2013 Ontario Budget

89 posts / 0 new
Last post
onlinediscountanvils
2013 Ontario Budget

Yell

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.ocap.ca/node/1077]Wynne's First Budget - More Austerity and Deeper Poverty[/url]

Quote:
Wynne, like McGuinty before her, is obsessed with ‘eliminating the deficit’ at all costs. It is clear from the government’s own figures that corporate greed created this deficit, but the people of Ontario will be expected to pay for it. In the 2013 budget, they boast of reducing corporate taxes by $8.5 billion per year since 2009 and proudly announce that Ontarians now get less per capita funding from their government than people in any other province.

 

CUPE: [url=http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1786186.htm]Liberals' 2013 budget insults hundreds of thousands living in poverty[/url]

Quote:
"The caution the Liberals exhibit when "studying" poverty is in marked contrast when it comes to the bold and direct action they take cutting taxes for corporations," Schofield said. "No more committees. No more commissions. It's time to commit action to end poverty by raising the minimum wage and raising social assistance rates."

autoworker autoworker's picture

I think the B.C. polls may have Horwath spooked. After she drags her decision out, she'll likely continue supporting the stench-ridden Liberals, since there doesn't seem to be much light between what she demanded, and what's been presented. But, we'll probably have to wait until the end of May to find out, and then off for the Summer, and the BBQ circuit.

onlinediscountanvils

Has Horwath ever not seemed spooked? This time last year she was bending over backwards to keep McGuinty in power and avoid going to the polls.

janfromthebruce

autoworker wrote:
I think the B.C. polls may have Horwath spooked. After she drags her decision out, she'll likely continue supporting the stench-ridden Liberals, since there doesn't seem to be much light between what she demanded, and what's been presented. But, we'll probably have to wait until the end of May to find out, and then off for the Summer, and the BBQ circuit.

The one BC poll done by the Naitonal Post - for sure, the NDP is spooked - not. Of course, it was one poll but you keep saying "polls". One would think on a progressive babble comment section there weren't be these silly political games but yeah, political games is what you like.

Dix will be BC Premier, and the BC libs are going down - big time.

autoworker autoworker's picture

I pass her billboard every day, anticipating a by-election that I doubt will happen anytime soon.

autoworker autoworker's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

autoworker wrote:
I think the B.C. polls may have Horwath spooked. After she drags her decision out, she'll likely continue supporting the stench-ridden Liberals, since there doesn't seem to be much light between what she demanded, and what's been presented. But, we'll probably have to wait until the end of May to find out, and then off for the Summer, and the BBQ circuit.

The one BC poll done by the Naitonal Post - for sure, the NDP is spooked - not. Of course, it was one poll but you keep saying "polls". One would think on a progressive babble comment section there weren't be these silly political games but yeah, political games is what you like.

Dix will be BC Premier, and the BC libs are going down - big time.

I wonder what their own numbers indicate? You're right about games, of course. The NPD plays plenty.

felixr
Gonzaga

I looked at that consultation the NDP is running in Ontario, and it's quite painful. The first point they solicit comment on is accountability and offers a choice of stronger rules and spending guidelines, independent financial oversight, and mandatory public cost benefit reviews on energy projects. The second is on ways to save money. Shouldn't they be talking about higher spending, debunking Drummond, rescinding the Harris-era tax cuts, funding education and all that? Wynne is already delivering kinder, gentler austerity--the NDP needs some substance.

onlinediscountanvils
Geoff

What I find disconcerting is the NDP's stand on the gas plants.  No one likes to see money wasted, but even if the NDP scores a few points in the public debate that has unfolded since the budget was tabled, those points will only gain more votes for Hudak, because that's his issue.

The real lesson from the Liberals' screw-up is that power generation should be publicly-owned.  Had the gas plants been in the public sector, we wouldn't be looking at over $700 million in penalties to private companies.  The NDP should be proposing alternatives such as social, or, at least, public (Howard Hampton's issue) ownership.  That should be our issue.  Of course, someone ought to have told federal New Democrats that in Montreal, before they decided to snuggle up even more tightly with the "free" market. (But that's another thread.)

