In a nut shell: the Conservatives raided the contingency fund. It will be cut by $6 billion over the next three years. That's where a lot of this “surplus” comes from.
It's also dependent on low interest rates. Let's get this straight: a budget surplus doesn't eliminate the existing debt, nor this system where if all debts were paid off, central bank fiat would cease to exist. There is literally not enough money floating around in the system to pay off all the trillions owed to international bankers.
This is why COMER advocates interest-free loans through the BoC and the gradual weaning off of the international monetary system (ruled by Bank of International Settlements [BIS]). Of course, this is neither the time nor place to get into the pros and cons of this approach, the bright side is that it gets the Bank of Canada in the news because if there's one thing to take away from this budget it's that the entire thing is only possible because the BoC continues to finance the federal government's debt. That's why central banks are never mentioned in elections. For one, the power-elite who control these banks have bought and paid for every major politician and second, politicians love central banks. It's a printing press that allows the Left to establish a welfare state without raising taxes and it funds the wars of the Right also without raising taxes. When interest rates raise to reflect true market levels, the federal government has the most to lose.
The budget is a hoax. No, not that kind of hoax. I mean it's a giant distraction from real issues like central banks and debt based on paper created by a power-elite. But nevertheless, even within the propaganda we can find snippets of what mainstream news should be covering. There is controversy, mostly among the Left, about Tax-Free-Savings-Account or TFSAs. The idea is that they are saving accounts for rich people only and will cost the government money - your money - in the future, prompting Joe Oliver to call the situation a problem for “Stephen Harper's granddaughter.” Of course, the big problem is not for Harper's granddaughter but his daughter and even for Harper himself if he lives for another 30 years. And that problem is all the unfunded liabilities and debt that the governments of the past have promised to baby-boomers. There is no money, it's a giant ponzi scheme that we're going to live to see collapse. Will the result be more government intervention and tyranny, or will we return to a free market? Share this information and help make the latter option more likely.
In the budget there are some “winners” for the conservative audience. Like reducing the amount the taxpayers have to fork over for the “sick leave” of public bureaucrats. Now, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to pin person against person. People produce value for each other through exchange, but so long as we're forced to pay for things like education, health-care and environmental protections, there will be no honest exchange. There's no objective measure for us, as taxpayers, to tell if bureaucracies are doing their job in the most cost-effective and efficient way. The way only to create that result is through the use of free prices and voluntary exchange. So any reduction of the public sector or public sector entitlements is great news but within context of this budget... Well, clearly ending the wars and reducing the military budget should be dealt with before getting to the public sector. The warfare state is issue #1, with the welfare state taking the #2 position. But first things first: end the wars and central banks. Which of course, isn't in this budget. So those petty political points for minutely reducing the public sector only serve to divide and conquer us. Get people arguing over the apparent “necessity” of the public sector instead of the actual issues: wars, central banks, debt, the global fascist empire...
Joe Oliver says it will help the Middle Class. Justin Trudeau says he'll come up with a better plan to help the Middle Class (one that involves increasing taxes on the top 2%). But who is the Middle Class? It doesn't exist. It's an arbitrary income bracket created by politicians. There are only two classes: those who create wealth and those who steal it. All governments belong to that second class.
This budget also contains hypocrisy to a mammoth degree. Joe Oliver said, "For generations Canadian families have understood the path to prosperity,... Don't compromise tomorrow by spending recklessly today. Don't pile on debt you can't afford. And invest sensibly for a secure future.” The Conservatives, Oliver said, have the same principles. Barf. They “stimulated” the economy in 2009 with a bunch of new debt, have hiked spending on military and wars ($360 million to fight ISIS this year, plus annual hikes of 3 per cent for National Defence) and then they “balance the budget” using accounting tricks and relying on the Bank of Canada's low, artificial, interest rates.
A full list of what's in this budget can be seen here. Interesting takeaways:
SIRC, the CSIS watchdog, sees budget doubled to $5 million.
$94.4 million over five years for cyber security.
$18 million this year to fight terrorism – rising to $91 million in five years.
But at least Ottawa sold its remaining shares in General Motors. Governments should not be in the business of prompting up failed businesses.
There's also promises of money to be spent after the Fall election, creating the incentives for Canadians to vote Conservative. The budget is, surprise surprise, just another political campaign ad like everything else this government has done (and has now set a precedent that Trudeau and the Liberals can repeat).
NDP finance minister Janice MacKinnon said "Many economists questioned why the government needed to balance the books this year,'' and she was serious. Apparently having the “best” debt-to-GDP ratio means that the government should "“spend more to stimulate economic growth."” And this is why the NDP are irrelevant. But the Liberals have talked about spending more on infrastructure as well. Justin Trudeau said, “Whether it is infrastructure investments that will help people get to and from work on time .... We are also looking at fiscal measures as well that will help the middle class.”
As if politicians weren't already out of touch with reality, “infrastructure investments” won't mean Canadians getting to work on time. In fact, it's the opposite. “Infrastructure investments” are the make-work projects that –- since the first stimulus in 2008/09 –- have plagued the country with construction. Every city street, every major highway. It's the intentional destruction of resources. Instead of finding market solutions to infrastructure that was never built to last (there goes the argument that bureaus look at long-term well-being while businessmen worry about short-term profits), the government will divert resources from the free economy and put them into these never-ending make-work projects that are cutting up our roads and city blocks, creating more congestion and making everyone late for work or school. Clearly, with that statement like that, Justin is out of touch the average “middle class” voter whom Liberal deputy leader Ralph Goodale defines as someone making between $44,700 to $138,586 a year.
The budget is a farce. It's a political tool and will now be used as a basis for the upcoming election. I guess H.L. Mencken was right,
"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
No comments:
Post a Comment