The Magical Money Trees.

This story is a prime example of why I couldn’t go into politics without killing selected people in the interests of improving the net IQ of the human race. That rash statement out in the open, it occurs to me that most of them making these sorts of ivory-tower statements aren’t having a lot of kids anyway.

Let’s start with a most basic question: from whence do governments get “their” money? Your answer on this will likely determine which of my hypothetical lists you go on…

Snarkasm aside, the answer is US, WE, YOU, and ME, however you want to slice it. All the money that governments have for anything, they have but one way to get it: taxation. Income, Goods and Services, Value Added, Sales, customs fees, etc, they are all taxes because they’re not voluntary.

I am personally of the opinion that any government that posts a large surplus from year to year should be impeached on the basis that the taxpayers are being fleeced for no good reason. Balancing a budget on that scale is tricky business, and of course I would prefer a surplus to a deficit. If times are good, take that opportunity to pay down the debt; people will accept that as long as their taxes don’t rise to make it happen.

Opposition Leader Stephane Dion said, "yet in two years they destroyed the framework (left by the Liberals). Was this their plan all along, so they can cut government services?"

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan responded: "(The Liberal Party) likes big surpluses because they like high taxes."

The Tories accused the Liberal leader of refusing to cut taxes, specifically the GST.

"(Dion) wants to increase the GST -- one per cent for social housing, one per cent to reduce corporate taxes, one per cent for the child tax benefit, one per cent for other things," Van Loan said.

Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff shot back that the Tories appear to have a deliberate strategy to cut government services.

"The prime minister's mentor, Tom Flanagan, has talked openly about tightening the screws on the federal government ... Is this the government's secret agenda," asked Ignatieff.

As far as I can tell, this is what has been done for the last few years, and talking openly about it hardly makes for a "secret agenda". Harper’s gang being the Conservative Party, it stands to reason that if they’re true to their name, they are against big (read: bloated) government. There is a lot of fat that can be cut from the bureaucracy once you get your head around the idea that not everyone and their pet cause deserves MY tax money. The government has managed to post surpluses while lowering taxes, and I defy anyone to come up with a logical economic argument against that.

Think about the money and where it comes from. I will not cry if because the government decides not to allow a tax credit for some really questionable “art” I have less trouble feeding my family as I have more money left each week after taxes. If special interest groups are that concerned about their pet projects, let them find the money the old fashioned way, not at the public teat.

I have no problem at all if the bleeding hearts have bakes sales to finance whatever they want to see that is not in the broader public interest (as long as it’s legal, of course), and with lower taxes all that extra money could be spent on all the consciousness raising and minority cultural centres they want.

As for why the Public Service and the bureaucracy can use a cull from time to time:

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

We have plenty of government, and being selective about what the taxpayers have to fork over to support is (in my books) responsible governance.