Sadly, the NDP, as always, never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

janfromthebruce

Well Geoff, even if the gas plants were owned by the govt of the day, one stills contracts with a builder to build the facility so thus if one cancels a contract, one still pays for that cancellation, which is what the contractor is this regard is doing - loss of work.

Geoff

Yes, there would still be a price to pay, but it wouldn't be the same price we're paying now, and if it were publicly owned, we could at least recoup some of the money from the power generated when it was finally up and running wherever we ended up building it.  We should be the party of public enterprise, not P4s (Public Pays for Private Profit).  Sorry - old joke.

Unionist

I'm rubbing my eyes and watching the Ontario Liberals turn into heroes. It must be magic dust! Once Horwath supports them, there must have been some virtue that we were missing!

I'll side with the poor and workers of Ontario, who have been betrayed and destroyed by the Liberal government. If the ONDP compromises with that, then may they go to the same hell together.

Thanks, Geoff, for looking at people's needs. Would be nice if some political party did likewise.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

The Clean Energy Benefit, which helps those with higher incomes, and consumption rates, should have been eliminated, and directed at those most in need. Even applying the savings directly to the deficit would have been preferable.

janfromthebruce

Well Unionist, one needs to go into an election with a sense that one would come out better in the end. Walking off the plank, with one's righteousness in place, may not serve the poor and workers in the end.

And I'm not hearing "labour" beat the drum beat for an election in which their voiced fear is a Tim Hudak govt with the right to work laws as their "election drum beat". And because of that "fear" (which may be irrational) they may (as they have in the past - think working families coalition which is headed by a big time liberal) to herd labour towards the "liberals" as the lesser of the evils.

But sure let's have an election.

autoworker autoworker's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

Well Unionist, one needs to go into an election with a sense that one would come out better in the end. Walking off the plank, with one's righteousness in place, may not serve the poor and workers in the end.

And I'm not hearing "labour" beat the drum beat for an election in which their voiced fear is a Tim Hudak govt with the right to work laws as their "election drum beat". And because of that "fear" (which may be irrational) they may (as they have in the past - think working families coalition which is headed by a big time liberal) to herd labour towards the "liberals" as the lesser of the evils.

But sure let's have an election.

All fears are irrational.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Unionist wrote:

I'm rubbing my eyes and watching the Ontario Liberals turn into heroes. It must be magic dust! Once Horwath supports them, there must have been some virtue that we were missing!

I'll side with the poor and workers of Ontario, who have been betrayed and destroyed by the Liberal government. If the ONDP compromises with that, then may they go to the same hell together.

Thanks, Geoff, for looking at people's needs. Would be nice if some political party did likewise.

 

I'm rubbing my eyes too, but it's at the sight of two nervous nellies withering at the thought of confronting an unpopular opponent with a hardened position. As for Labour, it's had enough time to prepare for the inevitable 'right to work' fight that is now literally across the river. If we're (myself included) not ready now, we never will be. Moral high ground in of little use in a fight. The time is ripe to bring down this sordid government, and let voters decide which side they're on. Forget nuances, there are none.

With great respect, it is very important to evaluate possible election outcomes, including likelyhoods based on polls, when desciding to trigger an election. It is an important political responsibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

With great respect, it is very important to evaluate possible election outcomes, including likelyhoods based on polls, when desciding to trigger an election. It is an important political responsibility.

 

Isn't that rather cynical?

No it is the opposite of cynical. The aim of all political action should be to effect the world. We are always evaluating the potential success of actions. To do otherwise is at best to blindly tilt at windmills. To think out wise often amounts to self congratulatory huberous.

autoworker autoworker's picture

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:
No it is the opposite of cynical. The aim of all political action should be to effect the world. We are always evaluating the potential success of actions. To do otherwise is at best to blindly tilt at windmills. To think out wise often amounts to self congratulatory huberous.

