# Cdn Taxpayers Federation:  Equipment, not toy planes!



## The Bread Guy (12 Aug 2011)

I'm sorry, but with a defence budget of ~$21 billion, aren't there somewhat bigger fish to fry than $50,000 for promotional items?


> The Canadian Forces spent close to $50,000 of taxpayers' money last year on miniature cardboard fighter jets, according to documents obtained by QMI Agency through an access-to-information request.  The CF-18 replicas are 23.5 cm long, made of recycled material and were used to promote the Air Force at public events, particularly to children.  The documents reveal the special order for the planes cost taxpayers $47,449 dollars.  Paper planes aren't the Forces' only promotion material.  The Air Force alone has an annual marketing budget of $200,000 dollars.  Air Force spokesperson Lisa Evong said the paper planes are popular with children and Air Force enthusiasts.  "(The planes) are used to educate the public on the role and responsibilities of the Air Force," she said.  Half the fun, Evong explained, is assembling all the pieces to form the plane.  Each plane costs about 29 cents, giving the Forces 158,000 to fly around …. The federal government doesn't seem to have the right priorities, according to Gregory Thomas from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an organization that advocates for low taxes and tight government spending of public funds.  "It is not the role of government to use taxpayer money to do publicity, especially towards children," he said.  Thomas said public funds should go towards equipping soldiers with "quality, modern equipment."


Source:  QMI Media, 12 Aug 11

Photo credit below: Jean-Louis Fortin/QMI Agency


----------



## GAP (12 Aug 2011)

Canadian Taxpayers Federation is getting wacky....focus people, focus.....


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Aug 2011)

50 grand is two total hip replacements. CTP has it's priorities.  >


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Aug 2011)

I used to thing the CTF was a good organization until the forced the City of Winnipeg to cut a 250K program. I can't remember what it exactly was, but it was a worthwhile program to do with inner city kids.

They are turning out to be a bunch of whiners, like our friend Stephen Staples....oops another kitten gone...sorry!


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Aug 2011)

Does this mean that the state of spending public funds is in such good condition that the CTF is reduced to carping over minor expenditures?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Aug 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Does this mean that the state of spending public funds is in such good condition that the CTF is reduced to carping over minor expenditures?



I think it means the loonie left has hijacked another agenda.


----------



## Jimmy_D (12 Aug 2011)

I dunno, i agree with the extra $50,000. The military has to win the hearts and minds, even in their own contries at times. Start with satisfying children, makes a good, slow, and intelligent way of recruitment. Plus good prosperity towards the CF for the fact, making a child smile and happy will make the parents happy. 

Therfore there is a bit of enlightenment and proudness towards the Military. Making us look bold and proud yet again, helping give the CF the respect it deserves.

Just my  :2c:

JD


----------



## Dissident (12 Aug 2011)

I'm with Jimmy on this.

How different would the forces be if some soldier had been nice to Trudeau when he was a kid? 

Why is breast cancer the most well known/talk about cancer? Because of PR.

We need as much PR as we can get and for all age groups.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Aug 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Does this mean that the state of spending public funds is in such good condition that the CTF is reduced to carping over minor expenditures?


To be fair to the Federation, a different question to ask might be:  
*
Is the state of spending public funds in such bad condition that QMI is reduced to covering minor expenditures (then calling up one of "the usual suspect" organizations for a comment)?*

This appears to be initiated by the media (QMI did the Access to Information request), not CTF.  Also, one hopes that CTF would give a similar response (better front-line spending than gee-gaw spending) to being asked about any similarly-priced promotional item being purchased for _any_ department.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I think it means the loonie left has hijacked another agenda.



... or that there is at least some lunacy on both sides of the spectrum.

Mind you, a left-wing CTF would be interesting to watch...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> .... one hopes that CTF would give a similar response (better front-line spending than gee-gaw spending) to being asked about any similarly-priced promotional item being purchased for _any_ department ....


Note the slightly different messaging from the CTF when asked about new mess halls/kitchens for CFB Borden - CF should have good infrastructure, but it's hard to justify spending on infrastructure when there's a honkin' deficit:


> "Canadians are going to question the timing of this announcement," said Gregory Thomas of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. While the armed forces should have up-to-date equipment and infrastructure, the country is running a $30-billion deficit and this type of spending will be difficult to justify to the public, Thomas said ....


----------



## Infanteer (13 Aug 2011)

While it may be trivial, I think the CTF is highlighting how a death by 1,000 paper-cuts works.  Sure, $50,000 for paper planes to give to kids isn't much, but how many of these programs exist in our defence budget?  Find 1,000 such trivial line items (and I am willing to be there are - TD budgets, contracted research, promotional pens, ethic program books) in a 22 billion dollar budget and you've got 50 million dollars, which could be a capital project or new infrastructure.

Or, that's got to be $50,000,000 that the Defence Department doesn't need.  I certainly enjoy thinking of $50,000 for paper planes when I pay my taxes.  I'll take a reduction in taxes or a debt payoff please....

I, for one, continue to applaud the CTF for continuing to point out all the ways the government pisses away our money.  Anyways, this was their comment on a QMI story (as Milnews points out); would we expect them to say "yeah, keep spending money government!"?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2011)

As Infanteer says, death by 1000 paper cuts. The good work the CTF does is by highlighting such expeditures and:

a) forcing them into the public spotlight for analysis and discussion, and;

b) forcing program managers, politicians and bureaucrats to actually justify their spending. As noted, there is a benefit to these sort of promotional items, but perhaps there should be a cost analysis of what sort of promotional items give us more "bang for the buck", or for that matter, would that money be better spent on training ammunition so my PLQ Infantry candidates didn't have to spend an entire day doing sectin attacks with only a handful of magazines?

(as you can see, there are personal bias at work here, I have a pretty clear preference for how the mony could be spent as well....)


----------

