[djmk]

Fear the NDP, not this 'recession for sissies': Rob Macdonald
By Monte Paulsen January 23, 2009 06:00 pm

Vancouver developer Robert J. Macdonald called NDP leader Carole James a “smiling, shiny puppet of left-wing ideologues” and warned that New Democrats pose a greater threat to British Columbia’s economic well-being than the global economic meltdown.

Macdonald’s pithy speech was presented by the Urban Development Institute as part of its annual industry forecast luncheon.

“Those of us who remember the early 1980s remember that a serious recession is where interest rates are 20 per cent, there is no available credit, junior Canadian banks go bust left and right, billions are lost, government practices restraint instead of fiscal stimulus, a hundred thousand people protest in the streets, unemployment soars to 15 per cent, property values fall in half, and land values fall by 90 per cent,” Macdonald said.

By comparison, he continued, "The current economic slowdown in B.C. is really just a recession for sissies."

The Vancouver native, whose Macdonald Development Corp. claims more than $100 million worth of development activity in British Columbia, said B.C. is booming.

“The province of B.C. is in a truly envious position relative to all other regions in North America. B.C. has a very low level of provincial debt to GDP (at 14 per cent), a balanced budget, a AAA credit rating, and the lowest levels of corporate and personal income tax in North America,” Macdonald said.

Sporting his trademark Daddy Warbucks haircut and demeanor, Macdonald did include two actual predictions in his UDI speech:

Macdonald acknowledged that the region is going through “a minor residential property correction,” which he predicted “will be in the range of 17.5 percent from what were momentary peak prices.”

And he predicted that as a result of pent-up demand, “Our market is going to experience a solid turnaround in sales volume and price stability. I think this point will occur around October 2009.”

However, Macdonald predicated those predictions on the May reelection of Premier Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberal government.

“So the question I offer is this: What matters more to us in forecasting our industry’s future in B.C.? Is it the shallow, short-lived recession facing us? Or is the greater danger the possible four-year election of a provincial political party, controlled in part by people who have drunk the Kool Aid laced with the cyanide of socialism?”

Macdonald said the New Democrats are a party beholden to “big public sector unions” that have been “taken over by a mixed bag of Marxist, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists and Castroites.”

The Urban Development Institute audience of more than a thousand Metro Vancouver real estate professionals responded with loud applause.

“It’s true,” Macdonald replied.

“These people take millions of dollars of their union members money without approval and then run a political campaign based on fudge-it budgets, phony jobs and timber accords and other lies – and with all of that they try to take over the government,” he continued.

Macdonald accused past NDP governments of “destroying the economic welfare of our province as a whole, and destroying the lives of decent, hard-working union and non-union people in the private sectors of this province.”

He said former Premier Mike Harcourt had committed “confiscatory thievery” in the form of a corporate capital tax, and said former Premier Glen Clark “and his fellow travelers set about to make B.C. their very own socialist utopia, just like Cuba.”

“These people destroyed our industry,” Macdonald told the UDI luncheon on Friday. “And they would destroy us again in a heartbeat.”

“This history is worth remembering, because now we have a lovely Carole James leading the NDP, who is the new smiling, shiny puppet of the left-wing ideologues,” he said. “And so my friends, we are fast approaching a fork in the road on May 12th. Where either a continued bright future, or a return to the dark times is a possibility.”

The UDI’s forecast panel also included presentations by Polygon Homes chairman Michael Audain and Colliers International VP Avtar Bains. Both expressed confidence in the Lower Mainland real estate market.

“This is the sixth housing market correction that I’ve experienced,” Audain said. “In all of it, I wish I’d taken more advantage of the buying opportunities that were available at those times.”

“There will be no collapse of the real estate market in Vancouver,” Bains said. “I will give you the Avtar guarantee.”

Both Audain and Bains expressed strong support for a multi-billion-dollar housing stimulus package in next week’s federal budget; neither used the word "Marxist" in their remarks.

Monte Paulsen reports on housing and politics for The Tyee.ca.

[djmk]

:previous:
funniest thing i have read in a while:tup:

[touraccuracy]

ravman in 3.... 2.... 1...

[crazyjoeda]

I seriously fear the NDP. The prospect of the NDP being elected as government is terrifying. I was quite young when the NDP was running BC, but not to young to forget what a disaster they were. The BC Liberals are not perfect and I don't agree with everything they do, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

DON'T BE STUPID!!!!! DO NOT VOTE FOR THE NDP!!!!

[mr.x]

Screaming orgasms is he right on everything!

[ravman]

I'll Vote NDP in May
BC's stakes are so huge and lasting, change is a must.
View full article and comments here http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/08/04/NDP/
By Rafe Mair
Published: August 4, 2008
TheTyee.ca

I believe that the Campbell government is going to fall after the election next May.

Have I taken leave of my ever-diminishing senses? Maybe.

But maybe not, too.

Stick this on the fridge for the day after election day, when, I say confidently (I think!), the Campbell autocracy will be tossed out to the dismay of the toady Vancouver media and the pollsters who will, as usual, ask the wrong questions of the wrong people.

I must state my positions and prejudices. I am not supporting, nor have I ever supported, the NDP -- much less voted for them. For younger readers, I was a member of the Bill Bennett Socred government in the 70s and were I given the chance I would do it again. Of perhaps more importance, I'm spokesman for the Save Our Rivers Society and oppose with every ounce of strength in my aging body the autocrat's energy policy.

Premier Campbell's energy policy will see the end of B.C. Hydro and public power while wreaking irreversible environmental carnage. It will see the substantial profits of B.C. Hydro go not into the public coffers for schools and hospitals but into dividends for shareholders in offshore corporations.

I am scheduled to take the fight against this almost treasonous policy right around the province, demanding that the Campbell autocracy changes its policy and if it doesn't, asking people only to vote for a candidate who pledges to support public power and save the environment.

I firmly believe that the public, slow to anger, will have had enough of the continued policy of environmental rape and Fraser Institute/Milton Friedman/Ronald Reagan/Margaret Thatcherism, the ideology of which is to oppose Crown corporations.

I believe that the public, when its attention is engaged, will demonstrate that it likes and wants public power.

Campbell vs. James

But must demanding that a candidate support public power and our rivers mean supporting the NDP? It would seem so. Though the Liberals can avoid that conclusion by changing their policy.

The autocrat does have two things going for him: memories of NDP governments past and NDP leader current. Since the NDP is most unlikely to dump Carole James, the party will have to work around her, and hope that the manifest sins of the autocracy will mean that the New Democrats' leadership difficulties are overlooked. There is no doubt that the NDP task would be simplified if it had a strong leader but I believe the NDP can win even the way the cards have been dealt.

I believe that the Campbell autocracy's sins on the environmental front are so egregious that people will so badly want to save their glorious outdoors that they will vote for whoever pledges to save it.

Connecting regional fights

The environment has not been seen as a win/lose issue in the past. In fact, in the last federal election, the question was not raised once in the televised leaders' debates. I see it becoming the number one issue in May of 2009 for two reasons: the greenhouse gas issue, while confusing voters (and politicians for that matter), has focused our collective minds on other environmental issues, and that works to the great political discomfort of the autocrat and his henchpersons. It must also be emphatically stated that Campbell's plans to destroy river valleys releases huge quantities of greenhouse gases otherwise contained by the flora of the ravaged valleys.

For the first time, the environment issue is province wide.

The people in the northwest are outraged by the autocrat's power giveaways to Alcan at the expense of their jobs.

The Campbell government has lied for seven years on the fish-farm issue and as each day passes, the autocrat's nose lengthens.

The people of West Vancouver, usually staunch Liberals, had a belly full of the Campbell government's version of environmental protection as Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon showed utter disdain for the people's feelings for Eagleridge Bluff.

The people of Delta at large have seen the same Falcon show utter indifference to the dangers his Gateway Project poses to Burns Bog and other sensitive environmental areas. The autocrat would appear to not care a fig about destroying farmland or pouring yet more carbon monoxide from the huge increase of truck traffic into the lungs of residents.

The people of Tsawwassen have seen Campbell's indifference to the deadly transmission lines being erected over their houses, schools and playgrounds.

BC Hydro: political dynamite

And now the entire province is becoming aware, day after day, region after region, of the death of the province's rivers and streams, and the autocrat's slow but sure strangulation of B.C. Hydro and the death of the public power system envied the world over.

The voter sees clearly that the annual profit of B.C. Hydro, hundreds of millions per year that helped build our hospitals and schools, are about to go into the pockets of offshore shareholders of huge companies who invest a pittance to make billions upon billions of dollars. They see, or soon will, how the Campbell autocracy will change our public power policy, so that we will be compelled to sell our power to the United States forever.

The voter sees, or soon will see, how the autocrat's policies will inevitably lead to B.C. selling its water into the United States in ever increasing quantities for, after all, once we've destroyed our fish, why not?

The B.C. public has seen just how phoney and cynical the environmental assessment process is under the Campbell autocracy. They clearly see environmental rules are a farce directed by Cabinet wimps, noting that from the outset of this government, ministers responsible for the environment have been Campbell toadies.

Groundswell building

But the voter is seeing something else never seen before.

An aroused public from all sides of the political spectrum came together in Pitt Meadows and forced the autocracy to back down from desecrating the Pitt, that jewel of jewels, that nurturer of our many salmonids. When the public forces an autocracy to blink, it creates a heady brew which gives the public courage to unsheathe their swords again... and again.

Assuming that the Campbell government is not going to change its disastrous policies, we are all faced with a choice.

Do we permit Campbell to finish off his policies of destroying public power and permanently scar every nook and cranny of the province we love?

Or do we risk electing a new government, which, however incompetent they may prove to be, will preserve the public power system which has served us so well and also preserve our streams and rivers, including the ecosystems they create?

NDP worth the risk

Past NDP governments may have left their successors with financial problems, but none that couldn't be fixed. In fact, it could easily be argued that the Campbell government has been no better and arguably worse. The Glen Clark government had its fast ferries fiasco, but that fades into obscurity when we remember that Campbell & Co. have hopelessly mismanaged the new Vancouver Convention construction, the errors from which will cost much more than Glen Clark's fast ferries.

I must remind us all that Campbell all but gave away B.C. Rail, would like to give away B.C. Ferries and is about to give away hundreds of millions of dollars in hydro profits to large corporations.

You still may be asking: does demanding that candidates support public power and preserve our environment really mean voting for the NDP? Have people such short memories that they've forgotten the decade of misrule of the NDP in the '90s?

I look at this way. However inept NDP governments of the '90s were, we can at least be sure that whatever else they may do, they will abandon the idiotic policies of environmental destruction and huge giveaways.

A shattered environment and torpedoed B.C. Hydro can never be restored.

Surely our guiding principle must be this: if the government won't change, we must change the government.

