Re: Re: "Sin" tax is pretty standard
Bearlythere said:
Everyone got tired of Ernie Eves and Mike Harris and all the bitching and carping and whining, but at least they said they were going to cut taxes and balance the budget, and they did it.
Except for the fact that they really didn't balance the budget all that often. Rather than actually addressing the problem by matching revenue with spending (either by raising taxes or cutting spending), the Tories "balanced" the budget through one-time asset sell-offs (such as the 407) and by hiding expenditures through accounting tricks (such as the cost of the Hydro cap during the final year of their mandate). During their two terms of power, the Tories only had a legitimate balanced budget (where actual revenue exceeded actual spending) once. They are hardly the fiscally prudent managers that they like to portray themselves as.
No one ever seems to understand, save Harris that maybe it is time to examine how money is SPENT and USED.
Re-examining the role of government was actually part of the Liberal platform. While the cynic in me suggests that they won't be anymore effective at it than the Tories were, its a worthy goal. We need to decide, collectively, what sort of programs the government should and should not be in the business of delivering.
You cannot tell me there is tons of cash wasted somewhere in the system.
Really? Where?
Everyone likes to think that there are bunch of fat, lazy bureaucrats wasting our money, but that really isn't the case.
Is some money wasted? Yes. Is any amount of waste, theft, or inefficiency acceptable? No. Would eliminating all three (which is unlikely, as it occurs in any large organization, private or public) solve the structural deficit that we face? Without a shadow of a doubt,
no.
Doctors cost money. Teachers cost money. Roads cost money. Delivering the services that our government provides costs money. The Tories hacked away at the civil service and then, because the work still needed to be done, spent a fortune paying consultants to do what government employees used to do.
The only solution is to cut services or raise revenues. Most of our spending is in health care and education, and the public has made it clear that they do not want further cuts in either of those areas. So, I ask, where would you cut?
So we have a spending problem, and Dalton cant find a way to raise taxes without actually saying he is raising taxes
I completely agree. While I don't have huge problem with a lottery-winnings tax, its part of a cowardly trend that this government is setting. Rather than trying to make hard decisions about revenue or spending, they're ducking and dodging, hoping that a flurry of little tax-grabs and minor-cuts will somehow get them out of the mess that the Tories left behind.
because the bonehead like all Liberals just cannot admit they don't have a clue on how the economy works.
Huh?
Making silly statements like that just undermines some of the interesting points you made in your argument.
First, you are confusing economic policy with fiscal policy (and a government's ability/inability to manage either). The government (especially a provincial one) is but one player in the economy. For example, Harris liked to brag that his tax cuts were responsible for Ontario's boom in the late 90's. Although tax cuts likely played a role, the low Canadian dollar (a Federal responsibility), and the booming American economy (particularly with auto sales) were far more important to Ontario's success.
Second, you're clinging to the clearly debunked myth that Conservative governments are better fiscal managers than Liberal governments are. That simply isn't true. Although Harris did cut income taxes, user fees (which are still taxes, just far more regressive) spiraled during his years in power, and our infrastructure (particularly in education and municipal services) was left to crumble.
This is not to suggest that Ontario would have been better off had the Tories not been elected in 1995. They made some excellent decisions and some really awful ones. Its just silly - and wrong - to continue to suggest that they were great fiscal managers. They weren't.
