Harper using excuse for economic meltdown to gut government?

10 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2008-11-24 12:52

remind

Quote:
..."I'm hopeful there will be some ideologically-driven, neo-conservative cuts
to government," political scientist Tom Flanagan, a former chief of staff to
Harper, said in an interview.

Such cuts, he added, would be consistent with Harper's long-term goal of
reducing the size and scope of government.

"I think that's always been sort of the long-term plan, the way that Stephen
was going about it of first depriving the government of surpluses through
cutting taxes . . . You get rid of the surpluses and then it makes it easier to
make some expenditure reductions."

At a minimum, Flanagan said: "I think there's certainly room for some
incremental cuts to useless programs."

The government has already used the economic crisis to put off plans for a
national portrait gallery, citing the need for fiscal restraint in uncertain
times.

From Flanagan's perspective, the government would do well to scupper a host
of grants, contracts and business subsidies and to pare a lot of what he
considers wasteful spending on cultural and aboriginal programs.

"As well, opposition MPs are suspicious the government will try to downsize
the public service and sell off Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd."

h/t NSpectator

Mon, 2008-11-24 13:12

remind

So, is Harper going to go all neo-con and piss off Bay Street, or is he in fact going to do nothing? Other than gut the government, of course? Because one possible infrastructure support measure has already been cancelled, the national portrait gallery.

Quote:
If Prime Minister Stephen Harper is serious about a stimulus package for
Canada's economy, he'd best act quickly and decisively,

“The sooner the better,” said Avery Shenfeld, economist
at CIBC World Markets.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has suggested that this
Thursday's economic update won't contain major fiscal stimulus measures, and
that those announcements will come in the full budget early next year.

That's too long to wait, Mr. Shenfeld said. The U.S.
economy is deteriorating so rapidly that it's certain to hurt Canada deeply, he
said. Since government stimulus packages usually take a while to have any effect
on the economy, a delay in government action would cause needless suffering in
Canada.

“If you wait till the spring, you're potentially
throwing in stimulus far too late,” added Derek Holt, vice-president of
economics at Scotia Capital Inc. “We've got to move really quickly.”

The classic way for a government to stimulate a flagging
economy is to pump money into infrastructure. Road-building and
government-funded construction can create jobs through one-time projects that
increase spending on local materials and provide the country with something it
actually needs - without creating a long-term spending problem for the
government.

And that's the way Ottawa should go now, economists
say.

“Historically, the evidence suggests that infrastructure
has the biggest bang for the buck. The only problem is the delay,” said Mr.
Shenfeld."

h/t NSpectator

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Mon, 2008-11-24 13:25

genstrike

Holy crap, did Flanagan actually come out and say that? Whatever happened to the sevret agenda? That's what I like about people like Flanagan and Thomas Friedman, they put the bullshit right out front where you can get a nice strong whiff of it.

But I am concerned about their plans for infrastructure development. I would have big problems if they were simply expanding P3 bullshit like the "Building Canada" plan.

Mon, 2008-11-24 14:03

remind

Yep, he did, though it is not the first time he has stated his contempt for FN's. He actually wrote a book, re-writing history in respect to FN, commissioned by Chretien no less.

Anyhow, I see this as a perfect time for infrastructure investment in sustainable energy solutions, and retrofitting for energy efficiency, as well as addressing many areas of environmental concern.

Several areas could be addressed

1. Create expanded manufacturing capabilities of woods pellets for bio-fuel consumption and export, utlizing the dead pine tree fibre. This would create jobs in many sectors as well as needed trade occupational training programs.

2. Start retrofit programs for all government buildings, at every level, to start as well as deploy money/grants to low income households to do home retrofits.

3. Create wind farms and attach them to the hydro grid, and expand east west hydro grid. And do the same for tidal power generation. As well as create a program for farmers where they could access freely technoloy available to turn their animal waste porducts into hydro and join them to the hydro grid so they could sell their energy and thus create more space/time/money for cost effective and healthy food production. This would also create jobs and training for many sectors, and help farmers stay in business.

4. Create land revitalization programs and initiatives for those areas in BC and AB devastated by the pine beetle. If this is not done, mountains sides will come tumbling down.

There is so much that could be done infrastructure wise that would create jobs and training, and that would bring Canada up to a high level of alternative energy sources and environmental needed actions that a list could go on even further.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Mon, 2008-11-24 14:46

Fidel

Sounds like Harper wants to do a pre-1985 General Pinochet of things. And the Liberals will say they regret having to prop up Harper and his conservative agenda, because how can they possibly oppose and still expect to win an election so soon on the heels of Libranos scandals?

