Boudreau must find a way to cut both wasteful spending and taxes
Interim NB Progressive Conservative leader Jeannot Volpé hit the nail on the head with regards to last springs tax hike:
"There was no issue at all but that was a way for them to find a reason to increase taxes -- now we all know they were lying to New Brunswickers," Volpé said of the Liberals. "There was no need to increase taxes."
Maybe the "lying" charge is a little much. However, as I see it, if Mr. Boudreau and his Liberals are serious about real economic growth and creating a top notch business environment in New Brunswick, they would be wise to not only return part [or all] of the projected $79-million surplus to the people, but to cut useless and wasteful spending. Taxing people and small business to death while investing millions in corporate welfare to declining industries isn't the way to go. Moreover, Boudreau's penchant for Keynesian style economics, wherein he has decided to set up a $35 million rainy day fund, makes me really nervous considering their past with similar amounts ( i.e. Shippagan Caisse).
â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢
Rumour has it that there will be millions in corporate welfare anouncements to three declining corporation after the holiday break. Flakeboard in St. Stephen, Fraser papers in Edmundston and Atlantic Beef Products Inc, in Albany, PEI.
21 Comments:
I find it hard to believe that this government will sit on a $35 million rainy day fund when there is a huge projected surplus and so many infrastructure issues in all of our three major urban centres.
Anon: I think the mention of a "rainy day fund" by Boudreau is just another way to keep people and journalist guessing on what they may do with it [surplus] while they figure out their next move.
In other words, they have run out of ideas and options (with regards to the sloppy self-sufficiency marketing ploy) and must now look at projects and funding that will ensure that their incumbents get re-elected in areas of strength while dumping even more money into areas of weakness. I don't expect anuthing more than a typical non-business friendly social engineering budget come next spring. Spend, spend, spend!
Although, I'm hoping to be proved wrong.
If a party says 'we won't raise taxes' and then raises taxes, why isn't that called 'lying'? What else can it be called?
However, corporate welfare is a necessity. Imagine what would happen if they said "oh well". The entire north would be either emptied or starting a new political party.
I mean, its easy to SAY that if your livelihood and the livelihood of your community weren't at stake. But compared to the massive 'subsidies' that southern cities get by being centres of government then this is small potatoes.
Even the Caisse is nothing compared to the LNG terminal in St. John (again, why you never talk about that corporate welfare always amazes me since it amounts to far more than other other). The highway and airport in Moncton far surpasses the occasional handout to Fraser.
Mikel, the Moncton transportation system is not an instance of corporate welfare. Infrastructure is exactly what this government needs to invest in. It provides the tools and services needed by ALL companies to compete in the market.
Corporate Welfare differs, as it funnels money specifically to ONE company, to the detriment of others. Its really just redistribution of wealth from successful industry to unsuccessful. You may have a point that money spent in the South does not equal mone spent in the North, but you cannot compare infrastructure money to individual payouts.
I was not aware that the LNG project recieved forgivable loans or subsidies. Is this true, or just anti-Irving rhetoric?
That's a question for semantics. By definition 'corporate welfare' is welfare that goes to corporations, not necessarily ONE corporation. In fact, its almost NEVER 'one' corporation since most corporations are conglomerations.
Take the Caissie example, NBT keeps calling it corporate welfare TO the Caissie, but that money went to companies with little oversight-that was the whole point. So is it 'corporate welfare' to the Caissie, or is the Caissie simply the medium through which corporate welfare was sent to the various corporations that got the money? Is it the actual money that is sent to 'prop up' the institution, or what was given?
In transportation, at least to me, its even clearer. Corporations , in particular trucking but all related companies, benefitted by changing a private for profit highway into a public one. Instead of those who used the highway, primarily trucking but all those related, ALL New Brunswickers pay for their use of the highway, whether they use it or not.
As a private highway most New Brunswickers wouldn't pay a dime. The only time you'd pay is when you used it. In Nova Scotia I can't remember the cost, it was no more than $3 though, and so for a trip to Moncton that is less than 10% of the cost (gas, car usage), even less if you consider how much traffic is for the airport.
That is a corporate subsidy. The corporate sector gets a free ride on taxpayers behalf. There are so many trucks and its such an ugly ride that I still take the old road, which is perfectly fine, and the average New Brunswicker would pay far less on tolls than they do with this year's tax increases.
But look at how it was played up in the press, and implemented simply because Lord won the election (just because a party wins an election certainly doesn't mean voters support one piece of legislation). Anybody not on that one corridor certainly isn't going to vote to pay money for something they will never use. We don't even need to mention that Irving has a huge stake in it and owns all the media.
