Joseph C. Ben-Ami

If I wanted a Liberal budget, I'd have voted Liberal
Monday, 26 January 2009

So now, finally, all is revealed. It seems that the critiques were right after all; the federal Conservatives under the leadership of Stephen Harper really did have a “hidden” agenda – just not the one everyone thought. Instead of being the committed conservatives that some people feared, but that just as many people hoped for, it turns out that the Harper Conservatives were actually big-borrowing, big-spending liberals in the style of Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark.

The Harper government is poised to deliver a budget that projects a deficit of $34 billion this year followed by another $30 billion next year. To put those numbers into perspective, consider that the highest ever federal deficit previously recorded in Canada was approximately $39 billion in the 1992-1993.

In a attempt to placate those voters – especially conservative voters – who are sure to be angered, not just with the deluge of red ink of this fiscal plan, but more particularly by the speed and ease with which he has broken his no-deficit pledge of the recent election campaign, Mr. Harper is promising that the budget will be back in the black by the end of five years. Assuming that is true – a dubious assumption given that these are the same crystal ball gazers who just weeks ago were still assuring us that there would be no borrowing – the total accumulated deficit by then could very well exceed $100 billion, virtually wiping out any progress made in the last decade in whittling down Canada’s national debt.

Mr. Harper is promising other provisions in the budget calculated to appease conservatives, like making certain tax cuts “permanent” while reducing other taxes. No one should be bamboozled by this. In the first place, by borrowing money he’s actually raising taxes, but leaving them for the next generation to pay. As for making any tax cut “permanent”, the promise is nothing more than empty rhetoric. Nothing in politics is ever permanently settled, especially when it comes to taxes and tax policy. Recall how easily Mr. Harper ignored his own fixed election date legislation when he deemed it convenient to do so.

From a public policy viewpoint, the spending spree outlined in the last several days is a disaster of the first magnitude. It represents a complete repudiation of the sort of sensible fiscal discipline that Canada needs, not just to overcome the economic difficulties of today, but more importantly, to meet the colossal challenges now looming large on our horizon as the baby-boom generation gets set to retire, for the most part ungracefully.

Politically, the picture is equally grim – at least it is for the Conservatives. No doubt many Conservative supporters, perhaps even a majority, will continue to rationalize the party’s relentless abandonment of conservative principles as the price of retaining power, but a growing number – including several prominent Conservative activists and Conservative backbenchers – are beginning to wonder at what point the pursuit of power becomes an unseemly end in itself, rather than a means to an end. Many in this group, especially the veterans, believe that Mr. Harper crossed that bridge a long time ago.

The Liberals, on the other hand, have to be feeling pretty good right now. Not only do they have a new and better leader (thanks in large part to the questionable strategic decisions of Mr. Harper and his closest advisors), but they have managed to maneuver the Conservatives into endorsing, with the exception of a few details here and there, the fiscal plan they laid out in the recent election campaign. Better yet, from the Liberals’ point of view, is the fact that Mr. Harper and his finance minister themselves are defending the neo-Keynesianism of their political opponents, exhorting free market champions in their own party to eschew “ideology” and adopt a more “pragmatic” approach to governing. It seems not to have occurred to them that the free market is the least ideological approach to economic development since it's the only option that lets people decide for themselves where, when and how they will spend or invest the money they earn.

It’s hard to imagine talking points being more devastating to the conservative cause and more supportive of the Liberal party’s own communications objectives.

It’s time for principled, grassroots conservatives in Canada to come together and remind their leaders that the Conservative Party belongs to them, and that they believe it should represent common-sense conservative values when it is in power as well as when it is in opposition.

Conviction, and the vision that flows there from, may not win every election, but it will win more elections than the quasi-liberal “do-whatever-it-takes” approach of successive Conservative leaders of the past.


Comments (23)add comment
Steve: ...
Hey Joseph - you know, you should be writing a regular column for one of the major newspapers or maybe have a TV or radio show. Your commentaries are always measured and thoughtful, which is exactly what conservatives need in this country.
1

January 26, 2009
Just-me: ...
Sometimes situations change and require an appropriate response. As for Steve, that was good use of sarcasm, very funny!.
2

January 26, 2009
Peter Wassill: ...
Political parties always work to secure power, no matter what. Harper is among the best at it. I believe that a good mix of tax cuts and public spending will work to keep us out of depression. There also has to be world-wide stimulus. The loss of a few heads at the corporate executive level would be enjoyable since they helped to create this mess. Our greed for things makes us an occomplice also. We depended too much on credit that was not deserving.
Thanks.
Peter Wassill
St Catharines, Ont
3

January 26, 2009
Greg Rodger: ...
Do you even know what neo-keynsian economics are??? I doubt the liberals are akin to Regan era spending.
4

January 26, 2009
Gerry Roeder: ...

