Canadian Politics Today

Why the 'left' believes that armies of office workers and overstaffed service is good for the people is beyond me. They react that way because conservatives cut benefits from the poor when they come into office

"That you would lay the blame for the Left's fiscal mismanagement on conservatives 'cutting benefits to the poor' is laughably one-sided."

There is nothing in my statement that blames one side.  I explain why the left hates the budget cuts, that is all.  I also blame the left for supporting bloated bureaucracy.

To repeat. Chretien tackled the debt in large measure by slashing payments to the provinces for social welfare. That meant the provinces had to cut education, health care, and social welfare spending. The feds also cut services to the poor that they paid directly. I remember one particular program they cut was to subsidize wheelchairs for the poor.

Ok.

Once you exclude pensions, and a variety of programs which can't really be seriously cut, there is a huge chunk of cash that goes to directly benefit people who get assistance due to poverty. You can't not cut that unless you're going to cut everything else even more heavily. I mean, the Chretien liberals cut the military, for example, but if they had held back on cutting social programs there' d have been NO military. Have a look at the pie chart here to see where the feds money goes to and tell me how you cut 30 or 40 billion dollars from that without hurting anyone.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tax-dollars-1.4545415

I will look.

But in relative terms, budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette said that "middle-low income earner received the greatest financial benefit."
Since 2005, the government has cut personal income taxes by a single point — to 15% — and cut two points off the GST/HST. The moves have overall, been "progressive and made income distribution more just," Frechette said.

https://www.saultstar.com/2014/05/27/tory-tax-cuts-have-helped-balance-income-inequality-report/wcm/4b2a4a0e-adb4-4228-bbe4-65c385d2207c

There are all sorts of ways to save money but little incentive to do so. The massive red-tape in government, which I witnessed first hand, is primarily designed to ensure that none of the ex class can be blamed for anything that goes wrong. If that means spending ten bucks on oversight for a program that spends one buck - to make sure that one buck is spent in accordance with policy, and thus spare the higher ups any potential embarrassment, then they'll spend the ten bucks. That's why it takes months, if not years to get anything done - so everyone's butt is covered by the documented meetings, consultations, studies, reports and buy-ins.

Then too, every politician wants to make promises for new programs before an election. But no politician wants to remove programs. Because whenever you do someone will squeal and the press will cover it.

The 2nd last paragraph is what I am talking about.  And how can there be little incentive ?  It seems to me to reflect a lack of imagination.