Dalton Days

[landscaper]

well to start with, Martin also remove 50 billion dollars from an account that suposed to help out those in need transfered it to general revenue in order to balance the budget while making no program spending cuts beyond the transfers back to the provinces where the money came from in the first place.

Harris cut down on the amount of wealfare provided to people, instituted rules regarding welfare fraud and did indeed cut all government spending in order to balance the books.

There is actually a difference there .

Interestingly other provinces were actually providing bus tickets to Toronto for there wealfare clients as the benefits were some better in Ontario following the Rae and Peterson governments. People could make more money on welfare than they could working .

Before the flaming starts, I expect the government to help those that CAN NOT help themselves, those that are to lazy to help themselves can starve.

 

[slowpoke]

well to start with, Martin also remove 50 billion dollars from an account that suposed to help out those in need transfered it to general revenue in order to balance the budget while making no program spending cuts beyond the transfers back to the provinces where the money came from in the first place.

Harris cut down on the amount of wealfare provided to people, instituted rules regarding welfare fraud and did indeed cut all government spending in order to balance the books.

There is actually a difference there .

Interestingly other provinces were actually providing bus tickets to Toronto for there wealfare clients as the benefits were some better in Ontario following the Rae and Peterson governments. People could make more money on welfare than they could working .

Before the flaming starts, I expect the government to help those that CAN NOT help themselves, those that are to lazy to help themselves can starve.

Interesting that nobody starved huh?

Also interesting is the fact that you continually claim that Martin cut social transfers without cutting program spending. We've discussed this a couple of times and I think I've adequately shown that he DID cut program spending - a lot. What word didn't you understand?

http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/paul-martin-the-deficit-and-debt-taking-another-look/

..."The one aspect of Canada's fiscal turnaround that is truly unique in the international comparison is in the severity in the cuts to program spending, which were much deeper than any other major industrialized country. General government program spending, measured as a share of GDP, declined by 10 percentage points in Canada between 1992 and 2002 while in the OECD as a whole, program spending stayed roughly constant as a share of GDP. Some countries restored fiscal balance with hardly any spending cuts at all - and in some cases, while actually increasing government spending.


Our analysis shows that Paul Martin could have overseen the quick elimination of the huge deficit which his government inherited, in line with his official timetable, yet without imposing a single dollar of nominal program spending reductions. The fact that so many other industrialized countries also eliminated deficits during the latter 1990s, most of them more gradually than Canada, and most without dramatic reductions in program expenditure, similarly supports the notion that real choices were available, while still accepting the general goal of deficit reduction. So Mr. Martin's decision to impose dramatic program spending reductions to attain a uniquely fast improvement in bottom-line fiscal balances must, therefore, have reflected priorities other than simply the desire to balance the budget."...

 

[Mongrel4u]

Dalton Days probably illegal now

Supreme court decision in BC case.

 

[landscaper]

the program cuts martin made were in transfer payments to the provinces the federal departmental spending stayed the same or went up during that period

 

[landscaper]

Supreme court decision in BC case.

that case was a very narrow interpretation, if he words he bill properly it would likely be fine, that said the decision is an excellant oportunity for him to bail out of spending cuts and blame it on the courts

 

[slowpoke]

the program cuts martin made were in transfer payments to the provinces the federal departmental spending stayed the same or went up during that period

Wrong-O.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/binb/binb1-eng.asp

•Federal departmental spending will be 22 per cent lower in 1998-99 than 1994-95.

Departmental spending: Most departments will have their budgets cut by at least a further 3.5 per cent in 1998-99; some are cut much more.

•Spending on defence and international assistance will be further reduced. The growth of spending on Inuit and Indian programming will be restrained.
•The dairy subsidy will be phased out over five years and the postal subsidy program reduced. By 1998-99, grants and contributions to business, including reallocation to new initiatives to encourage technology and innovation, will be down 60 per cent from 1994-95, from $3.7 billion to $1.5 billion.
•Further savings in VIA Rail's operating subsidy will be achieved in 1998-99 through measures to improve productivity, and funding for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will be reduced.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/images/BINB-2e.gif
Chart 2: Departmental spending 1998-99 relative to 1994-95

 

[train]

Wrong-O.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/binb/binb1-eng.asp

•Federal departmental spending will be 22 per cent lower in 1998-99 than 1994-95.

Does that include the drastic cuts in federal transfer payments to the provinces ?

 

[landscaper]

Does that include the drastic cuts in federal transfer payments to the provinces ?

back of the hand

nice shot

 

[slowpoke]

Does that include the drastic cuts in federal transfer payments to the provinces ?

I don't see how that matters. Uncle landscaper claimed:

"the program cuts martin made were in transfer payments to the provinces the federal departmental spending stayed the same or went up during that period".