Harper is backed into a corner. The economy in the state it's in needs Gov't help whether we like it or not. I just hope he sticks to his guns on the tax cuts. He also needs to reduce the size of Government and freeze their salaries (for the most part they're overpaid). Harper is still by far the lesser of 4 evils!!!!
5

January 26, 2009
Donna: ...
You can't please all of the people all of the time. With the threat of a coalition goverment being formed, Mr. Harper had to try and appease them, and the economy does need a boost. I have to agree with Gerry Roeders comment...Mr. Harper does need to reduce the size of government, and they definetly need a freeze on their salaries. No matter what, the conservatives and Mr. Harper are the best leaders. I am so Liberaled out. That party has never done anybody any good. People should calm down and let Mr.Harper do what he says he's going to do, and give him a chance. The Liberals and NDPs are the real ones with "hidden" agendas.
6

January 26, 2009
Jeremy Swanson: ...
To this writer as a Fathers and Mens Rights Activist the Harper Government has simply slipped into the slot normally reserved for enemies. I now have no option but to regard the party and its leader as such and work against the Conservative Government
7

January 26, 2009
bigcitylib: ...
Who are the backbenchers?
8

January 26, 2009
Al Hiebert: ...
Given the global economic crisis, and multi-national patterns of economic stimuli, and given the threat of coalition take-over of govenment, the options left to Harper and his government are quite restricted. They still are better than their alternatives, so I have no stomach to seek their defeat, in spite of their compromises.
9

January 26, 2009
Steve: ...
Gerry and Donna,

How can you advocate for smaller government and not say anything critical about the massive spending increases since Harper came to power in 2006, a 15% growth in program spending in his first two years, precisely the average rate of growth in the previous years under the Liberals. I too believe that Harper is better than the others, but it's high time he begin to prove it. I was in Winnipeg in Novermber when he admonished conservatives to be more pragmatic and less ideological. If this budget is his idea of being less ideological, then I have a suggestion on how we can be more pragmatic - just vote Liberal and let's have done with it.

Look, the bottom line is this - Harper is a fine man and a smart one to boot, but he doesn't walk on water and he isn't immune from the corrupting influence of power. He's wrong about this budget and we conservatives have an obligation to tell him he's wrong - not because we want to see him go, but because we want to see him succeed. it's call speaking truth to power.

To Just-me:

The situation didn't change that much in the space of a few weeks. And Iwasn't being sarcastic. A little more plain-talking is just what this country needs. I suspect that you don't like what Joseph has to say, but you don't know enough about the subject to debate it intelligently so you just prefer that he not be heard.

Finally, to Greg:

I do know what Neo-Keynesian is, thanks for asking and it isn't what Ronald Reagan followed in the United States.



10

January 26, 2009
Gordon Gilchrist: ...
Much as I dislike the left-leaning aspects of tomorrow's budget, as a former M.P. who sat through the vote on the responsible Crosbie Budget in 1979 and saw the Joe Who minority government fail because of the belief that the great unwashed public would see and accept the merits of responsible financing, I have to agree that a somewhat balanced approach is necessary with which to survive.
To take the high road and fall on our own swords is to fail to recognize that any Canadian who is not a Member of the governing Party is simply a Canadian with an opinion and susceptible to the vagaries of the victors. Heaven spare us from that!
A really good political move would have been to announce the first positive move to create jobs, generate national wealth, kill the ridiculous Kyoto millstone and start on real environmental upgrading. All of those objectives will ultimately be achieved when Hydrogen supplants dirty petroleum and coal. By announcing that our railroads would be converted (easily done) as the opening initiative, our industries and the world would see that Canada had embarked on serious industrial restoration and was putting a dent in the global warming initiative.
Who, other than the Flat Earth Society, would object? Industrialists? Workers? Young people looking for high tech jobs? Investors? Environmentalists? Prime Minister Mulroney called for a Hydrogen initiative and even Prime Minister Harper thinks it's a good idea. When do you suppose smart politics will catch up with smart ideas?
11

January 26, 2009
Barry: ...
The small-c fiscal, social and judicial conservative that Conservative Party members misguidedly thought they were voting for as our leader in 2002 would, under no circumstance, tolerate the country to return to a colossal, superfluous 40 plus billion dollar deficit which will undeniably not be short term and could do more harm than good. Anyone who believes that this deficit will be transitory has no sense of history. History validates how quickly so-called “temporary” spending programs are converted into the permanent financial structure paid for by enduring tax increases.