Which "political responsibilities" was McGuinty considering, when he decided to cancel the gas plants. Does Horwath plan to govern by polls, if elected? What happened to the idea of doing the right thing in the interest of Ontario, and not just the party? I suppose I'm merely simple, and naive.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

Well Unionist, one needs to go into an election with a sense that one would come out better in the end. Walking off the plank, with one's righteousness in place, may not serve the poor and workers in the end.

That was the federal Liberals' excuse for voting with Harper for years on end. Fear of elections. Shit, let's cancel 'em altogether if we can't be sure of winning them.

You ridicule "labour" for some reason which I can't fathom. You suggest that "labour" are just like the ONDP - that all they care about is avoiding an election so as to keep Hudak out of power. I read CUPE Ontario's statement linked to above. Did you? Is CUPE the biggest union in Canada? Do they count as "labour"? Has Horwath made a similar statement? If so, bravo to her, and please send me the link. If not, then she's no friend of labour or the poor. I'm hoping for her to be a friend. Not just a cringing opportunist to whom political survival is everything.

 

 

Unionist

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

With great respect, it is very important to evaluate possible election outcomes, including likelyhoods based on polls, when desciding to trigger an election. It is an important political responsibility.

 

Like when Layton decided to trigger an election in November 2005? Good move, that.

janfromthebruce

oh here we go again. Layton didn't trigger an election but libs just love to say that over, and over again, to get a rise and know that it will be defended. So why should Layton and the NDP kept a corrupt Liberal govt in operation when they had stuffed envelopes with money from adscam?

That said, Layton was better off not being on the side of the corrupt liberal minority govt when Harper was going to pull the plug anyways, with the Bloc in support and the 2 independent MPs. The opposition didn't need the Layton NDP to pull the plug on Martin Liberals and everybody knows that but it's a "constant whine" by Liberals who beat their chests with a sense of entitlement as the "natural governing party" in Canada. Libs shouldn't have been taking taxpayers money and stuffing it in envelopes for the Lib party.

And Martin had already said (promised with his pinky finger) that he was going to call the election in 6 wks (and with 2 wks for Christmas holidays), it really was 4 wks difference, so why would Layton be on the wrong side, and hang with the Libs who were not into giving anymore in healthcare spending.

At this point, the Ontario Libs haven't been charged with doing anything criminally wrong, just really bad politics.

Maybe Trudeau Jr. can do some robocalls. Those went over well in Kitchener/Waterloo byelection.

janfromthebruce

Thinking about that, do you think the Quebec Federal Libs will be generating Adscam 2013-2015, and perfect their talents in seeing taxpayers money as their own?

autoworker autoworker's picture

Unionist wrote:
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

With great respect, it is very important to evaluate possible election outcomes, including likelyhoods based on polls, when desciding to trigger an election. It is an important political responsibility.

 

Like when Layton decided to trigger an election in November 2005? Good move, that.

If Wynne wants to stand by her budget, and distance her government from McGuinty's, she doesn't have to wait on Horwath. She can seek a mandate from Ontario by calling an election, without the usual nonsense about cost (which can be added to the gas plant writeoff), and the people not wanting another election so soon. Let the voters decide.

Hamiltonian

ONDP should have a strong, clear stance on budget. To say she's waiting to hear from Ontarians suggests she doesn't already know where they stand and hence out of touch with the public or not forthcoming or draging out the matter if they do know where they stand. At this point I do not believe the ONDP will head into an election but I think they should. It's the right thing after all the scandal. Wynne also needs a mandate. I don't believe Cons will not make gov - we can count on Hudak to put his foot in his mouth and self destruct like always. Libs won't make any gains, in fact I think NDP stands better chance of gaining London & Windsor empty seats. If Horwath can gain those in a general election she will look strong. If NDP supports this gov the Libs take credit & NDP loses all credibility for supporting a corrupt gov. We in essence become the prov Dion. If NDP leads an election Wynne gets same mandate as McGuinty - that Ontario wants Libs on an NDP leash -- NDP is in charge & positioned as gov in waiting. Either way, ONDP needs to be more clear & concise.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

oh here we go again. Layton didn't trigger an election but libs just love to say that over, and over again, to get a rise and know that it will be defended. So why should Layton and the NDP kept a corrupt Liberal govt in operation when they had stuffed envelopes with money from adscam?

