Showing posts with label deficit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deficit. Show all posts

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Alberta Deficit Created By Auto Bail Out

Not only is the deficit in Alberta not about overspending on infrastructure, which had been put on a decade long hold as the result of the cuts and privatization of the Klein era, but because of royalty holidays to big oil and the corporate bail out of the Auto-Industry.

The final chapter in the stormy marriage and divorce of Daimler-Benz AG and Chrysler Corp. will provide a $1.5-billion (U.S.) windfall to the deficit-ridden federal, Ontario and Alberta governments.

Daimler AG as the maker of Mercedes-Benz cars is now known, will pay the three governments $1.5-billion to settle a dispute over 11 years of Chrysler taxes that began in the mid-1990s and lasted until Daimler unloaded the No. 3 Detroit auto maker in 2007.

The bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors Corp., which total about $12.7-billion, were partly responsible for the record-setting deficits the two governments racked up to fight the recession. Those governments are still fighting to stem the red ink.

The federal deficit for the April-December, 2010, period was $27.4-billion (Canadian). Ontario is on track to post a deficit of $18.7-billion in the fiscal year that ends March 31. Alberta, meanwhile, tabled a budget last week that forecasts a deficit of $3.4-billion for 2011-12.

So not only did Chrysler get tax breaks from the Liberal and Conservative Federal governments and then get bailed out but they avoided paying taxes for over a decade.

Corporations don't need tax breaks, they take them anyways whether you give them to them or not.

If a Canadian fails to pay their income tax over ten years they not only go to court they go to jail.

But not if they are a corporation.

Friday, March 25, 2011

The Reason For Alberta's Deficit-Big Oil

Just like back in the nineties when Alberta gave big tax breaks to big oil, we went into a deficit. And Deja Vu if it didn't happen again.

Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) paints a picture of declining production and royalties from Alberta's natural gas industry for the rest of the decade, but sharply rising oilsands royalties.

Royalties from natural gas and the oilsands totalled more than $8.8 billion in 2009, but just over $4.6 billion in 2010 -a big cause of the provincial deficit.

"The government is running a province which assumes they will take in $6 billion to $8 billion a year, and this is not happening," CERI CEO Peter Howard said.

Premier Ed Stelmach has said the province aims to balance its budget by 2013. CERI's estimates suggest that will be a challenge if they are depending on royalties.

The institute estimates Alberta will be back to 2009 royalty levels by about 2016, when oilsands royalties will be more than $7.2 billion, with just $1.1 billion coming from natural gas.



Yep Big Oil gets Royalty breaks that resulted in the deficit and schools get cuts!

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach says school boards may have to "hold some of their labour costs low" in coming years as the province looks to rebuild its coffers, but critics blame the Tory government for looming teacher layoffs.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Tax and Spend Banker

So the solution to Americas deficit problem whether Federal or State government would be to increase taxes...or so says the CEO of JP Morgan bank; Jamie Dimon.

JAMIE DIMON:
States have a lot of wherewithal, when you talk about this huge deficit, the deficit in California is equal to one percent of the GDP in California, so if they raise taxes one percent, they could pay their deficit. And that's true for some of the other states and they have the wherewithal
This should not surprise anyone, tax cuts and spending cuts are what got California in the mess its in still thanks to Proposition 13 back in the Seventies.

The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.


And now it has become the clarion call of the American right, reduce government, which means reducing public services such as education, health care, etc.

California public schools, which during the 1960s had been ranked nationally as among the best, have decreased to 48th in many surveys of student achievement.

Which when government can no longer provide them must then contract out the jobs, privatizing them, which leads to private profits at public expense.


And at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13, the antitax measure that ignited the Reagan Revolution and the conservative era.

Proposition 13 was the brainchild of the late Howard Jarvis. The antitax crusader was a policy genius not unlike Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both shared an affinity for designing deep structural change that, once embedded in the political system, is nearly impossible to alter without a massive change of heart by voters.

Jarvis created a similarly impregnable institution. When he rode the wave of anger over skyrocketing property-tax assessments to pass Proposition 13 in 1978, he included a two-thirds vote requirement for the passage of any new taxes in California — an insurmountable obstacle built on populist allergy to any kind of new levy. Beholden to a tax-averse electorate, the state's liberals and moderates have attempted to live with Proposition 13 while continuing to provide the state services Californians expect — freeways, higher education, prisons, assistance to needy families and, very important, essential funding to local government and school districts that vanished after the antitax measure passed.



Thursday, October 15, 2009

Forward to the Past

Well excuse me if I am not surprised that Steady Eddie Alberta's CEO produced a TV show last night that announced nothing new. In fact while some folks bemoan the premier for not being Ralph Klein, including King Ralph his-self, Steady Eddie is living up to his name.

