The Shotgun Blog
« If it matters, measure it: Poor reporting could be hiding poor performance in Canada’s municipal governments | Main | Flaherty cleared of conflict of interest allegations: Report »
Thursday, December 18, 2008
I want you . . . for Canada's budget consultation
Canada's Department of Finance website has seldom been so much fun. Now you too can play Minister of Finance and serve your comrades countrymen by trying your hand at centrally planning the economy to help us get out of this slump:
The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, invites all Canadians to share their views and priorities as the Government prepares Budget 2009.
The Government is open to innovative new ideas that would help shape the plan for economic recovery in the 2009 budget, said Minister Flaherty.
You can prioritize between 4 options for increased spending (infrastructure, housing, labour and training, or industry), one option to increase access to credit (through cutting Bank of Canada interest rates and more government purchases of private debt) and one option of your own specification.
Although the backgrounder does mention tax cuts as a form of economic stimulus, if cutting the size of government is part of your proposed solution to our economic woes, you're going to have to write that in.
Given the structure of the questionnaire and what seems to be a vast chasm between my underlying assumptions about the effects of government policies on the economy and the Department of Finance's, I found it pretty hard to fill out the form in a satisfactory manner.
Try your hand here, and I'd love to hear how you dealt with the questionnaire. You can share your rankings, "innovative new ideas" and other contributions in the comments below.
(h/t John M)
Posted by Kalim Kassam on December 18, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053684e6d3970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I want you . . . for Canada's budget consultation:
Comments
To "support traditional and emerging sectors" I put: "Drop Danny Williams. Whack him if you have to."
For everything else I suggested we end discriminatory tax policies, central banking, tariffs, subsidizing of certain industries, and nationalization of others.
Posted by: Andrew P | 2008-12-18 2:08:47 AM
Lower taxes, move toward free banking & a solid currency, shrink the state, ban public sector strikes, allow individuals to NOT be members of a union, encourage education & re-training (at all levels).
Bottom line: Let the people decide how to stimulate the economy. (We saw in the 30s what happened when the state tried to.)
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2008-12-18 6:37:25 AM
To "support traditional and emerging sectors" I put: "Drop Danny Williams. Whack him if you have to."
Posted by: Andrew P | 2008-12-18 2:08:47 AM
Andrew, we shouldn't advocate the "Whacking" of anyone. However if the Hon. Mr. Flaherty were to fall out of his office window after entangling his neck in an extension cord.... :)
Like most government sponsored polls we are given choices in degrees of what they want to do. Not alternatives to what they want to do. The game is rigged folks.
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-18 6:56:36 AM
Interesting... I like the idea of a website for Canadians to give their input. Hopefully they'll listen to the input of thousands of people. Oh... wouldn't that require hiring more people onto the federal budget. Wish I could do that.
I hope that the government chooses not to access their line of credit and do deficit spending. It's taken years to pay down the old debt.
Posted by: Monty Loree | 2008-12-18 7:43:02 AM
I added the idea of cutting corporate and income taxes to stimulate investment and consumer spending. Regarding the final question of how can ensure international investment, etc. I wrote that they should win a majority to who stability, lol. Not sure if they will be able to follow through on that one!
Posted by: elizabeth | 2008-12-18 10:24:07 AM
How about levelling the playing field when it comes to import tariffs? The nips have had it too easy for too long. They're all grown up now, and it's time we stopped handicapping ourselves. If all that cheap junk from China wasn't so cheap anymore, maybe our manufacturing industry would get another chance. They've all been "dumping" into our markets for decades. Letting their workers exist as virtual slaves, in order to destroy our industries.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-18 11:00:44 AM
dp- I think nips are Japs. Chinks are the Chinese.
Posted by: ralph | 2008-12-18 11:20:08 AM
They've all been "dumping" into our markets for decades. Letting their workers exist as virtual slaves, in order to destroy our industries.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-18 11:00:44 AM
The Chinese are merely the source of cheap labor.
The real culprits here are the North American based corporations that moved their operations to the slave market to maximize profits. And in the process took the jobs away to China. I don't blame the Chinese for wanting to improve their position. This is the problem with "Global" corporations that are actually bigger and more powerful than most governments. Globalization in general reduces our choices and our freedoms, especially when its a Global government we're talking about.
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-18 11:34:32 AM
JC- It's time to make it more difficult to move operations into countries with cheap labour. I think reasonable tariffs would go a long way in slowing it down. It may be protectionist, but we are in desperate times here.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-18 12:02:16 PM
1. The "continue" button in the web site does not work. I hope this is not representative of what's next to come.
2. The option "Reduce personal income tax" is not listed. Neither is "Offer preferential energy prices to Canadian corporations"
3. The best option is also missing: "Let weak corporations go bankrupt; temporarily support EI financially".
Posted by: EM | 2008-12-18 12:23:20 PM
3. The best option is also missing: "Let weak corporations go bankrupt; temporarily support EI financially".
Posted by: EM | 2008-12-18 12:23:20 PM
I think it depends on what weakened them. If it was incompetence, bailing them out won't solve the problem. If they're in trouble because of regulations(or lack of), they deserve some consideration.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-18 12:36:14 PM
It may be protectionist, but we are in desperate times here.
Posted by: dp | 2008-12-18 12:02:16 PM
Yep.
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-18 4:09:53 PM
JC says: "Andrew, we shouldn't advocate the "Whacking" of anyone."
Well, we've got a pretty neo-conservative government in power. When in Rome.. ;)
Posted by: Andrew P | 2008-12-18 4:40:34 PM
What a disgraceful survey. All five proposals are doomed to fail -- and there was no option for tax cuts, which I wrote in.
This is a sham. Very disappointing.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-12-18 4:59:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.