Oh, god. Ok, I'm a Liberal. You can quote that all over the place. It'll make you feel much better. But remember this: While you believed in and campaigned for the Liberal party in the 1993 election based on their fraudulent red book promises, I have never supported or voted Liberal in my entire life - not once. In fact, I have voted strategically in my riding to keep the natural Liberals out, including voting for the Bloc (didn't work), and finally voting 3 times in a row for Mulcair (worked, worked, and worked).

So get off your high horse and try to think an issue through without hurling epithets around.

You've [b]actually forgotten[/b] why Layton claimed he voted non-confidence in 2005. You think it was because the Liberal government was "corrupt" because of "adscam"? Please, please, be honest and tell me that you honestly do not remember the bullshit pretext they used to bring down the minority government???

I'll give you a big hint: "HEALTH CARE." The hint won't help much, though. Know why? Because it has never, ever been revealed exactly what Paul Martin did, or refused to do, about health care that month which caused the NDP to switch gears after its budget deal that same year with the "CORRUPT" Liberals (ohhhhh, I guess when Layton shook hands with Martin in May 2005, he didn't know yet that Martin was a corrupt crook - why didn't you phone him and wake him up???).

So, back to the point. The NDP has a sad record of having no tactical clue whatsoever as to when to trigger an election and when not to. When things work out for them, it's generally been due to dumb luck.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
I'll give you a big hint: "HEALTH CARE."

It was day care. Liberals promised action on daycare ... for 13 years while they were at the helm in Ottawa. The NDP abandoned them for that reason in addition to some fancy federal government "I know nothing" excuse mongering Sargent Schultz style over what purpose it served to move our colonial troops from Kabul to Kanadahar province in 2005.

Quote:
So, back to the point. The NDP has a sad record of having no tactical clue whatsoever as to when to trigger an election and when not to. When things work out for them, it's generally been due to dumb luck.

That's why we need a fair electoral system. And no more undemocratic snap election calls, either.

janfromthebruce

I'm correcting that Layton triggered the election. I'm saying it was irrelevant whether the NDP (the numbers) voted lack of confidence or not. The total number of new dems plus Libs would have been less than the total number of Cons, Bloc and 2 independents.

So what side would one publicly want to be on - the corrupt Liberal side or the "no confidence side"?

So the no confident side was going to win "no matter what", and the public was not pleased with liberals stuffing public money into lib coffers. There was going to be an election called in 6 wks, so this argument is about an earlier election time.

Libs for years have been rewriting the history of this "election" and their loss of minority govt and blaming the NDP. Libs know as well that people don't have the historical facts to check that in fact the lib goose was cooked, no matter what.

So they like to play the poor me card and say oh those NDP, they didn't care about First Nation people or childcare, and those programs would be there if they hadn't triggered an election - bull. Those programs, made in the dying days of this minority govt, were not up and running, and would not have been out of the gate in 6 wks - actually 4 wks, less Christmas holidays. That is the bogus crap the libs like to whine about because truth is not their strong suit.

What I also do not understand is what readers on this list believe could be gained from n election. Unless someone actually believes that today in Ontario it is realistic to foresee and NDP majority, one way or another the best we get is a Liberal minority government. At worse Hudak wins the majority, why would we want to go to a new election?

What I also do not understand is what readers on this list believe could be gained from an election. Unless someone actually believes that today in Ontario it is realistic to foresee and NDP majority, one way or another the best we get is a Liberal minority government. At worse Hudak wins the majority, why would we want to go to a new election?

Further, we need to acknowledge that results in electoral politics are essentially the product of long term community mobilizing. If we are not working on anti-austerity anti-corporate community resistance why would we expect any change in any election. No work no votes. I do not see General. Left/Labour/ NDP work anywhere. I see Idle no more, OCAP, no one is illegal etc but I see very little else. So what does anyone think might happen if an election was called?

janfromthebruce

I think that Ontarians are not up for a vote in May/June, but perhaps the fall.

socialdemocrati...