In fact he is the ghost of the Tories Past, the actions of his government are just a rehash of Klein's fiscal renovation, of the 1990's. The government is cutting hospital beds and freezing hiring of nurses and doctors, just as Klein did. The are cutting back funding to schools, just as Klein did. They are cutting funding to post secondary institutions just as Klein did. They are calling for a wage freeze for two years for all public sector workers just as Klein did. The debt and deficit hysteria that launched the Klein regime has returned like Marley's ghost to haunt the Alberta Government. Having no plan Steady Eddie returns to the past to find solutions to the Tories Made In Alberta Recession.

Blaming the economic crash of last year for Alberta's current deficit is of course par for the course, all governments have used the crash to explain away their economic mistakes. But in Alberta that crash should have been expected, since we have experienced boom and busts before, and those who had like former Premier Peter Lougheed warned that the Alberta Government led by his old party, had no plan to deal with the boom. And of course it had no
plan to deal with a crash.

The failure to invest the Heritage Trust fund or to fund it adequately led to the current deficit. And yet those in charge of investing both the Trust fund and the new AIMCO investment fund (made up of your and my public sector pension funds) lost the province billions, that now make up part of the current deficit. It was this investment failure that has cost the province much including outrageous buy outs and bonuses to these same fund managers.

The province's Heritage Savings Trust Fund lost the $3 billion between March 2008 and March 2009 in the economic downturn, and currently sits at $14.3 billion. The record loss sent Alberta into a deficit for the first time in 15 years. It was the biggest loss in the fund's 33-year history.

two AIMCo executives earned a combination of more than $5 million last year even as the funds they managed -- including the Heritage Savings Trust Fund -- lost more than $7 billion.

The collapse of oil and gas prices of course added to the deficit but not to the degree that the bad investments of our surpluses did. In fact the decline in natural gas production in the province began back in 2001 and is something that could be planned for, if you had a government that was not adverse to planning.

The problem, however, is that production in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) is declining. Production peaked in 2001; the vast majority of the country's natural gas is produced in the WCSB. According to Canada's National Energy Board (NEB), Canada's marketable production peaked around 17 Bcf/day in 2001.

Sadly, no amount of drilling is going to reverse the decline. Production declined in 2005, despite having a record number of well completions in the WSCB. Take a look for yourself:

Western Sedimentary Basin Well Completions

If we take a look back, 2005 should have been a huge year for Canadian natural gas. That year, we saw the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history. Fifteen hurricanes blew past us. Five became Category 4 hurricanes and four reached Category 5, including Katrina and Wilma.

That same year, Canada imported 3.7 Tcf of natural gas to the U.S. However, Canadian production of marketable natural gas fell 1.7%, compared to 2001 levels. According to NEB projections for 2009, natural gas production will sit at 5.5 Tcf — 12% lower than in 2001.




Add to that the expansion of infrastructure projects, that under Klein had been halted, as labour costs increased during the boom and you have another reason for the deficit.

Finally we have the creation of Hospital Boards, which were to have been publicly elected and were for one term and then when to0 many liberals and dippers were elected the boards were fired by Klein and replaced with Tory hacks. Steady Eddie's first act as Premier was to follow in Klein's footsteps, firing the regional boards and forming a super board, the cost of which was again payouts resulting in the new super board having a half billion dollar deficit.


And while Steady Eddie announced a wage freeze for senior government managers it means little when in fact these same managers racked in bonuses worth $6.7 million last year. And we suspect that even if he follows through with MLA and cabinet salary freezes its after the cabinet gave itself and the Premier a 34% increase last year.

The other reason for the deficit is that Alberta is business friendly. The cost of doing business in this province is nil, zilch, nada. The working class taxpayers in Alberta shoulder the burden of business costs. And thanks to the generous tax breaks to business the burden of the deficit is shouldered by you and me, and the solution that some are suggesting is the dreaded of all taxes the sales tax.

The Progressive Conservative government, in power since 1971, has long had a hands-off approach to business. Foreign investors have long been attracted by the lack of sales, payroll or capital taxes, low income taxes and competitive corporate taxes, at 29 per cent and dropping to 25 per cent by 2012. Despite a current deficit, overall net direct and indirect debt is low, totalling C$1bn or 0.3 per cent of GDP on March 31, according to a recent Moody’s report that gave Alberta a triple-A debt rating.

Like the mythical debt and deficit crisis of the Klein years this too is a short term recession, with a temporary deficit. And like then the deficit will be paid off by cutting public sector funding and freezing wages rather than taxing the capitalists. Nothing new here just as there is nothing new with the Tired Old Tories still in power.



SEE:

Your Pension Plan At Work

P3

Your Pension Dollars At Work

P3= Public Pension Partnerships



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

,
d blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , ,
,, , ,, , , , ,
,

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Con Game

As I predicted here the Harpocrites have only one song sheet they sing from when it comes to the economy;the old neo-con tighten your belt.

Throne Speech warns of deficit
It pledged cost-control measures in Ottawa, including a squeeze on the budgets of many government departments and a law to limit the pay raises of civil servants.
"Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on the results," Ms. Jean read, following with the government's pledge to place grants and capital spending "under the microscope."
Mr. Layton argued that the Throne Speech adopted austerity measures and a laissez-faire approach, when intervention is needed. "I don't think you want to be taking ideas from the Mike Harris-era in Ontario and applying them to today's economic crisis," he said.


