Big Spenders-WHY?

[toms3]

Ok?to be honest, I don?t know a lot about politics, budgets and spending within the Federal Gov, but I am sure there are a few out there that do.  So I am going to throw this out there for discussion.  

Why can?t the government adopt a ?rotating priority? of spending?  For example this fiscal year?s spending is on Health Care.  The Gov put most of it?s efforts towards funding improvements in the Health Care system, all the other areas are in some form of ?Maintaining mode? of spending.  Then the next year it is the Military turn at funding for improvements, and Health Care then moves to the Maintaining mode.  It would only target the big spenders within the Government, which the Military (believe it or not) is one of the biggest.   The program would assist in area that need regular improving, Military, Health, Transport, R & D for example.   I know I said, ?fiscal year? and I know the Gov usually plans well in advance so maybe replace it with ?cycle?.

Like I said, I know very little about these topics but the idea is based on how I run my own life.  This year I need a new car; next year I am renovating my basement, the next year I am doing a big landscaping project.  Most households cannot finance all these improvement in one year.  So, most people will cycle them over a few years, while still doing basic maitaining of there house and car.     Cycling financing of the Military every few years would be far better than we have now?.

Just a little idea?now?can someone out there tell me why this would or wouldn?t work.

 

[Harry]

Can we say mismanagement?

 

[onecat]

Its a interesting idea, but the gov‘t would never go it. They like to change it with the times and want the polls say is important this year. If they went though a cycle then each departmnet would be waiting a long time for its share to do major project work. And the biggie is election time, how can they promise, promise, promise if they are stuck in a cycle that can‘t change. And if it can be changed then some departments would their turn at the extra money.

Its sad news that yet again the CF is having to cut back. They just upgrade the leo‘s and now they might have to cut then out......... Sometimes its to a point where say why do we have a Military at all, but that‘s a differnt a question altogether.

But getting back you question, I think the problem is our system. All the power is hand‘s of one guy the PM. And he isn‘t even elected by the whole the country just a riding. We need reform, and we need it fast.

 

[portcullisguy]

I‘m certainly no economics expert, but I think rotating your priorities may not bring glee and happiness to your constituents, especially the ones who made the big donations to the election campaign.

But, you‘re right, it‘s tough to get big ticket items all done in the same short period without going bust.

Unlike you and me, the government can borrow when it‘s already heavily in debt or running a deficit (although we are at least in surplus mode these days, thankfully -- the dispute is what to do with the surplus... pay down the debt, or pay back the taxpayers).

They can even borrow from other governments who are heavily in debt, and, trump of trumps, they can raise taxes.

Imagine if I walked into work and said, "Ok, I‘m coming on hard times, so I‘m raising my pay." Ha ha ha! I‘d be laughed out of the office, and sent packing to the EI line.

Instead, governments generally TRY to get all the big ticket items done at once by breaking them into smaller pieces and spacing out the spending over several fiscal periods, perhaps up to 4 or 5 years (ie, the same as the length of time they‘ll be in office, or just beyond). When the next election comes around they can safely say they either came through with a spending promise, or they only have a year or two left and you have to re-elect them in order for them to finish the job.

If the army ran like this, we‘d have been overrun in 1812.

 

[humint]

As with everyone here, I agree that a re-investment in the military is needed, and needed soon. And, this problem of underfunding becomes *especially obvious* when the US ambassador to Canada publicly states that Canada is not meeting its NATO obligations and needs to put more money into defence spending.

But, as for a rotational funding scheme, I have to say two things:

1. Many projects, services, and funding arrangements of the fed gov are already on a form of rotational spending -- priorities are set according to several factors such as need, political benefit, economic spin-off, etc. Some projects/services pan out while others do not, and others are continually put on the backburner.

2. For big budget core-programming such as health care, employment, environment, and defence, etc., rotational spending does not help. The problem is that annual expenses are so high that it is almost impossible to allocate funds for budget shortfalls or unanticipated expenditures. This has happened recently in many departments. For example, Citizenship and Immigration went on a spree to hire all sorts of new people in the last year (because of Sept 11) for intel and enforcement, but they ended-up not hiring anyone because of budget shortfalls elsewhere in the same department (funds for new staff had to be diverted). And, departments such as this have the same operational budget every year. Imagine if they received bulk funding one year and then nothing for two or three years -- forecasting would be a nightmare.

So, all of that said, this does nothing to help our situation. I really don‘t think the problem is a lack of funds or a lack of a proper financial management scheme, but rather a lack of willingness on part of policy makers and political advisors to recognise the importance of defence spending. To put it simply, the boys and girls in Ottawa do not see defence as a priority. Someone basically needs to give the politicians a kick in the *** so that they realise that an underfunded military with age-old equipment is pointless considering the demands that are being placed upon it.

 

[muskrat89]

Not to flog a deceased equine, but we‘re all preaching to the choir. It‘s the politicians, via Joe Non-Military citizen that need their eyes opened. Canadians for Military Preparedness is working to raise awareness in the public. Check out www.c4mp.org Hopefully, we are all supporting our local Legion or ANAVETS unit as well.....