Yes there were drastic cuts in federal transfer payments to the provinces and nobody here is denying that. But landscaper is pretending that those were the ONLY cuts Martin made and that the budgets of Martin's own federal departments were either not cut or were allowed to increase. That is simply not the case. Everyone shared the pain. The government budget brief I linked to was quite clear that departmental spending had been cut in the previous budget and was being cut again in this one. This is a perfect example of the revisionist bullshit I referred to earlier in this thread. I'm sure we could find posts by uncle landscaper where he lamented all the cutbacks to our military. So how can anyone in his right mind whine about the Martin / Chretien cuts to DND spending and then claim that the only cuts Martin / Chretien made were to provincial transfers?


http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/binb/binb1-eng.asp
Departmental spending: Most departments will have their budgets cut by at least a further 3.5 per cent in 1998-99; some are cut much more.

•Spending on defence and international assistance will be further reduced. The growth of spending on Inuit and Indian programming will be restrained.
•The dairy subsidy will be phased out over five years and the postal subsidy program reduced. By 1998-99, grants and contributions to business, including reallocation to new initiatives to encourage technology and innovation, will be down 60 per cent from 1994-95, from $3.7 billion to $1.5 billion.
•Further savings in VIA Rail's operating subsidy will be achieved in 1998-99 through measures to improve productivity, and funding for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will be reduced.

 

[landscaper]

this report was prepaired for teh govt or BC I have included only the conclusion
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/archive/budget95/95rpt_g.htm


Conclusion

The federal government is intent on forcing the provinces to bear an unduly large share of the spending cuts announced in its 1995 budget. What aggravates this problem is that these cuts are being superimposed on top of a decade of progressively tighter restrictions applied to transfers. Further, the adverse fiscal impact of federal offloading on the provinces threatens to grow significantly in the coming years following the introduction of the CST block fund arrangement in 1996/97.
British Columbia can only conclude that the federal government wishes to withdraw from its social policy funding partnership with the provinces -- a partnership that over the years has constructed a social programming mix that is highly appreciated at home and envied abroad. The breakdown of this funding partnership poses difficult questions for British Columbia:


How can the province ensure that British Columbians, particularly those in need, receive the quality health care, education and social services they require?

What new arrangements could overcome the weak public accountability for federal spending decisions embodied in current transfers to provinces?

How can desirable national standards of social benefits and services be maintained in a world of declining federal influence? Such standards are essential if Canada is not to witness, in the name of competitiveness, an interprovincial "race for the bottom" in providing social benefits. In another light, they are also essential to prevent people from migrating between provinces simply to obtain social benefits, rather than to take advantage of economic opportunities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) If federal restrictions to smaller transfer programs and the interest cost associated with previous offloading are added, the total negative fiscal impact of federal offloading on British Columbia rises to $2.4 billion in 1994/95, $3.2 billion in 1995/96, $4.0 billion in 1996/97 and $4.9 billion in 1997/98.


The federal government massivly restricted the cash transfers to the provinces while includeing Tax Points which make a difference from an accounting perspective but don't actually move any money around the actually money transfers are the issues and they dropped significantly with the difference in the amounts being made up in the tax points payable to teh federal govt.

 

[slowpoke]

this report was prepaired for teh govt or BC I have included only the conclusion
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/archive/budget95/95rpt_g.htm


Conclusion

The federal government is intent on forcing the provinces to bear an unduly large share of the spending cuts announced in its 1995 budget. What aggravates this problem is that these cuts are being superimposed on top of a decade of progressively tighter restrictions applied to transfers. Further, the adverse fiscal impact of federal offloading on the provinces threatens to grow significantly in the coming years following the introduction of the CST block fund arrangement in 1996/97.
British Columbia can only conclude that the federal government wishes to withdraw from its social policy funding partnership with the provinces -- a partnership that over the years has constructed a social programming mix that is highly appreciated at home and envied abroad. The breakdown of this funding partnership poses difficult questions for British Columbia:


How can the province ensure that British Columbians, particularly those in need, receive the quality health care, education and social services they require?

What new arrangements could overcome the weak public accountability for federal spending decisions embodied in current transfers to provinces?

How can desirable national standards of social benefits and services be maintained in a world of declining federal influence? Such standards are essential if Canada is not to witness, in the name of competitiveness, an interprovincial "race for the bottom" in providing social benefits. In another light, they are also essential to prevent people from migrating between provinces simply to obtain social benefits, rather than to take advantage of economic opportunities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) If federal restrictions to smaller transfer programs and the interest cost associated with previous offloading are added, the total negative fiscal impact of federal offloading on British Columbia rises to $2.4 billion in 1994/95, $3.2 billion in 1995/96, $4.0 billion in 1996/97 and $4.9 billion in 1997/98.


The federal government massivly restricted the cash transfers to the provinces while includeing Tax Points which make a difference from an accounting perspective but don't actually move any money around the actually money transfers are the issues and they dropped significantly with the difference in the amounts being made up in the tax points payable to teh federal govt.

