I've commented on this exercise before elsewhere but I need to own a mistake. I originally thought the $15 billion cut was for the current year - I missed the five year time frame involved.
Over those five years, the Feds will spend $2 trillion. Trillion.
The cut is meaninglessly trivial. Were I Anand, I would have circulated a memo saying "...here is your budget for the next five years, you'll note the slight trimming from plan, have a nice day...". There is no need to have any public hand wringing over this miserable effort at economy. None. There is no need for any great analysis either. The sums involved are tiny in big picture terms and literally any organisation can survive the somewhat under 1% of the total. I concede that a goodly portion of the budget is fixed (CPP, OAS, EI, etc) but that really doesn't matter much. The percentage of the operating budgets is certainly higher, but this not a serious belt tightening for a civil service that has grown by 30% over the past number of years. Get on with it, no labour required.
It’s almost impossible to believe that any member of the Trudeau government would place the interests of taxpayers before self interest, the desire to assure reelection and personal job security plus have the courage to actually impose reductions of the size of a bloated civil service. Having a hard time believing that she will have any success in this endeavour or be supported by the spineless weevils infesting the current version of our liberal led government.
I have no idea why everyone praises her for her job at Defence. Its now a disaster thanks to her 'initiatives'. Her sole mandate was 'culture change' (and we all know what that means by now) and not to enhance the Military's operational effectiveness. She accomplished that but at the cost of the Military itself. She has left a dumpster fire in her wake. The military appeals to a certain segment of every society (young, physically active, aggressive men) and she has now alienated that segment. Nobody wants to join a woke military so they're leaving as soon as they can and recruiting has plummeted.
1. Who is to say she was a “successful” Minister of Defense? I’m hearing nuggets of the contrary in some press.
2. These aren’t $15B in “cuts”. Apparently these are savings to come from other departments and redeployed to be spent on other more important *cough* programs.
3. I would have more respect for her if she sat as an Independent or resigned. The stench of towing the party line will stick with her.
From Blacklocks.ca--"Cabinet’s promise of “$15 billion of savings” does not mean federal spending will be cut by $15 billion, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said yesterday. “Savings” meant spending would be redirected from some programs to others, Freeland told reporters.
“The fiscal forecast in the budget that we tabled in the spring includes that $15 billion of savings so we could fund the programs outlined in the budget,” Freeland told reporters. “It is not new savings.”
“How do you convince Canadians that you are serious about this?” asked a reporter. “We are Liberals,” replied Freeland."
Even if Minister Anand succeeds in obtaining $15 billion in cuts over five years, I suggest that amount will be swamped by new programs and increased spending on existing programs.
1. The Liberals stay in power with the support of the NDP. The NDP must exact a price in the form of new programs to justify this. They must show they are having some influence, otherwise why bother voting for them? The most tangible evidence of such influence is expensive new programs.
2. Existing programs are chronically over budget, and the gap keeps growing. Think naval vessels (which will be obsolete before they are launched), Transmountain Pipeline, health and housing "strategies", subsidies to a variety of businesses (e.g. Volkswagen, Stellantis) that must be topped up each time a richer program is awarded to someone else.
3. The only instrument that the federal government possesses to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction is new conditional grants ("fiscal federalism"). Given the number of issues (e.g. environment) that transcend the federal/provincial split, expect to see increases in such transfers.
4. A number of seats will be closely contested in the next election. Government funding will magically appear in those ridings. Think of all the patronage agencies (Economic Development for Atlantic Canada, Northern Ontario, etc., etc.) each with its own Minister in charge of patronage.
Our only hope is Moody's or Standard & Poor, the credit rating agencies.
Anand wasn't around long enough in Defense to be considered a success.
She was demoted after floating the idea of extensive spending increases. The libranos were reportedly gobsmacked by her proposals. Jr doesn't like the military and she was called to the corner office for a dressing down and subsequent demotion.
The cuts amount to spitting in the ocean when it comes to the reckless profligate spending of this government
I appreciate the Paul Martin connection, but he had a solid base around him who pressured Chretien. All this talk lately of "Liberals" being unhappy in the background. Frankly, these people need to come out and say it openly. But they don't. So I fear that Anand is trying to burnish her credentials in a party that has/will lose all credibility. Unless people start caring more about the party than the leader. Where are those people?????????
I think it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The fact the liberals under Trudeau would cut 15billion is preposterous. Not going to happen, will not happen, never going to happen. they love spending our money.
I have to question the framing of $15B as "cuts" rather than a reduction to future spending. There is a stark difference between the two. Would have liked better editorial oversight prior to publishing something misleading.
I get a little tired of government spending in the $10 billion range being referred to as "nothing" (By commenters here or by liberals hoping for a new program). Every individual thing the government spends money on is "nothing", but this is a start. That 1% of spending is relevant and obviouly has political consequences.
I've commented on this exercise before elsewhere but I need to own a mistake. I originally thought the $15 billion cut was for the current year - I missed the five year time frame involved.
Over those five years, the Feds will spend $2 trillion. Trillion.
