(Gabriel Yiu) The budget is always big news -- getting front pages, inside pages, graphs and charts, stakeholders’ responses, political commentaries etc. etc.. I have only one question: can we take Christy Clark’s budget seriously?
The answer is yes and no. Yes, the budget matters because it is the spending plan of the provincial government and it affects pretty much all aspects of our life: health, education, senior care, social service, public safety, justice, economic development, transportation, the environment and so on. When the government does not provide funding increase according to inflation or population growth, then there will be a cutback of services.
On the other hand, I have serious doubts about the credibility of the Liberals’ financial plan. Remember, in 2009, when they said again and again that the budget deficit was $495 million, it turned out to be several times more. How about the last budget? It was announced to have a deficit of $925 million but that figure was later revised to $3.1 billion. So does it really matter when the Liberals told us that the deficit is $968 million this year and they will balance the budget on election year?
In addition, the BC Liberal government has been reprimanded by the auditor general for their deceptive accounting practices. Last year, the auditor general released two critical reports condemning the Liberal government for allowing BC Hydro to improperly defer billions of dollars of expenses to future years. The practice turned the crown corporation’s finance from deficit into surplus. The “surplus” allowed the government to collect revenue from BC Hydro while its executives could collect their performance bonuses. If such a practice occurred in a business corporation, it’s known as fraud.
The second report was released in November. The auditor general concluded that the Liberal government was not in compliance with the general accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and issued an audit opinion “with reservation.” Probably knowing the public wouldn’t realize how serious the matter is, the auditor general explained in his report that in BC, “if a [publicly-traded] corporation were given an audit opinion with a reservation, the British Columbia Securities Commission would normally place a ‘cease trade’ order against the corporation. The public corporation then runs the risk of being delisted by the stock exchange on which it is traded.”
So we’re told that the Liberals are going to balance the budget by means of selling public assets and freezing government expenditures and this is called “fiscal prudence”? Then why is there a big jump in debt? The 30% jump of “traditional” debt (excluding the P3 debt ledger, i.e. another $80 billion) in three years is staggering, from $50.9 billion (2011/12) to $66.3 billion (2014/15), that is, an increase of $15.4 billion.
Finance Minister Kelvin Falcon said, "The tax, spend and borrow approach is not just wrong — it is potentially catastrophic.” Those words were meant to be an attack on the NDP, but given the Liberal record of massive debt increase for this province, how can he condemn anyone other than themselves?
The Liberals are going to increase personal income tax, MSP, carbon tax, BC Hydro, ICBC, plus the HST, but government spending would be frozen. Small businesses are going to pay higher tax. Yet, big corporations can continue to enjoy their tax cuts and the HST tax rebate. Do you really believe that the Liberals would raise the corporate income tax for their big-business friends after the next election? By raising small business tax now and deferring the corporate tax increase after the next election, you can clearly see whom this government serves.
That the Liberals plan to privatize liquor distribution is indeed disturbing, especially when you see that it was the same lobbyists who helped privatize BC Rail and the administration of BC Hydro, i.e. the same people who helped put Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark on the premier’s chair.
According to the news report of Business in Vancouver, the Progressive Strategies (the Progressive Group) has been lobbying the BC government “to develop a new liquor distribution system” on behalf of their client. Patrick Kinsella, chair of the Progressive Group, was involved in two of the biggest privatization schemes of the former premier Gordon Campbell’s administration. In addition, Kinsella was also the political strategist behind Christy Clark’s successful leadership race.
The service plan released this week shows that the BC Liquor Distribution Branch is forecasting $2.9 billion in sales in 2012-13 and $906.1 million in net income. To British Columbians, the operation is indeed like a duck that lays golden eggs, generating the much needed revenue to support public services.
What is disturbing is that according to the media report, the Liberal government wants to raise $700 million by privatizing liquor warehouses and selling other properties. To sell off for $700 million an operation that could generate an annual income of $900 million? No wonder the mastermind behind the BC Rail sell-out is involved.
It’s interesting to note that not long ago, Premier Clark was painting a rosy picture of the province under her leadership with her job plan advertising campaign (which costs taxpayer $15 million) and all the feel-good announcements. All of a sudden, the tone is reversed and her finance minister is now telling us that the government has to freeze spending for three years because the economic outlook is grim.
I guess that’s another credibility issue that the public should pay attention to.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Problem with Premier Christy Clark
(Gabriel Yiu) I still remember prior to the voting of the 2001 provincial election, I interviewed Christy Clark on my television show. At that time Clark was the deputy leader of the BC Liberal Party. She’d left me quite an impression as a result of that encounter. It’s because I’d never seen a politician that would just blurt out her views in front of the camera with such glibness.
For example, she said BC would never have a deficit once the Liberals formed government. The development that followed was that the biggest government deficits seen in the province were recorded under the Liberal administration. The real issue is this: how can a politician say that his/her government will never have a deficit once they form government? There’re so many external factors that could impact the economy and finance beyond the control of the government. In the 90s, BC’s second largest trading partner, Japan, fell into a long deep recession. In 1997 there was the Asian Financial Crisis. These were external factors that had a huge impact on this province.