SEE:
Blue Throne Speech
Pinocchio Conservatives
Deja Vu


Tags
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Deja Vu

Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and Mark Carney assured us that the economic fundamentals in Canada are sound, despite the current meltdown of international finance capitalism. Wearing Bush/McCain like rose coloured blinders they refuse to admit that Canada faces a pending recession and the government will likely incur a deficit. Something Harper and Flaherty denied during the election campaign. Instead they say steady as she goes.


Of all the leaders, Harper was most determined to stay the course.
"What leaders have to do is have a plan and not panic," he said. Revising the plan
based on new data was considered to be a sign of panic, not prudence.Harper, in
the dying days of the campaign, proclaimed that he would not run a deficit,
raise taxes or cut spending. That may be a difficult circle to square, and those
words may come back to haunt him.



Wait I have heard this before...why in 1929 when then PM William Lyon Mackenzie King said he would stay the course.....

October 24, 1929 went down in history as "Black Thursday". On that day, stock prices plummeted on the New York Stock Exchange, creating a domino effect on world stock markets. It signaled the beginning of the Great Depression.

Canada was one of the hardest hit by the economic crisis. The country relied heavily on its exports. Pulp and paper, wood and wheat represented two-thirds of Canadian exports and accounted for much of the country's prosperity.

Governments in Canada were slow to respond to the desperate economic and social conditions. Until the Great Depression, government intervened as little as possible, letting the free market take care of the economy. Social welfare was left to churches and charities.

When the Depression began William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister in 1930. He believed that the crisis would pass, refused to provide federal aid to the provinces, and only introduced moderate relief efforts.


Although unemployment was a national problem, federal administrations led by the Conservative R.B. BENNETT (1930-35) and the Liberal W.L. Mackenzie KING (from 1935 onwards) refused, for the most part, to provide work for the jobless and insisted that their care was primarily a local and provincial responsibility. The result was fiscal collapse for the 4 western provinces and hundreds of municipalities and haphazard, degrading standards of care for the jobless.


The Depression altered established perceptions of the economy and the role of the state. The faith shared by both the Bennett and King governments and most economists that a balanced budget, a sound dollar and changes in the tariff would allow the private marketplace to bring about recovery was misplaced.



Library and Archives Canada / C-000623
Bennett Buggy in the Great Depression in Canada


October 1929 – Stock Market Crash: Markets Suffer the Worst Losses in Canadian History
In the late 1920s, Canada’s economy and stock exchanges were booming. From 1921 to the autumn of 1929, the level of stock prices increased more than three times. But these heady days came to a swift end with the stock market crash on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, in New York, Toronto, Montréal and other financial centres in the world. Shareholders panicked and sold their stock for whatever they could get.
Overnight, individuals and companies were ruined. It was estimated that Canadian stocks lost a total value of $5 billion on paper in 1929. By mid-1930, the value of stocks for the 50 leading Canadian companies had fallen by over 50% from their peaks in 1929.
The stock market collapse affected all investors—individuals who had been persuaded to buy shares as well as speculators looking to make a fast dollar. Despite the market crash, 1929 was a good year for banks, mines, manufacturing and construction in Canada. All reported record profits at year-end.
Although the crash was sudden and deep, there were signs that it was coming. Earlier in 1929, stock prices had been volatile. Economic slowdowns in May and June hinted that the booming economy was heading for a recession. Export earnings were declining and the price of wheat plummeted.
Economists and historians are still debating what caused the crash. At the time of the crash, Canada had no monetary policy or central bank, so there was little government intervention in the market. (See 1934—Bank of Canada.) Canadian firms had healthy profits and did not expect the boom to end. Corporate profit expectations were inflated. Canadian corporations took advantage of the bull market to issue new stock, which overheated the supply. Banks gave out easy and cheap credit, and let people buy stocks on margin: buyers paid only a fraction of the share price and borrowed the rest. Speculation was rampant: bidding drove up the value of stocks as much as 40 times the companies’ annual earnings. Investors seemed to pay less attention to corporate earnings than to how much their shares would appreciate in value.
The economy could not sustain its rapid growth and the bubble burst. Investors lost confidence in the market. In the United States, the government was blamed for not controlling the speculative frenzy. Because Canada’s economy was so closely tied to that of the United States, the New York crash brought down Canadian markets, too.
It is widely felt that the stock market collapse started a chain of events that plunged Canada and the Western world into the decade-long Great Depression, which ended only with the outbreak of the Second World War.