--

They've been saying Carole James is on the right track


Good for British Columbia, bad for Campbell's re-election hopes
"I think [NDP Leader Carole James] got the bit between the teeth. She's shown leadership. She's winning, in terms of public opinion in British Columbia, where it counts."
- Norman Spector (Voice of B.C. - Shaw TV), July 31, 2008

Surprising only to Gordon Campbell, British Columbians believe in fairness, not hypocrisy
"The [Ipsos-Reid] poll indicates far greater support for a proposal by NDP leader Carole James to tax industrial polluters at the source instead of imposing a tax on consumers.
"Fully 82 per cent of those polled said they'd rather the government ‘target major industrial producers' instead of imposing a tax at the retail level."
- Chad Skelton (Vancouver Sun), June 27, 2008

British Columbians apparently believe that governments should be more than spectators
"Carole James's response to Premier Gordon Campbell's 10-point plan was responsible, thoughtful and, most importantly, suggested that she is prepared and more than capable of dealing realistically with the issues facing our province, if elected premier."
- William Wiebe (letter to the Times Colonist), Oct. 30, 2008

They're weak because they haven't done anything
"I give Carole James credit for doing what an Opposition leader should do, which is jump on the weak spots of the government. Gordon Campbell admitted there was some trouble in the forest industry last month and announced a round table.
"...James has come out with a more substantive thing. ... I give her credit for coming out with a major policy statement on an area where the government is really deficient."
- Vaughn Palmer, Cutting Edge of the Ledge (CKNW), Feb. 8, 2008
They've been saying the Campbell government is arrogant


A plea for thicker dictionaries
"I doubt even the thickest Webster Dictionary could have words capable of describing the level of arrogance and disdain the Liberal government displays daily to the people of this province."
- Gord Lefort (letter to the Nanaimo Daily News), August 11, 2008

Campbell would like another comparison with his pal, Arnie
"Arrogance on steroids. That is the only way I can describe the actions of Gordon Campbell and the Liberals."
- Barb Burke (letter to the Penticton Western News), Oct. 14, 2008


The Campbell crew's profound arrogance makes everyone rather nervous
"There is a profound arrogance wrapped around the upper echelons of the government, and it is making many Liberal supporters rather nervous."
- Keith Baldrey (Burnaby Now), March 19, 2008
They've been saying the Campbell government is out of touch


Helloooo! Earth to Premier Campbell!
"We have no clue what planet the premier is living on... This government has lost touch with its citizens and lost touch with the people who really matter - average citizens struggling to make ends meet while raising a family.
"The May provincial election could not come soon enough."
- Ian Jacques (Whistler Question), August 15, 2008

Remember how Campbell gave his deputy a 43-per-cent pay raise?
"If the taxpayers of B.C. needed any more proof that Gordon Campbell's Liberals were far removed from the citizens that elected them, it came with the second round of obscene pay increases."
- Nancy Forhan (letter to the Georgia Straight), Aug. 28, 2008


... and how he did it on the opening day of the Olympics?
"On coffee row over here, the last straw was [Campbell] using a private jet to get to the Olympics and on the one hand he says we've got to cut down on the carbon footprint - and he goes on a private jet like a rockstar."
- Joe Easingwood (CFAX), Aug. 27, 2008
They've been saying the Campbell government is arrogant and out of touch

"This is about a lot more than money. It's about a government that really does seem to be arrogant and out of touch with B.C."
- Editorial (Nanaimo Daily News), Sept. 23, 2008
They've been finding inventive ways to describe Campbell government incompetence


No indication of how much the used-napkin-storer gets paid
"Somewhere in the east wing of the Legislature, a deputy minister in the Premier's office must be in charge of storing all the napkins and backs of envelopes that Campbell has used to scribble half-baked ideas."
- David Schreck, Strategicthoughts.com, Feb. 13, 2008

Time to toss this government onto the compost heap
"Something smells in British Columbia ...
"The real source of stink is Gordon Campbell's B. C. government, now seven years old and showing serious signs of rot."
- Brian Hutchinson (National Post), July 18, 2008


Maybe he should change his name to Amor de Cosmos II
"Our premier will likely go down as one of the worst, if not the worst, in B.C. history. The carbon tax he has introduced is nothing but a tax grab and has no bearing whatsoever on improving our environment."
- Lois Friedel (letter to the Kamloops Daily News), June 12, 2008

A government in desperate need of an education
"Yet, in spite of its own evidence, with ample support from the Harper government, the B.C. Liberal brain trust's is to cut back on university and college budgets.
"By any measure, not too bright."
- Former Social Credit cabinet minister Bruce Strachan (Prince George Citizen), July 10, 2008


There have also been inventive ways of suggesting the Campbell government has been less than 100-per-cent honest

Horse buns are not carbon-neutral...
"They saw utterances by Premier Campbell and his ministers as being horse buns such that few if any government statements are accepted at face value any more."
- Rafe Mair (The Tyee), April 21, 2008


... and spit-buckets are not tax-deductible
"The government's own figures show that this is not going to do a warm bucket of spit for climate change. .... This carbon tax is all about Gordon Campbell getting good headlines back east. And it's all about Carole Taylor burnishing her credentials for her next job. It has nothing to do with global warming."
- Norman Spector (Bill Good Show - CKNW), April 28, 2008

But he's got a green tie!
"If the province's new 2.5-cent carbon tax makes Gordon Campbell an environmentalist, then the chairman of Exxon must be David Suzuki."
- Jack Knox (Times Colonist), Dec. 28, 2008

The first of many no-headline-required quotes
"Underhanded, deceitful, disgusting and downright rotten.
"Those are the only ways to describe one of the most despicable moves by the B.C. Liberal government when it comes to mistreating people with disabilities."
- Bill Tieleman (24 Hours), July 29, 2008
There's been a surprising number of Sarah Palin references

What's the difference between a pitbull and Richard Neufeld? A pitbull won't misquote ya
"Furthermore, [Energy Minister Richard] Neufeld misquoted [NDP MLA John] Horgan in the Revelstoke Times Review and even got the date wrong. The NDP then poses this question:
"‘Is Richard Neufeld as ignorant about energy policy as pundits say vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is about foreign policy? You be the judge.'"
- Tom Fletcher (Nanaimo News Bulletin), Oct. 15, 2008


Was it scribbled on the back of a napkin? You betcha!
"I mean, to equate calling a fall sitting of the legislature -- i.e. giving MLAs an overdue opportunity to do the most important part of their jobs -- is a remarkably lame response to a global crisis. I'd expect better from Sarah Palin."
- Don Cayo (Vancouver Sun), Oct. 23, 2008

Note: no one is calling any Liberal a pig
"It comes as no surprise that the Gordon Campbell Liberals would re-brand a bad idea and still stick it to us. The first time they did this was when they re-branded themselves from Socreds to Liberals. It is still just more of the same. ‘Lipstick on a pig' is how I think it goes.
- John Yetman (letter to the Vancouver Sun), Sept. 22, 2008
They've been saying the Campbell government is only looking after their friends and insiders

Such as...
"I think a lot of people are beginning to suspect that [Premier Gordon Campbell] is in government to help his friends."
- Norman Spector (Voice of B.C. - Shaw TV), July 31, 2008

We totally did not make this headline up
"Premier deserves a dunce cap" (headline)
"The scent of old-style pork barrel politics is hanging over the premier's office."
- Paul Willcocks (Kelowna Daily Courier), Sept. 22, 2008
They were contributing to general mirth


We think this was sarcasm, but you never know...
"A B.C. environmental group has demanded the resignation of B.C. Forests Minister Rich Coleman. The ever-decisive Coleman immediately announced plans to organize a new province wide roundtable to determine whether he's still the forests minister."
- Mark Leiren-Young (the Tyee), June 10, 2008


Campbell tries a strategy sure to work on the key residential rodent demographic
"But the latest taxpayer-funded propaganda is much more brazen and in-your-face. It's an oversized four-page colour flyer being mailed out to B.C. homes and it reeks of partisan vote-buying.
"If you haven't seen this one yet, root through your recycling box or check the bottom of your gerbil cage. That's where this sort of junk mail usually ends up."
- Mike Smyth (The Province), Dec. 12, 2008

Who would play Voldemort, we wonder?
"If you're a Harry Potter fan, [the B.C. Rail corruption trial] case is to the hallowed halls of the legislature what Moaning Myrtle is to Hogwarts, a ghost that is shrieky, ever-present, and spilling uncomfortable home truths."
- Shachi Kurl (Vancouver Sun), March 13, 2008
In their own words, the Campbell Liberals show that they're:

Callous, arrogant
"Go take a look at my constituency, Madam Speaker. I'll take you up there, and we'll take a look at some river valleys that have been denuded by the lack of oversight that this government allowed on private lands."
- Cowichan - Ladysmith MLA Doug Routley
"Boo hoo."
- Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, Hansard, Feb. 14, 2008


Breath-takingly insensitive
"I don't believe for a moment that every child that went to a residential school was abused; I think a lot of aboriginal people benefited greatly from the residential school system, but we never hear from them."
- Bulkley Valley - Stikine MLA Dennis MacKay (Hansard), March 12, 2008


Way, way, way out of touch (Example A)
"I haven't heard any complaints (about the gas tax) and if there were any, I'd be one of the first to hear about them."
- Small Business and Revenue Minister Kevin Krueger (in the Kelowna Daily Courier), July 30, 2008

Way, way, way out of touch (Example B)
"My crystal ball was a little fuzzy. Clearly I did not see that [economic crisis] coming."
- Forest Minister Pat Bell (CBC Daybreak North), Nov 26, 2008


Way, way, way out of touch (Example C)
"There's no question we're on the right track."
- Housing Minister Rich Coleman, reacting to reports that there are at least 11,750 homeless in B.C. (in the Vancouver Sun), March 24, 2008

Hypocrites
"It's [coastal drilling] still an option.
"It was in the 2007 energy plan, and we're going to continue to work toward that.
"We still have to convince our federal partners that it'll be a good thing to do."
- Energy and Mines Minister Richard Neufeld (in the Prince Rupert Daily News), Dec. 10, 2008

We'll end with a note of optimism
"I believe that the Campbell government is going to fall after the election next May."
- Rafe Mair (The Tyee), August 4, 2008

[B]Top Ten Campbell Government Lowlights from 2008

10. Thinks the legislature is his own private playroom
After invoking closure and ramming through several important pieces of legislation in the spring sitting of the legislature, Premier Campbell arrogantly cancelled the fall sitting. When he could no longer ignore the economic storm, he announced a five-day sitting in late November. In those five days, he answered exactly one question.


9. Has abandoned ferry-dependent communities
Under the Campbell government's watch, ferry rates have skyrocketed while service has deteriorated. Service was cut back again in 2008 while fares on some routes have more than doubled.

8. Constantly ignores and dismisses independent officers who disagree with him
2008 was a year in which independent officers of the legislature - including Child and Youth representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and Auditor General John Doyle - had to fend off attacks from Premier Campbell and his government MLAs. Their wrongdoing? They had the audacity to be critical of failed government policies.

7. Ignores real problems and spends exorbitant sums on self-promotion
At a time when average British Columbians are worried for their jobs and tightening their belts, the Campbell government spent tens of millions of dollars on shameless self-promoting TV ads. The premier even had the gall to hand out faux gold medals to construction workers - with the name "Gordon Campbell" in bright, shiny letters.

6. Just wants you to shut up
The Campbell gag law comes into effect Feb. 12 and will restrict the ability of British Columbians to make comments on public policy.

