Politics: Tim Hudak's Plan for Ontario if he becomes Premier

[TOareaFan]

I want to know how much of this is to fund tax cuts. And how much of it is to balance the books.

Also, while we might take umbrage with the deep cuts Hudak is proposing, I don't see why we should be any less concerned by the fact that the Liberals either don't seem to have a sincere plan in place to balance the books or don't want to share that plan with the public. We shold also be very concerned with they way public debt has ballooned in this province. Our fiscal situation is a mess. And that's a mess that will undoubtedly severly impact the future of this province. After this year, the province will have over $300 billion in debt with a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 38%. By the time the books are balanced, we are looking at $320-330 billion in debt and quite likely 40% in debt-to-GDP.

Forget subways or LRTs, if the books don't get balanced, the province may not have money to keep the lights on.

This is very well said!

I think people in the general public don't know or choose to ignore the true danger of debts and deficits. Each passing deficit, as you point out, gets added to the debt...so delaying dealing with deficits makes the situation worse....and at some point the annual debt servicing cost has increased to a very uncomfortable level and you don't get a choice about cutting because the interest on the debt has to be paid.

The second biggest impact is something I alluded to the other day (I think in this thread)........Canada, and to some extent Ontario but not as much, was able to take on deficits and ride out the global recession largely due to the work of previous governments who had eliminated deficits and actually paid down some debt..... the economy is in growth mode again (albeit low growth in Ontario) but we are not doing the right things and if we head into a recessionary climate again, Ontario will not have the fiscal room to do the necessary/temporary things needed.

 

[Eug]

Agreed - raise income tax for all brackets, raise GST by 2%, selective cuts and wage freeze. Keep the corporate tax rate where it is.

Simple but reasonable, although I believe a 2% PST/HST increase is too much. (You mean HST right?) Part of the reason I'm not a huge fan of sales tax is that HST is a regressive tax.

I also don't like the Employee Health Tax because it only targets employees and not other types of wage earners.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

"As I understand it, Hudak's plan involves cutting municipal funding, and telling municipalities to make up for it by cutting jobs."

Twitter

 

[doady]

Twitter

I think that is a good idea, in terms of getting elected. Voters won't blame the province for property tax increases or municipal service cuts, they will blame the municipalites. Mike Harris did it in the 90s and it didn't prevent the PCs from being re-elected. And of course, federal Liberals did it the provinces before that, and it didn't affect their popularity.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Depends on how the municipal politicians react. They could easily (and rightfully) point blame back at the Hudak gov't.

"Your property taxes are going up because the Hudak gov't downloaded provincial services onto our municipality to make his books look cleaner". Done.

 

[TOareaFan]

Depends on how the municipal politicians react. They could easily (and rightfully) point blame back at the Hudak gov't.

"Your property taxes are going up because the Hudak gov't downloaded provincial services onto our municipality to make his books look cleaner". Done.

I understand what the Globe reporter is saying slightly differently.....rather than downloading services he suggests the PCs are going to reduce funding to the cities....giving them, I guess, the choice between increasing taxes/revenues or reducing services at the municipal level.

In the end there may not be much difference and I imagine they are aware of how the "downloading of services" would play out....so it may be semantics but it is not identical in form to what Harris did.

strangely, this is not too much different than what I heard Glen Murray say recently about Toronto.....he was asked if he was planning to increase transfers to Toronto for things like transit operating expenses.....his reply was that the province has given the city of Toronto the tools to raise revenue and they have chosen not to do it....so if there is not enough money to operate the TTC the city should explain that to the residents...not his problem now!.

 

[nfitz]

There are over 1.1 million people in the broader public sector (take this table and don't count the federal employees pic.twitter.com/evVk7MwMPS )....100,000 is about a 10% cut overall....yes there are areas not being touched so some other areas will see more than the 10% to compensate. He has said none of the cuts will come from nurses, doctors or police......but has definitely said there will be less teachers in the province (increasing target class sizes by 2 or 3 students eliminates a lot of jobs and re-working {not eliminating, which is a surprise} all day kindergarten does also.

Education has been cut to the bone by both the Harris and McGuinty cuts. The only way to create substantial cuts, is to eliminate entire programs, or significantly increase class sizes.

Is that what what Hudak is going to do. Campaign on increased class sizes? Because that's going to go down well. You don't have to wander very far into most schools, to see that it's clearly not overflowing with surplus cash.

What we don't know (at least I don't) is how many of the 1.1 million employees reach retirement age each year....so how many of the 100k positions can be dealt with by just not filling the jobs and reallocating/reassigning people and how many are actual layoffs.

Does it matter? If 10% of GO Trains are cut, do I care if it's because the engineer retired or was fired? If there's 10% less TTC stations, will I feel better than no one was fired?

I don't see how your apply these cuts into education without raising the stigma of class size increases ... and if that's the case, Hudak might as well give up now.