 

[unknown_caller]

I think the problem with funding is that too many people believe that the government (insert federal, provincial or municpal unit of your choice) has a responsibility to make their life happy. Therefore the governments spend a good chunk of change on junk. There is an expectation that life must be fair and if it isn‘t then a government program will help. Canada has two institutions in need of a big finacial infusion. Health care and the military need a big infusion of money. The problem is that governments won‘t bite the bullet and drastically cut other areas to pay for it. it seems the only idea that the feds have is raise taxes to cover the spending. Or they will borrow it. It seems to me that the politicians are like junkies. Tey are addicted to that tax revenue of Canadians. This is just my 2 cents. Just as an after thought. is it me or has the Liberal party been historically anti-military?

 

[Harry]

Well, as far as institutions go. Lets compare Apples and Oranges. DND is in crisis because it has never been a favourite child of the Liberals. It is the easiest target and as all things Canadian go, not a major concern of our citizens. Just the way the Grits want it.

Health care, why is it in crisis, simple. The Grits made huge cuts to transfer payments in their first term. They alone negated a functional system and created this crisis. Now the biggest problem is mismanagement and poor accounting.

Our health systems have great disparities of concept and service between provinces. There is a lot of waste and financial negligence, and if the Feds ever got serious about it, it would not take a huge infusion of money to keep it going.

But I have a feeling ladies and gents that between now and Feb 03, the Grits are going to sing a song of myrth and pending disaster. Lulling the tax payer into a sense of patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.

What a shame, and what a joke the Grits are. Anyone here ever stop to read the various Red Books. Can we say HIPOCRITS.

 

[BestOfTheBest]

WHO THEN WOULD BE THE BEST PM FOR MILITARY SPENDING AFTER THE PM THAT WOULD WE HAVE NOW

 

[onecat]

I would have to say that harper is the better if you want military spending increases. he has stated that CF needs funding around the 20 billion mark every year. Now its not election time so who knows what they will say when it comes, and then what happens once they get in. But if any party was going to keep their promise it would be Harper.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yeah, but Harper scares the **** out of Ontario voters because he believes in God.

People in Ontario figure God lives in Toronto because after all, it is the centre of the universe.

 

[onecat]

"Yeah, but Harper scares the **** out of Ontario voters because he believes in God.

People in Ontario figure God lives in Toronto because after all, it is the centre of the universe."

I‘m from the heart land of southern Ontario, and your right the Alliance Party does scares people here. But Harper is a better choice to lead the party then Day was. It okay to beleive in God here, but you have be able to let those feelings and believe go from time to time. And Day was not seen as a man who could do. Just look at the last election, he actauult said during the election that he totally believed in creationism...... Sorry but that‘s not going to get you votes from multi-cutlural Ontario. Canada is growing and let face it there are other religions here and to be able get support from all of them you have to keep beliefs privite. After all that what religionis..... your personal beliefs.

 

[humint]

I‘m not so sure that Harper is any better than anyone else. First, they (The CA) have no record of leadership, and the whole CA seems to be a bunch of bandwagon-jumpers when they don‘t get their way -- i.e. the whole lot that bailed on Day and joined the Tories and then jumped back again. My feeling is that they lack backbone, perseverance, and credibility.

What makes me think that, if the CA ever got into power, they would keep their promises? Nothing, that‘s what. They don‘t have the experience and their whole policy mandate is a joke -- basically, it is a reaction to the position of the Libs. There is no thought in their policy, it‘s just knee-jerk reactionism. At least with the Libs and the Tories I know where I stand -- up $hit creek.

As for the red book -- who cares? Show me a politician or political party that has ever kept all of their/its promises and I‘ll show you the bucket of gold coins at the end of the rainbow. My biggest problem with the Libs right now is that they are becoming increasing arrogant and out of touch with the electorate.

As for med care, there is a lot of fiction out there right now, and certainly the millions of $ the premiere‘s are spending on anti-fed propaganda is not helping the situation. First off, they didn‘t really cut spending, they gave the provinces a lump sum that they could do with as they please. Some decided to spend the moolah on med care, others used it elsewhere. I think most used it elsewhere.

As for Ont., the only people you can blame for this sad situation is the Tories. They basically sold every public asset off to private business in their first term to balance the books (see ETR 407, etc). Now, they‘ve got nothing to show for it and nothing in the bank.

So, what I‘m saying is that one party is not to blame or that the whole system has some problem with mismanagement. The real problem is that politicians simply do not see the priorities in the same way as we, the working people, do.

Wow, that was some political rant. I blame it on the fact that I haven‘t had a coffee yet today.

 

[onecat]

I would have to say that its the system that‘s problem. It allows a party like the grits to stay in power when they lack support in most area of countries. The whole is system is old and out of date, and needs to be reformed. Their are many systems out there that work better and are based on elections support. Even Great Britian is looking at changes and they created it.

Oh and do have to point out that question was which leader would mostly support the military and that puts the Grits , NDP, and Tories out of the race... as they have poor records. The CA well I doubt they will be most better until they get achance it can‘t be said. They are the party of Christian Right, so their chances of actually winning and getting into power is slim.