People Need to Cut Jean Charest Some Slack
I guess that is why no other province in
Monday’s budget gave
In terms of increasing actual transfers for 2007-2008, there was not all that much there. Most of the money there needed to fix the fiscal imbalance has been earmarked. I am satisfied that the payments will catch up over time.
I understand that
But what I think people should understand is that resolving the fiscal imbalance for ALL provinces is giving them back money they used to have in the early 90s to give to their social programs. This money was slashed. Nobody is arguing
Some people jumped on Premier Charest for deciding that he was going to take some of money from the budget, and shift tax brackets upwards, something that all provinces save Alberta (cuz they don’t have brackets) have done since the economy started going much better in the late 90s. They claim the fiscal imbalance does not exist because of the decision of a Premier regarding governing his own province. These attacks are dishonest. They imply that
I await the comments (if he will make them) of Bob Rae. An ardent supporter of the fiscal imbalance, Bob was the first to take the brunt of the federal cuts in
Fact is, the federal government, who once spent 25% of Health Education and Social transfers, had fallen to 15% after the carnage was over. Is the solution pegging an amount to transfer and keeping it there?
The Bloc would say yes. They want tax points. Although when Harper offered them a GST point, they refused to take it…their hypocrisy here is without question.
Some others, and I fall into this camp, believe that transferring money is a solution. What
I am called a decentralist because of the way I read the BNA act, when all I do is read the document and it outlines a clear definition of powers.
Health Care, Child Care, Cities (remember that?) Were there photo ops for any of those priorities when Paul Martin was implementing them? The thing sounded like a provincial platform. (It would be great for
Liberals are accusing Conservatives of acting like Liberals. Our line should not be “they are crazy”, but “they said they were different, until they proved we knew what we were doing all along.”
All Harper did was “empty Paul Martin’s war chest.” The same one he built through fiscal prudence and off-loading. Hooray for fiscal prudence Paul, but you should have given the money back, all of it, without question. Instead, the provinces smartened up and managed to make the population understand exactly how you got those surpluses.
Did Harper do this for the right reasons? I highly doubt it. But, on the two main separatist reasons for being in
On both major fronts, the Bloc reacted predictably. First they said that the
Back to Charest, let him be for the tax cuts. 700 million dollars is also what he promised to hire 1500 new doctors and 4000 nurses. He could have made the tax cut promise first, and then used yesterday’s money to hire the doctors. It took four years to clear enough manoeuvring room to gice some tax relief to Quebecers. I am happy he put the health care system first, regardless of the optics, and to those in our party who want a separatist government in
10 Commentaires:
I agree.
Rules based equalization that includes a ten-province standard (i.e. Alberta), and 50% of Alberta's oil revenues.
Elimination of double equalization in the social transfer for Alberta and Ontario with the restoration of per capita transfers immediately,
and elimination of double equalization in the health transfer for Alberta and Ontario with the restoration of per capita transfers over time.
Who in their right mind can argue against this?
Martin had made an absolute mess of equalization with his ad hoc one-off deals.
Harper surrendered on his traditional position that the federal government should just surrender tax room instead of enhanced transfers and equalization, but this is just a money flow issue. Most of the provinces prefer to let Ottawa tax, than tax themselves.
How Quebec uses its money is Quebec's business?
Equalization doesn't come with strings.
Let the small provinces whine who are on the verge of have status. They want more than equalization...they are asking for Alberta and Ontario to fund equalization payments to give them greater fiscal capacity than Ontario...i.e. super-equalization.
Since a commission Goodale set up recommended this formula, the federal Liberals should be taking credit for solving the "fiscal imbalance", not criticize it.
Charest is a Tory. None of us should cut him any slack and he should not be Liberal leader in Quebec and won't be for long, as far as I can tell.
Do you really think that the same levels of transfers that were made when we had a forty-billion dollar deficit are sustainable now?
Harper talks about predictability of funding for the provinces, but at the same time his budget warns that we could come perilously close to deficit territory should there be only the slightest contractions in our economic growth forecasts.
Will a new fiscal imbalance need to be solved if the federal government needs to go into deficit to fund this so-called fiscal imbalance?
And now that Quebec has been recognized as a "distinct society" and a "nation," and that the so-called "fiscal imbalance" has been "solved," Premier Charest will surely be able to grant Quebec's signature to the Constitution, right?
well braeden for starters,
if the Liberals have found hundereds of billions of dollars to cut taxes and still find tens of billions in surpluses, maybe there is more money there than people thought...
Also,
I believe Quebec can sign the constitution whenever it wishes, im sure they would want the agreements entrenched in the text but, dont ask me, I do not speak for the PLQ
This comment has been removed by the author.
Antonio - If you really are are a "decentralist" and your reading of the BNA Act grants jurisdiction over health, education, cities, etc. to the provinces; then to be consistent shouldn't FUNDING for these areas ALSO be done within the province by taxation? In which case the only fiscal imbalance is the provinces unwillingness to pay for its own services?
To me its intellectually dishonest to say "keep your hands off our jurisdiction, but at the same time not only SHOULD you transfer money to pay for our exercises in that jurisdiction but you are obliged to".
braeden:
"Do you really think that the same levels of transfers that were made when we had a forty-billion dollar deficit are sustainable now?"
good question....an answer would be nice too.
kc:
"To me its intellectually dishonest to say "keep your hands off our jurisdiction, but at the same time not only SHOULD you transfer money to pay for our exercises in that jurisdiction but you are obliged to"."
i don't know if it is "intellectually dishonest", it is certainly logically incongruous.
antonio:
"I am called a decentralist because of the way I read the BNA act, when all I do is read the document and it outlines a clear definition of powers."
interesting, cause i am called a centralist because i think the original BNA act, written by the fathers of confederation, should take precedence over the views of the judicial committee of the privy council, whose decisions made one of the most centralized federations in the world into one of the most decentralized federations in the world (bloody brits!).
Yes Canuckistan "logically incongruous" is a much better way of describing the sum of Antonio's views.
antonio, my advice is to keep posts shorter. trolls are scavengers, they dont need to be fed great quantities.
Post a Comment
<< Home