For the LNG that's hardly anti Irving rhetoric, I'm surprised that even needs to be explained. Corporations are for profit enterprises, just like you are with your job. You pay taxes on what you earn, just like they do. So when the government decreases what they have to pay, thats corporate welfare (thats where the term 'welfare state' originated-tax dollars used for public purposes).
Corporate welfare isn't necessarily just the government handing a cheque to companies. Again, if you want to limit your definition to just that, then that's your business. There is no difference between the government handing Irving a cheque (which they do plenty of) and the government saying 'just don't pay any taxes'-and its still corporate welfare if its more than one corporation. In fact it rarely is just one, take a look at Nackawic, the government is propping it up, but thats TWO corporations-Tembec and the Indian company.
And like I've said, the latter is FAR worse. The 'subsidy' given to Irving for the LNG terminal was so atrocious that even the national business press was writing articles asking 'what kind of province is this?' To refresh people's memory, over forty years of tax equity laws were overwritten by two levels of government to tell everybody that they will no longer make property tax fair, but it will be dependant on political whim and what (certain) corporations want.
And companies take these things into account. Canada's lax approach to white collar crime supposedly costs the economy billions-companies don't want to locate in a third world crooked economy (go read last month's McLeans for more on that). So when your province pulls stunts like that it affects the ability to get foreign investment or ANY investment. People see that one family runs the place, so why move there?
In the case of the LNG terminal it was to freeze property taxes at $500,000 a year, approximately one twentieth of its actual property value (compared to Maine's proposed LNG and others, in fact the savings are even more substancial compared to other jurisdictions-they vary). But even in St. John I believe it is 10% of its value.
Again, if you define corporate welfare as ONLY the government writing a cheque to one company then I see your point, but nobody defines it that way. Keep in mind the term was coined by Ralph Nader, so you can imagine how broad the definition is. It INCLUDES 'tax breaks' and 'other special favourable treatment bestowed on corporations' (notice the plural).
And notice that last line. Corporations pay FAR less in tax than you do, yet are defined in law as 'persons' with all those inherent rights, and yet pay only a fraction of our taxes, thats a pretty special tax break-and its set to go even lower. As mentioned often at David Campbell's site, in New Brunswick corporations contribute a mere 3% of the budget, the lowest in Canada even though two of the largest corporations in the world are headquartered in the province.
So transportation can EASILY be defined as corporate welfare-to be honest I don't know how it can be called anything else. If all highways were 'pay as you go' and the business interests were taken out, then the cost has been estimated at about one tenth what WE pay. Just an example, this your government added 300 million to your debt simply to pay for ONE tiny 150 kilometre stretch of highway. Would that be necessary without trucking? Would TWINNING even be necessary without trucking?
Thats even more obvious when you look at the declining population and the massive amounts being put on highways at the behest of 'the gateway'. When you go through the border you have a whole song and dance to go through, not corporations, they've got the 'fast track' program which lets them zip through the border without slowing down-all paid for by you. That benefits ALL corporations, and is definitely corporate welfare.
Sorry thats so long, but its a big topic. Again, its all semantics, but CW is definitely not just government payouts to one corporation. If you ever want to think that, just remember whose term you are using.
I'll agree w/ you on two points: the lack of pay-as-you-go-highways, and tax breaks as corporate welfare.
I do disagree with your statement that we didn't need a twinned highway through the upper St John River valley. Even w/o trucking, the highway was dangerous and ill-suited for travel.
Would I prefer a toll-booth in St Jacques, Aulac, and somewhere between Coles Island and Petitcodiac? Definitely. The decision to remove tolls was completely political.
To get back on topic, the rainy day fund, in my mind, is a giant slush fund of cash for political decisions. Cash that sits around without purpose is easy pickins for
pet projects and bailouts. Either spend the money, pay down our debt, or give it back to us. If you have no use for it, then you shouldn't have it.
It's not a question of need. I didn't say it wasn't necessary. However, WHY it is dangerous is the pertinent question. Easily half of highway fatalities involve trucks. And roads all cost significantly more to build because of the considerable weight of trucks-not cars. The highway between Moncton and Fredericton is already pretty lousy quality wise, most of that is thanks to the trucks.
It's true that its a little trickier to make that claim when it comes to corporate welfare, but not much. Even money that is handed to a corporation often ends up in the hands of its workers as pay, so its not like that money is just going to build some corporate honchos swimming pool. Subsidies are never that direct, so just because the public sees some benefit, doesn't mean that its not corporate welfare. At the very least the public gets lower prices or access to a good.
In the case of the LNG terminal, what was not mentioned much is the fact that that corporate welfare does provide a social good-namely getting a 'local' provider for natural gas. So Saint Johners get some benefit, although one wonders why then they are going to quebec to provide natural gas for northern new brusnwick, when the current pipeline, which goes through Fredericton, is as close as the one in quebec.