1929 - 1939 —The Great Depression.
The Roaring Twenties saw boom times in Canada. Unemployment was low; earnings for individuals and companies were high. But prosperity came to a halt with the stock market collapse in New York, Toronto, Montréal and around the world in October 1929. The crash set off a chain of events that plunged Canada and the world into a decade-long depression. It was the beginning of the Dirty Thirties.
The Great Depression caused Canadian workers and companies great hardship. Prices deflated rapidly and deeply. Business activity fell sharply. There was massive unemployment—27% at the height of the Depression in 1933. Many businesses were wiped out: in Canada, corporate profits of $396 million in 1929 became corporate losses of $98 million in 1933. Between 1929 and that year, the gross national product dropped 43%. Families saw most or all of their assets disappear. Governments around the world, including Canada’s, put up high tariffs to protect their domestic manufacturers and businesses, but that only created weaker demand and made the Depression worse. Canadian exports shrank by 50% from 1929 to 1933.

THE CAUSE OF THE DEPRESSION

Many Canadians of the thirties felt that the depression wasn't brought about by the Wall Street Stock Market Crash, but by the enormous 1928 wheat crop crash. Due to this, many people were out of work and money and food began to run low. It was said by the Federal Department of Labor that a family needed between $1200 and $1500 a year to maintain the "minimum standard of decency." At that time, 60% of men and 82% of women made less than $1000 a year. The gross national product fell from $6.1 billion in 1929 to $3.5 billion in 1933 and the value of industrial production halved.
Unfortunately for the well being of Canada's economy prices continued to plummet and they even fell faster then wages until 1933, at that time, there was another wage cut, this time of 15%. For all the unemployed there was a relief program for families and all unemployed single men were sent packing by relief officers by boxcar to British Columbia. There were also work camps established for single men by Bennett's Government.
The Great Depression, also known as The Dirty Thirties, wasn't like an ordinary depression where savings vanished and city families went to the farm until it blew over. This depression effected everyone in some way and there was basically no way to escape it. J.S. Woodsworth told Parliament "If they went out today, they would meet another army of unemployed coming back from the country to the city." As the depression carried on 1 in 5 Canadians became dependent on government relief. 30% of the Labour Force was unemployed, where as the unemployment rate had previously never dropped below 12%.


It was estimated back in the thirties that 33% of Canada's Gross National Income came from exports; so the country was also greatly affected by the collapse of world trade. The four western prairie provinces were almost completely dependent on the export of wheat. The little money that they brought in for their wheat did not cover production costs, let alone farm taxes, depreciation and interest on the debts that farmers were building up. The net farm income fell from $417 million in 1929 to $109 million in 1933.


Canada suffered a major depression from 1929 to 1939. In terms of output it was
similar to the Great Depression in the United States. However, total factor productivity
(TFP) in Canada did not recover relative to trend, while in the United States TFP had
recovered by 1937. We find that the neoclassical growth model, with TFP treated as
exogenous, can account for over half of the decline in output relative to trend in Canada.
In contrast, we find that conventional explanations for the Great Depression - monetary
shocks, terms of trade shocks and labor market and competition policies – do not work
for Canada.

Our conclusion is that the reason that Canadian output per adult was still 30 percent below
trend in 1938 was that productivity failed to return to trend.

Relative to trend, consumption fell more in Canada, and remained below that of
the United States throughout the 1930s. Investment in Canada fell to 15 percent of its
trend value by 1933, and recovered very slowly in both countries (remaining roughly 50
percent below trend in 1939). Government purchases in the two countries followed a
similar pattern during the downturn, before diverging in the late 1930s when U.S.
government spending remained above trend, while in Canada it fluctuated about trend.

U.S. government output increased more relative to trend
than Canadian government output. A large part of the difference in government
expenditure can be attributed to different government policies towards providing
unemployment relief. In the United States, the government relied much more heavily
upon make-work projects (government relief projects) than in Canada. The fraction of the
workforce employed by the government doubled in the United States, while increasing by
less than 50 percent in Canada. The increase in U.S. government employment was mainly
due to public works, as nearly 7 percent of U.S. employment in the late 1930s was in
relief projects. Relief workers were never more than 1.5 percent of the total number of
employed people in Canada.

Canada was the first country to leave the gold standard, suspending gold
shipments in January 1929 (Bordo and Redish (1990)). Despite the suspension of
convertibility, the Canadian government took steps to prevent depreciation of the dollar,
motivated in part by a wish to maintain access to American capital markets to refinance
Dominion debt (Shearer and Clark (1984)). As a result, the government maintained the
advance rate at its 1928 level throughout 1930, despite the fall in world rates. This policy
was ultimately abandoned in 1931. Despite this, the Canadian dollar did depreciate
relative to the U.S. dollar by approximately 15 percent between 1929 and 1931, before
recovering to its 1929 level in 1935.

The “debt-deflation” view of the Great Depression asserts that deflation and high
private debt levels contributed to the Great Depression by reducing borrower wealth and
constraining lending. Haubrich (1990) argues that the debt crisis was much less severe in
Canada than in the United States. He argues that there is little evidence to suggest that the
debt crisis caused the Great Depression in Canada.

