Hear we are in December, that time of year when families get together to celebrate their shared love; to express thanks for the wellbeing of their families and friends; and, to join together to help those who are suffering, and in need of our help and generosity.

So why is the government treating our veterans so badly? And why are they stonewalling the public with ridiculous answers about the lack of service to our veterans? Like many Canadians we have been taken back by the current debate over the support our government provides, or better still does not provide, to our military and to our veterans. It is hard to understand why they are doing it, and it is not relevant just to veterans from Afghanistan.  For those of us in our 60s and 70s it refers to our parents and relatives who served in previous Wars. We have never treated our veterans well.

 

There is confusion over the $200 million to help Veterans with mental illness. It is our understanding that the funding will be available for six years, but the payouts from the fund for veterans, once their “eligibility” has been determined, would be dispersed over 50 years.  This “generosity” is to say the least underwhelming. Why so little support for veterans? Why has the government been steadily cutting the Veterans Affairs Department budget and staff? Up until a few weeks ago the government had a substantial surplus. The government chose to allocate much of it to support income splitting for high-income families. Veterans were out of luck. Unfortunately for them, the Conservatives did not promise them anything during the 2011 election campaign.

 

It is not just Veterans who have been treated badly.  Aboriginals, immigrants, children, disabled, and minorities, have all been pushed aside. Many not for profit groups and associations have been deprived of the financial resources they need to contribute to the development of the economic, social, scientific, environmental, and cultural well-being of the country.

 

The government brags about cutting spending and eliminating the deficit, while at the same time arguing that services have not been cut, just “better delivered”. Time and time again this has been shown to be utter nonsense. The government even refused to provide data on the cuts to programs and services to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

 

But why is the government willing to short-change veterans and other groups, when it has a fantastic fiscal situation. After all, for years the government has bragged that its fiscal situation is the best in the G7. So why not show some generosity and take advantage of this accomplishment?

 

The answer is quite simple. The Conservatives have always been, and will; always be, committed to reducing the size and relevance of the federal government. Since 2006 federal programs and services have been cut dramatically, simply to serve a conservative ideology of small government. Canadians should have realized by now that this is what you get from a small government ideology. If this means cutting funding and services to veterans or anyone else, then so be it. If some group complains about lack of funding, the government’s response is simply “too bad, so sad”. (refer to previous article)

 

The fundamental question for the 2015 election is whether Canadians want to continue on a path to even smaller government or to change direction and halt the deterioration in government programs and services. Current government forecasts show government debt falling to about 25 per cent of GDP (the government’s target) by 2019-20. This will be the smallest federal government in the last 60 years. Even a slightly “larger government” with a debt ratio of 30 or 40 per cent of GDP would still be the smallest in the last 60 years.

 

So that's the choice we have. Do we simply accept a smaller government and ever shrinking support for veterans and other groups or do we as act to halt and reverse the direction that the federal government is heading?

 

Lets be clear. A larger government does not mean running deficits or a higher level of debt or debt burden.

 

What does a larger government mean? To put it simply, it means increasing spending and paying for the higher spending by raising taxes or going into deficit.  Lets also assume that Canadians don’t like deficits, so the second option would be out of the question.

 

Practically all-political strategists will tell you that any political party that even hints at a tax increase will be crucified at election time. Remember what the Conservatives did with, dare we say it, the “dreaded carbon tax”. It is simply impossible to “sell” a tax increase. And they are probably right. But we are not selling a tax increase.

 

The proposal for a larger government is not about simply increasing taxes. The proposal is about the federal government providing funding to groups, who need assistance and paying for this additional funding by a small “revenue neutral” tax increase. In other words there would be no increase in the deficit or in the debt burden.

 

No one wants an increase in income taxes and such an increase would be wrong and unnecessary. Suppose, instead, the government for the additional funding by increasing the GST by one point. In other words on a hundred dollar purchase the GST owed would go up by $1. On a $10 dollar purchase the cost would go up by 10 cents. On a 1$ purchase it would go by a penny, which of course doesn’t exist any more.  An additional tax of one cent on a dollar would raise about $ 8 billion annually. This is only .04 per cent of GDP.

 

The GST would still be lower than it was in 2006. All low-income individuals would be exempt from the increase through the GST rebate. Many consumer products are already exempt from the GST.

 

 It is clear that the current government is made up of Scrooges. This government will never raise taxes. But surely the vast majority of Canadians would accept an increase in the GST of only “one cent on the dollar” knowing the additional revenues would be used to provide needed funding for many groups and individuals’? We certainly hope so.

 

Is it possible to have a “bigger” and more inclusive economic and social vision for this country than what the government is offering? And is it affordable? Absolutely.

 

And all this could be done with an additional GST tax of only “one cent on the dollar”.

