Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts

Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
78 Posts 23 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M MyBrainHurts

    To each their own.

    Edit: removed personal details.

    If you know anyone who works in government or a quasi governmental agency, they will tell you horror stories of colleagues who couldn’t be removed but couldn’t be arsed to do anything over the bare minimum (like being sober, showing up and handling at least one file a day.)

    There has to be something in between the nihilistic conservative “burn it all down, no more bureaucracy!” and the opposite “every government employee is sacred!” I think a slow reduction through attrition and buyouts seems pretty reasonable and gives enough time to actually find efficiencies and innovations.

    K This user is from outside of this forum
    K This user is from outside of this forum
    Kindness is Punk
    wrote on last edited by kindnessispunk@lemmy.ca
    #40

    The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness. A company’s goal is shareholder returns, so it serves profitable customers and abandons the rest. We see this taken to its extreme with certain venture capital and private equity firms: they can buy a company, burden it with the debt used for its own acquisition, extract massive fees and dividends, and leave it a hollowed out shell. When it collapses, the architects of that failure are shielded from the consequences.

    A government’s mission is the opposite: to serve everyone, especially the vulnerable. Applying this profit extraction model to public service doesn’t eliminate costs it just shifts them, following the destructive maxim of ‘privatize the profits, socialize the costs.’ For a corporation, this might be a successful short-term play. But for a government it’s long-term ruin

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • K Kindness is Punk

      The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness. A company’s goal is shareholder returns, so it serves profitable customers and abandons the rest. We see this taken to its extreme with certain venture capital and private equity firms: they can buy a company, burden it with the debt used for its own acquisition, extract massive fees and dividends, and leave it a hollowed out shell. When it collapses, the architects of that failure are shielded from the consequences.

      A government’s mission is the opposite: to serve everyone, especially the vulnerable. Applying this profit extraction model to public service doesn’t eliminate costs it just shifts them, following the destructive maxim of ‘privatize the profits, socialize the costs.’ For a corporation, this might be a successful short-term play. But for a government it’s long-term ruin

      M This user is from outside of this forum
      M This user is from outside of this forum
      MyBrainHurts
      wrote on last edited by mybrainhurts@piefed.ca
      #41

      Applying this profit extraction model to public service

      Getting back to 2019 spending levels over a few years is hardly hollowing out the government.

      And what that freed up money is doing is investing in stuff that makes those services work better.

      For example in healthcare, which is hanging on by a thread, I think a few billion are going to building and renovating hospitals and investing in a new medical school. Those all make the services more efficient and sustainable in the long run.

      Edit: My goodness, the cuts are something like 13 billion out of a 500 billion budget.

      K 1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • M MyBrainHurts

        Applying this profit extraction model to public service

        Getting back to 2019 spending levels over a few years is hardly hollowing out the government.

        And what that freed up money is doing is investing in stuff that makes those services work better.

        For example in healthcare, which is hanging on by a thread, I think a few billion are going to building and renovating hospitals and investing in a new medical school. Those all make the services more efficient and sustainable in the long run.

        Edit: My goodness, the cuts are something like 13 billion out of a 500 billion budget.

        K This user is from outside of this forum
        K This user is from outside of this forum
        Kindness is Punk
        wrote on last edited by
        #42

        Most of the money got reallocated to the military though.

        M 1 Reply Last reply
        1
        • K Kindness is Punk

          Most of the money got reallocated to the military though.

          M This user is from outside of this forum
          M This user is from outside of this forum
          MyBrainHurts
          wrote on last edited by
          #43

          They’re cutting 13 billion. 51 billion (over 10 years) is going to local infrastucture; housing, roads, health and sanitation facilities.

          Yes, military got more (~82 billion) and I don’t love that. Though, one part I do love is that a chunk of that military is also dual use, so climate emergencies like wildfires, floods etc.

          K 1 Reply Last reply
          1
          • M MyBrainHurts

            They’re cutting 13 billion. 51 billion (over 10 years) is going to local infrastucture; housing, roads, health and sanitation facilities.

            Yes, military got more (~82 billion) and I don’t love that. Though, one part I do love is that a chunk of that military is also dual use, so climate emergencies like wildfires, floods etc.