A common view is that banking crisis played a significant role in transforming the
1929 downturn into the Great Depression. For example, Bernanke (1983) states that “the
financial crisis of 1930-33 affected the macroeconomy by reducing the quantity of
financial services, primarily credit intermediation” (p. 262). As has been pointed out by
numerous authors, however, Canada did not experience any bank failures.

Can the usual explanations of the Great Depression account for the Great
Depression in Canada? Our answer to this question is no. As we show, money shocks,
policy shocks and terms of trade shocks cannot account for the 10-year depression.
Explanations based on these shocks fail because their effects are quantitatively too small
to explain the Great Depression.

Our findings in this paper tell us where to go next. Future research into the Great
Depression in Canada should focus on models in which changes in the level of trade
affect the level of productivity. Such models are consistent with the fact that Canada’s
TFP and trade both declined from 1929 to 33. Beginning in 1934, trade began to slowly
recover, and so did TFP. This also matches the fact that the only large shock that hit
Canada but not the United States was trade, while the main difference in macro
performance is the behavior of productivity.

Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: E30, N12, N42.
Key Words: Great Depression, Canada, productivity, terms of trade, deflation

Community Voices
GWINNETT COUNTY: Depression days brought to mind

By Rick Badie
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Elwood Hart lived in Canada during the Great Depression. He considers himself lucky. A Salvation Army was next to the family’s home in Hamilton, Ontario.
“Maybe it was a bowl of soup or a bologna sandwich, but I got something to eat,” said Hart, now a Lawrenceville resident. “If it weren’t for that, I don’t think we could have ever made it. We weren’t living in the United States, but the situation was the same all over.”
Comparisons and contrasts are being drawn between the current economic crisis and the Great Depression. Conventional wisdom says this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Generally, experts say the odds of a full-blown depression are nonexistent. Let’s hope they are right.
Not many of us were around between 1929 and 1939, so we can’t compare the impact of that period’s economic crisis to today’s turmoil. Hart is now in his mid-80s, so his take on what he saw then and what he sees now carries weight.
We met years ago at the Gwinnett County Veterans War Museum, where his military career is on display. He served with the Canadian Army in Normandy during World War II. With the U.S. Army, he saw two tours of duty in Korea and Vietnam. He received an honorable discharge in 1967.
As for the Great Depression, “I remember it well,” Hart said. “People don’t realize what it was like back then.”
He remembers people lining up at food banks to get a hunk of cheese and powdered milk. He remembers stuffing newspapers in his shoes because they were way too big. And he remembers a white pet rabbit that just disappeared one day.
“I got up one morning and asked my dad where my rabbit was,” Hart told me. “He said, ‘It’s down your stomach. You had it for dinner.’ You ate anything you could get back then. There was no waste of clothes or food. Today, when I throw out trash, wild animals won’t find any food. I don’t throw it away.”
But how does that compare to today’s economic woes, particularly among everyday people barely making it?
Every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday morning, Hart drives to a local Publix to load his car with day-old breads, cakes and pastries. When he pulls up to the Salvation Army, where the goods are doled out, people are waiting.
“It’s gotten so bad right now that there are twice as many every day as there were a couple of months ago,” he said. “In fact, it’s so bad that, a lot of time, me or some of the women in the church have to stand there. We have a sign that says everyone is to get two loaves of bread and a pastry. If you don’t watch them, they will fill up on all they can get. That’s why I say things are getting bad, similar to the 1930s, I tell you.”
As a brass collector, Hart routinely visits Goodwill stores in search of treasures. He said he’s seen a noticeable uptick in the number of people buying clothes. And at his church, clothes donations have fallen off considerably.
“It’s not that bad yet now,” Hart said.
“But it’s getting there.”

SEE:

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

LiberalTory Surplus Story

So the Throne Speech will be a Budget Speech. The new-con men; Harper's Neo-Con Government are preparing for a confidence vote. The only way they can bring themselves down.


Fresh from closing the books on last year's massive $13.8 billion surplus - about four billion more than it had recently predicted - the department said Friday that already in the first four months of this year it was operating on a $7.8 billion surplus, about one billion more than last year's monster haul for the same period.

Despite announced spending increases in the March federal budget, fiscal analysts have been watching with mild surprise as the surplus built up in government coffers month by month since April.

The new surplus was accumulating even though program spending rose by $3.7 billion during the first third of the year on higher transfer payments and increased expenses for such things as the war in Afghanistan.

But budgetary revenues also rose significantly by $4.9 billion, spurred on by higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals.

And July saw another $1.4 billion added as money continued to flow into Ottawa faster than the government can spend it.

"Wow," reacted John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "This is feeling little like the atmosphere we had prior to the Liberals rolling out their five-year tax cut plan that began in 2000.

The calls for broad-based tax relief, particularly from the corporate sector, grew louder yesterday as the federal government disclosed its surplus for the first four months of the current budget year, at $7.8-billion, is on pace to become the largest federal windfall in the country's history.

The total is nearly three times what it projected for 2007-08 and more than halfway to the $14.2-billion windfall recorded for 2006-07, which the government unveiled this week.