Rather than accepting Obama’s moronically socialistic claim that “only the government can break the vicious cycles crippling the economy”, the small-c fiscal conservative that we understood we had elected would know that a country can not spend its way out of a recession; and therefore would permit the free market to heal itself. The genuine conservative we sought would slash wasteful, profligate and peripheral billions from the $230 billion Federal budget. The Fraser Institute reports that a “recent study by European Central Bank economists found approximately 25 per cent waste in Canada’s public sector.” As an economist he knows that permanent tax cuts are more effective market place healers than government spending, and, therefore a small-c fiscal conservative would repossess dollars from the current, obese budget for tax cuts. As Don Drummond, chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank explained: “You have to marry [the permanent tax cut] up with a much tighter spending regime over the medium term.” To acquire tax cutting dollars the conservative we thought we had elected would expedite across the board cuts to all program spending, cut million of dollars of improvident foreign aid that ends up in dictators’ banks accounts, eradicate ineffectual programs, place an absolute freeze on all government hiring and their wages, sell government assets, close worthless crown corporations (specifically the far-left bias CBC), and eliminate direct corporate welfare. He would also save hundreds of millions of dollars by diminishing immigrant levels by 33% for the next three years. He would recognize that tax dollars are not government dollars, but taxpayers own money; therefore he would apply those resuscitate tax dollars to retroactively lower all levels of personal income taxes for 2008 and beyond, cut payroll taxes, corporate taxes and capital gain taxes which would put dollars into the hands of people who would immediately spend it and expedite the market place healing process. A fiscal conservative would also allow business to immediately expense new capital purchases. The cut in capital gains taxes and corporate tax cuts would attract foreign investments which is required to end this recession and allow the economy to expand. On the monetary side, a small-c conservative would welcome and encourage the Bank of Canada’s shift to lower the bank rate to 0.5%.

12

January 26, 2009
Vast Right Wing : ...
Harper is in a corner...how do you take out the Libs/NDP/Bloc legs?
Take awat their plan.
13

January 26, 2009
Robert Dupont: ...
I would never have beleaved it. I say drop the writ and have an election. Let the people decide on this matter as to who is the best to handle the country at this time. Does nobody remember Buffalo Bob's folly. Really, I've had enough of all this B.S. from the left and the conservatives bending to their will just for the sake of power. Have an election and get it over with, the economy will take care of its self. Always has always will. The last thing its needs is goverment intervention no matter what the loonies on the left think.
14

January 26, 2009
Michelle: ...
Come on Vast! Take away their plans? He's giving them what they want, a big spending budget! As for all you guys who keep saying that Harper is "better than the alternative", perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to how that might be? I like Stephen Harper, but like Joseph says in his title, if I wanted a liberal budget, I'd have voted for the liberals. What's the point of being in power if you're only implementing the policies that your opponents would implement if they were in power?
15

January 26, 2009
John Schmitt: ...
Anyone, including Joseph if applicable, who has not seen the DVD, "The Demographic Winter" needs to see it before making any comments about how to fix the economy. The main point that I see from this DVD is that economies can grow only when the population is growing. The Fraser Institute says that the current worldwide economic debacle is due to poor public policy with respect to the selling of mortgages. This is, no doubt, part of the problem, but when the population of any particular region begins to grow negatively rather than positively, its economy will collapse. A negative population growth begins when the birth rate falls below 2.1 births for every 2 adults in the population, especially when couples wait until they are in their mid to late thirties instead of their early twenties, to have their first child. Due to the aids epidemic in Africa, one-child families in China, aging populations, and adults in most developed countries worldwide already having fallen below 2.1 births per couple, global population is declining. There is no hope for economic growth until people go back to traditional family values. The only thing that has kept North American population growth positive is immigration. I am not an economist so I rely on common sense, which is a sadly lacking commodity among most economists I have read.
16