5. Hides from accountability
Despite serious concerns about key insiders like Ken Dobell and Pat Kinsella, Campbell refuses to tighten up lobbyist registration legislation. And five years after the RCMP raided offices at the legislature, he refuses to come clean about what his office knows about the BC Rail corruption trial.

4. Sits idly by as the forest industry collapses
More than 15,000 jobs have been lost in the industry in the last two years, but the only thing the Campbell government has done is launch a do-nothing roundtable. It took three years before he replaced one of B.C.'s most inept forest ministers.

3. Gives outrageous pay raises to his top deputies but refuses to raise the minimum wage
Top deputy ministers were given pay raises of up to 43 per cent - and it was announced on the opening day of the Beijing Olympics. The minimum wage has been stuck at $8/hour since 2001.

2. Displays appalling environmental hypocrisy
The Campbell government dumped a punitive gas tax on British Columbians in 2008, effectively placing the environmental onus on average consumers. Meanwhile, the government wants to allow offshore coastal drilling, refuses to take action on species at risk, has privatized rivers and streams across B.C. and presses ahead on dangerous coalbed methane extraction.

1. Refuses to help the most vulnerable in our society: children and seniors
Despite promising to live up to the Hughes report to help children in care, the Campbell government has failed to protect vulnerable children. Under Campbell, B.C.'s child poverty rates are the highest in Canada for the fifth consecutive year. And caregivers are appalled to see their parents and grandparents abused and neglected, while the Campbell government has still not lived up to its 2001 promise to create 5,000 new long-term care beds.

--
If Olympic shoe fits badly, premier will wear it

If NDP was gov't, we wouldn't be stuck in this stew

By Michael Smyth, The Province January 13, 2009

As the full, ugly truth of the Olympic Village disaster was put on display at Vancouver City Hall yesterday, the powers-that-be across the water in Victoria were watching nervously from the B.C. legislature.

The questions racing through their minds: Is this a self-contained Vancouver municipal mess that won't spill over into provincial politics, or are Premier Gordon Campbell and his Liberal team going to wear some of the blame as the May election looms?

For the NDP and the rest of Campbell's enemies, those are easy questions to answer.

"It's not just a Vancouver project -- it's an Olympic project," NDP Leader Carole James said yesterday.

"Obviously, the Olympic village is a major part of the 2010 Olympics. So you'd think someone would have been briefing the premier on all the major projects associated with the Games. And he should have been asking the tough questions: Is this project on budget? What are the risks for taxpayers?

"I know those are the questions I would have asked."

In other words, if Carole James was premier, we wouldn't be stuck in this stew. The New Democrats would love to drive that message home with voters as they head to polls on May 12.

Meanwhile, back at city hall, Mayor Gregor Robertson and his Vision Vancouver council made great political theatre from the crisis.

City manager Penny Ballem delivered a powerful, warts-and-all presentation detailing how Vancouver taxpayers are on the hook for the project, which needs another $458 million.

Ballem, you might recall, was once one of the most respected senior bureaucrats in Campbell's government until she got fed up with interference from the premier's office and quit. I suspect there was much grinding of teeth in Victoria as they watched her presentation, knowing what was coming from the mayor.

"We need to act quickly and decisively," Robertson said. "We are in the middle of urgent and delicate negotiations, but I believe we can maintain the financing for this Olympic Village project."

But in order to do that, Robertson said, the premier must recall the B.C. legislature and give the city new authority to borrow the necessary funds.

Over to you, Gordon Campbell.

What a revolting predicament for the Campbell government. The last thing the B.C. Liberals want right now is any discussion of Olympic cost-overruns. An emergency sitting of the legislature to bail out the Olympic Village would be toxic politics for the Libs.

Unfortunately for Campbell, the village is just one of his Olympic-sized headaches right now. There's also the funding crunch for security costs. And the Olympic-driven cost-overruns on the Vancouver Convention Centre.

Try as he might, Campbell won't be able to completely escape all the blame for the emerging Olympic-budget blowouts. And, with the election just four months away, the timing could not be worse.

[mr.x]

^ things completely taken out of context or issues the general public simply do not care about.

"It's about the economy, stupid." ;)

[djmk]

ravman, join me on the darkside.

[touraccuracy]

In other news, Ravman's new avatar indicates a sharp shift further left in ideology...

but seriously, do you have any opinions that aren't published weekly by the NDP?



The main thing that makes me disdain the NDP is their spreading of misinformation about the Olympics (mainly the village) and their misunderstanding of obvious economics, like the fact that a gas tax on the industry side would do the same as the retail-side carbon tax.

[Stingray2004]

Any simpleton knows that one should always take their wallet/purse with them when leaving their vehicle.... BUT....

Carole James Robbed
METRO VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)

1/25/2009

BC NDP leader Carole James is grounded this weekend.

That's because her passport, all her ID, credit cards and even Blackberry have been stolen.

Without her passport and ID, she can't fly.

The robbery happened Friday night in Surrey outside the Bombay Banquet Hall where James was giving a speech.

Thieves broke into her car and then opened the trunk.

James says the culprits didn't waste any time trying to use her credit cards, "I had three credit cards, they used all three credit cards. They tried to use the bank card. We cut off the phone and the Blackberry had a password so they weren't able to get into that."

James was asked if she's learned a painful lesson, "For sure." :dunce:


And yes Carole, when British Columbians were also asked if they learned a painful lesson from the 1990's, the majority also responded: "For sure.":D

[djmk]

:previous:

oh crap... who is scarier carol or che?:shrug:

[flight_from_kamakura]

no offence djmk, but that article makes that developer guy sound like an absolute maniac.

the strongest hit on carole james is that she's a lightweight, not that's she's going to turn bc into communist cuba (seriously, wtf? lol) and destroy all wealth in the province, so as to facilitate a marxist revolution in which her union masters will progressively drive us back into the stone age.

if you want to get a realistic look at recent ndp policies (and not ravman's press releases), do a little empirical research - if you're worried about development issues, you might check out saskatchewan's insane building boom from 2003-2008. if you just want a more global sense of things (that is, non-agrarian) look to manitoba which, all things considered, has been the country's best-run province for a decade.

...

as an aside, is it at all possible for people to have informed political discussions on this board?

[Stingray2004]

if you just want a more global sense of things (that is, non-agrarian) look to manitoba which, all things considered, has been the country's best-run province for a decade.

What you fail to mention about the Manitoba NDP is this, for starters:

1. They cut corporate taxes;

2. They cut corporate capital taxes;

3. They cut taxes on high income earners;

4. They introduced numerous corporate tax credits;

5. Manitoba Hydro purchases private power from IPP's;

All of the foregoing is anathema to the BC NDP and in fact they would reverse those changes. Why? The BC NDP has a good chunk of hard left activists within the party who help mold policy.

What would be best for BC is the Ontario model.... a centrist Liberal party and a centre-right PC party whereby voters can easily change from one to the other, with a small third NDP acting as its social conscience.

[djmk]

no offence djmk, but that article makes that developer guy sound like an absolute maniac.



of course it does. that is what it makes it so funny.

[djmk]

What would be best for BC is the Ontario model.... a centrist Liberal party and a centre-right PC party whereby voters can easily change from one to the other, with a small third NDP acting as its social conscience.

agreed. except that in BC, the 2 centrist parties would split the vote and the NDP would win.

[usog]

My view of the NDP is, say, tempered by the extremity of its supporters, to put it politely.

[deasine]

My view of the NDP is, say, tempered by the extremity of its supporters, to put it politely.

Sometimes, you don't have to be polite in these forums... or else people won't understand you.

[Metro-One]

I will be voting liberal this upcoming election, but i do not have the same hatred towards the NDP as many people here seem to have developed. In fact i really do hope that there is a strong NDP opposition at the end of this election, because in all honesty the previous term (where it was almost entirely liberal) was a disaster as well. It is only this current term that we have somewhat of a balance occurring. It is never good to have a government in place without some form of checks and balances. Many people bring up the NDP blunders in the past, yet we seem to forget so quickly a certain premier of ours driving drunk in Hawaii. To me that was also embarrassing seeing our premier in another nation having mug shots taken. Personally for me i don't like Campbell or James.

Anyways, i have gone off track here, what i want to say is everyone goes down Ravman's throat about his political propaganda, but is this not the same? To me this article was a bunch of extreme right wing garbage to the same level that many of Ravman's articles are extreme left wing garbage. If we are not going to allow such activity outside of the one "political" thread than i would like to see the moderators take a neutral stance on these conversations.

[mr.x]

I will be voting liberal this upcoming election, but i do not have the same hatred towards the NDP as many people here seem to have developed. In fact i really do hope that there is a strong NDP opposition at the end of this election, because in all honesty the previous term (where it was almost entirely liberal) was a disaster as well. It is only this current term that we have somewhat of a balance occurring. It is never good to have a government in place without some form of checks and balances. Many people bring up the NDP blunders in the past, yet we seem to forget so quickly a certain premier of ours driving drunk in Hawaii. To me that was also embarrassing seeing our premier in another nation having mug shots taken. Personally for me i don't like Campbell or James.

I think we all agree on the need for a strong opposition in any majority government. But considering how narrow the 2009 race will be, let the dogs out for this one: the return of the NDP is a disaster in waiting.



Anyways, i have gone off track here, what i want to say is everyone goes down Ravman's throat about his political propaganda, but is this not the same? To me this article was a bunch of extreme right wing garbage to the same level that many of Ravman's articles are extreme left wing garbage. If we are not going to allow such activity outside of the one "political" thread than i would like to see the moderators take a neutral stance on these conversations.

We're balancing his 200 or so leftist propaganda posts with 1 right propaganda post.:haha:

[Metro-One]

:previous: Well sometimes people should remember that socialism is what made Canada the nation it is today. Without it we would be a carbon copy of the U.S.A. And that thought makes me shudder, i want to see more spending towards education and medical services, and obviously the liberals better keep all of their transportation promises.

This article though really should not have a thread of its own and all this should be moved into the political discussion, thats what bugs me.

Yes Ravman does post a bunch of stupid articles and actually does more harm than good to his cause, but i am finding this current thread quite childish. And you can not say that this article is not rubbish.

The other alternative is if this thread is kept, then Ravman should be able to create his own threads based on articles.

[jlousa]

To clarify, there isn't an issue with policital propaganda as long it's in the right place. This is the polictial thread so it's fine, if this article was posted in a thread about transit or something it would be removed just the same.


Now to touch on this article it's out of context, yes those things were said, but you needed to be there to see how it was said. A lot of the over the top stuff was said jokingly and there was laughter following some of the comments. So while it's still over the top he isn't some raving luniac like it sounds reading it.

[MistyMountainHop]

I'm not really liking either party these days. Maybe BCMP is the way to go ... :tup:

[usog]

Eh, everyone hates extremists but whilst I admit I am fairly rightist/conservatives in view, the NDP seems to be trying its hardest to make itself look bad. From the fairy-tale NDP in BC to the union-diehard NDP in Ontario to the absolutist Federal NDP. Dunno about you guys but they are starting to look like loonies to me.

[Hourglass]

I'll Vote NDP in May

With all due respect, isn't that a bit like the Pope proclaiming that he's Catholic?