Assuming spending and the rate of tax revenue growth remain as they are, the surplus is headed toward $23-billion -- which would make it the highest on record, surpassing the $19.9-billion set in 2000-01.

"All the stars are aligning for the federal government to unleash some stimulus -- if not in next year's budget, then before," said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets.

"The confluence of events we have here is that there is pressure on the economy from the currency and the credit crunch; we have surplus numbers well above last year's lofty levels; and we have an election possibly looming."

He said the scenario was reminiscent of the fall of 2000, when the former Liberal government unveiled a $100-billion tax-cut package in an early mini-budget. Weeks later, an election was called, and the Liberals secured a third consecutive majority government.

For the four-month period ended July 31, the $7.8-billion surplus represents an increase of 15%, or just over $1-billion, compared with the same time last year. Corporate tax revenue climbed 25%, while revenue from personal taxes gained 3.5%, to $37.7-billion. On the whole, revenue for Ottawa increased 6.5%, to $80.5-billion.


The stars are aligning for Harper with a few clouds gathering. A budget speech means the government can fall, bets are increasing for a fall/winter election. Place your wagers now.

Harper pledges $725-million in tax cut

Harper's team gears up for election

Liberals ready for election, adviser says

And Harper uses his executive authority to pay down the countries debt, Alberta style, despite previously calling for parliamentary oversight. But then he was leader of the opposition and had to say that. Yeah right. $14 billion gets ya less than a billion in tax cuts. Peanuts.

The national debt now stands at $467 billion.

And speaking of peanuts,this surplus, shows that $1 billion in program cuts made last year, and those now pending in the Department of Environment, were not needed. They were purely for partisan political purposes.


With all the ceremony of an election stump speech, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Thursday that a $13.8-billion surplus - one which exceeded the federal government's own projections - has gone towards paying down the debt.

The move is an interesting role reversal for Harper, considering how loudly the Conservatives used to crow from the opposition benches when the previous Liberal government delivered massive surplus after massive surplus.

But when asked about the difference, Harper replied like a man headed to the polls: Liberals tax to spend, while Conservatives tax to put the fiscal house in order.

Despite that stance, echoed by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty as he fielded questions following Harper's quick exit, critics weren't impressed.

NDP Leader Jack Layton this week questioned the wisdom of using the surplus to pay down the national debt, suggesting that the government's failure to adequately fund social programs and infrastructure while swimming in dough makes it less likely his party would prop up the minority government.

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said the party's position on surpluses would be made clear when it releases its election platform, but noted that in the past Liberals have favoured a splitting the "surprise" windfalls between tax cuts, new spending and debt repayment.

"The lessons I draw from this is that there was certainly no need to raise the income tax rate and no need to cut the most vulnerable people, like women's groups, literacy programs and museums," he added. In the first Flaherty budget, the Conservatives reversed former Prime Minister Paul Martin's half-point reduction in the lowest income tax bracket in order to pay for a cut to the GST tax.

Paying down the debt Alberta style, meant that while Ralph Klein could symbolically burn the provincial mortgage, declaring Alberta debt free, the province was a mess.

Ralph Klein says provincial debt is dead.

On July 13, 2004, Premier Ralph Klein announced that Alberta was the only debt-free province in Canada. It had owed $23 billion when he took office in 1992

In order to pay down the debt it deferred much needed infrastructure funding, had unfunded pension liabilities, contracted out services and cut staff. Now in order to play catch up by funding infrastructure and services, and paying off pension liabilities, the costs are skyrocketing in an overheated economy. Causing the current treasurer to cry gloom and doom, hinting at future debt and deficits.

Paying down the debt is an illusion, it sounds good but it is unsound economics.

Like cuts to the GST rather than its elimination.

At least one neo-con press pundit, from Calgary of course, has claimed that Harpers good fortune economically has less to do with the belt tightening cuts made by then Finance Minister Paul Martin, than to the long term wisdom of Brian Mulroney.

No seriously, the man who left Canada in a debt and deficit crisis should be thanked for introducing NAFTA which she says is now paying off. Sure in sales of Canadian iconic industries to foreign capital and our link to the declining credit market.

Actually paying down the debt was Federal Liberal policy, and the debt reduction act was adopted under PM Paul Martin, one which was modeled on Ralph's. The Harpocrites are merely following through, well actually pushing through debt reduction as a priority. It is after all a policy of theirs since they were the Reform Party,created in those halcyon days of the debt and deficit bugaboo.

Meanwhile the rising dollar has offset the immediate impact that the credit market meltdown has had. And the surplus gives the illusion all is well in the marketplace.

One fly in the ointment is that the Canadian economy has yet to feel the full brunt of a credit crisis, which first surfaced in August and could result in fewer revenues for the government. But few expect that a mild economic downturn will do more than slow down the flow of cash from taxpayers.

But the inevitable storm clouds are gathering, despite the voluntary efforts of another Tory right winger; Purdy Crawford point man for Canada's big banks and credit unions.And despite viewing the melt down with rosy glasses for the past two months, David Dodge, finally had to bite the bullet Friday.