            K This user is from outside of this forum
            K This user is from outside of this forum
            Kindness is Punk
            wrote on last edited by
            #44

            Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.

            M 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • K Kindness is Punk

              Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.

              M This user is from outside of this forum
              M This user is from outside of this forum
              MyBrainHurts
              wrote on last edited by
              #45

              Sure, you can dislike the military spending.

              That doesn’t mean the budget isn’t investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.

              K 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M MyBrainHurts

                Sure, you can dislike the military spending.

                That doesn’t mean the budget isn’t investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.

                K This user is from outside of this forum
                K This user is from outside of this forum
                Kindness is Punk
                wrote on last edited by
                #46

                I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.

                M 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K Kindness is Punk

                  I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.

                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                  MyBrainHurts
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #47

                  Again, that’s a fine and valid critique of the budget.

                  The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness…

                  This position however, does not seem valid when the budget is putting in more than it removes from actual public services, 51 billion v 13.

                  K 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R Rentlar

                    The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

                    Nik282000N This user is from outside of this forum
                    Nik282000N This user is from outside of this forum
                    Nik282000
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #48

                    Cut the 30B that subsidizes oil and gas.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    10
                    • M MyBrainHurts

                      Sorry, I seriously disagree with about all of this.

                      Inequality is what gives the ultra-wealthy their outsized influence in the political economy.

                      This is about Canadian politics. We have strict rules and limits on donations, advertising and support. Like anything, could probably be better but it’s a pretty fair balance.

                      the government can issue currency essentially at will.

                      Apologies but this is childishly ignorant. Look to most countries in South America about the consequences of doing so. Inflation is very real and reducing the value of the Canadian dollar hurts those who can afford it least.

                      Taxes aren’t there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality.

                      Absolutely not. Being equally poor without teachers, doctors, roads, defence, I mean my God.

                      tax the billionaires

                      We do. You let me know how much you think we do currently, how much more you would like.

                      And if they leave: we’re better off that way too!

                      Who needs hospitals, schools, emergency responders etc anyway? At least we won’t have dumb ol’ rich people anymore!

                      P This user is from outside of this forum
                      P This user is from outside of this forum
                      patatas@sh.itjust.works
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #49

                      You’re welcome to disagree - but everything I said is factual. If there’s something you don’t understand, I’m happy to explain - just ask.

                      M 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                        You’re welcome to disagree - but everything I said is factual. If there’s something you don’t understand, I’m happy to explain - just ask.

                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        MyBrainHurts
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #50

                        the government can issue currency essentially at will.

                        Okay, sure, this is technically true. In the same way that technically, you can drink bleach it’s just a very bad idea.

                        P 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • M MyBrainHurts

                          the government can issue currency essentially at will.

                          Okay, sure, this is technically true. In the same way that technically, you can drink bleach it’s just a very bad idea.

                          P This user is from outside of this forum
                          P This user is from outside of this forum
                          patatas@sh.itjust.works
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #51

                          It’s literally how we dealt with the first phase of the Covid pandemic. Was keeping millions of Canadians from being evicted a bad idea?

                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                            It’s literally how we dealt with the first phase of the Covid pandemic. Was keeping millions of Canadians from being evicted a bad idea?

                            M This user is from outside of this forum
                            M This user is from outside of this forum
                            MyBrainHurts
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #52

                            Covid, and emergencies like it, are entirely the point of fiscal responsibility!

                            In an emergency, you can max out your credit. If you do that on the regular, for non emergencies, not only will you end up paying an absurd amount of interest, but you won’t be able to borrow more when the next emergency happens!

                            P 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • M MyBrainHurts

                              Covid, and emergencies like it, are entirely the point of fiscal responsibility!

                              In an emergency, you can max out your credit. If you do that on the regular, for non emergencies, not only will you end up paying an absurd amount of interest, but you won’t be able to borrow more when the next emergency happens!

                              P This user is from outside of this forum
                              P This user is from outside of this forum
                              patatas@sh.itjust.works
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #53

                              Great ok so we at least agree that issuing currency is not the fiscal equivalent of drinking bleach, and that there are good and bad reasons to do it.

