CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[notyoueither]

Ben, it was NAFTA panels that were part of getting a $4Bn (80% of duties collected) refund for Canadian forestry and eliminating US duties.

Unfortunately, not every ruling was in Canada's favour. There were findings that the Canadian system of public land and stumpage fees result in lower costs than if the land were privately owned. So to settle the issue we had to accept the quotas and an export tax if the price of wood goes too low. BC could resolve this remaining issue by charging a realistic amount for lumber leases so that the cost of the land is not subsidised by the Crown, and keep all the cash for BC's own purposes.

[notyoueither]

And there is no way in hell that BC would have had an easier time resolving that issue outside of Canada (and NAFTA).

[notyoueither]

Of course, BC could also begin campaigns in say California and Texas to get the message across that the American lumber industry is using the US federal government to artificially increase the cost of building and renovating homes.

[Wezil]

At any rate, justice is not the policy that will decide my vote. The economy is a clear number one. I'm looking for others, and I would score justice against Harper if there were reasonable alternatives, but there aren't; and Liberal plans to cancel business tax cuts and actually increase them is far worse.

I'd love to hear your reasons why you rank the Conservatives top in economy.

You mentioned the tax cuts. Anything else? Please exclude the measures more fairly attributable to the other parties (ie the Conservative talking point on the "banking system" and of course any mention of stimulus spending).

I see a government that squandered a huge surplus even before the recession arrived, mocked Dion and the Liberals for even suggesting a deficit may be necessary to fight the oncoming recession before running up the largest deficit in Cdn history and, even despite stimulus spending, is running a structural deficit. They are blatantly dishonest on the cost of their fighter purchase and refuse to reveal how much their crime plans cost. This is not an issue they come anywhere close to inspiring confidence.

[notyoueither]

I don't think a deficit that can be grown out of in four years can be considered structural. I'd be curious why you use that term. It is not as if we face the American disease of social spending being >100% of federal revenue.

As for why the Conservatives are stronger on economy:

The corporate tax cuts. Economists say this will result in more revenue and more jobs than the status quo, and especially increases. It is a policy that was begun by Chretien and Martin (whatever else you say about Martin, he was a good finance minister) and is a policy agreed to with provincial governments (combined federal-provincial corporate tax rates of 25%). Mr. Chretien, Martin, Harper, Flaherty, ten provinces, most any economist you can find, and the kitchen staff agree on it, it is probably a good policy.

Cap and Trade, it's baaack, is quietly part of the Liberal platform as a job killer. It isn't even the best form of carbon tax, from what I've read. The Europeans are having several shades of problems with it, and OUR LARGEST TRADING PARTNER HAS NO INTEREST IN IT would top my list of reasons this is a stupid, stupid, idea. I've changed my mind a bit on carbon taxes, and would be in favour should the US go down this road and we used a straight, simple tax and avoided the bureacracy of bloated, politically favoured, trading systems.

I am actually warming to the idea of national childcare. I see it as something we will need to do to get more able bodied women into the workforce (and having babies) as the bunny of the baby boom passes through the snake of the population, so I regard this as an economic programme as much as social. However, the Liberals wanting to kill jobs in a recovery with increases in the worst taxes and the imposition of idiotic programmes for social engineering counteract my enthusiasm. It comes down to not this election, after weighing things out.

And then there is the final issue. A Liberal government will not come with just their platform. They will also come with Jack's and Gilles's. Harper may have been in the same hotel room, but he never paid for their services.

Of course, I am interested in who you would favour as having the stronger platform on the economy.

[Wezil]

It's not just me, it's the PBO saying it is a structural deficit.

I don't like any of them on economy (not my issue) but I don't buy the myth of Conservatives being better money managers. I've yet to see it in my lifetime.

Of course, those of us in this part of the country are still dealing with the $1B spent to infringe Canadian's democratic rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think a deficit that can be grown out of in four years can be considered structural.

In terms of the decline in the workforce, yes it's a structural deficit. We would have to cut into spending such that per capita spending would have to drop from 2005 levels in order to get it under control. Granted, it's not as ridiculous as the US, but Canada is in a far more precarious demographic situation.

It isn't even the best form of carbon tax.

Carbon Tax is killing us here in BC. Absolutely destroying rural areas. I would be furious if there were a national carbon tax on top of the provincial carbon tax, it would make many areas of Canada essentially unlivable, and would totally undo many of the subsidies paid out by the feds to try to keep people from leaving all the rural areas, especially in the north.

It would make more sense to cut this subsidy, then tax and subsidize the same activity. At least then the savings actually reach the general public.

I am actually warming to the idea of national childcare.

It's a disastrous plan. Basically you would be increasing taxes on everybody, including the young married folks. These folks need less taxes if you want them to actually have kids. Increasing their taxes to expand the bureaucracy is a horrible, horrible idea. It would also put almost all private care out of business, and force them to get registered by the state, because the state is essentially taking over a private industry.

If you wanted to do this right, give families a voucher that they could spend however they want, childcare, etc. That way the families are making the economic decisions, not the state. Or reduce the tax burdens that are forcing them to work two people to support the state and their family.

If you want to get people to have more babies, you have to make it possible for a family to have the wife at home so that she doesn't have the dual burden of work and kids. That would mean taking them out of the workforce. I don't believe that childcare will actually expand the workforce as there's pretty much no room to expand it. Everyone who want and is willing to work is already in the workforce, it's not like you have a giant pool of women who stay at home who would want to work with this policy.