The Bank of Canada injected almost $1-billion into money markets yesterday, a stark reminder that all is not right in Canada's credit market.

Just two days after Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge declared that "the overnight market is now well on its way back to normal operations in Canada," the bank found itself having to defend its key interest rate with one of its largest cash injections to date.

The central bank also increased the amount that it leaves in its settlement system to allow for easy money transfers between banks. It has set aside $300-million, instead of the $150-million target of the past few weeks, and the $25-million during normal market conditions.



Something is definitely amiss in Canada's money markets.

The Bank of Canada, for the third business day in a row, injected about $1-billion into the overnight market to defend its key interest rate.

A bank spokesman said the liquidity provision was simply a technical move, a normal quarter-end demand for more cash.

But for the Bank of Canada's monetary policy to work properly, it's not enough to just defend the overnight rate. That rate needs to act as a benchmark for the short-term borrowing rates that corporations, home buyers and consumers pay.

That bail out was announced the same day that the second budget surplus was declared. And since paying down the debt results not in any real economic savings for Canadians simply a better credit rating, it is ironic that it could be wiped out in a credit market melt down.

But the Canadian economy is facing difficulties other than the strong loonie and the risk of a protracted U.S. slowdown, Mr. Hall said.

New elements in play have led the Bank of Canada to adopt a neutral approach to interest rates, Mr. Hall said. Those factors include the implicit tightening as a result of the widening of credit spreads and a reduction of liquidity as banks reverse a process in which they could push loans off their books by securitization. "It will take time for these effects to be felt," Mr. Hall said.

The freeze-up in the Canadian asset-backed commercial paper markets along with the rise in the Canadian dollar will make this Friday's release of the Bank of Canada's quarterly business outlook survey an important report, said David Wolf, economist and strategist for Merrill Lynch Canada Inc.

Government can only effectively pay down the debt when they have the secure asset base to do it. That is your infrastructure is paid for.

Instead of paying down the debt, the government needs to expand investment in its assets, not selling them off. Infrastructure needs investment which the Harpocrites deny since it runs counter to their neo-con monetarist policy.

Debt reduction only works if you have no liabilities, such as infrastructure. And to show exactly how hidebound the government is, they would rather have parliament literally fall down around their ears than abandon their neo-con ideology.

“Paying down the debt” means “reducing the public’s supply of T-bonds.” In other words, it means “reducing the public’s net financial wealth”

When the public’s T-bond supply gets too low, it puts a damper on the money creation process. And, as we saw in article 1 of this series, when new money is not created at a sufficient pace (or worse, when the money supply contracts), it results in economic stagnation or contraction. To me, that goes a long way to explaining our dubious history of paying down the debt.

As we reviewed in article 1, inflation is caused by too much money deflation is caused by too little money. But T-bonds are not money, they are merely “proto-money.” Because of that, and because it takes money to create inflation, it follows that increasing the public’s T-bond supply does not cause inflation. Let me say that another way: Deficits do not cause inflation, because deficit spending is the process of increasing the T-bond supply, not the money supply. Monetary policy causes inflation or deflation; fiscal policy does not.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Thursday, June 07, 2007

Alberta Deja Vu

The tired old Tories in Alberta can only repeat one message and one message only since 1995 and that is restraint. Prepare to tighten your belts.

Having created the chimera of a mythical debt and deficit dragon that they so boldly slayed they now have nothing else to plan for. And so having failed to plan for the past decade they once again return to the tried and true.

I am having a Deja Vu flashback.

Alberta's education minister is warning the province's school boards not to expect large funding increases in the future.

Ron Liepert told a meeting of Alberta school board trustees in Edmonton Monday morning that the government needs to rein-in spending because Alberta's booming economic growth may start to slow down.

"I believe we have a potential revenue wall coming at us and it's not nearly as far out as some people think it is."

Alberta's Progressive Conservative government has decided to pump up the volume on this message, with Oberg appearing Tuesday on a radio talk show and Education Minister Ron Liepert telling a meeting of school board officials Monday that they should curb their funding expectations. Liepert says it's time for Albertans to face up to this reality as drilling is down 50 per cent from last year and corporate tax revenues are also expected to decline.

Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier keeps saying nasty things about the provincial government.

He's saying the Tories broke their word about stable funding for the future of this city which, in case nobody noticed, is the economic engine that makes the province run. Also, in case nobody noticed, it has started to come apart at the seams because of the boom that our provincial government, in its wisdom, apparently didn't see coming, and did not have a plan to deal with even after being roused from slumber.

Premier Ed, sounding somewhat steadier this day, responds to the cage-rattling of Ron Liepert, his tough-talking supremo of schools, who tells school boards Albertans shouldn't expect big dough from the province.

Ron warns the public coffers could lose a billion or more from the rising loonie. Oh my. A "potential revenue wall" is "coming at us." Ouch.

Big surpluses are done. Double ouch.