Jack Layton had the right approach. Ask for a lot, but always ask for things that they could realistically back. The whole "ask for the stars and hope for the moon" tactic is tired and transparently in bad faith. And when he finally won big concessions from the Liberals, he declared it "the NDP budget".

I don't think there's a contradiction between wanting a truly progressive government (labor friendly, anti-austerity, pro-equality) and making strategic moves to get SOMETHING done when they're not the government.

Like I said, Layton showed us the winning model. Win concessions, declare victory, and promote your legislative victories to win more seats.

 

janfromthebruce

I'm with you sd -

In other news, the TorStar takes a hit with this: Toronto Star’s NDP bashing draws confused reaction

Just as the Toronto Star has announced that it will take internal measures to try and avoid future errors like using an old Facebook photo to accuse an MPP of enjoying a Mexican vacation while on sick leave, it has stumbled into a different social media mistake, which presented one opinion out of context.

A weekend column by Martin Regg Cohn took shots at the fact that Ontario NDP launched a website and phone line designed to gather feedback on the new minority Liberal budget — which has made some effort to accommodate leader Andrea Horwath’s call for lower auto insurance rates, a youth jobs creation plan, home care for seniors and reduced employment barriers.

snip

“Call her toll free number (the real one is 877-341-0244) or go to yoursayontario.ca to have your say — so she can have her way with your say-so,” wrote Regg Cohn.

“In that way, Horwath can use you for political cover to hold her nose and prop up a Liberal government that she always claims has the stench of death.”

The sarcasm is fair comment for a columnist writing under their name, although when the Star re-posted the excerpt without quotation marks or any real explanation, the reaction was generally confused — with a couple of respondents wondering if the page had been hacked.

snip

The posting was removed by Monday morning. For the Ontario NDP, though, the lack of editorial judgment on Facebook was consistent with the pro-Liberal line at the Star.

Socialist Feminist

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2555215-ontario-ndp-still-not-committed-to-supporting-the-budget/

 

Quote:

"Some in the NDP caucus feel the government should be defeated for spending at least $585 million to cancel gas plants to save Liberal seats in Oakville and Mississauga, but others want to support a budget that addressed many of their party's concerns."

socialdemocrati...

I think it would be a tactical and poitical mistake. The NDP made anti-austerity demands. The Liberal party conceded most of them and exceeded them in many cases. There's more to be gained from declaring victory that the NDP improved the budget than by pulling the rug and say "enh, I know we got everything we asked for, but it''s still not good enough". Especially with the Liberal party excited about its supposed resurgencey under Trudeau.

I'm pretty furious about the gas plant too. But accountability isn't dead. When the investigation concludes, the accountability moment will be that much more damning.

mark_alfred

And getting a commitment to have a parliamentary budget officer be present deals with the accountability issue.

North Star

There's really nothing to be gained from an election. The NDP is simply calling for a "balanced" approach to eliminating the deficit. They really aren't challenging the Liberals on the reduction on hospital spending or the restriction of of program spending increases which are below the rate of inflation. I'd be more supportive of the ONDP if they were more clearly anti-austerity. I seriously doubt if the ONDP had a majority, their budget would be radically different than the one the Liberals propose now.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I think it would be a tactical and poitical mistake. The NDP made anti-austerity demands. The Liberal party conceded most of them and exceeded them in many cases. There's more to be gained from declaring victory that the NDP improved the budget than by pulling the rug and say "enh, I know we got everything we asked for, but it''s still not good enough". Especially with the Liberal party excited about its supposed resurgencey under Trudeau.

I'm pretty furious about the gas plant too. But accountability isn't dead. When the investigation concludes, the accountability moment will be that much more damning.

Exactly. It sounds to me like this round is over, and that it's time for the people of Ontario to regroup and figure out what they want in the next round, and push all parties to work towards that goal.