                              M 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                                Great ok so we at least agree that issuing currency is not the fiscal equivalent of drinking bleach, and that there are good and bad reasons to do it.

                                M This user is from outside of this forum
                                M This user is from outside of this forum
                                MyBrainHurts
                                wrote on last edited by mybrainhurts@piefed.ca
                                #54

                                Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will.

                                Edit: You CAN drink a small amount of bleach. Just like you CAN print money during a generational event.

                                A small amount of bleach will burn a bit. A small amount of printing money caused inflation that we also haven’t seen in decades. It hurts families now but that’s the price we paid to help during covid.

                                P 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • R Rentlar

                                  The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

                                  circav@lemmy.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                                  circav@lemmy.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                                  circav@lemmy.ca
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #55

                                  This budget is ass.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  1
                                  • R Rentlar

                                    I mean, that’s how a lot of Canadian politics works… “passed because no one really hated it”…

                                    N This user is from outside of this forum
                                    N This user is from outside of this forum
                                    nouveau_burnswick@lemmy.world
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #56

                                    That’s how all politics works. You can’t make everyone happy, so you just try to make every less unhappy.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    1
                                    • M MyBrainHurts

                                      Which services are you thinking of?

                                      The major thing I’ve seen is reducing the number of public sector employees back to 2020 levels, which doesn’t seem wild. (I haven’t seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I’d love to read it!) Throw in some reductions of outside consultants etc…

                                      There are undoubtedly some programs getting cut. But given we’re teetering on the edge of an adversary induced recession, that doesn’t seem unsreasonable.

                                      N This user is from outside of this forum
                                      N This user is from outside of this forum
                                      nouveau_burnswick@lemmy.world
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #57

                                      Generally speaking, reducing public servants increases consultancy requirements, not reduces.

                                      If you don’t have someone with the capabilites/skills/corporate knowledge/experince/capacity to do X thing on the payroll, then you need to hire a consultant to do it.

                                      Now obviously I couldn’t tell you what ministry/department/etc needs, but let’s take the Alto contract as an isolated example.

                                      We don’t have any rail expertise in government at all, so we need to consult it in, and we pay a premium for that. In the lens of a single rail project, that makes a a lot of sense, we aren’t paying payroll and maintaining expertise for a once in a generation project.

                                      The alternative is having something like a national rail crown corp or department, like SNCF in France. Now all the experience is at the national level whenever you need it. SNCF has a lot more staff, planning, and engineering capacity than it requires; so that gets farmed out to regions and municipalities to help them with their rail/metro/tram projects. This is instead of each of them needing consultants, driving up the costs for municipal governments/capital projects.

                                      In this manner increased federal spending becomes an accelerant for other levels of government and reduces regional and municipal spending, and thus the overall tax burden for everyone.

                                      So if we had something like SNCF then the Alto project might cost a little more, but the Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto, and Montréal recent/ongoing lines would be cheaper; plus medium cities like Victoria, Winnipeg, Québec City, and Halifax would have rail projects in their reach; and smaller cities like Red Deer, Regina, Thunder Bay, Kingston, Trois Rivières, and Fredericton would have tram projects in their reach.

                                      M 1 Reply Last reply
                                      2
                                      • M MyBrainHurts

                                        Again, that’s a fine and valid critique of the budget.

                                        The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness…

                                        This position however, does not seem valid when the budget is putting in more than it removes from actual public services, 51 billion v 13.

                                        K This user is from outside of this forum
                                        K This user is from outside of this forum
                                        Kindness is Punk
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #58

                                        That part wasn’t a critique of the budget, it was a critique of your pitch for efficiency. You pivoted the discussion, I followed.

                                        M 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • M MyBrainHurts

                                          Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will.

                                          Edit: You CAN drink a small amount of bleach. Just like you CAN print money during a generational event.

                                          A small amount of bleach will burn a bit. A small amount of printing money caused inflation that we also haven’t seen in decades. It hurts families now but that’s the price we paid to help during covid.

                                          P This user is from outside of this forum
                                          P This user is from outside of this forum
                                          patatas@sh.itjust.works
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #59

                                          Taxes, then, are disinflationary, right? Which is why we need to tax the rich especially

                                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post