If the province doesn't hold tight to the purse strings we could one day end up in a deja vu disaster, like the early days of Ralph and his axe-swinging Ralpholution with all the cuts, to say nothing of all the nights of drinking to forget. Double vision ouch.

Seriously, Ron's Apocalypse Soon is hard to swallow.

A survey shows growing numbers of Calgarians already feel the quality of life is tanking and aren't hopeful of better things to come in the next five years.

The gong show of too many people and too little of everything is beyond rage. It is eroding psyches.

Despite this year's cash for construction from the province, including big bucks just to cover costs going through the roof because they are playing catchup at the height of the boom, there is still a huge backlog in building the province could have started on earlier by spending some windfall bucks of years past.

Alas, they didn't.

No, now is not the time to chatter about a scarcity of cash. People are not in the mood for a lecture on austerity, especially those of us who went through the '90s, paid the price, bought all the bull about sacrifice and are still waiting for the victory parade. Unfortunately, one reason you couldn't hold a parade is the streets are too clogged.

Of course, if the province wanted to give us a break and did think they'd run out of coin, Big Oil in the oilsands could pay more than a penny on the dollar in royalties.

Of course Ron could be just waving the red flag of lower expectations and budget doom and gloom to avoid paying the governments share of the Teachers Pension fund.

The task force will review options to address the teachers' portion of a pre-1992 unfunded pension liability. Since it started in the 1930s, the teachers' pension fund has been underfunded by both the government and the ATA. The liability currently totals $6.4 billion. Under a deal struck in 1992, the provincial government is responsible for two-thirds and teachers for the rest.


And while he cries the sky is falling the reality is; Centuries of oil left in Alberta



nd blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, ,
, , ,
,, , , , , , , , ,
, , ,, , ,

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Petro Dollars and U.S. Debt


An interesting post on the U.S. Debt and the U.S. Dollar as it relates to American Petro-Economy Imperialism


Cost, abuse and danger of the dollar


By Rudo de Ruijter,
Independent Researcher
Netherlands


Camouflaged conflicts


To keep the permanent demand for dollars going, oil sales must remain in dollars. That is why the US tries to keep as much influence as possible, as well on the US owned IPE and NYMEX world oil markets, as with the people in power in oil exporting countries. By doing so the US secures its oil supply at the same time. Beyond that, lucrative contracts can be obtained from the local governments, and with these contracts a maximum of benefits can be seized from the oil production.

Fear always wins over reason

But when the local governments do not want to sell their oil in dollars anymore, the US has a problem. Then, the US-president will not explain how dependent the US is on the dollar demand. The conflict is always camouflaged. And to do so, always an emotional theme is chosen. In times gone by this was the danger of communists, today it is the danger of terrorists, fundamentalists and other popular bogies, like “the enemy has weapons of mass destruction” or “the enemy tries to make nukes.”

The fact that there is, rationally, not a single proof for such allegations, does not matter. The emotions always win. Even the fact, that these accusations could be turned around and then can be proved, is noticed by hardly anyone. There was no proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but the US, the accuser, has weapons of mass destruction and has used them. There is no proof Iran has intentions for nukes, but the US, the accuser, has nukes and has used them, and, afterwards, repeatedly threatened to use them again.

But once again, at the moment accusations are loaded with emotions, humans switch off their intelligence. Then, reason is no argument for peace anymore. The theatre is only about the launched accusations. And because, as a result, only specialists of weapons of mass destruction or nukes are called upon to give their opinion, nearly nobody finds out what the conflict is really about.

Venezuela

In Venezuela, since many years, the US tries to pull down president Chavez, pretexting he is a dangerous communist. Chavez has nationalized the oil industry and has set up Barter-deals to export Venezuelan oil in exchange for medical care from Cuba and others. In Barter deals there is no necessity for dollars and the US has no profit from the oil trade.

Iraq

Until 1990 the US maintained lucrative commercial contacts with Saddam Hussein. He was a good ally. For instance, in 1980 he had tried to free the hostages at the US-embassy in Teheran.

But in 1989 Saddam accused Kuwait of flooding the oil market and making the oil price go down. The following year Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. It led to an immediate turn around of the attitude of the US. With the annexation Saddam would dispose of 20 percent of world oil reserves. The Iraqis were chased out of Kuwait by the US, with an alliance of 134 countries, and condemned to water and bread by a UN-embargo that lasted ten years.

Although the US sought a way to re-establish its influence in Iraq, Saddam’s switch to the Euro on November 6, 2000 [9], would lead to the US invasion. The dollar sank away and in July 2002 the situation got that serious, that the IMF warned that the dollar might collapse. [10] A few days later the plans for an attack were discussed at Downing Street. [11] One month later Cheney proclaimed it was sure now, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. [12] With this pretext the US invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003. The US switched back the oil trade into dollars on June 5, 2003. [13]

There is a huge difference between trading Iraqi oil in euros and trading it in dollars. This will be explained below. (See: “How do you steal oil reserves?”)






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,