[ravman]

With all due respect, isn't that a bit like the Pope proclaiming that he's Catholic?

its RAFE MAIR, a former SOCRED minister writing that... i just added the oomph!

[LeftCoaster]

its RAFE MAIR, a former SOCRED minister writing that... i just added the oomph!

Haha well in that case I'd like to take a hugh oomph all over Carole James' face.

[Stingray2004]

Haha well in that case I'd like to take a hugh oomph all over Carole James' face.


Are you actually sure about that? Just in case, I thought that I better put Carol James best face forward::P

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/2549/320/carole-james-poll.0.jpg

[windscar]

:previous: Nightmares

[Phil McAvity]

Actually Carole wasn't a bad looking broad when she was younger, however anyone that votes for the NDP in the upcoming provincial election either doesn't care about the economy or doesn't know anything about history because the NDP has consistently proven that they are better at mismanaging the economy than any other provincial government.

[crazyjoeda]

Being bad for the economy is just one problem with the NDP. NDP politicians seem like they'll say anything to get elected. They are a party of jokers who will crash our Province into the ground.

[ravman]

Being bad for the economy is just one problem with the NDP. NDP politicians seem like they'll say anything to get elected. They are a party of jokers who will crash our Province into the ground.

Balanced provincial budget looking unlikely
Gordon Campbell facing a lose-lose situation

Michael Smyth
The Province

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Politicians always like to brag that they've kept their promises to voters -- especially when an election is on the way.

But when it comes to Gordon Campbell's oft-repeated promise to balance the budget, many Liberals are starting to wonder:

Does it make sense to keep a promise -- even one delivered in such sacrosanct terms -- if you're going to get politically roasted for doing it?

The B.C. budget comes down on Feb. 17. Just a few months ago, it looked like another balanced budget would be fairly easy, even with the economic storm clouds gathering.

The Campbell government was sitting on a large surplus and untapped contingency funds. The Bank of Canada was predicting B.C. would be spared the worst of the recession. It appeared the government could increase spending -- especially on health care and education -- and still balance the books. With an election in May, the Liberals smelled a delicious political opportunity: Look at the economic miracle we have achieved!

The rest of the country is going up in flames, but we built a firewall around B.C.! Balanced budgets, increased spending and even generous tax cuts would be laid on the pre-election banquet table for salivating voters, while the rest of the country went hungry.

Liberal election strategists loved the irony of a prosperous British Columbia island in a sea of economic misery.

Compare that to the 1990s, they'd say, when B.C.'s economy went down the tubes under the NDP while the rest of the country was riding high.

So the Liberals laid it on thick: The books would be balanced in accordance with Campbell's sacred balanced-budget law, and only the miracle-working Liberals could do it. Carole James and the NDP, they said with a sneer, would drive British Columbia back into a deficit hole. Bring on the election.

But now fantasy time is over. Reality is setting in.

And Campbell's Liberals are realizing it may be nearly impossible to back up their braggadocio without getting burned themselves.

The recessionary flames are breaking through the firewall. The government's revenues have taken a massive hit. Last week's federal tax cuts ate into the provincial bottom line even further.

Could Campbell still balance the budget? Yes, but he'd probably have to slash spending or jack up taxes -- or both -- to do it. Either could be a suicidal move before an election.

He can't cut spending on health or education, so he'd have to chop spending in other ministries. The New Democrats would vilify him for putting his balanced-budget dogma ahead of the needs of people suffering through the recession.

And think about this: The rumoured $1-billion cost of security for the 2010 Games will likely force the government to increase its Olympics budget. Can you imagine them hiking Olympics spending while simultaneously slashing spending on services to people?

The New Democrats would love that, but I doubt the Liberals are that dumb.

Despite all their bragging and boasting about a balanced budget, the Liberals are discovering this is one promise that may be too costly to keep.


BREAKING NEWS

British Columbia will run two-year deficit


By Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver SunFebruary 2, 2009 2:14 PM


Breaking News


British Columbia will run a deficit for the next two years, Premier Gordon Campbell announced this afternoon.

"Over the last few weeks we've been forced to confront the most difficult decisions I've ever had to confront in my over two decades of public life," said Campbell, who has consistently railed against deficits.

"The changes we've seen have come too fast, they've been too big for me to honestly say to you that we can credibly present a balanced budget on February 17 without doing significant harm to critical health services and essential education services," he added.

Campbell said he expects to run a temporary deficit over the next two years before returning the province to balanced budgets.

He would not reveal the expected size of the deficits.

Deficits are currently illegal in B.C., meaning Campbell will recall the legislature on Monday to introduce legislation that would allow two years of deficit budgets.

He said the Throne Speech will be delayed as a result, and added he's willing to debate through the following weekend if necessary.

The move comes as projected revenues for B.C. continue to plummet.

Finance Minister Colin Hansen said revenue expectations for the next three years have dropped $6 billion since last September.

He added the latest economic projection for B.C. is that the province will grow at zero per cent in 2009.

The move towards deficit spending signals a dramatic change in direction for Campbell, who has long insisted deficits in B.C. are both irresponsible and avoidable.

"Let me be very clear, we are not going to run a deficit in the province of British Columbia," Campbell said after delivering his economic update in October.

"When you talk about a deficit, or anyone talks about a deficit, they're talking about turning their back on the next generation and sending our problems forward to them," he added.

In his announcement, Campbell acknowledged the gravity of this reversal.

"I know that I'll have supporters who will be disappointed, in fact some may even be angry," he said.

"But I hope they'll understand that in these unprecedented times we all have to take action that reaches beyond ideology to protect the services that are essential in the short term so we're all stronger in the long term."

Campbell said it would have been possible for him to balance the budget, but added it would have meant dramatic reductions to key services such as health and education.

[mr.x]

^ and a deficit during a recession is suppose to be a surprise?:rolleyes: :haha:

You're really grasping at straws aren't you?

I would have been quite surprised if we somehow managed to get into a surplus....considering that we are in a recession, spending should be higher - not lower - to stimulate the economy.

[djmk]

to be fair, making budgets can be very tricky especially for an extremely large organization like a province.

First you have to guesstimate how much money is gong to come in. you got PST, Corp tax, personal tax, stumpage fees, oil and gas royalties, transfer payments etc. some of this revenue is really hard to predict especially if the economy is commodity based.

second, you have to figure out expenses. most expenses are already prespent and there is little the gov't can do. labour contracts have been signed, hospitals and schools need to be open, roads maintained.... however, several expenses go up as revenue goes down, for example, welfare and other support services

third, budgets are politicized. voters want certain things and finance ministers try to walk a tightrope trying to gauge what's going to happen anyway, what's best for the province and what's best for their skin.

to understand whats happening here needs study and analysis.



and by the way mr.x2, the idea that "spending should be higher - not lower - to stimulate the economy" is extremely questionable and i fear is just a buzz news item brought forth by obama and the media, and not credible economists

[The_Henry_Man]

Balanced provincial budget looking unlikely
Gordon Campbell facing a lose-lose situation

Michael Smyth
The Province

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Politicians always like to brag that they've kept their promises to voters -- especially when an election is on the way.

But when it comes to Gordon Campbell's oft-repeated promise to balance the budget, many Liberals are starting to wonder:

Does it make sense to keep a promise -- even one delivered in such sacrosanct terms -- if you're going to get politically roasted for doing it?

The B.C. budget comes down on Feb. 17. Just a few months ago, it looked like another balanced budget would be fairly easy, even with the economic storm clouds gathering.

The Campbell government was sitting on a large surplus and untapped contingency funds. The Bank of Canada was predicting B.C. would be spared the worst of the recession. It appeared the government could increase spending -- especially on health care and education -- and still balance the books. With an election in May, the Liberals smelled a delicious political opportunity: Look at the economic miracle we have achieved!

The rest of the country is going up in flames, but we built a firewall around B.C.! Balanced budgets, increased spending and even generous tax cuts would be laid on the pre-election banquet table for salivating voters, while the rest of the country went hungry.

Liberal election strategists loved the irony of a prosperous British Columbia island in a sea of economic misery.

Compare that to the 1990s, they'd say, when B.C.'s economy went down the tubes under the NDP while the rest of the country was riding high.

So the Liberals laid it on thick: The books would be balanced in accordance with Campbell's sacred balanced-budget law, and only the miracle-working Liberals could do it. Carole James and the NDP, they said with a sneer, would drive British Columbia back into a deficit hole. Bring on the election.

But now fantasy time is over. Reality is setting in.

And Campbell's Liberals are realizing it may be nearly impossible to back up their braggadocio without getting burned themselves.

The recessionary flames are breaking through the firewall. The government's revenues have taken a massive hit. Last week's federal tax cuts ate into the provincial bottom line even further.

Could Campbell still balance the budget? Yes, but he'd probably have to slash spending or jack up taxes -- or both -- to do it. Either could be a suicidal move before an election.

He can't cut spending on health or education, so he'd have to chop spending in other ministries. The New Democrats would vilify him for putting his balanced-budget dogma ahead of the needs of people suffering through the recession.

And think about this: The rumoured $1-billion cost of security for the 2010 Games will likely force the government to increase its Olympics budget. Can you imagine them hiking Olympics spending while simultaneously slashing spending on services to people?

The New Democrats would love that, but I doubt the Liberals are that dumb.

Despite all their bragging and boasting about a balanced budget, the Liberals are discovering this is one promise that may be too costly to keep.


BREAKING NEWS

British Columbia will run two-year deficit


By Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver SunFebruary 2, 2009 2:14 PM


Breaking News


British Columbia will run a deficit for the next two years, Premier Gordon Campbell announced this afternoon.

"Over the last few weeks we've been forced to confront the most difficult decisions I've ever had to confront in my over two decades of public life," said Campbell, who has consistently railed against deficits.

"The changes we've seen have come too fast, they've been too big for me to honestly say to you that we can credibly present a balanced budget on February 17 without doing significant harm to critical health services and essential education services," he added.

Campbell said he expects to run a temporary deficit over the next two years before returning the province to balanced budgets.

He would not reveal the expected size of the deficits.

Deficits are currently illegal in B.C., meaning Campbell will recall the legislature on Monday to introduce legislation that would allow two years of deficit budgets.

He said the Throne Speech will be delayed as a result, and added he's willing to debate through the following weekend if necessary.

The move comes as projected revenues for B.C. continue to plummet.

Finance Minister Colin Hansen said revenue expectations for the next three years have dropped $6 billion since last September.

He added the latest economic projection for B.C. is that the province will grow at zero per cent in 2009.

The move towards deficit spending signals a dramatic change in direction for Campbell, who has long insisted deficits in B.C. are both irresponsible and avoidable.

"Let me be very clear, we are not going to run a deficit in the province of British Columbia," Campbell said after delivering his economic update in October.

"When you talk about a deficit, or anyone talks about a deficit, they're talking about turning their back on the next generation and sending our problems forward to them," he added.

In his announcement, Campbell acknowledged the gravity of this reversal.

"I know that I'll have supporters who will be disappointed, in fact some may even be angry," he said.

"But I hope they'll understand that in these unprecedented times we all have to take action that reaches beyond ideology to protect the services that are essential in the short term so we're all stronger in the long term."