Anyone know when the last fatality to involve a transport truck in NB was? Maybe the highway worker that was killed in Moncton in the Fall. It's not all that common Mike. The stats in NB suggest people not wearing seatbelts is what's killing them. Might be different where you're at in Ontario though.
However removing the tolls was a bad election promise made in '99 by a Party that never expected to win. I however don't fault them for keeping their promise. The voters voted the PC's in knowing that they had promised to remove the tolls. If the Liberals truly felt so strong about it, they could put them back on. Complicated but if convicted they could do so. They're not that convicted.
To correct the record, nowhere in the above post did I say that the money given to Shippagan Caisse was an example of corporate welfare.
Although, I am on record indicating that legislation should be reformed so that a full audit could be varried out, especially since their are unanswered questions on how taxpayers money was used, or in this case, allegedly misused.
Uh, in case you missed it, Perry White was killed by a transport truck like a few days ago. Today in Saskatchewan was another. I didn't say it was 'common', traffic fatalities have been decreasing for years, about 3000 for the entire country.
In Toronto so many cyclists have been killed by trucks they've started a lobby group. However, I was making a point, not starting another debate so I've checked the stats and trucks account for 25% of all passenger related deaths. That's a pretty high number when you consider that MADD considers impaired driving the leading cause of criminal deaths and it accounts for 33% of fatalities. So by that standard one could easily ask where the 'MADD' organizations are against trucking (CRASH is one, and ask yourself how often you hear of them). Admittedly, half was wrong, it was a main point so I didn't research it.
But the Caissie has been referred to almost pretty consistently here as corporate welfare, or at least lumped in with it.
But again, just because people voted tory doesn't mean they supported 'publicizing' the highway. And it has nothing to do with liberals or tories, they both function pretty much identically, especially when it comes to highways.
It has nothing to do either with election promises, as we've seen, we know exactly what an election promise 'costs' you. Like I said, transportation is corporate welfare, that was my point. Go look at David Campbells website where he has a chart showing where the highest increases in jobs are coming from- virtually NONE of them have anything to do with manufacturing or transportation. And yet both levels of government are talking about pouring massive amounts of YOUR money into roads and highways. And this right after Flaherty says 'we don't prop up failed companies'. Thats true-they prop up successful ones.
mikel wrote, "Easily half of highway fatalities involve trucks."
Uh, that sounds like you calling it pretty common.
MADD is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing and what their name is; campaigning against drunk drivers. To criticize them because they are not concentrating on something else is uncalled for. When drunk drivers stop killing people than maybe they can concentrate on something else but 1/3 of all traffic deaths shows their work is cut out for them and they do fine work of at least doing all they can to reduced drunk driving crashes.
Boy Spinks you really have to turn on part of your brain. I didnt say anything about MADD, if you think drinking and driving fatalities are common enough for MADD, then like I said, 25% is not that much less. There was no criticism of MADD, although I could come up with plenty. So if 33% is enough to warrant a national organization, then like I said, obviously trucking fatalities are very nearly at the same level. One gets tons of national exposure, one doesnt even get mentioned. And again, there is an example in NB from a few days ago, and one today. Thats common enough for me, but maybe you only accept deaths that are killed by drunks as being a problem (but again, that has nothing to do with the point about corporate welfare).
Nope, not wearing seatbelts is even worse (almost half of all fatalaties and also doesn't get much attention).
I'm all for safe driving regardless. However you're tying to paint all truckers or a mass majority as unsafe and that is misleading. Bad drivers are bad drivers whether they're driving a truck or a car (the other 75% of those crashes if your figures are accurate). Irresponsible drivers whether with reckless speeding, drunk or high on drugs need to be taken off the road.
My apologies NBT for going off your topic. I was following Mr. Archibald's lead and got carried away.
Nice try Spinks, I didn't paint 'truckers' as anything, in fact i didn't even put the word 'truckers' in there, I was talking about trucks. When it comes to corporate welfare truckers certainly don't enter into it any more than a gas station attendant has anything to do with Irvings monopoly. You can also go look at another big component of accidents, and thats drugs to keep awake, tiredness and hours of work, go look at accidents involving trucks and you'll see them play a large role.
In fact they are usually the biggest losers when it comes to corporate welfare in transportation as one way that it operates is the lack of regulation for things like hours on the road or contracting out. People may remember the guys up north who blocked the highway for a short time because in order to stay in business they couldn't include gas in their bids which were so low that when gas went up they were all in danger of bankruptcy.
It also comes from more lax regulations, you'll notice that last year one of the few pieces of legislation about industry wasn't about call centres, the knowledge economy or grants for small businesses, it was to change the regulations to allow heavier trucks on the road-again, something YOU pay for because of the wear on the road.