Mon, 2008-11-24 15:04

remind

MSpector did an opinion piece on what he thinks Harper will do. And basically he said that Harper is going to move the centre and not instrument neo-con policies, as Harper wants to strip the Liberals of the centre right capabilities.

It seems as if he believes that this action could essentially destroy the Liberal Party.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Mon, 2008-11-24 15:23

genstrike

remind wrote:

Anyhow, I see this as a perfect time for infrastructure investment in sustainable energy solutions, and retrofitting for energy efficiency, as well as addressing many areas of environmental concern.

Several areas could be addressed

...

There is so much that could be done infrastructure wise that would create jobs and training, and that would bring Canada up to a high level of alternative energy sources and environmental needed actions that a list could go on even further.

Well, I agree that infrastructure is good, especially in a time like this (when I'm graduating in a year and a half and looking to get a job with Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation )

I am just very concerned about the growth of P3s for infrastructure projects as they are inefficient, more expensive and essentially corporate giveaways as compared to traditional systems of procurement and public ownership.

Basically, infrastructure good, P3s bad.

You mentioned building wind power, which is interesting when you consider P3s because Manitoba Hydro does have an agreement with a wind farm where it is privately owned and Hydro buys the power as opposed to building their own publicly owned wind farm. I heard someone say once that this arrangement as opposed to public ownership was only for political reasons.

Mon, 2008-11-24 16:02

remind

I think there would be room for a multi-faceted approach to wind farms. Take for example in Saskatchewan, where there is provincially owned pasture land that is leased to farmers for summer cattle grazing. These lands could become dual use for wind farms. The province could be given money by the feds to develop the wind turbines and they could be tied into a new east west hydro grid. This would mean expanded manufacturing capabilities and raw materials for the turbine products would be needed. This would serve to decrease manufacturing costs by a more mass produced wind turbine which would allow private investors to invest in such initiatives, or even allow individuals the capabilities to access a cost effective wind turbine market to put in their own. There would also be enhanced energy storage capabilites developed.

In BC, there is going to be plenty of crown land that will have to be denuded of standing dead trees, which is going to allow for vast tracks of cleared land that will be now wind swept, as opposed to wind blocked. This will create a good place for more wind turbines. Plus this cleared land will create a bunch of other environmenatlly sustainable and needed activities. Say nothing of the need to replant trees and other plants to shore up mountain sides that will quite quickly start to crumble.

And I am not sure yet about what you see with p3 programs.

Here is a link for those not knowing what is meant by this

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Mon, 2008-11-24 16:45

genstrike

remind wrote:

And I am not sure yet about what you see with p3 programs.

Here is a link for those not knowing what is meant by this

Scroll down to the "Public-Private Partnerships" section in your link and read that.

There is $1.25 billion for P3 projects only and a P3 review required for projects receiving over $50 million. Essentially, this is pushing P3s on lower levels of governments.

In addition, a lot of this is funding that was already there under different names.

link

With this kind of government, I would be concerned that any increase in infrastructure funding is going to be with these P3 strings attached.

Regarding wind farms, I agree that they would probably be a good thing and probably one of the better ways to generate power in an environmentally efficient manner. However, I would be concerned about utilities negotiating deals to buy power from private or P3 wind farms as opposed to building their own as it would likely be much cheaper for the public to build their own. I had heard from a guy who works at Hydro that it would have probably been better for the wind farm in Manitoba to be built, owned and operated by Hydro as opposed to Hydro just buying all the power.

Mon, 2008-11-24 16:49

#10

Sharon

I hadn't seen this thread earlier but I was just reading the Canadian Press article quoting Flanagan, saying to myself that I wish Tom Flanagan was given a much higher media profile so these views would get much more publicity. I was struck by this one:

Quote:
Flanagan said a five-per-cent cut to the CBC's $1-billion budget might be in line, much as the previous Liberal government imposed reductions during the last era of restraint in the mid-1990s.

Flanagan wishes Harper would go even farther and slap a for sale sign on the public broadcaster - but doubts anything so radical is on the agenda.

"Not with a minority government," Flanagan said.

"It would require legislation. I can't imagine the other parties approving legislation to privatize the CBC, much as I would support at least selling off parts of it, or the Post Office."

You're right. No hidden agenda there!