Campbell said it would have been possible for him to balance the budget, but added it would have meant dramatic reductions to key services such as health and education.

Dude, which is better: 1) The NDP managing to almost bankrupt our province, by turning BC from the richest to the poorest province in Canada when every other single province and state is enjoying unprecedented growth during the 1990s when they were in power, or 2) The Liberals running a deficit during the current global economic recession?

This really is a no-brainer....LOL

[LeftCoaster]

^ I think Ravman is too young to remember the NDP almost destroying this province to the point of no repair. It would certainly account for his unbridled enthusiasm.

[deasine]

How much is the deficit first?

Honestly, we've been one of the best managed provinces in terms of our budget. Ontario announced their deficit before the credit crisis really began...

[ravman]

Campbell's budget flip-flop highlights leadership deficit, says James
February 2, 2009

VANCOUVER - Gordon Campbell's sudden admission that he will run budget deficits is no comfort to struggling B.C. families who have waited months for leadership from the premier, New Democrat Leader Carole James said today.

"For months, Gordon Campbell chose to ignore the reality facing British Columbians who are struggling to keep their jobs and pay their bills," said James.

"While he was in denial about his government's plummeting revenues, he wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on pet projects like the new B.C. Place roof, Olympic cost overruns, and taxpayer-financed advertising campaigns.

"Now, with two weeks to go before he has to table a budget, the situation has caught up with him and he has been forced to admit that he can't balance the budget as promised."

Earlier today Gordon Campbell said that he realized only two weeks ago that his revenue projections were so far off that he would have to run a deficit.

"Gordon Campbell was the last British Columbian to wake up to today's reality," said James. "Ordinary families have been struggling for months to keep their heads above water. But Gordon Campbell ignored their concerns and spent on his own priorities."

James said that with thousands of B.C. jobs lost and growth forecasts declining, the premier should have been taking action months ago to cut wasteful spending and help families cope. "But Gordon Campbell was so out of touch he acted as though nothing was wrong," she said.
"If Gordon Campbell took the situation seriously when it started, average British Columbians would be better able to weather the downturn.
Today, the premier revealed two deficits: a big budget deficit and an even bigger leadership deficit."

[mr.x]

How much is the deficit first?

Honestly, we've been one of the best managed provinces in terms of our budget. Ontario announced their deficit before the credit crisis really began...

I think anyone, especially ravman, would be quite naive to not think nor expect a budget deficit now that the entire world is in recession.

And like really, to paint it as some sort of cruel surprise? James and co. are really desperate...



"For months, Gordon Campbell chose to ignore the reality facing British Columbians who are struggling to keep their jobs and pay their bills," said James.

"While he was in denial about his government's plummeting revenues, he wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on pet projects like the new B.C. Place roof, Olympic cost overruns, and taxpayer-financed advertising campaigns.

And yet not long ago, it was the NDP and James herself harping on the Liberals for not doing more about BC Place.



At least these budget deficits are a result of an economic recession, not incompetence and mismanagement much like seen with the governments of the 1990s.

[Spork]

Source: http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/campbells-budget-flip-flop-highlights-leadership-deficit-says-james

Definitely credible and not biased at all! I wish that the BCNDP had an RSS feed so that I can get rid of my non-credible BBC news feed.

[usog]

You know, I love how ravman never responds to any responses to his *quasi-propaganda* posts, probably because they poke skytrain-sized holes in them.

[Stingray2004]

Oh come on folks... we all know that a New Democrat press release is objective gospel. ;)

That said, while Statistics Canada is obviously a poor source of information, I thought that I might as well quote same: ;)

The 1990s – a lost decade

After leading Canada’s economic growth from 1984 to 1990, BC fell behind in the 1990s.

BC’s real GDP per capita fell from 8% above the average in the rest of Canada in 1992 to 8% below by 2001, after which it began to recover.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/00506/9196-eng.htm

[mezzanine]

You know, I love how ravman never responds to any responses to his *quasi-propaganda* posts, probably because they poke skytrain-sized holes in them.

Ravman's cool..., now if towerguy was an NDP supporter....:yuck:

I look for the silver lining - if the NDP win, then I will finally be able to buy a reasonably-priced house in Vancouver...

[Spork]

Ravman's cool..., now if towerguy was an NDP supporter....:yuck:

I look for the silver lining - if the NDP win, then I will finally be able to buy a reasonably-priced house in Vancouver...

What policy would do that? Regional price caps on square footage? Are we in Communist China or something?

[flight_from_kamakura]

The NDP managing to almost bankrupt our province, by turning BC from the richest to the poorest province in Canada when every other single province and state is enjoying unprecedented growth during the 1990s when they were in power

no offense pal, but this isn't really inaccurate. all canadian provinces suffered in the early-mid 1990s, because of recession and downloading by the feds. most recovered in the late 1990s (bc included) because of economic turns. in bc, there was a nice little recovery in late 1995 and into 1996, and the 1997 asian banking issues hit the province pretty well, but by 1998, another recovery was well underway. by 2000, the province was smoking, and don't forget that gordo inherited a big surplus, which he cooked into a structural deficit by projecting tax revenue decline over 10 years (way to go pal!). also, bc was never the "richest" province, unless you have some special metric for that, and the "unprecedented" growth in canada happened in the 1880s, 1890s, 1920s, 1940s and 1950s, not in the 1990s. in the 1990s, there some good growth and there was some recession. just to mention, the 2000s economic growth nicely coincided with record commodities prices and a worldwide construction boom. these are very macro issues that haven't much to do with provincial government policy, except over the long term. this said, though i disagree with gordo's drunken privatization binge, it was probably good for the economy in the short term (if not government spending and consumers in the long term).

[jlousa]

Ravman's cool..., now if towerguy was an NDP supporter....:yuck:

I look for the silver lining - if the NDP win, then I will finally be able to buy a reasonably-priced house in Vancouver...

I've seen this arguement before, and I'm pretty sure you're joking but some people use it and beleive it. The problem with it is, if the ndp comes into power and they do ruin the economy enough to crash prices down to really low levels, it won't help you or anyone else, (unless you have cash in hand). Without a job you won't qualify for a mortgage, even if you have a job the bank will be very hesitant to lend any money with the economy in shabbles. So while the prices would be lower they would still be unaffordable.

[WarrenC12]

My only question for Carole James is if she will scrap the carbon tax if pigs fly and she's the next premier. What's that? The province needs revenue? It actually helps the environment?

She's so full of crap it's disgusting. Come up with a god damn solution idea for once. :hell:

[city-dweller]

Why do people bother with the NDP? Stop giving them support. They are the complain party. This is not a two major party province. We have one party, the Liberals. The Liberals have huge issues enough said. Liberals need to kick Gordo and his buddies out and put new bodies at the top. Don't like Gordo and the Liberals so you vote NDP - is like not liking your taxes so you burn down your house and live in the street:haha:

[mezzanine]

I've seen this arguement before, and I'm pretty sure you're joking but some people use it and beleive it. The problem with it is, if the ndp comes into power and they do ruin the economy enough to crash prices down to really low levels, it won't help you or anyone else, (unless you have cash in hand). Without a job you won't qualify for a mortgage, even if you have a job the bank will be very hesitant to lend any money with the economy in shabbles. So while the prices would be lower they would still be unaffordable.

Ha - I am joking - the NDP will bring down house prices not by any far-sighted policy program, but by throwing the economy in the sh**ter.

That being said, it will be mighty interesting to see what happens to Metro real-estate if the NDP get into power...

[crazyjoeda]

My only question for Carole James is if she will scrap the carbon tax if pigs fly and she's the next premier. What's that? The province needs revenue? It actually helps the environment?

She's so full of crap it's disgusting. Come up with a god damn solution idea for once. :hell:

I agree. That is the problem with the NDP they don't have ideas they just say the opposite of what ever the Liberals say. The carbon tax is great but it should be higher not scrapped.

[djmk]

The carbon tax is great but it should be higher not scrapped.

its going up to 7.60 (with GST) a liter by 2012. so a 50l fill up will cost an extra $3.80

[zivan56]

Love the new Liberal "fudge it budget."
From huge surplus to huge deficit in days...well they were pretty close to keeping it a secret until the election...but I guess double standards are OK if they are the ones in power :shrug:
I guess gordo was drunk behind the wheel this time as well :haha:

[crazyjoeda]

its going up to 7.60 (with GST) a liter by 2012. so a 50l fill up will cost an extra $3.80

Good. My civic only has a 40l tank, people who drive SUVs should pay more taxes.

[Phil McAvity]

"You know, I love how ravman never responds to any responses to his *quasi-propaganda* posts, probably because they poke skytrain-sized holes in them."-usog

^good point. He doesn't want to debate or discuss this though, he just wants to proselytize. The only problem is, no one's buying what he's selling.

I also agree with djmk, that governments can't spend their way to economic health. At least, I think that's what he was saying! Government make-work projects are money-losers overall, not money-makers. Oh how I would love to see some slashing and burning here in Victoria in a last-ditch attempt to balance the books.

[Stingray2004]

Love the new Liberal "fudge it budget."
From huge surplus to huge deficit in days...well they were pretty close to keeping it a secret until the election...but I guess double standards are OK if they are the ones in power :shrug:
I guess gordo was drunk behind the wheel this time as well :haha:

Better yet, Carole James comedy routine yesterday almost made me fall off of my chair: :haha:

Carole James, the New Democratic Party Leader, said she is disappointed that it took the Premier so long to reach the conclusion that deficits are necessary.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090203.BCECONOMY03/TPStory/National

And Carole James has already stated that she will "Axe the Gas Tax" revenue stream, which will blow another $1.5 billion hole into the budget process. Too funny. :jester:

Ergo, the moral of the story... You want the biggest deficit of 'em all... then by all means vote NDP. ;)

[djmk]

Love the new Liberal "fudge it budget."
From huge surplus to huge deficit in days...well they were pretty close to keeping it a secret until the election...but I guess double standards are OK if they are the ones in power :shrug:
I guess gordo was drunk behind the wheel this time as well :haha:

i curious zivan56, what would you have done differently? where would you made more money and where would you of not spent money?

[djmk]

And Carole James has already stated that she will "Axe the Gas Tax" revenue stream, which will blow another $1.5 billion hole into the budget process. Too funny. :jester:

Ergo, the moral of the story... You want the biggest deficit of 'em all... then by all means vote NDP. ;)

to be fair, the gas tax is supposed to be revenue neutral, but ya, i get your point.

[ravman]

yeah but hold on.... our plan is to replace the gas tax with a more effective "Cap and Trade" program. the big polluters are exempt from the gas tax and hence a plan that even the OBAMA/Gore( btw that sounds awkwardly cool) supports... OBAMA/GORE have stated they support a cap and trade plan because it works! and in all credit... the NDP is jumping on their bandwagon... but i mean they aint going to be jumping on the BUSH/McCAIN boat (Gordo will do that)

[Phil McAvity]

^ Uh, President Obama's running mate and (now) Vice President isn't Al Gore, it's Joe Biden, so what are you talking about? Al Gore hasn't been Vice President since the '90's when Clinton was in. Bush and McCain never ran on the same ticket either. You're right about one thing though-the NDP "ain't going to be jumping on" that boat (nor is anyone else), since it has already sailed, but I expect unlike yourself, Gordo knows that.