Canada has to make the hard decisions to shrink their workforce in the teeth of the structural decline today in order to expand the workforce in the future. The current policy results in an indefinite decline in the workforce.

I see it as something we will need to do to get more able bodied women into the workforce (and having babies)

Increasing their taxes, making them do more with less will have the precise opposite effect. TANSTAAFL. The money for child care has to come from somewhere.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unfortunately, not every ruling was in Canada's favour. There were findings that the Canadian system of public land and stumpage fees result in lower costs than if the land were privately owned. So to settle the issue we had to accept the quotas and an export tax if the price of wood goes too low. BC could resolve this remaining issue by charging a realistic amount for lumber leases so that the cost of the land is not subsidised by the Crown, and keep all the cash for BC's own purposes.

The lumber isn't subsidized. The savings come from the fact that CDN mills, especially in BC have a geographic advantage with close access to timber stands, and that they are significantly more efficient wrt production of board feet. The American argument is that because of Stumpage, CDN lumber is actually cheaper than local lumber, but that's not true at all. Stumpage is actually a tax on the production of lumber to make sure that the provincial government get it's cut of the lumber revenue.

[Ben Kenobi]

And there is no way in hell that BC would have had an easier time resolving that issue outside of Canada (and NAFTA).

Instead of having the provincial government milking the cow, and the feds milking the cow, we'd only have the provincial government. And unless the Dippers return to power, the situation would be improvent by getting rid of one of the parasites. It's a pity that the provincial government is controlled by the southern bastards in Victoria, we could actually see some decent policies that could help us rebuild the industry.

The only good thing is that Canfor et al have not been idle and have been in survival mode. Hopefully that will be enough to help them survive.

[Asher]

[notyoueither]

In terms of the decline in the workforce, yes it's a structural deficit. We would have to cut into spending such that per capita spending would have to drop from 2005 levels in order to get it under control. Granted, it's not as ridiculous as the US, but Canada is in a far more precarious demographic situation.



Carbon Tax is killing us here in BC. Absolutely destroying rural areas. I would be furious if there were a national carbon tax on top of the provincial carbon tax, it would make many areas of Canada essentially unlivable, and would totally undo many of the subsidies paid out by the feds to try to keep people from leaving all the rural areas, especially in the north.

It would make more sense to cut this subsidy, then tax and subsidize the same activity. At least then the savings actually reach the general public.



It's a disastrous plan. Basically you would be increasing taxes on everybody, including the young married folks. These folks need less taxes if you want them to actually have kids. Increasing their taxes to expand the bureaucracy is a horrible, horrible idea. It would also put almost all private care out of business, and force them to get registered by the state, because the state is essentially taking over a private industry.

If you wanted to do this right, give families a voucher that they could spend however they want, childcare, etc. That way the families are making the economic decisions, not the state. Or reduce the tax burdens that are forcing them to work two people to support the state and their family.

If you want to get people to have more babies, you have to make it possible for a family to have the wife at home so that she doesn't have the dual burden of work and kids. That would mean taking them out of the workforce. I don't believe that childcare will actually expand the workforce as there's pretty much no room to expand it. Everyone who want and is willing to work is already in the workforce, it's not like you have a giant pool of women who stay at home who would want to work with this policy.

Canada has to make the hard decisions to shrink their workforce in the teeth of the structural decline today in order to expand the workforce in the future. The current policy results in an indefinite decline in the workforce.



Increasing their taxes, making them do more with less will have the precise opposite effect. TANSTAAFL. The money for child care has to come from somewhere.

This is gibberish.

[notyoueither]

It's not just me, it's the PBO saying it is a structural deficit.

I think it is a misleading term when it is addressed in a short period of time and without great effort on the part of the government.

It's more of a 'so what?'

I don't like any of them on economy (not my issue) but I don't buy the myth of Conservatives being better money managers. I've yet to see it in my lifetime.

Of course, those of us in this part of the country are still dealing with the $1B spent to infringe Canadian's democratic rights.

I'd agree that under a lot of circumstances Liberal giovernments can be better with the money federally. My theory is that they have the ability to tell special interests 'no' and have it stick whereas the Conservatives face a national insurrection of the chattering classes when they try to make certain cuts.

I don't think we're in those circumstances at this time. Ignatieff is taking the Liberals to the left and a Liberal government at this time will require the NDP and Bloq to pass all confidence issues. Those would be the budgets. I just don't see the Liberals as being inclined to fiscal discipline at this time, and there will be forces driving them to even greater spending (and taxing).

There's also this other nagging issue. Maybe you can help me out. I've lost count. How many Liberal party officials have faced charges as a consequence of Sponsorship?

[Wezil]

Christ, I'm still waiting for Conservatives to face charges over Airbus.

[Wezil]

Greater accountability would be awesome. If only we had a PM that promised such a thing.

[notyoueither]

Christ, I'm still waiting for Conservatives to face charges over Airbus.

Yeah, and the Tories paid for that government. The party was wiped out and the Liberals were handed three consecutive majorities.

I'm not sure that five in the box is enough for the Liberals. The offence deserved at least a misconduct for ten. Two, five, and ten is likely too much. Seventeen years of Steve? Yikes.

I hadn't actually been thinking about Sponsorship much, but the incessant banging on about ethics, etc and your comment about managers of money brought it to mind.

I take it the answer to my question remains zero.