Trimming the Fat? Give Me A Break!

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Tuesday that his government will find billions of dollars in "fat" to cut from program spending because Canadians expect him to locate "efficiencies" in how their money is spent.... Public service unions are warning across-the-board cuts could result in the loss of important services on which many Canadians rely.... In question period, NDP leader Jack Layton faced off against Harper for the first time as official Opposition leader. He criticized the budget, saying it does nothing for the unemployed and Canadians seeking a family doctor — while also raising the spectre of major spending cuts to come.

Layton told Harper he had a "simple question."

"What services will Canadians have to do without when the prime minister is finished his cuts?"

Harper said the Tories' spending cuts will only represent five per cent of overall operational expenses.

Only 5%? This is hardly "fat". Fortunately for those of us with an Austrian worldview, we can imagine (realistically) a society where necessary government cuts are made yet not a single Canadian need to live without their social services.

Only more proof that mainstream politics is recycled bullshit whereas Austrian school economics and anarcho-capitalism blend together to create the kind of society we're all aiming for.

Observe:

Harper reiterated that the government will not reduce pensions for seniors or cut health-care transfers to the provinces.

Well the Opposition has nothing to complain about then, but this is the area where we need the most austerity. Baby-boomers, whether employed in the public or private sector, are increasingly becoming tax-consumers. This trend needs to be reversed as soon as possible.

For his part, Rae said Harper is adopting "rhetorical language" that is "offensive."

"Let's look at what they've already cut. I mean, aboriginal housing isn't fat. They've cut aboriginal housing by $127 million . . . I don't think having running water on reserves is fat. I don't think having clean water for every Canadian is fat."

Cause and effect, Rae. Look it up, learn it, accept it, live it. Wealth redistribution doesn't create better living conditions for aboriginals (or anyone else for that matter). Even temporary gains are masked by the fact that you're destroying wealth through taxation. Cutting $127 million won't affect running water anymore than adding $127 million would.

Tanstaafl, Bob Rae. You can't throw money at a problem and expect to fix it.

Jack Layton: "We worry that Canadians will feel the pain as a result of the multi billions of dollars of cuts that are planned."

Here's the simple solution. Across the board cuts in spending and taxes. To the point that Canadians question if they even have a government at all. To offset this radical austerity in the public sector, the monopolizing nature of social services can be opened to free market competition.

All a sudden that nurse or that teacher who is unemployed is now free to use his or her skills to offer the exact same services via voluntary exchange.

In order words, let the private sector absorb all the former-public sector workers. Like in 1945 when public-payroll soldiers returned to Canada. Keynesians warned of a return to the Great Depression if government spending dropped and all these soldiers were cast off into the "private economy." Instead we had a massive boom.

Only the private sector can create wealth. The public sector remains a drain on society's resources, despite any value taken from their services. Since most Canadians value social services, it's best to move these people and their jobs over to the market of voluntary exchange. Not only will we all be better off (via lower taxes) but this voluntary ethic is much more humane.

Harper wants to cut 5%? C'mon man, grow a pair! You have a majority! What happened to the Harper that said "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."? I want that guy in charge! Let's gut this government thing, return the money to its rightful owners (taxpayers) and begin building society to reflect voluntary principles instead of state coercion.