Fair Deal Wrap-up on CBC,
and a Clamorous Scramble for Funds
I’ll be talking about the Fair Deal campaign today on CBC Radio Noon with host Chris O’Neill Yates, between 12:30 and 1:00 NL time.
Coming back to the province with a deal is going to be a political challenge, but ultimately, a good challenge to have. Here’s some of the reaction to the new deal:
- Federation of Labour: improve public services.
- Canadian Federation of Independent Business: put money into private sector, not the public services.
- Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association: deal with swelling class sizes.
- Provincial Health Boards Association: put money into hospitals and nursing homes.
- National Union of Public and General Employees: forget the debt, invest in people.
- Ontario Finance Minister to Federal Government: we need $4.8 billion (Toronto Star Editorial yesterday).
Premier Danny Williams has stepped into this fray with: “I’m not going to jump out here today and start saying yes to every wish list that’s placed in front of me.”
I think that’s a good sign, but he’s obviously going to have to break some eggs. Again, it’s a good challenge to have.
I’m reminded of the stories of Aesop as all of this plays out. One story left readers with the moral “the value of money is not in its possession but in its use".
Now that I think about it, there was another story that left us with “try to please all, and you end up pleasing none".
6 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Great assessment, Kevin. We need more people like you to come back here. Great job!
Comment by Jeremiah — 2/2/2005 @ 10:23 amWhat we need is more people to voice their opinions and then follow up on it.U think Kevin is doing a great job,and doing exactly what I just said.It doesnt have to be done just from Nl,it can be done by a newfoundlander/labadorian that is anywhere in the world,and whose heart is still in NL.Sometime more can be done,when youre on the outside looking in,and seeing the problem objectively rather then subjectively.
Comment by Linda — 2/2/2005 @ 11:48 amWe havent got the money yet,but when we do get it,heres a suggestion for the government of NL.
Comment by Linda — 2/2/2005 @ 11:51 amUse it,for the benefit of the people,those who have lost their livelihood because of fishing.Then,pay down the debt and save so that NL may become independent once again.
We dont need Canada,what we do need is our Nation back!!
I see nothing wrong with being fiscally responsible with the monies from the deal. True we are richer than we were a few days ago but as another old adage goes, ” a fool and is money soon part company.”
Comment by Owen Russell — 2/2/2005 @ 11:53 amThis offshore deal in no way changes the need for serious reduction in the size of the NL government. We’ll never get out of this mess by taking a one-time advance payment and start spending on things that we won’t be able to afford once it’s gone. As it is, we stand to lose between a quarter and 33 cents on every dollar taken in in revenues thanks to years of deficit financing by all political stripes. Several departments are little more than patronage and failed programs window-dressed with scattered and scant successes. I honestly believe we could eliminate almost all of the dept of “Innovation, Trade and Rural Development” and actually improve Innovation, improve Trade, and improve rural development. There is also appears to be a lot of fat in the dept of environment and the labour dept.
If there was one type of expenditure that I think would be best justified even in economic circles, it would be the establishment of a more generous scholarship/PSE debt reduction fund etc etc… call it the Atlantic Accord Heritage Fund or something similar…beyond that I think the premier should probably put the lion’s share straight onto our provincial debt. He may also want to consider lowering the economy/jobs-killing taxes that plague Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Ontario’s tax revenue increased by about $3 billion in each year of the Mike Harris tax cut. Puerto Rico cut its taxes at the high-end marginal tax rate from 67.6 percent to 41 percent. Its revenue increased by 28 percent. Ronald Reagan dramatically cut taxes in 1983, yet income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after inflation). John F. Kennedy reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent and tax revenues increased by 62 percent – from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968. Ireland, New Zealand, and Alberta have all noticed similar patterns.
Williams should also consider strict balanced budget and debt reduction legislation combined with enforcement of Generally-Accepted Accounting Principles or some similar approach. Never again should any government be allowed to hide a deficit. Indeed, once the deficit is eliminated, never again except in extreme crisis, should a government be allow to mortgage their childrens’ futures so irresponsibly.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/3/2005 @ 12:08 amI concur with several statements here regarding a balanced budget. No, it shouldn’t be force by Ottawa. Yes! it Should be forced by N&L.
How about the N&L government, enshrine in legislation, a balanced budget provision. This doesn’t have to take affect immediately, but set a target date and work towards it.
Financial freedom starts with financial responsibility.
To everyone who wants a piece of the pie … We have been here before. Take a deep breath and think 10, 20 years down the road.
We need to build the province, invest in infrastrucure (transportation,education, all those things that people and businesses look for when looking for a home) take our share of control (and responsibility) for managing the fisheries. Still the biggest industry that makes sense for N&L.
Maybe a review of the personal and business taxes is in order. All the talk of increased revenues accruing to governments as a result of Reagan’s (and others) tax cuts sound great. EXCEPT there was an awful lot of pain caused to those who could ill-afford it. If you had money, tax cuts are great. If you didn’t have money … well, not so great … you lose services. Tax cuts have costs as well as benefits.
But, as I have said here before, watch out for the quick fix or the ‘magic solution’. They are most often associated with political cronies and con-artists.
What businesses or industries would be suited to N&L? Now? In 10 Years? In 20 Years? Hey, you bio-physio-socio-economos at the MUN … what kinds of model can be applied here to evaluate proposals?
Lets get them out there so when something is put forward, we have an open way to evaluate it. By the way, if a proposal can’t be evaluated in the open, forget it. Transparency!
Comment by Randy Raymond — 2/3/2005 @ 12:54 pm