Our Government will review all program spending carefully to make sure that spending is as effective as possible and aligned with Canadians’ priorities.Start with the CHRC. If we can't simply abolish the institution - cut their operating funds and then just start laying off those jackboots one after the other.
Our Government will cut the red tape faced by the private and not-for-profit sectors when doing business with the government.
Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on results. Grants, contributions and capital expenditures will be placed under the microscope of responsible spending. Departments will have the funding they need to deliver essential programs and services, and no more. Our Government will engage Parliament and encourage members to take a more active role in scrutinizing spending and suggesting areas for restraint.Sounds great. But after 3 consecutive "spending spree" budgets and nearly 20% spending increase, I'd like to see some actions for a change. In the last budget, program spending for 2009/10 is expected to hit $218B. With no GDP increase beyond inflation expected for most of 2009, this number must be reduced to $213B to avoid deficit.
Looking for areas for restraint? How about suspending all the foreign aid payments? We got more than enough people to take care of here in Canada. (Including refugees from the very same developing countries.) Get rid of the phony "arts" and "multi-cult" programs. If all those artists and special interest groups can't sustain themselves - that means nobody is interested in their "arts" or in the cause they're fighting for. Film credits - if there's so much opposition to cutting tax credits to porn movies alone - how about abolishing them altogether? When I want to support a movie - I buy a ticket or rent a video.
...it would be misguided to commit to a balanced budget in the short term at any cost, because that cost would ultimately be borne by Canadian families.I could understand that if our budget had already been stripped to the bone, so any new cuts meant sacrificing essential services. But there is still lots of waste in program spending that could be eliminated without anyone (except for a few activists) even noticing. So I count on the above statement to be nothing but a precaution, in case things turn out even worse than expected. There's no excuse for running a deficit without eliminating cash-guzzling wasteful spending programs first.
No comments:
Post a Comment