Sunday, December 19, 2010

Flaherty. An idea a minute.

It's just that we can't keep up to his ever changing timepiece.


Last June, the provincial and federal governments said they would look at a three-pronged reform: financial literacy, regulatory changes to give the private sector more freedom to offer low-cost savings options and gradually enhancing the CPP.


What Flaherty has done is to shift to the Bush model which was skewered by his own party and eventually died. The problem then is that most people were understandably skeptical of how it was being communicated and the fact that a complete moron was pushing the idea. 

That's a similar problem here. Flaherty is certainly no genius and we can easily suggest that he's "economics challenged". This is the same idiot who told us, in the slide to the financial fire-pit, that we weren't in a recession when the CPP Reserve Fund had already demonstrated a negative return in March of 2008.

So what caused Flaherty to shift from a widening of CPP to his "radical new idea", (borrowed from the worst presidential administration the US has ever known)? 

Same reason as Bush had for wanting to get out from under it. Exactly the same reason. The Harper government has incurred the most massive deficit in Canadian history and they borrowed against the Canada Pension Plan Reserve Fund. The same time that they incurred an enormous deficit the Canada Pension Plan suffered a negative return on investment of -19 percent losing 17 billion dollars in Net Asset Value in one year. 
In short, to keep CPP viable and on track with its current growth targets Flaherty and Harper would have to raise premiums and taxes. That would shatter their already tenuous base. Believe me, Flaherty will screw an entire generation of retirees if it means he can keep his job. 

Harper and Flaherty. The worst financial managers the Canadian government has ever encountered.

*******

Impolitical has more questions and a copy of the surprisingly sparse framework on pension changes Flaherty is proposing.

10 comments:

chris said...

But..but..trained economist! Adscam!

Think Iggy will go along? Or will they even ask Parliament?

thwap said...

We're already closer to the bush model than the USA is anyway aren't we?

If the CPP was invested in Cdn gov't bonds it wouldn't have suffered a 19% loss.

This was part of a reform to supposedly make the plan more solvent in the face of longer life-spans and ageing baby boomers. Instead of putting a few billion into the fund, the geniuses decided to let it invest in the stock market.

Which worked for a while, but you know the markets don't you?

We can spend $30 billion on jet fighters, and $20 billion on war in Afghanistan, but putting $5 billion over five years in the CPP is unaffordable, ... best to gamble and hope for the best!

harebell said...

I thought we elected the Canadian government?
Couple this with "War on Terror" North and it appears we in fact have Bush lite.
Like thwap said, take $5B from the superplane budget, buy one that actually doe what we need it to and bung the $5B saved into the CPP.

Dana said...

I'm actually beginning to look forward to a Harper majority.

Once the destruction really gets going people will finally wake up.

Beijing York said...

@Dana. Unfortunately, it's hard to rebuild when our lives become as tenuous and miserable as those on an episode of "Deadwood".

Dana said...

BY, I know, I know.

But you got another suggestion about how to shake the passivity out of the complacent burghers of Canada?

I don't.

croghan27 said...

Dana ..it seems Canada is not ready yet for Jack L. and his socialist troops ... so perhaps getting rid of that refugee from an ivory pulpit, Iggy, would be the first step.

Dana said...

croghan, replace with whom?

Who's there who might rattle the Harperites into a serious mistake? Or who might inspire the great unwashed ovine proletariat over at Timmy's currently drooling on Don Cherry? Or who might inspire the passionate disengaged enough to take the time to vote for someone other than some asshole who smiles and smiles and is nonetheless a villain? Or who might be a simple enough communicator for the conceptually deaf and politically blind to finally understand what's at stake?

Can't bring anyone to mind?

We're going to have to find a way to survive Harper and then we're going to have to find a way to rebuild the ruins once the damage is done.

Unless, of course, the blinkered partisanship among the 60 plus percent of us who actually like and love this country somehow dissolves enough to allow a united front to oppose the HarperCons.

That's not going to happen because it's now proven beyond a shadow of any doubt that blinkered partisanship is much, much more important and rewarding than Canada.

Don't believe me?

Watch the comments that show up here shortly.

Beijing York said...

If someone was smart enough to recruit Danny Williams, I would say that he could shake things up and certainly give Harper something to worry about.

The bottom line is that Iggy is a disaster and the LPC in their current state have no chance of upsetting Harper. Layton and the NDP are not gaining much either nor are they exactly acting like the conscience of Canadians by focusing on ATM fees and housing fuel rebates.

But what gives me an ounce of hope is that Canadians thus far do not want Harper - that's why he is in a second minority government. His authoritarian rule is only possible because the opposition is so freaking inept.

Informed Despite Education said...

My solution to our current problem is far to radical to be probable, but it still makes me feel good to suggest it. You need to strike fear into the hearts of the fearmongers.

What we need in Canada is the disbanding of the political parties. They are a disease upon us and they will only cause our destruction. Partisan politics will only lead to the polarization of ou politics to two extrems

What we need is to have a house full of a independents who are responsible for choosing the PM, for that would make him or her accountable to the elected house. This does not mean partisan politics would disappear, but the platform used to perpetuate it would and that would weaken its effect on the policies and laws put into place in Canada.