). Example, here in Ontario the LCBO puts out a nice glossy magazine (Food & Drink), that's yours free of charge. Well, except its not really free, as the taxpayers are paying for it! Then there's the workers who are making $30+ bucks an hour, mainly for stocking shelves or standing at the till. Not a bad job if you can get it.



 
Thucydides said:
Well if we want to talk spending cuts, we can start with some broad categories:

1. Entertainment. Governments do not exist to entertain us, so anything in that category (and that includes "own the podium") gets the chop. Actually Paul Gross gave the best justification for cutting subsidies to the television and movie industry while testifying for such subsidies when he pointed out the TV and Film industry generated $8 billion in revenue. Hardly a bunch of starving artists.

I agree with most of what you put in your post however there is one spinoff to consider from the "own the podium" campaign...fitness.  By advertising fit young canadians hopefully more are inspired to try sports and improve their own fitness levels which should save our messed up health care system tons of money down the road.
 
I don't think the CBC is on the chopping block. I believe in the Budget PDF it was stated something like the the CBC was doing it's part . Selling the CBC would save a billion in annual financing to the CBC.  Plus the sale of it's assets, network, goodwill etc. Possibly several billions to reduce the debt.
Maybe keep CBC Northern. A whole sled load of CBC "personalities", repeaters, and producers coulld someway be made to go.

Interesting, short read: http://cameronmcmaster.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/2000-2009-the-naughts-cbcs-flattened-parliamentary-appropriations-downward-sloping-advertising-and-other-revenues-and-increasing-operating-costs/
 
Every program will have supporters who will spin out the various "benefits" of their program (although they are usually silent about the biggest benefit of all; their own wages and benefits!).

An across the board cut eliminates special pleading and removes subjective opinions from the decision making process. It also would provide a basis for support, since taxpayers would not see some people, industries, regions etc, getting special favours (and you know that anyone who survived the cuts would be accused of favouritism).
 
Feds will eliminate 245 patronage positions: Day
at 10:10 on March 8, 2010, EDT. THE CANADIAN PRESS
Article Link

OTTAWA - The federal government is cutting 245 patronage jobs on boards, agencies and tribunals.

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says the cuts in what are known as governor-in-council positions will largely come through not appointing people to vacant jobs.

He says the move will save only a token $1 million or so, but is part of a general review of government spending.

There are about 2,700 governor-in-council positions which are filled by the cabinet and today's cuts amount to less than 10 per cent.

Day says it's just one step in the process of reducing the size of these agencies, while still maintaining services.

He says the government will continue to look at possible further reductions
More on link
 
This, from TBS:
The Honourable Stockwell Day, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, today announced the reduction of 245 Governor in Council appointments across the Government of Canada.

"This Government is committed to ensuring that all federal organizations make the best possible use of the resources afforded them by Canadian taxpayers," said Minister Day.  "The reduction of 245 positions from various federal organizations will not affect the delivery of government services in any way.  Rather, it will better address the current workload of these organizations and streamline their efficiency in delivering service to Canadians."

In Canada's Economic Action Plan, the Government committed to reducing the number of Governor in Council appointments as part of its plan to improve efficiency and governance across federal departments and agencies.  A task force reviewed nearly 2,700 positions in over 200 federal organizations across 24 ministerial portfolios and recommended eliminating 245 positions.

A vast majority of these positions—close to 90 per cent, in fact—are currently vacant and have been for some time.  In streamlining these organizations, the Government is ensuring its resources are put to the best possible use for Canadians ....

CF-related cuts?

Military Police Complaints Commission

Current number of GiC positions
7
GiC positions reduced
2

 
The government is still going to buy the CCV on schedule but have cutbacks in other areas.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2682453
 
Sounds like there will not be a "peace (wdr) dividend". That would be a change for once. Is this the gov't deciding, logically, that the CF will be involved on land somewhere in the world, and want to reduce the possibility of casualties? The Navy does need the two speciality ships asap I think. With the USAF/NORAD, the Air Force can toil on with CF 18s for a while.(IMO).
 
Conservatives seek $6 billion for unforeseen expenses
By David Akin, Canwest News ServiceMarch 23, 2010
Article Link

The federal government is asking Parliament to approve an extra $6 billion in spending this year to cover unforeseen costs associated with more than a dozen initiatives -- such as Olympic security, the H1N1 pandemic and abnormally high employment insurance claims.

And yet, even though that $6 billion will be spent on items that will not repeat next year, Treasury Board president Stockwell Day warned that Canadians shouldn't assume that government spending next year will automatically drop by $6 billion.

Instead, Day told a House of Commons committee Monday that the government expects to trim spending only by $1.3 billion over the next two years through a "strategic review" of all government spending.

For the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, the government will spend more than $270 billion and, once all the bills are paid, will record a deficit for the year that's likely to exceed $55 billion.

Cutting spending is a key part of the government's plan to eliminate that deficit within the next five years.

But Day said it is unlikely that the $6 billion in one-time costs the government paid this year will result in a savings of $6 billion next year. He said the government expects there will be other unique "concerns and pressures" the government will have to pay for in the next budget.

Aid for victims of the earthquake in Haiti is a good example of the unexpected bills Ottawa had to pay for this year and likely will again next year, said Day. For the current fiscal year, the government spent an extra $176 million that it did not budget for on its response to the disaster.

Opposition MPs Monday said they were worried that unanticipated bills the government had to pay would become part of the permanent budgets of various departments.

"We are very concerned about the potential padding of certain budgets before a freeze so that there's a benefit there after a freeze," said Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay.

The government has vowed that most departments will have their operating budgets frozen for the 2010-2011 budget year and that freeze will stay in place likely through 2015.

- - -

UNPLANNED EXTRAS

- -$5.5 billion: The extra costs of providing employment insurance this year.

- -$465.3 million: Payment to Newfoundland and Labrador for loss of equalization grants.

- -$449.5 million: Forgiving a debt owed by Pakistan.

- -$196.4 million: Civil service salary increases.

- -$192 million: Extra costs associated with Old Age Security benefits.

- -$179.4 million: Funding for policing and security at the 2010 G8 and G20 summits.

- -$176.1 million: Canada's initial response to the earthquake in Haiti.

- -$110 million: Money for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to help refurbish CANDU reactors.

- -$86.6 million: Funding for response to the second wave of H1N1 pandemic.

- -$83.6 million: Police and security at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

- -$72 million: To repair the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, Ont.

Source: Government of Canada
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
end
 
Back
Top