Ravman, if you really want to help the NDP you should probably just stop talking.

[djmk]

yeah but hold on.... our plan is to replace the gas tax with a more effective "Cap and Trade" program. the big polluters are exempt from the gas tax and hence a plan that even the OBAMA/Gore( btw that sounds awkwardly cool) supports... OBAMA/GORE have stated they support a cap and trade plan because it works! and in all credit... the NDP is jumping on their bandwagon... but i mean they aint going to be jumping on the BUSH/McCAIN boat (Gordo will do that)

be very careful about this cap and trade system. i believe gordo wants both cap and trade and gas tax. i believe he wants bc to be a center for this trading. maybe he should, because there will be BIG money involved.

i do not know if this is the forum for this... but personally, i think this cap and trade idea is a huge hoax (including kyoto). i know i will be blasted for having such views, but before you do... google enron views about global warming (enron was the biggest support of kyoto).

[Stingray2004]

to be fair, the gas tax is supposed to be revenue neutral, but ya, i get your point.

The point that I was trying to make was that Carole James has committed to eliminating the carbon tax but will retain the tax cuts that the revenue stream from the carbon tax pays for.

That would blow around a $1.5 billion hole in provincial finances. Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer has actually written extensively about the matter.

yeah but hold on.... our plan is to replace the gas tax with a more effective "Cap and Trade" program.

The NDP's "plan", if you have read it, specifically states that all of their "hidden" carbon taxes will:

have a cost to consumers

Just like the carbon tax but packaged differently so the consumer can't see it.

[wrenegade]

I am curious, how many members were able to actually remember the mid-late 90s, let alone vote? I was in high school then, but by the way some people are supporting the NDP here, it seems like they were in kindergarten.

Oh, and as funny as Rob McDonald was at UDI, he was also absolutely correct. God help us if the NDP get in. Not saying it'd happen right away, but I'd probably move to Calgary within a year or so.

[Yume-sama]

I don't know why I get the VoteSmart BC commercials in Calgary, but the NDP sign with the paperbag on his head makes me immaturely laugh every time.

[deasine]

It's in Calgary too?

I love those commercials =P

[zivan56]

i curious zivan56, what would you have done differently? where would you made more money and where would you of not spent money?

Well to start off with, I would have said a deficit doesn't look likely when it, well, started to look likely. I mean come on, his brother was saying that it is virtually guaranteed daily on TV for months, and yet he denied it until he couldn't hide it any longer.
Then, I wouldn't have gone all spend happy before the election to dig an even bigger grave for ourselves just for political purposes.
But then again, with the Liberals unilaterally lowering fuel prices (see commercials which they play daily), it doesn't surprise me how far they would go to hide information or make up BS in order to get elected again.

[WarrenC12]

I agree. That is the problem with the NDP they don't have ideas they just say the opposite of what ever the Liberals say. The carbon tax is great but it should be higher not scrapped.

It will get higher, and my share of the profits will also increase. :tup:

[djmk]

Well to start off with, I would have said a deficit doesn't look likely when it, well, started to look likely. I mean come on, his brother was saying that it is virtually guaranteed daily on TV for months, and yet he denied it until he couldn't hide it any longer.
Then, I wouldn't have gone all spend happy before the election to dig an even bigger grave for ourselves just for political purposes.
But then again, with the Liberals unilaterally lowering fuel prices (see commercials which they play daily), it doesn't surprise me how far they would go to hide information or make up BS in order to get elected again.

i not exactly sure which program gordo when "spend happy" on that you dislike so much. maybe its all those social programs and infrastructure projects.

furthermore, the budget is not to be released until February 17, so who cares what he is saying 3 months ago about a balanced budget. budgets are plans for the future.

finally, because a balance budget is law in BC, there are penalties for not balacing the budget. these penalties are (from the globe and mail)

"the cabinet ministers and Premier will still lose 10 per cent of their ministerial salaries, the penalty prescribed by the balanced-budget law. For the Premier, that's roughly $9,000 of his salary next year, while his cabinet ministers will pay a penalty of about $5,000"

[ravman]

i not exactly sure which program gordo when "spend happy" on that you dislike so much. maybe its all those social programs and infrastructure projects.

furthermore, the budget is not to be released until February 17, so who cares what he is saying 3 months ago about a balanced budget. budgets are plans for the future.

finally, because a balance budget is law in BC, there are penalties for not balacing the budget. these penalties are (from the globe and mail)

"the cabinet ministers and Premier will still lose 10 per cent of their ministerial salaries, the penalty prescribed by the balanced-budget law. For the Premier, that's roughly $9,000 of his salary next year, while his cabinet ministers will pay a penalty of about $5,000"

BC ministers will suffer smaller pay cut than Premier Campbell claimed: Schreck
By Andrew MacLeod February 3, 2009 06:09 pm

Premier Gordon Campbell was very clear with reporters yesterday that running a deficit would mean a 10 percent pay cut for cabinet ministers, but a former NDP strategist says Campbell is exaggerating.

Campbell went into some detail about how B.C.'s Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act works. Each year twenty percent of cabinet ministers' salaries are held back, he said. They get 10 percent released for meeting their ministry's budget, he said, and the other 10 percent for a balanced government-wide budget.

Yesterday Campbell announced the province will run deficit budgets. He said, “Cabinet ministers will take a 10 percent reduction in their salaries if there's not a balanced budget.”

But in a column today, economist and former NDP strategist David Schreck pointed out the 20 percent hold back only applies to the part of their salaries that cabinet ministers get for their cabinet work.

All MLAs get base pay of just over $100,000. Ministers get an extra 50 percent, while the Premier gets an extra 90 percent. It is only those bonuses, for being Premier or a cabinet minister, that are affected by the hold back, Schreck wrote.

By Schreck's calculation, a deficit means the cabinet ministers will only lose 3.3 percent of their overall salaries, adding that's “peanuts compared to the 29 percent pay raise MLAs gave themselves in 2007.”

A call to Campbell's press secretary was not returned by posting time.

“Claims about cabinet ministers facing a pay cut are . . . all about the election,” Schreck wrote. “It adds insult to injury for the Campbell government to pretend that its members are making a personal sacrifice.”

I am curious, how many members were able to actually remember the mid-late 90s, let alone vote? I was in high school then, but by the way some people are supporting the NDP here, it seems like they were in kindergarten.

BC politicians keep passing, then changing, laws against deficit spending. Are we nuts?

By Will McMartin
Published: February 4, 2009
TheTyee.ca

Are British Columbians crazy?

According to one popular definition, a lunatic is someone who performs the same action, over and over again, yet each time expects a different result. By that explanation, and in the context of our province's balanced-budget legislation, B.C. residents -- all 4.3 million of us -- must be crazy, indeed.

Premier Gordon Campbell and Finance Minister Colin Hansen have announced that B.C. will incur fiscal deficits in each of the next couple of years.

Of course, B.C. has a balanced-budget statute that specifically prohibits the government from planning a shortfall at the beginning of any fiscal year, and punishes cabinet ministers should a deficit appear at the end of the period.

To get around the law, Campbell also admitted that the legislature would be recalled in a little over a week so his government can repeal (or fundamentally amend) the balanced-budget legislation his own administration enacted not quite eight years ago.

A decade before that, in 1991, B.C. became the first province in Canada to pass balanced-budget legislation. In fact, we seem to like them so much that over the last two decades we've also passed more of them -- three -- than any other province.

Still, because provincial budgeting often has proved to be a difficult task, our politicians have quickly discarded each balanced-budget statute when faced with economic challenges. So, British Columbia also has repealed more balanced-budget laws than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Three balanced-budget laws up, and three budget-balanced laws down.

If doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time, qualifies as crazy, well, maybe its time to put padded walls around the legislature.

The first go at it

Social Credit Finance Minister Mel Couvelier took the initial step towards balanced-budget legislation in B.C. 18 years ago. "In planning our operating budgets, we intend to incorporate a longer-term framework," Couvelier told the legislature on April 19, 1990, during his budget speech.

It fell to Couvelier's successor, John Jansen, to introduce B.C.'s first balanced-budget law with the 1991/92 budget. "Families have to balance their budgets and carefully plan their financial futures," Jansen said. "Government's must do the same."

The Taxpayer Protection Act not only was the first in B.C. to require a balance between revenues and expenditures, but also the first in Canada.

Sadly for Social Credit, Jansen's budget was the last the once-mighty political party ever would introduce in the legislature because in October 1991, the Socreds were turfed from government by Mike Harcourt's New Democratic Party.

Still, Social Credit's balanced-budget legislation appeared safe because after it was introduced by Jansen, every single NDP MLA present in the legislature voted in favour of the bill.

Moreover, during the 1991 election campaign, NDP leader Harcourt had unveiled his very own "Fiscal Framework," which showed B.C. voters how a New Democratic Party government would balance revenues and expenditures over a five-year economic cycle.

Call it a 'tax freeze'

In the spring of 1992, mere months after winning election to government with a commitment to balanced budgets, the Harcourt New Democrats repealed the Taxpayer Protection Act.

"This act was passed only last year," Finance Minister Glen Clark told the legislature on April 8, 1992. "It was apparently an attempt by the previous government to stop tax increases by legislation." Clark, who a year earlier had voted in favour of the Taxpayer Protection Act, now belatedly seemed to confess that he hadn't understood what he voted for.

He added: "The government has concluded, after review of the province's financial position, that continuing the tax freeze would be unrealistic and financially irresponsible."

Instead, Clark said, the Harcourt government opted "to produce a balanced package of controlled spending growth, greater efficiency and revenue increases."

Those "revenue increases," were undertaken immediately, as Clark boosted taxes by about $800 million annually in his first budget, and then by another $800 million in his second.

Still, despite these enormous tax lifts, government spending continued to climb ahead of revenues, and the result was an on-going succession of budgetary deficits.

Suicide by deficit

Finally, in 1995, bare months before an expected general election, Clark's successor as finance minister, Elizabeth Cull, unveiled a budget with a razor-thin surplus. While a far cry from the NDP's 1991 promise of balanced revenues and expenditures over a five-year economic cycle, a single balanced budget at least pointed in the right direction.

But instead of going to the polls in the fall of 1995, Harcourt quit politics over a party scandal, and the New Democrats were forced to hold a leadership convention. Clark won that contest -- and thereby became premier -- as B.C.'s economy, among the best in Canada during the early years of the decade, faltered.

It would have been suicidal, politically-speaking, for the NDP to unveil a pre-election deficit in 1996 after having introduced a balanced fiscal plan in 1995. And so, Cull brought in a second consecutive balanced-budget, which, like her first, also boasted an exceedingly slim surplus. One month later, Clark's New Democrats scored a surprising re-election victory.

Within weeks, new NDP Finance Minister Andrew Petter (Cull had lost her seat in the election) confessed that both pre-election fiscal plans, for 1995/96 and 1996/97, would end with deficits. A new phrase soon entered the province's political lexicon -- Fudge-it Budgets.

