Budgetary Tour de Farce

Philosophical Underpinnings to the Budget 2005 -- "a new experiment in central planning"

Terence Corcoran: Groping in the dark with Ralph Goodale Financial Post, Feb. 26, 05

In providing a scientific basis for the current administration of the capitalist economy, "bourgeois" economics had developed a theory of equilibrium which can also serve as a basis for the current administration of a socialist economy.; -- Oskar Lange (1904-65), former chairman of the Polish State Economic Council, sometime Stalinist and major contributor to the economics of socialism

[. . . . ] The appendix, known as Annex 4 to the budget, lacks footnotes and references, so there are no obvious sources for the ideas, none of which can be remotely called innocent. All can be traced back by pedigree to [. . . . ]

[. . . . Do not miss Corcoran's exploration of what Annex 4 tells Canadians. . . .]

In a market economy, decisions emerge on the basis of prices and circumstances that are beyond any planner's ability to comprehend. "Under socialism," said Mises, "there is only groping in the dark. [. . . . ]

[. . . . ] "The government intends to go further, and will do so in successive budgets," setting the stage for a new experiment in central planning. Groping in the dark -- the next generation.

Andrew Coyne's Graph which accompanies his explanation of the budget splurge -- Andrew Coyne on the Budget: A splurge without precedent February 26, 2005

The real cost of that $30-billion is the other purposes to which it might have been put -- namely, cutting taxes. Total federal personal income tax revenues this year will come to $90-billion. So we are talking about a one third cut in taxes that could have been made, and wasn’t.

And the worst of it is: we were never told any of this in advance. Every year’s budget projected mild growth in spending two years out, and every year’s budget revised the previous year’s estimate upwards, usually to the tune of billions of dollars. The 2004 budget was only the last, and most flagrant, in a series.

We've become a nation of enablers -- "Clearly, then, Canadian taxpayers are in an abusive relationship with the federal Liberals" -- brilliantly done! Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, Feb. 27, 05

The longer the federal Liberals stay in power, the more they resemble an abusive husband and father lording it over his family. With the family being the rest of us.

Consider the similarities, regardless of whether Jean Chretien, or now, Paul Martin, happens to be in charge:

* The first thing an abuser typically does in order to gain control of his wife and children [. . . . ]

Budgets would make Kafka blush Andrew Coyne, National Post, February 24, 2005

OTTAWA - The thing you have to remember about federal budgets is that they don't actually mean anything. That isn't to say they mean nothing: that would be far too specific. They aren't devoid of meaning, they're beside it. They exist in a world where the very concept of meaning is meaningless. [. . . . ]

Budget: Private-sector forecasters disagree on size of surplus

Private-sector forecasters disagree on size of surplus Eric Beauchesne, CanWest

OTTAWA - Two of three private-sector forecasters, hired by the Commons finance committee, say the federal government has a lot more money to play with than it admits. [. . . . ] Conference Board of Canada economist Paul Darby projected surpluses, including all contingency funds, of $7.6-billion next year, and $8.8-billion the year after. Jim Stanford, an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, predicted surpluses of $11.4-billion and then $13.1-billion. [. . . . ]

Budget: Editorial -- "Grateful for $1.33? No way!"

Editorial: Grateful for $1.33? No way! Feb. 23, 05, Toronto Sun

[. . . . ] Most of the budget's big spending is set far in the future, five years down the road -- provided we all keep voting Liberal, of course.

[. . . . ] But for average taxpayers, there's nothing to cheer here -- not when the tax cut amounts to $1.33 a month.

[. . . . ] As national politics columnist Greg Weston reports today, Goodale and Martin are now taking some $14 billion from taxpayers to spend through some foundation or the like, sometime in the future. That's outrageous overtaxation -- to the tune of at least $1,000 per taxpayer, per year.

Where is that money going? What is the plan? What else would you expect from Prime Minister Dithers? [. . . . ]