TORONTO — A long-awaited master plan to boost public transit, unveiled Tuesday, pledges to transform the Toronto region over the next 25 years – but fails to detail how it would cover most of its $50-billion price tag.
The plan from the province's Metrolinx agency, chaired by former Burlington mayor Rob MacIsaac, comes after months of discussions about the need for radical measures to raise billions for public transit, including a 10-cent-a-kilometre toll on major expressways, a parking tax or a regional sales tax.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080518/carbontax_liberals_080518/20080518
D: Suzuki backs their platform too. I personally consider the man an extremist for some of his statements in the past about shooting people...
After hearing the NDP's criticism of Dion's plan, Suzuki said: "I'm really shocked with the NDP with this. I thought that they had a very progressive environmental outlook."
D: Though I did vote for Rae (]=...), I consider the federal NDP to be totally irrelevant. I still recall the Former federal New Democratic Party leader Audrey McLaughlin dropping the ball right before election day. A significant portion of the female voters were undecided - all she had to do was say their votes could propel the NDP into more riding seats. Instead, when asked if folks would be throwing their vote away, she tried harping on all the hot-button issues. Today, the NDP act like economic Luddites. Their platform is pretty much ban-bank-fees, when I see ads for that from the private sector anyway, and PC bank made inroads based on lower fees. Plus talk of looking into price fix of gas, with the implication of price controls. Which don't work, never have, never will. The negative informal side effects of that policy negate any benefits.
Leaving the Liberals as the party that would invest in public transit infrastructure.
Regarding the carbon tax: it *can* be a tax cut, dummy! Sadly, Dion is a 30-second soundbite guy in an age of 10 second soundbites (still with me? [=)
Liberal.ca :: Media Releases
18 Sep 2008 ... TORONTO – A new Liberal government will commit more than $70 billion over the next 10 years to improve the critical infrastructure that ...www.liberal.ca/story_14704_e.aspx - 17k
D: so they'll essentially use private transit to subsidize public transit.
Since cars are not taxed to reflect their cost to society (see my blog entry, the very first one, "cars are not cost effective"), this is actually FAIR.
Aside: John Ralston Saul decries the lack of our linear historical memory. One of the reasons I love the Daily Show so is his ability to use sound clips from the past to point out the amoral flip- flopping politicians do. They count on the absence of linear historical memory in the populace.
Why do I mention this?
Because it was the 'debt slaying' Liberals Chretien and Martin that first cut payments to the provinces! The buck was passed to consecutively lower level of gov'ts. It never just 'went away'. It was swept under the rug.
Jesus fuck, how do I shut off these goddamn italics???
Oh. More cut 'n paste.
We're...
there.
Right.
Here is the order of events, from the beginning:
1) Trudeau.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/10/trudeau_canadas.php
*In 1968, when Trudeau went from rich, socialist professor who had never held a real job in his life to prime minister, Canada’s national debt was a modest $11.3 billion; the federal deficit was zero. When Trudeau left office in 1984, the debt had mushroomed to $128 billion; the deficit to $25 billion annually. But this was just the beginning.
(wiki)
Some consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his prime ministership. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion (24% of GDP) which was largely left over from World War II[citation needed]; when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms.[27] However, these trends were present in most western countries at the time, including the United States.
D: sounds pretty incriminating, huh? Keep reading.
http://www.andrewspicer.com/article388.html
Here's another way to look at it. If you take the surplus or debt from each year, and use the Bank of Canada's inflation calculator to convert them to constant dollars, the Tories borrowed over $400,000 in constant dollars, while Chretien's team borrowed under $80,000 (over one more year).
http://www43.statcan.ca/04/04a/04a_008_e.htm
As a result of persistent deficit financing,
--
D: so 2) Mulroney dramatically INCREASES debt.
So much for conservative small taxes/ small gov't.
Witness Reagon in the US. It was the North-Am debut of the NEO-conservative. NEO meaning not. Small taxes.... BIG gov't.
3) Chretien, in shining armour and on a white steed, slays the debt.
But not really.
Look up statscan consolidated multi-level gov't debt.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060425/d060425b.htm
| March 31, 2004 | Previous release |
The consolidated net financial debt of the federal, provincial, territorial, and local governments, defined as the excess of liabilities over financial assets, increased to $798.4 billion as of March 31, 2004, up $3.9 billion or 0.5% from March 31, 2003. An increase of $17.2 billion in financial assets and $21.1 billion in liabilities accounted for the rise.
The federal government net financial debt declined by $2.8 billion, while the net financial debt of the provincial, territorial, and local governments rose by $6.7 billion.
D: do you see the old man operating the machine behind the curtain yet?
On a per capita basis, net financial debt fell from $25,164 in 2003 to $25,044. The highest per capita net financial debt was recorded in 1997 at $28,543.
D: not so impressive now, is it?
And the price?
When the municipal-level gov't finally has the buck stop there from federal debt-slaying exercises, they have 2 choices:
1) raise local taxes
2) reduce services. Don't maintain infrastructure.
And there you have it folks - the rest of the story.
The lack of public transit funding, going right back to when I was born.
The fact that the Liberals started deficit budgets the first time round.
The Conservatives aggravated it.
The Liberals (nominally) licked it.
And now... the Liberals are promising to fund infrastructure, largely in reaction to Mulroney.
Linear. Historical. Memory.
Yes, in real dollar terms, Mulroney's final-year deficit was 15% smaller than the deficit in 1983-84, but that left Chretien and Martin to do the other 85% of the job, and then continue on into surplus.
The overall accumulated debt, grew (as a % of GDP) in every Mulroney year, but fell consistently from 1995-96 until the present. In other words, Mulroney always grew the debt faster than the economy, and the tide was reversed only after his 9 years in office
No comments:
Post a Comment