'This bill has teeth'

Four years later, after the Fudge-it Budgets had spawned a lengthy investigation by the auditor general, the B.C. Supreme Court had rejected a suit alleging election fraud, and a couple of government-appointed advisory panels prepared lengthy proposals for reform, the New Democrats brought in their own balanced-budget law.

"This bill has teeth," NDP Finance Minister Paul Ramsey insisted. "There are consequences for failure to meet the targets set out in this bill." Those targets included a steady reduction in B.C.'s annual deficit until 2004, at which time it was to be completely erased. The teeth came as a promise to levy a 20 per cent pay cut on cabinet ministers should a deficit appear on the province's books.

Notably, the NDP balanced-budget law had a couple of significant exemptions. As Ramsey described it, the government's obligation to avoid deficits would be abandoned in "an emergency of unexpected circumstances that imperils health or safety of British Columbians, or if revenue is declined by more than $500 million year over year."

Gary Farrell-Collins, the BC Liberal finance critic, responded by insisting that his party, too, endorsed a balanced-budget law. "This side of the house has always supported balanced-budget legislation," he said. "We continue to support balanced-budget legislation."

Still, when the NDP's balanced-budget bill went to second and third reading, the entire BC Liberal caucus -- Gordon Campbell among them -- voted against the measure.

BC Libs take a whack at it

To the surprise of nearly every British Columbian, the provincial deficit was eliminated well before Ramsey's 2004 target. Thanks to a sharp spike in revenues (primarily from personal income taxes and energy exports), B.C. recorded a tiny surfeit in 1999/2000, and then a gargantuan $1.4 billion surplus in 2000/01.

The latter arrived too late to save the New Democrats, however, and in May 2001 Campbell's BC Liberals won a massive electoral majority. One of the new government's first priorities, of course, was to repeal the NDP balanced-budget law and introduce one of their own.

But despite inheriting the biggest surplus in provincial history, the Campbell government's balanced-budget law would not require a surplus until 2004!

Why the delay? For reasons that forever will defy rational explanation, Campbell and Collins decided to slash the province's revenues by about $2 billion (through tax cuts), while at the same time boosting government expenditures by a comparable $2 billion.

The result was to transform Victoria's books, seemingly overnight, from the biggest surplus in history (in 2000/01) to a series of the largest deficits ever seen in the province -- $1.3 billion in 2001/02, $3.2 billion in 2002/03, and $1.3 billion in 2003/04.

By then, the global commodity boom was well underway. Federal transfers to B.C. (and all provinces) skyrocketed, corporate income taxes soared, and natural resources revenues (especially from natural gas) headed for the stratosphere. Consequently, over a four year period, from 2004/05 until 2007/08, B.C. enjoyed some of the largest surpluses in provincial history.

Throwing in the towel

Today, the commodity boom seems to have ended, the global economy is in the early stages of a severe downturn, and across the world, governmental revenues have plummeted.

After a handful of budgetary surpluses, Gordon Campbell has thrown in the towel: B.C.'s third balanced-budget law will be gutted, and the BC Liberals will return to the massive deficits that marked their early years in office.

What, then? Should British Columbians expect a fourth balanced-budget statute in the not-too-distant future? Then, later, maybe a fifth and a sixth? More to the point, what value has a balanced-budget statute when governments can repeal, amend or gut it whenever economic and fiscal challenges prove difficult?

Simply, we must be crazy to keep enacting balanced-budget laws when the utility of such legislation is non-existent. Or, at least crazy enough to keep electing politicians who claim that balanced-budget legislation will ensure their government's fiscal responsibility.

We all should remember the words of Gordon Campbell, then leader of the Opposition, when he voted in 2000 against the NDP's balanced-budget legislation: "It's amazing how rewriting laws can work for a government that doesn't really care about the law."

--

a good historical and neutral update on the budget laws!

[LeftCoaster]

But in a column today, economist and former NDP strategist David Schreck pointed out the 20 percent hold back only applies to the part of their salaries that cabinet ministers get for their cabinet work.

How about you bold the parts that really matter....

Ravman out of curiosity did you attend post secondary education?

[Yume-sama]

How about you bold the parts that really matter....

Ravman out of curiosity did you attend post secondary education?

Aren't people who are attending post secondary their main target?

And I suppose the occasional person who hasn't grown up and gotten a real job, and made their own way in the World etc., etc.

[LeftCoaster]

Well no I was mainly asking that becuase one of the first things you learn in any post secondary degree is attempt to disscern the neutrality of an article and whether the information you are using is false or biassed. It seems as though every article posted by Ravman is biassed to an almost incomprehensible degree. While there many be valid articles critiquing certain issues and problems with the BC Libs he seems to pick the most hairbrained unreliable sources to quote which not only do not help his cause but further the causes of those who disagree with him.

[Yume-sama]

Well no I was mainly asking that becuase one of the first things you learn in any post secondary degree is attempt to disscern the neutrality of an article and whether the information you are using is false or biassed. It seems as though every article posted by Ravman is biassed to an almost incomprehensible degree. While there many be valid articles critiquing certain issues and problems with the BC Libs he seems to pick the most hairbrained unreliable sources to quote which not only do not help his cause but further the causes of those who disagree with him.

:yes: Oh, I see.

Yeah... sometimes I often question the neutrality of those Diet Pepsi commercials that say Diet Pepsi has more cola taste than Diet Coke.

And I didn't even have to go to school for that one.

[djmk]

All MLAs get base pay of just over $100,000. Ministers get an extra 50 percent, while the Premier gets an extra 90 percent. It is only those bonuses, for being Premier or a cabinet minister, that are affected by the hold back, Schreck wrote.



We all should remember the words of Gordon Campbell, then leader of the Opposition, when he voted in 2000 against the NDP's balanced-budget legislation: "It's amazing how rewriting laws can work for a government that doesn't really care about the law."

--

a good historical and neutral update on the budget laws!


come on ravman... do your own math.

your article states

"All MLAs get base pay of just over $100,000. Ministers get an extra 50 percent, while the Premier gets an extra 90 percent"

$100,000 x 50% x 10% = $5,000
$100,000 x 90% x 10% = $9,000

that is exactly what i said.

[ravman]

come on ravman... do your own math.

your article states

"All MLAs get base pay of just over $100,000. Ministers get an extra 50 percent, while the Premier gets an extra 90 percent"

$100,000 x 50% x 10% = $5,000
$100,000 x 90% x 10% = $9,000

that is exactly what i said.

Gordo makes 186,000 and he will take home 180,000

[Hourglass]

BC politicians keep passing, then changing, laws against deficit spending. Are we nuts?

By Will McMartin
Published: February 4, 2009
TheTyee.ca

Are British Columbians crazy?

According to one popular definition, a lunatic is someone who performs the same action, over and over again, yet each time expects a different result. By that explanation, and in the context of our province's balanced-budget legislation, B.C. residents -- all 4.3 million of us -- must be crazy, indeed.

Premier Gordon Campbell and Finance Minister Colin Hansen have announced that B.C. will incur fiscal deficits in each of the next couple of years.

Of course, B.C. has a balanced-budget statute that specifically prohibits the government from planning a shortfall at the beginning of any fiscal year, and punishes cabinet ministers should a deficit appear at the end of the period.

To get around the law, Campbell also admitted that the legislature would be recalled in a little over a week so his government can repeal (or fundamentally amend) the balanced-budget legislation his own administration enacted not quite eight years ago.

A decade before that, in 1991, B.C. became the first province in Canada to pass balanced-budget legislation. In fact, we seem to like them so much that over the last two decades we've also passed more of them -- three -- than any other province.

Still, because provincial budgeting often has proved to be a difficult task, our politicians have quickly discarded each balanced-budget statute when faced with economic challenges. So, British Columbia also has repealed more balanced-budget laws than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Three balanced-budget laws up, and three budget-balanced laws down.

If doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time, qualifies as crazy, well, maybe its time to put padded walls around the legislature.

The first go at it

Social Credit Finance Minister Mel Couvelier took the initial step towards balanced-budget legislation in B.C. 18 years ago. "In planning our operating budgets, we intend to incorporate a longer-term framework," Couvelier told the legislature on April 19, 1990, during his budget speech.

It fell to Couvelier's successor, John Jansen, to introduce B.C.'s first balanced-budget law with the 1991/92 budget. "Families have to balance their budgets and carefully plan their financial futures," Jansen said. "Government's must do the same."

The Taxpayer Protection Act not only was the first in B.C. to require a balance between revenues and expenditures, but also the first in Canada.

Sadly for Social Credit, Jansen's budget was the last the once-mighty political party ever would introduce in the legislature because in October 1991, the Socreds were turfed from government by Mike Harcourt's New Democratic Party.

Still, Social Credit's balanced-budget legislation appeared safe because after it was introduced by Jansen, every single NDP MLA present in the legislature voted in favour of the bill.

Moreover, during the 1991 election campaign, NDP leader Harcourt had unveiled his very own "Fiscal Framework," which showed B.C. voters how a New Democratic Party government would balance revenues and expenditures over a five-year economic cycle.

Call it a 'tax freeze'

In the spring of 1992, mere months after winning election to government with a commitment to balanced budgets, the Harcourt New Democrats repealed the Taxpayer Protection Act.

"This act was passed only last year," Finance Minister Glen Clark told the legislature on April 8, 1992. "It was apparently an attempt by the previous government to stop tax increases by legislation." Clark, who a year earlier had voted in favour of the Taxpayer Protection Act, now belatedly seemed to confess that he hadn't understood what he voted for.

He added: "The government has concluded, after review of the province's financial position, that continuing the tax freeze would be unrealistic and financially irresponsible."

Instead, Clark said, the Harcourt government opted "to produce a balanced package of controlled spending growth, greater efficiency and revenue increases."

Those "revenue increases," were undertaken immediately, as Clark boosted taxes by about $800 million annually in his first budget, and then by another $800 million in his second.

Still, despite these enormous tax lifts, government spending continued to climb ahead of revenues, and the result was an on-going succession of budgetary deficits.

Suicide by deficit

Finally, in 1995, bare months before an expected general election, Clark's successor as finance minister, Elizabeth Cull, unveiled a budget with a razor-thin surplus. While a far cry from the NDP's 1991 promise of balanced revenues and expenditures over a five-year economic cycle, a single balanced budget at least pointed in the right direction.

But instead of going to the polls in the fall of 1995, Harcourt quit politics over a party scandal, and the New Democrats were forced to hold a leadership convention. Clark won that contest -- and thereby became premier -- as B.C.'s economy, among the best in Canada during the early years of the decade, faltered.

It would have been suicidal, politically-speaking, for the NDP to unveil a pre-election deficit in 1996 after having introduced a balanced fiscal plan in 1995. And so, Cull brought in a second consecutive balanced-budget, which, like her first, also boasted an exceedingly slim surplus. One month later, Clark's New Democrats scored a surprising re-election victory.

Within weeks, new NDP Finance Minister Andrew Petter (Cull had lost her seat in the election) confessed that both pre-election fiscal plans, for 1995/96 and 1996/97, would end with deficits. A new phrase soon entered the province's political lexicon -- Fudge-it Budgets.

'This bill has teeth'

Four years later, after the Fudge-it Budgets had spawned a lengthy investigation by the auditor general, the B.C. Supreme Court had rejected a suit alleging election fraud, and a couple of government-appointed advisory panels prepared lengthy proposals for reform, the New Democrats brought in their own balanced-budget law.