All of which means the fed cut monies transferred to the provinces, BC in this case. Since we've both already acknowledged that there were drastic cuts to provincial transfers, I don't see the point of elaborating about it at such great length. The subject at hand is Martin's cuts to his own departmental spending and the cuts to DND spending are a perfect example.

In your last paragraph, you mention something about tax points payable to the federal government but I really didn't understand what that paragraph was all about. In the big picture, Martin cut federal taxes by $100B over 5 years so it wasn't just provincial transfers and departmental spending that was cut. Martin's tax cuts left a lot more money in the pockets of individuals and businesses - all inhabitants of the various provinces.

 

[landscaper]

Tax points are credits that the federal govt gives to the provinces they are not actual money but they appear as line items on in the budget, they make it appear that the budget actually credits the provinces with more money that they actually get.

My original line in this thread was that the budget was balanced by the take over of the UIC account and transfering it into general revenue as well as dispropationate cuts to provincial transfers.

All that is true, the cuts that were made to federal programs were minimal DND is the constant whipping boy of the liberals to the point where equiptmant is older than the people using it.

Indian affairs budgets were federally and the ferderal governmemtn transfered responsibility for a large number of programs to the provinces.

The ability to access UIC was drastically curtailed but the rates went up which also impacted the provinces through slower job growth .

Over all there was less money available to businesses and people .

The liberal party ahs since its inception been a party of big government and central control over the country its in theri constitution.

 

[slowpoke]

Tax points are credits that the federal govt gives to the provinces they are not actual money but they appear as line items on in the budget, they make it appear that the budget actually credits the provinces with more money that they actually get.

My original line in this thread was that the budget was balanced by the take over of the UIC account and transfering it into general revenue as well as dispropationate cuts to provincial transfers.

All that is true, the cuts that were made to federal programs were minimal DND is the constant whipping boy of the liberals to the point where equiptmant is older than the people using it.

Indian affairs budgets were federally and the ferderal governmemtn transfered responsibility for a large number of programs to the provinces.

The ability to access UIC was drastically curtailed but the rates went up which also impacted the provinces through slower job growth .

Over all there was less money available to businesses and people .

The liberal party ahs since its inception been a party of big government and central control over the country its in theri constitution.

My point in this thread with regard to Martin's deficit reduction is that he did what he had to do and everyone shared the pain - including his own federal departments. And, yes, there was a lot of pain but soon there were a lot of results too. You'd have a hard time convincing me that our subsequent economic performance - productivity, employment and growth meant there was "less money available to businesses and people". Unemployment was at 9.6% in 1996. We were basically fucked at that point. By 2000, we were back on our feet and vastly outperforming every other G7 nation.



Your version:
"The ability to access UIC was drastically curtailed but the rates went up which also impacted the provinces through slower job growth .

Over all there was less money available to businesses and people . "



My version:
http://www.imf.org/external/spring/2001/imfc/can.htm

.."The Canadian economy continued to grow at a robust pace in 2000, building on the strong economic performance in the second half of the 1990s. Although growth slowed in the latter part of 2000, the economy has grown for 22 consecutive quarters, the longest uninterrupted run since the mid-1960s. During this period growth has averaged more than 4 per cent per year.

This outstanding performance has benefited individual Canadians through solid employment and income gains. In 2000, employment grew strongly for the fourth consecutive year, with more than 300,000 jobs created. Indeed, Canada has led the G-7 in job creation over the past four years. The unemployment rate has been brought down from near 10 per cent at the end of 1996 to an average of 6.8 per cent in 2000, its lowest level in 24 years."..

 

[landscaper]

dragging money out of the economy by a variety of means includeing changing the unemployment system so that very few people in Alberta British Columbia or Ontario would be able to access it while still collecting the premiums put billions into federal coffers that went straight to the Chretien spending machine.

The economy grew in spite of thegovernment efforts not because of them , those jobs were based for hemost part in the oil patch, which was growing along with the petro industries around the world. The liberal government had little or nothing to do with that growth beyond lending companies money that came from the federal coffers through over taxation .

 

[slowpoke]

dragging money out of the economy by a variety of means includeing changing the unemployment system so that very few people in Alberta British Columbia or Ontario would be able to access it while still collecting the premiums put billions into federal coffers that went straight to the Chretien spending machine.

The economy grew in spite of thegovernment efforts not because of them , those jobs were based for hemost part in the oil patch, which was growing along with the petro industries around the world. The liberal government had little or nothing to do with that growth beyond lending companies money that came from the federal coffers through over taxation .

The money went straight into Martin's deficit reduction machine. Spending was cut drastically.

People couldn't get EI as easily. They got JOBS instead because his economic restraint and lower business taxes produced results.

I can document what I'm saying.

I'd like to see you justify and document what you've said above. Just saying what you'd like to believe doesn't make it so. You'll need to enlist the expertise of others to back it up.