And after the 400,000 or so in education, the only possible target left is the 325,000 in local government. But the province has little sway over this, and doesn't fund it. Their only tool in controlling this is forced almagamations ... and after the Tories did this last time, the studies afterwards, showed little sign of a reduction in jobs. For example, if the Province were (to say) amalgamate Mississauga and Toronto, how many people would TTC let go as a result? How many less firefighters? How many less police officers? Heck, how many less librarians? Probably none.

What we should be doing is asking "Katie McGuinty" or "Dalton Wynne" what her plan is to , as she says in her budget bring the proposed $12.5B deficit into balance in 2017/2018 (ie one fiscal year later) because that is not clear.

It seemed to be pretty clear in the budget. It's a 424-page PDF file. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2014/papers_all.pdf . I'm not sure where you get the $12.5 billion deficit being balanced between 2016/17 and 2017/18. Table 2.23 on page 261 shows the 2016-17 projected deficit of $5.3 billion ... and that includes adding $1.2 billion to replenish the depleted reserves. If you take the projected revenue increases over the next 4 years (population increase, GDP growth, etc.) and also the projected spending increases, and extrapolate one more year, and assume you don't replenish the reserve in 2017-18, you'd get a $1.6 billion deficit in 2017-18 and a $0.9 billion surplus in 2018-19.

I'm yet to see anything from the Tories with anything close to that level of detail. The key of course, is revenue growth. But I don't think the Tories underlying revenue growth estimates are any different than the Liberals (other than doing without the recent tax increase for cigarettes, jet fuel, high earners, etc.). So what's different? Massive job losses. I guess the Tory campaign IS all about jobs.

It is fine to say that Hudak's plan would "decimate" Ontario (as she did this morning) but I have a hard time understanding why eliminating a $11B deficit in two years is "disastrous" for Ontario but eliminating a $12.5B deficit in 3 years is a "prudent plan"....part of that, I am sure, is because the budget didn't actually say how we get balanced...it just says we will.

Again, where do you get the $12.5B deficit elimination in 3 years? Surely the 100,000 job losses would decimate Ontario, given the much smaller losses under Harris did decimate Ontario.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Not 100,000 jobs lost, just 100,000 jobs shifted to the private sector. For example, if the education system was privatized, teachers would still be teachers, just in private schools instead of public schools. Given the efficiency of private sector, they might actually be able to hire even more teachers.

I can't tell if this is ironic or not? It's one of the great canards of conservatism. He's going to CREATE a million jobs and the first step is LAYING OFF 100,000 human beings with well-paid, secure jobs. How many of the hardworking Ontario taxpayers he so supports and their families will suddenly be scrambling, wondering if they'll be making mortgage payments a few months down the road? (Answer - something like 200,000)

So, I guess he's creating 1.1 million jobs or is it: Step one: Fire a crapload of people. Step two :Get them all new jobs. And then starting with the 1 million thing? Math isn't my strong suit.

A public service can be too big, sure, but that's not even what he's saying. You're piling IF upon IF. The reality is that if he fires 5,000 teachers (for example) those will be 5,000 people on EI and looking for work. Some will find jobs at private schools or elsewhere. Others will need to find new careers, maybe even going back to school. In the meantime, they won't be paying income taxes, buying lattes or otherwise supporting the economy. And if your whole office of (say) labour lawyers all get canned at the same time, how do you think the job market will be in the private sector as you all go scrambling for private sector labour lawyer jobs?

He's not just going to call Upper Canada college and say, "If I fire 50 teachers in Toronto, can you hire them at your private sector institution?" You can't just SHIFT 100,000 jobs! (This is obvious to most of us, right?)

Plus, he's saying it's "across the board," except for health. So it's not like he's done a study and thinks MOE has too much management and there's too many shoeshine boys getting paid by the Ministry of Labour. He's just going to do a large-scale cull so, I suppose, instead of paying those people we can just ask the private sector to do it....somehow. I'm not really a PARTISAN person and I try, I swear, not to hate conservatives, but then they say stupid stuff like Hudak did today...Totally irresponsible pandering.

 

[TOareaFan]

Education has been cut to the bone by both the Harris and McGuinty cuts. The only way to create substantial cuts, is to eliminate entire programs, or significantly increase class sizes.

Is that what what Hudak is going to do. Campaign on increased class sizes? Because that's going to go down well. You don't have to wander very far into most schools, to see that it's clearly not overflowing with surplus cash.

The Drummond report recommended increased class sizes as a means to cutting education expenses to contribute towards a balanced budget movement.

Another thing Hudak said today is that he would amend the all day kindergarten from having a teacher and an ECE worker in every classroom to having each class having 1 staff.

Does it matter? If 10% of GO Trains are cut, do I care if it's because the engineer retired or was fired? If there's 10% less TTC stations, will I feel better than no one was fired?

I don't see how your apply these cuts into education without raising the stigma of class size increases ... and if that's the case, Hudak might as well give up now.