Doug

I'm not a happy camper if the Ontario NDP wants to force an election over road tolls, which for some reason seem to be the big outstanding issue.

toaster

I'm not sure why Andrea is against the pay-for-HOV lanes. Disappointed in her position on that one. Instead of cutting services (transit), funds are raised to keep them. Also, anyone who owns a car is wealthy enough to afford insurance and this cost (plus it is optional, too). Those hurting the most, ie. those without cars, will not see any benefit by reductions in auto insurance or a lack of toll roads. Andrea needs to stop this populist thing and get back to social democratic ideologies.

Aristotleded24

toaster wrote:
I'm not sure why Andrea is against the pay-for-HOV lanes. Disappointed in her position on that one. Instead of cutting services (transit), funds are raised to keep them. Also, anyone who owns a car is wealthy enough to afford insurance and this cost (plus it is optional, too). Those hurting the most, ie. those without cars, will not see any benefit by reductions in auto insurance or a lack of toll roads. Andrea needs to stop this populist thing and get back to social democratic ideologies.

From what I understand of her position, she takes issue with people who have money paying to ride in HOV lanes, and taking away space from people who are trying to do the right thing by car-pooling or whatever.

mark_alfred

The NDP is typically against user fees and flat taxes.  Sources of revenue should be progressive taxes.  Also, I don't think that owning or leasing a car equates with being wealthy.  83.8% of households have owned, leased or operated a vehicle in 2011 (CANSIM table  203-0027).  To state that this portion of the population has no financial worries is silly. 

toaster

Right, but it doesn't benefit the lowest income population at all.  If the focus is on encouraging people to do what is right, then we should be encouraging residents to use transit, not HOV lanes.  Every region that has HOV lanes has rapid transit options.  So instead of doing the "good" thing in carpooling, residents should do the "best" thing by taking transit.  HOV tolls are progressive by definition because only those wealthy enough to drive will be paying them.  The poorest Ontarians, who do not own vehicles, will not.  

onlinediscountanvils

"Those hurting the most" ≠ people with "no financial worries"

autoworker autoworker's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

toaster wrote:
I'm not sure why Andrea is against the pay-for-HOV lanes. Disappointed in her position on that one. Instead of cutting services (transit), funds are raised to keep them. Also, anyone who owns a car is wealthy enough to afford insurance and this cost (plus it is optional, too). Those hurting the most, ie. those without cars, will not see any benefit by reductions in auto insurance or a lack of toll roads. Andrea needs to stop this populist thing and get back to social democratic ideologies.

From what I understand of her position, she takes issue with people who have money paying to ride in HOV lanes, and taking away space from people who are trying to do the right thing by car-pooling or whatever.

If motorists choose to pay a premium to drive in HOV lanes, it will free up traffic in the other lanes, and contribute revenue to expand public transit. It's no different than paying to use the 407, except that the revenue remains public. The egalitarian alternative is gridlock, or more pavement contributing to the deficit.

janfromthebruce

And those who can pay for private healthcare will free up public healthcare, hospitals and so on, and thus provide more service for the public healthcare side. That is the same anology used above and it's crap. Instead, as was shown in Britian that "2-tier" healthcare just created a better healthcare system for the wealthy and poor public healthcare system for the rest.

So public roadways are paid for on the taxpayer dime and thus we would be subsidizing the rich for easy traffic flow. So I will make a point here: The business types will pay a road toll and also who works for their companies. The cost of the tolls paid by said company owners will be included in their accounting of the "cost of doing business" and thus write off and down of a legimate business expense. In turn, those said companies pay less taxation and thus everybody else pays more when the business class pays less.

So the cost to business is an expense recouped on the public dime.

autoworker autoworker's picture

What does transportation infrastructure have to do with access to health services? There is no analogy here that I can see, unless taxpayers were to provide each resident with a vehicle, and then pay for its repairs when it breaks down. The idea is to make the existing infrastructure less congested by generating revenue towards affordable, and efficient public transit that's accessible to everyone.

Pages