The cut is meaninglessly trivial. Were I Anand, I would have circulated a memo saying "...here is your budget for the next five years, you'll note the slight trimming from plan, have a nice day...". There is no need to have any public hand wringing over this miserable effort at economy. None. There is no need for any great analysis either. The sums involved are tiny in big picture terms and literally any organisation can survive the somewhat under 1% of the total. I concede that a goodly portion of the budget is fixed (CPP, OAS, EI, etc) but that really doesn't matter much. The percentage of the operating budgets is certainly higher, but this not a serious belt tightening for a civil service that has grown by 30% over the past number of years. Get on with it, no labour required.
It’s a rounding error in their deficits.
I wish I had read your comment before posting mine. Well said. Keep up the great work on posting truth to lies.
It’s almost impossible to believe that any member of the Trudeau government would place the interests of taxpayers before self interest, the desire to assure reelection and personal job security plus have the courage to actually impose reductions of the size of a bloated civil service. Having a hard time believing that she will have any success in this endeavour or be supported by the spineless weevils infesting the current version of our liberal led government.
I have no idea why everyone praises her for her job at Defence. Its now a disaster thanks to her 'initiatives'. Her sole mandate was 'culture change' (and we all know what that means by now) and not to enhance the Military's operational effectiveness. She accomplished that but at the cost of the Military itself. She has left a dumpster fire in her wake. The military appeals to a certain segment of every society (young, physically active, aggressive men) and she has now alienated that segment. Nobody wants to join a woke military so they're leaving as soon as they can and recruiting has plummeted.
1. Who is to say she was a “successful” Minister of Defense? I’m hearing nuggets of the contrary in some press.
2. These aren’t $15B in “cuts”. Apparently these are savings to come from other departments and redeployed to be spent on other more important *cough* programs.
3. I would have more respect for her if she sat as an Independent or resigned. The stench of towing the party line will stick with her.
Example: https://x.com/cpac_tv/status/1694063268313342237?s=46&t=sInHD6ojUjKfnS6M1Pe8Ag
From Blacklocks.ca--"Cabinet’s promise of “$15 billion of savings” does not mean federal spending will be cut by $15 billion, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said yesterday. “Savings” meant spending would be redirected from some programs to others, Freeland told reporters.
“The fiscal forecast in the budget that we tabled in the spring includes that $15 billion of savings so we could fund the programs outlined in the budget,” Freeland told reporters. “It is not new savings.”
“How do you convince Canadians that you are serious about this?” asked a reporter. “We are Liberals,” replied Freeland."
Reporter: How do you convince Canadians that you are serious about this?
Freeland: We are Liberals.
Reporter: Right. Same question again.
That quote at the end made me laugh out loud. Glad I didn't have a mouthful of water.
Thank you for the column.
Even if Minister Anand succeeds in obtaining $15 billion in cuts over five years, I suggest that amount will be swamped by new programs and increased spending on existing programs.
1. The Liberals stay in power with the support of the NDP. The NDP must exact a price in the form of new programs to justify this. They must show they are having some influence, otherwise why bother voting for them? The most tangible evidence of such influence is expensive new programs.
2. Existing programs are chronically over budget, and the gap keeps growing. Think naval vessels (which will be obsolete before they are launched), Transmountain Pipeline, health and housing "strategies", subsidies to a variety of businesses (e.g. Volkswagen, Stellantis) that must be topped up each time a richer program is awarded to someone else.
3. The only instrument that the federal government possesses to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction is new conditional grants ("fiscal federalism"). Given the number of issues (e.g. environment) that transcend the federal/provincial split, expect to see increases in such transfers.
4. A number of seats will be closely contested in the next election. Government funding will magically appear in those ridings. Think of all the patronage agencies (Economic Development for Atlantic Canada, Northern Ontario, etc., etc.) each with its own Minister in charge of patronage.
Our only hope is Moody's or Standard & Poor, the credit rating agencies.
Anand wasn't around long enough in Defense to be considered a success.
She was demoted after floating the idea of extensive spending increases. The libranos were reportedly gobsmacked by her proposals. Jr doesn't like the military and she was called to the corner office for a dressing down and subsequent demotion.
The cuts amount to spitting in the ocean when it comes to the reckless profligate spending of this government
15b is nothing close to the bone. This is just a paper tiger.
I appreciate the Paul Martin connection, but he had a solid base around him who pressured Chretien. All this talk lately of "Liberals" being unhappy in the background. Frankly, these people need to come out and say it openly. But they don't. So I fear that Anand is trying to burnish her credentials in a party that has/will lose all credibility. Unless people start caring more about the party than the leader. Where are those people?????????
$150B would be interesting. Bring on the austerity, disproportionately on the backs of the over compensated and entitled federal public service.
I think it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The fact the liberals under Trudeau would cut 15billion is preposterous. Not going to happen, will not happen, never going to happen. they love spending our money.
I have to question the framing of $15B as "cuts" rather than a reduction to future spending. There is a stark difference between the two. Would have liked better editorial oversight prior to publishing something misleading.
Hopefully she does something about the deficit but I won't be holding my breath. More then likely more smoke and mirrors.
I get a little tired of government spending in the $10 billion range being referred to as "nothing" (By commenters here or by liberals hoping for a new program). Every individual thing the government spends money on is "nothing", but this is a start. That 1% of spending is relevant and obviouly has political consequences.