He is not trying to avoid raising the class size issue....he lead with it.

It seemed to be pretty clear in the budget. It's a 424-page PDF file. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2014/papers_all.pdf . I'm not sure where you get the $12.5 billion deficit being balanced between 2016/17 and 2017/18. Table 2.23 on page 261 shows the 2016-17 projected deficit of $5.3 billion ... and that includes adding $1.2 billion to replenish the depleted reserves.

I never said the Liberals were projecting balance in 2016/2017.....Hudak is. The Liberals show balanced one year later.

Here is a pretty good summary of what Hudak is proposing.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Reevely+would+public+sector+jobs+balance+budget/9824013/story.html

 

[gabe]

However today's slash-100000 announcement has pushed the PCs further to the right, making some of the centre (including myself) even more uncomfortable.

IMO Hudak's best play here would have been to stand pat or move slightly more toward the centre and he could have won the election. I think this move will hurt his chances. I'm curious what the polls after today will show.

Hudak is acting like a good ole' tea-publican' from south of the border.. His tea party anti gov campaign, isn't going to sit well with the centre-right voters. Had the Cons thrown him under the bus after the last election, and got more moderate candidate, like a Michael Chong type, they could easily win this election.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Hudak is acting like a good ole' tea-publican' from south of the border.. His tea party anti gov campaign, isn't going to sit well with the centre-right voters. Had the Cons thrown him under the bus after the last election, and got more moderate candidate, like a Michael Chong type, they could easily win this election.

One of the Liberals' potential saving graces for this election is the possibility of frustrated voters from both opposition parties turning their way: NDP base members angry with Horwath for voting down a budget tailored for their party, and Red Tories / moderate PCs not happy with the Tea Party stances of their leader.

 

[nfitz]

Another thing Hudak said today is that he would amend the all day kindergarten from having a teacher and an ECE worker in every classroom to having each class having 1 staff.

Good grief, really? That lets them put 26 kids currently in a Kindergarten classroom compared to 20 in Grade 1. They may actually have to build more kindergarten rooms for some schools.

He is not trying to avoid raising the class size issue....he lead with it.[/quote More evidence that Hudak is anti-child and anti-family.

Here is a pretty good summary of what Hudak is proposing.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Reevely+would+public+sector+jobs+balance+budget/9824013/story.html

My gosh. I'm really surprised he went this way. This reminds me of Peledeau promising Separation or John Tory promising to fund religious schools.

He could simply have left out the details about the number of job cuts, and it would have not caused this type of reaction.

It just let the other parties attack Hudak for being anti-family, and for wanting to bring back the Harris cuts. What a bizarre way to go.

 

[TOareaFan]

Good grief, really? That lets them put 26 kids currently in a Kindergarten classroom compared to 20 in Grade 1. They may actually have to build more kindergarten rooms for some schools.

More evidence that Hudak is anti-child and anti-family.



My gosh. I'm really surprised he went this way. This reminds me of Peledeau promising Separation or John Tory promising to fund religious schools.

He could simply have left out the details about the number of job cuts, and it would have not caused this type of reaction.

It just let the other parties attack Hudak for being anti-family, and for wanting to bring back the Harris cuts. What a bizarre way to go.

My guess is that the advice he received was "if you are going to say you will balance the budget in 2 years, while contrasting that with someone increasing the deficit while "saying" they will balance it in 3....you better release some details on how you are going to do it.....otherwise there is not much to differentiate you".

As for "anti-family"....I am sure some will spin it that way (or try to) but if you are going to cut then you are going to run the risk of being called "anti-something".

I have no idea if a) this works or b) if it is the best way to get there. I am fairly certain that at some point soon the budget has to be balanced.......and the challenge for the Liberals (for some voters) will be to explain how they will curtail a bigger budget deficit two years after increasing it and how their methodology differs and why it will not "decimate" Ontario as they say this method does.

Whether you or I think that the various "scandals" are actually scandals, the "tag" on this current government is that because of Orange/E-Health/gas plants is that they can't be trusted.....I would love to have been a fly on the wall when they came up with "we will increase the deficit for a year then tell them we will balance it two years later and when they ask how we will say 'trust us'".

That and the "running against Harper" are the most bizarre things I have seen so far in the early days of this election.

 

[sixrings]

I will send my kids to private school if the sizes get any bigger

 

[TOareaFan]

I will send my kids to private school if the sizes get any bigger

According to the current government.....In 2003-04, 25% of classes had 25 or more students. Today, all primary classes have 23 students or fewer....90.0% have 20 or fewer.

So Hudak is, I guess, suggesting a return to the class sizes of the start of the century.

To get the numbers down....they hired over 5,000 new teachers....so, again, Hudak seems to be proposing an unwinding of that hiring.

On the radio this morning I had heard that the class sizes and teacher cuts are based upon the Drummond report recommendations (although I have not seen that written anywhere since).....so it is essentially the advice the current government got in 2012.