 

The only thing standing in the way is ourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“BAH” said Fantino; “HUMBUG” said HARPER

 

 

Hear we are in December, that time of year when families get together to celebrate their shared love; to express thanks for the wellbeing of their families and friends; and, to join together to help those who are suffering, and in need of our help and generosity.

 

So why is the government treating our veterans so badly? And why are they stonewalling the public with ridiculous answers about the lack of service to our veterans? Like many Canadians we have been taken back by the current debate over the support our government provides, or better still does not provide, to our military and to our veterans. It is hard to understand why they are doing it, and it is not relevant just to veterans from Afghanistan.  For those of us in our 60s and 70s it refers to our parents and relatives who served in previous Wars. We have never treated our veterans well.

 

There is confusion over the $200 million to help Veterans with mental illness. It is our understanding that the funding will be available for six years, but the payouts from the fund for veterans, once their “eligibility” has been determined, would be dispersed over 50 years.  This “generosity” is to say the least underwhelming. Why so little support for veterans? Why has the government been steadily cutting the Veterans Affairs Department budget and staff? Up until a few weeks ago the government had a substantial surplus. The government chose to allocate much of it to support income splitting for high-income families. Veterans were out of luck. Unfortunately for them, the Conservatives did not promise them anything during the 2011 election campaign.

 

It is not just Veterans who have been treated badly.  Aboriginals, immigrants, children, disabled, and minorities, have all been pushed aside. Many not for profit groups and associations have been deprived of the financial resources they need to contribute to the development of the economic, social, scientific, environmental, and cultural well-being of the country.

 

The government brags about cutting spending and eliminating the deficit, while at the same time arguing that services have not been cut, just “better delivered”. Time and time again this has been shown to be utter nonsense. The government even refused to provide data on the cuts to programs and services to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

 

But why is the government willing to short-change veterans and other groups, when it has a fantastic fiscal situation. After all, for years the government has bragged that its fiscal situation is the best in the G7. So why not show some generosity and take advantage of this accomplishment?

 

The answer is quite simple. The Conservatives have always been, and will; always be, committed to reducing the size and relevance of the federal government. Since 2006 federal programs and services have been cut dramatically, simply to serve a conservative ideology of small government. Canadians should have realized by now that this is what you get from a small government ideology. If this means cutting funding and services to veterans or anyone else, then so be it. If some group complains about lack of funding, the government’s response is simply “too bad, so sad”. (refer to previous article)

 

The fundamental question for the 2015 election is whether Canadians want to continue on a path to even smaller government or to change direction and halt the deterioration in government programs and services. Current government forecasts show government debt falling to about 25 per cent of GDP (the government’s target) by 2019-20. This will be the smallest federal government in the last 60 years. Even a slightly “larger government” with a debt ratio of 30 or 40 per cent of GDP would still be the smallest in the last 60 years.

 

So that's the choice we have. Do we simply accept a smaller government and ever shrinking support for veterans and other groups or do we as act to halt and reverse the direction that the federal government is heading?

 

Lets be clear. A larger government does not mean running deficits or a higher level of debt or debt burden.

 

What does a larger government mean? To put it simply, it means increasing spending and paying for the higher spending by raising taxes or going into deficit.  Lets also assume that Canadians don’t like deficits, so the second option would be out of the question.

 

Practically all-political strategists will tell you that any political party that even hints at a tax increase will be crucified at election time. Remember what the Conservatives did with, dare we say it, the “dreaded carbon tax”. It is simply impossible to “sell” a tax increase. And they are probably right. But we are not selling a tax increase.

 

The proposal for a larger government is not about simply increasing taxes. The proposal is about the federal government providing funding to groups, who need assistance and paying for this additional funding by a small “revenue neutral” tax increase. In other words there would be no increase in the deficit or in the debt burden.

 

No one wants an increase in income taxes and such an increase would be wrong and unnecessary. Suppose, instead, the government for the additional funding by increasing the GST by one point. In other words on a hundred dollar purchase the GST owed would go up by $1. On a $10 dollar purchase the cost would go up by 10 cents. On a 1$ purchase it would go by a penny, which of course doesn’t exist any more.  An additional tax of one cent on a dollar would raise about $ 8 billion annually. This is only .04 per cent of GDP.

 

The GST would still be lower than it was in 2006. All low-income individuals would be exempt from the increase through the GST rebate. Many consumer products are already exempt from the GST.

 

 It is clear that the current government is made up of Scrooges. This government will never raise taxes. But surely the vast majority of Canadians would accept an increase in the GST of only “one cent on the dollar” knowing the additional revenues would be used to provide needed funding for many groups and individuals’? We certainly hope so.

 

Is it possible to have a “bigger” and more inclusive economic and social vision for this country than what the government is offering? And is it affordable? Absolutely.

 

And all this could be done with an additional GST tax of only “one cent on the dollar”.

 

The only thing standing in the way is ourselves.