And again, this has nothing to do with seat belts, lots of accidents involve bicycles too but thats not the issue. However, to say that seat belts have no attention is just crazy-they even wrote laws for them and the police spend massive amounts of money doing checks just for belts. We have a new Toyota which has a built in alarm so you literally can't even drive without putting your seat belt on or else you have to listen to an alarm the whole way. That one move probably does more to get people wearing seat belts than all the laws combined, which is why advocates have been trying to get government to MAKE automakers do something like that for DECADES.
I'm all for meaningful debate Spinks, but really, read the post twice before commenting because you read all kinds of things into them that are never said.
Maybe, your posts are often pretty long and all over the map so it's possible something was misconstrued. I'll give you that mike.
Let's then agree that its not society's fault people most people are dying on highways but poorly made decisions by individuals. People should buckle up and drunk and stoned drivers should be taken off the road (there's 60-75% of the fatalities). Agressive drivers whether they be driving trucks or cars also need to be removed and forced to take remedial driving lessons.
...and wow a new Toyota? That lower provincial tax rate in Ontario is sweet. Merry Christmas or oops sorry, Happy Holidays to you and yours.
No worries fellas. Duke it out to your hearts content, just try to keep the drive-bys, ad hominems and wacked out commentary to a minimum. That's all I ask.
As usual, no, we can't just agree on that. In the case of trucking we are talking about guys who are forced to work long hours and do whatever is possible to stay awake. These accidents are not the fault of individuals, or at the very least the fault of individuals is due to the fault of inadequate legislation.
Take for example seatbelts, the industry fought for years to keep them out of cars, and fought improvements every step of the way. Even today they are quite unsafe. Back seats don't usually have the same seatbelts, and even front seats are quite faulty-just compare them to what pilots use.
I know a girl who now has permanent back pain because she was rear ended and even though she has a pricey BMW the seat belt didn't lock and there's your whiplash.
And like I said, Toyota just proved how easy it is to get people to buckle up, that could have been done three decades ago, and with legislation could ensure that every car has such a system.
So IF such a thing is easily possible then its not the fault of 'individuals'. Would you say that a person deserves to DIE just because they forgot to put on their seat belt? I'd hope the answer is no.
So like trucking the fault lies in regulating an industry, NOT in individual responsibility (even less so than the seatbelt example).
That's why they are called 'accidents', individuals can't predict when such a thing can occur, but a government knows full well what the statistics are and what can prevent them, so the government is culpable, not individuals.
Yes, our new (2 year old car) sure is sweet, that lower tax rate sure is sweet. I can drive all around to all the various health care services that are not covered by our health care system anymore, read about our water and local tax rates going up, and the local 'out in the cold' program of six churches who started ten years ago to help the region with homelessness til they got enough low income housing and now has ten times the number of 'clients' and virtually no movement on low income housing.
Hooray! The tax rate saved us about three hundred dollars and I'm waiting for surgery that will cost me $1000-not to mention its been three years since I've seen an optomotrist since that is no longer covered either. Plus I've got five more years of debt on a car that just depreciated 20% the minute I drove off the lot. Happy Holidays!
Public transit?
Interesting you mention drunk driving spinks as 91 per cent of Canadians in a recent national survey by Transport Canada believe impaired driving is the most important concern on the roads.
Tough love for drunk drivers
I think yoj made my point, however, like any poll, until you see the questions and how it was conducted you simply can't trust it. And MADD has never even pretended to be an objective analyzer so you'll notice part of the survey was 'focus groups' and you can see in the article how 'once people were told...'.
Which means those conducting the test weren't exactly being objective or even trying to be. If they were giving people information on one, what about others? Plus, of course, what other issues can you even think of? If somebody said, "I'm from MADD...what do you think is the biggest concern on the road?" what would you say..potholes?
ANd you'll notice that MADD also uses their own defitions for how much drugs and alcohol are related to accidents, so that may be out of whack, we simply don't know without autopsys.
But everybody has heard of this issue, but what about trucking legislation that lets cross border truckers work 16 hours straight? If you were doing a poll and asking people whether they were concerned about those issues, IF they knew what trucking regulations were, then they might be concerned. Like in that poll, people simply don't know the facts, because they can only see media. Most people think that ONE beer or drink means you are too drunk to drive because those are the ads shown over and over again. In reality, as the article says and any lawyer will tell you, you can have about five drinks an hour and still be under the limit. They also may not know that most of those legal regulations are already law in most places.
Nothing to do with corporate welfare, except that the government takes a keen interest in drinking and driving because they have a monopoly on booze. However, virtually nothing is ever said of trucking regulations-and lack of regulations can be a subsidy as well.
Following from the above, yet another transport related death in Saskatchewan today. For something 'not that common' it sure it depressingly common (from the sounds of it we can add seatbelts to the incident as well).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home