January 26, 2009
Michelle: ...
As it happens, you can order the DVD through the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies which is the organization Joseph heads. The url is:

http://policystudies.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=62

For anyone interested, in my opinion the CCPS is the only truly conservative think tank in Canada, definitely worth supporting. I see you can make small monthly contributions on your credit card now too. Maybe, if you ask, they will send you a copy of Demographic Winter for donating 25 dollars a month. The email address is This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
17

January 26, 2009
Luke: ...
John, another book that makes a similar point is Mark Steyn's America Alone. He connects it with the threat of radical islam, as opposed to economic growth but the basic point is the same. The western world is going out of business. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the economies of western countries are starting to struggle.
18

January 27, 2009
Luke: ...
Not to mention, they're becoming more and more reliant on the United States to consume their products because they don't have the native population base to sustain the growth.

As far as Joseph's column goes, I completely agree. We need to find a way to send the message to the party that we're not happy with the direction its taking, and that a course correction is necessary, and fast.
19

January 27, 2009
Chuck Venhuizen: ...
Thanks, Joseph, for calling conservative-minded people back to their roots. We should recognize, though, that huge pressures have weighed down the Conservative leadership. Their predicament stems from having Minority status, being told by the G.M. to become more collaborative, discovering that most of the country wants a stimulus package, being pressured by Keynesian policies in Europe and the U.S. AND still fearing a ruinous Coalition "takeover". So, for the sake of expediency and pragmatism, they have forsaken conservative principles of fiscal restraint for huge deficits, which makes Paul Martin's fiscal restraint policies of the '90's far more conservative than the current offerings. This is not merely Mr. Harper's quest to retain power, however. I think it is largely a perceived pragmatism and governing-by-consensus at work. Nonetheless, there may still be serious repercussions, both economically and politically. You have touched on the economic fallout, Joseph. And politically, by capitulating to Mr. Ignatieff's sabre-rattling, Mr. Harper may be regarded by many to be trumping power over principle, displaying weak and indecisive leadership and giving the Opposition leader free advertising about his leadership talents, which do seem formidable. Hopefully the Prime Minister will recognize all of this, and find his spine and ideological compass before it is too late.
20

January 27, 2009
Louis DeSerres: ...
I agree in principle on avoiding increasing government indebtedness. Nevertheless, there is one issue that is not being discussed. Institutions, including financial and economic ones, take a long time to set up. If this was so easy, we would all be driving green cars by now.
In a late year interview, Henry Paulson stated that the world's financial system skirted total meltdown three times during 2008. There are already many financial sub-systems which have ceased functioning altogether, many are severely impaired, and we are finding that it is very difficult to restart or replace them effectively in a timely manner.
If we allow the destruction or severe impairment of vital economic institutions, the price we pay could conceivably be even higher that the added taxes.
The U.S. government estimated that bailing out the auto companies would be less costly than allowing them to collectively go under. If I remember correctly, lost taxes alone would amount to $250 billions.
We are faced with the potential destruction not only of companies and jobs, but of institutions which cannot easily or rapidly be replaced (this is a global problem, not just a Canadian one). Emergency government spending can help preserve vital institutions and give us a margin of time to adapt.
21

January 27, 2009
Rob Berkman: ...
Mr. Ben-Ami,
The only reason I'm writing is because I can't believe no one is looking beyond the immediate facts, so excuse me while I try to pry the splinter out of your eye as I look past the log in my own. Quite recently, there loomed the very real surreallistic possibility of a hurriedly and heinously assembled coalition of jokers threatening to overthrow the Harper Government. I sincerely believe that Prime Minister Harper thought it about as desirable as the Communists taking over. In response, he adjourned parliament as long as practical to find the necessary space in which to come up with something of a fail-proof countermeasure. I think it's a tragic necessity that responsible minority government be subject to an irresponsible non-confidence motion such as was tabled before our unbelieving eyes late last year. Given the numerous reminders we've had on how Mr. Harper would really like to execute government, it seems rather obvious to me his about- face was only but to assuage the hecklers, lest we be allowed to fall under the alternative - which would be REALLY irresponsible of Mr. Harper.
22

January 27, 2009
Luke: ...
Rob, all of that was avoidable. Its hard to believe, but conservatives do actually bear some responsibility for the current situation.
23

January 28, 2009

Write comment
Please note that you can no longer comment on this column after 30 days.

busy