"This bill has teeth," NDP Finance Minister Paul Ramsey insisted. "There are consequences for failure to meet the targets set out in this bill." Those targets included a steady reduction in B.C.'s annual deficit until 2004, at which time it was to be completely erased. The teeth came as a promise to levy a 20 per cent pay cut on cabinet ministers should a deficit appear on the province's books.

Notably, the NDP balanced-budget law had a couple of significant exemptions. As Ramsey described it, the government's obligation to avoid deficits would be abandoned in "an emergency of unexpected circumstances that imperils health or safety of British Columbians, or if revenue is declined by more than $500 million year over year."

Gary Farrell-Collins, the BC Liberal finance critic, responded by insisting that his party, too, endorsed a balanced-budget law. "This side of the house has always supported balanced-budget legislation," he said. "We continue to support balanced-budget legislation."

Still, when the NDP's balanced-budget bill went to second and third reading, the entire BC Liberal caucus -- Gordon Campbell among them -- voted against the measure.

BC Libs take a whack at it

To the surprise of nearly every British Columbian, the provincial deficit was eliminated well before Ramsey's 2004 target. Thanks to a sharp spike in revenues (primarily from personal income taxes and energy exports), B.C. recorded a tiny surfeit in 1999/2000, and then a gargantuan $1.4 billion surplus in 2000/01.

The latter arrived too late to save the New Democrats, however, and in May 2001 Campbell's BC Liberals won a massive electoral majority. One of the new government's first priorities, of course, was to repeal the NDP balanced-budget law and introduce one of their own.

But despite inheriting the biggest surplus in provincial history, the Campbell government's balanced-budget law would not require a surplus until 2004!

Why the delay? For reasons that forever will defy rational explanation, Campbell and Collins decided to slash the province's revenues by about $2 billion (through tax cuts), while at the same time boosting government expenditures by a comparable $2 billion.

The result was to transform Victoria's books, seemingly overnight, from the biggest surplus in history (in 2000/01) to a series of the largest deficits ever seen in the province -- $1.3 billion in 2001/02, $3.2 billion in 2002/03, and $1.3 billion in 2003/04.

By then, the global commodity boom was well underway. Federal transfers to B.C. (and all provinces) skyrocketed, corporate income taxes soared, and natural resources revenues (especially from natural gas) headed for the stratosphere. Consequently, over a four year period, from 2004/05 until 2007/08, B.C. enjoyed some of the largest surpluses in provincial history.

Throwing in the towel

Today, the commodity boom seems to have ended, the global economy is in the early stages of a severe downturn, and across the world, governmental revenues have plummeted.

After a handful of budgetary surpluses, Gordon Campbell has thrown in the towel: B.C.'s third balanced-budget law will be gutted, and the BC Liberals will return to the massive deficits that marked their early years in office.

What, then? Should British Columbians expect a fourth balanced-budget statute in the not-too-distant future? Then, later, maybe a fifth and a sixth? More to the point, what value has a balanced-budget statute when governments can repeal, amend or gut it whenever economic and fiscal challenges prove difficult?

Simply, we must be crazy to keep enacting balanced-budget laws when the utility of such legislation is non-existent. Or, at least crazy enough to keep electing politicians who claim that balanced-budget legislation will ensure their government's fiscal responsibility.

We all should remember the words of Gordon Campbell, then leader of the Opposition, when he voted in 2000 against the NDP's balanced-budget legislation: "It's amazing how rewriting laws can work for a government that doesn't really care about the law."

--

a good historical and neutral update on the budget laws!

Actually, it IS a reasonably balanced view -- one that shows up both the Libs and the NDP. Curious how for some reason, only Gordo's comment got bolded here, though. :rolleyes:

Balanced budget laws are great in principle, except that if not written well, they limit the ability of a government to use fiscal policy as a stimulus to the economy when it's needed (ie now!). So it's hardly surprising that they would need to rewrite a balanced budget law if there aren't provisions to allow for specific deficit spending. In other words, it seems a bit of a tempest in a teapot...

[zivan56]

i not exactly sure which program gordo when "spend happy" on that you dislike so much. maybe its all those social programs and infrastructure projects.

Social programs? Like...? I am all for infrastructure, but he annouced them all a couple months before the election...you can just see how forced and hurried they are (Port Mann for example)

furthermore, the budget is not to be released until February 17, so who cares what he is saying 3 months ago about a balanced budget. budgets are plans for the future.

He denied everything until it was so obvious, that a child could see it coming. His own brother was saying it on tv for months!

finally, because a balance budget is law in BC, there are penalties for not balacing the budget. these penalties are (from the globe and mail)

"the cabinet ministers and Premier will still lose 10 per cent of their ministerial salaries, the penalty prescribed by the balanced-budget law. For the Premier, that's roughly $9,000 of his salary next year, while his cabinet ministers will pay a penalty of about $5,000"

LOL. I'm sure that is a drop in the bucket for most of them. They earn plenty of money, and MLA is a side job for most of them.

[usog]

Social programs? Like...? I am all for infrastructure, but he annouced them all a couple months before the election...you can just see how forced and hurried they are (Port Mann for example)

He denied everything until it was so obvious, that a child could see it coming. His own brother was saying it on tv for months!

The thing is, if he did this months ago, you guys would be saying that he either is overreacting, made a rash decision, or is running us into the ground with a deficit. Give him a break, man.

And the Port Mann project was a long-term one. Apparently the reason they could start *now* was that all the materials were done and most of the groundwork was ready. I mean c'mon, are you complaining that the government is working too fast now? :haha:

[deasine]

I won't deny that Campbell is announcing so much because of the election, and you know there will be more. I'm sure there will be another Evergreen Line announcement, probably to celebrate the detailed designs =)

I don't really care actually, the most important thing is that we are getting these things done. At least he has the guts to put these projects forward.

[zivan56]

The thing is, if he did this months ago, you guys would be saying that he either is overreacting, made a rash decision, or is running us into the ground with a deficit. Give him a break, man.



No, I call what he is doing now exactly what you described.


And the Port Mann project was a long-term one. Apparently the reason they could start *now* was that all the materials were done and most of the groundwork was ready. I mean c'mon, are you complaining that the government is working too fast now? :haha:

Sure was a long term one...starting with no public consultation or any real details. When was the open house about this one? Where are the details of the RFP and the results? With that much planning, I am confident they can start digging for the Millennium Line extension...after all, budget, time, or impact do not seem to be a necessity anymore for such projects.

[usog]

Sigh, I don't see the point in the endless consultation processes. No matter what someone wont be happy, its just an endless loop of wasting time. Oh and I'm sure everyone will be scrutinizing every little detail released and whine as loud as they can to change every little bit that they don't agree with, and if its changed someone else will do the same. This is why nothing ever gets done in Canada =_=" I for one am pleased they are finally getting their butts in gear.

[ravman]

I won't deny that Campbell is announcing so much because of the election, and you know there will be more. I'm sure there will be another Evergreen Line announcement, probably to celebrate the detailed designs =)

I don't really care actually, the most important thing is that we are getting these things done. At least he has the guts to put these projects forward.

GUTS? like seriously? he is political posturing... in an interview with the FALCON himself... when asked about the MORE BUSES NOW campaign by the CAW, he was like we have commited the funds, the municipal (Translink et al) need to come to the table..... like seriously... does he/ his coworkers not fund municipalities and Translink?

[usog]

As long as the end result, that is the jump in infrastructure funding, benefits the people, who cares? It just means the NDP did its job as opposition in pressuring the liberals, god knows them as the actual government was a disaster. I just don't get you, maybe another idealist I suppose.

[djmk]

GUTS? like seriously? he is political posturing... in an interview with the FALCON himself... when asked about the MORE BUSES NOW campaign by the CAW, he was like we have commited the funds, the municipal (Translink et al) need to come to the table..... like seriously... does he/ his coworkers not fund municipalities and Translink?

what's CAW agenda?

[djmk]

Social programs? Like...? I am all for infrastructure, but he annouced them all a couple months before the election...you can just see how forced and hurried they are (Port Mann for example)

i dunno.... how about welfare payments. In January 10,000 more BC workers lost their jobs. Do you know what that can do to a budget? These were once tax payers and now they are receivers.

He denied everything until it was so obvious, that a child could see it coming. His own brother was saying it on tv for months!

if your political leader was running around with his head cut off and saying the sky was falling and doom doom and more doom, it does not bring confidence to our local economy. and i child could not see it coming because, a child (and possibly yourself) has never even looked at our provincial budget or even knows how much revenue we receive and from what sources. nor does a child know how much it costs to run a hospital or purchase hotels for the homeless.

LOL. I'm sure that is a drop in the bucket for most of them. They earn plenty of money, and MLA is a side job for most of them.

A $9,000 drop (or $6,000 as ravman proposes) in income is not a small deal. Anyone (i do not care who) takes a voluntary pay cut get kudos from me. He had the power to force the budget to balance and he decided not to.

of course there is political posturing. budgets are like that and that is the nature of working in such an politicized environment. if you think any other party would of done it differently... they would not. but you blindly criticize a budget you have not even seen yet.

and one more thing.... name me ONE MLA with ministerial duties who does it as a side job.

i hate it when people rant when they have no clue what they are talking about. at least ravman makes it interesting with the articles he provides.

[Blake]

Gordo makes 186,000 and he will take home 180,000

Good for him. I know people that make twice that and work half as hard.

[ravman]

corporate bonuses from taxpayers money :P

[zivan56]

i hate it when people rant when they have no clue what they are talking about.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Anyways, it appears you haven't been around since 01...so I wont bother.
As I said, double standards are just fine with this government...back in late 90's all they did was bitch and get their lobby groups to sue people in the provincial goverment and misinform people. Now, they have become exactly what they tried to pin on the NDP back then.

[bugsy]

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Anyways, it appears you haven't been around since 01...so I wont bother.
As I said, double standards are just fine with this government...back in late 90's all they did was bitch and get their lobby groups to sue people in the provincial goverment and misinform people. Now, they have become exactly what they tried to pin on the NDP back then.

Awww, looks like you're all butthurt. You got any more Hitler comparisons to make? or are you all out of troof for the day?

[mr.x]

As I said, double standards are just fine with this government...

I'm pretty sure the same can be said for the present day opposition.

[deasine]

Bugsy, watch it there. As much as the Politics subforum is usually a little wilder than the rest of SSP:Vancouver, you have no excuse. No direct attacks period.

[zivan56]

Awww, looks like you're all butthurt. You got any more Hitler comparisons to make? or are you all out of troof for the day?

Aww, that's cute, someone learned to say something other than "bleeding heart Liberals." Good job champ :tup:

I'm pretty sure the same can be said for the present day opposition.

Of course it can. However, it doesn't even come close to the Liberals with Campbell. The stuff they made a major deal out of back then are peanuts compared to what they are doing now. If the NDP made a big deal of things like the Liberals did back then for minor things, we would be have all hell break loose. I have given many examples in the past, so I wont bother re-posting everything. One day I swear I'll write a book just to have it all in one convenient location.