A decade later, Clark has not changed. On the morning she announced her bid for the BC Liberal leadership, she said on radio that resolving the HST issue was simple -- just call a vote in the legislature and the MLAs would vote according to the wish of their constituents and presto, problem resolved. I guess everyone knows that even as entrenched a figure as Gordon Campbell had to step down because of the HST, but Clark had the idea that the Liberal government’s huge problem could be resolved with a magic wand.
Once Clark became the premier, she spent over $5 million of taxpayers’ money and led her team of MLAs in a fight to save the HST. Even after the Liberal government lost the referendum, she is still delaying the annihilation of the HST.
During her leadership campaign, when Clark talked about her economic strategy, she declared that she would visit India and China in two months after she became the premier. That was a shallow promise aiming at the Chinese- and Indo-Canadian community because there’s no way she could get away from her new job in two months. At that time Clark did not even have a seat at the legislature.
Last fall, Premier Clark released her first Throne Speech and one of the key highlights was to put the Stanley Cup rioters to a public trial. The crown prosecution did not receive the extraordinary decision favorably, so the attorney general had to exercise her authority to make the prosecutors follow the wish of the premier and file the request for broadcasting the trials with the court. Although Clark’s decision was widely questioned and criticized, she stood by her decision.
On Feb 13, the morning before the legislature was recalled, in a morning radio show, Premier Clark was being pressed for her views on the issue again and she maintained that it’s the right decision. However, if you compare what Clark said on Monday to her demand last fall, you will see that Clark had stealthily shifted her position, from public broadcast of “the proceedings in every prosecution arising from the Vancouver riot… to trials and sentencing hearings” to only “the sentencing of those found guilty”. I guess Clark also came to realize that her great idea was not that great after all.
Several hours after Clark’s radio appearance, when the radio and web media were still reporting Clark’s position to seek the broadcasting of the riot trial sentencing, the court ruled against the government’s application for the public broadcast of the first rioter case. Shortly afterwards, British Columbians heard on the news that the premier and her attorney general were trying to explain why they’re now abandoning the pursuit of riot TV.
From HST, China-India trip to riot TV, such major policies of Clark’s were supposed to have gone through a vigorous examination before being announced to the public. These policies were shallow and unable to stand public scrutiny.
The veteran pundit Vaughn Palmer’s recent column has highlighted Clark’s shortcoming. When Clark was on the above-mentioned radio show, she was asked by a caller on the fairness of tolling the Port Mann bridge. Clark’s response was this: “The previous government’s policy was to only have tolls on new highway infrastructure.”
Her answer prompted the host to cut in and pointed out that the government Clark referred to was actually her government. Clark declared that she wasn’t part of the Liberal government in the past five years because she was hosting a show at the radio station.
Palmer rightfully pointed out in his newspaper article that the selective tolling policy set up by the “previous government” was in fact adopted at a cabinet meeting in April 2003 when Clark was the deputy premier of that government.
So would Premier Clark change the policy of the “previous government”? Clark said she won’t because “Fiddling with it at this stage would be very, very difficult. The government of the day came up with the fairest policy they could do.”
The exchanges truly reflect Clark’s craftiness and unwillingness to take responsibility. When the premier is confronted with one of her government’s unpopular policies, she would shift the responsibility to “the previous government.”
Even though Clark refuses to take responsibility for the “previous” Liberal government, she has been saying a lot and has even launched an ad campaign claiming that the Opposition Leader, Adrian Dix, is responsible for the NDP government in the 90s.
No wonder Clark’s public support is going downhill fast.
For example, she said BC would never have a deficit once the Liberals formed government. The development that followed was that the biggest government deficits seen in the province were recorded under the Liberal administration. The real issue is this: how can a politician say that his/her government will never have a deficit once they form government? There’re so many external factors that could impact the economy and finance beyond the control of the government. In the 90s, BC’s second largest trading partner, Japan, fell into a long deep recession. In 1997 there was the Asian Financial Crisis. These were external factors that had a huge impact on this province.
A decade later, Clark has not changed. On the morning she announced her bid for the BC Liberal leadership, she said on radio that resolving the HST issue was simple -- just call a vote in the legislature and the MLAs would vote according to the wish of their constituents and presto, problem resolved. I guess everyone knows that even as entrenched a figure as Gordon Campbell had to step down because of the HST, but Clark had the idea that the Liberal government’s huge problem could be resolved with a magic wand.
Once Clark became the premier, she spent over $5 million of taxpayers’ money and led her team of MLAs in a fight to save the HST. Even after the Liberal government lost the referendum, she is still delaying the annihilation of the HST.
During her leadership campaign, when Clark talked about her economic strategy, she declared that she would visit India and China in two months after she became the premier. That was a shallow promise aiming at the Chinese- and Indo-Canadian community because there’s no way she could get away from her new job in two months. At that time Clark did not even have a seat at the legislature.
Last fall, Premier Clark released her first Throne Speech and one of the key highlights was to put the Stanley Cup rioters to a public trial. The crown prosecution did not receive the extraordinary decision favorably, so the attorney general had to exercise her authority to make the prosecutors follow the wish of the premier and file the request for broadcasting the trials with the court. Although Clark’s decision was widely questioned and criticized, she stood by her decision.
On Feb 13, the morning before the legislature was recalled, in a morning radio show, Premier Clark was being pressed for her views on the issue again and she maintained that it’s the right decision. However, if you compare what Clark said on Monday to her demand last fall, you will see that Clark had stealthily shifted her position, from public broadcast of “the proceedings in every prosecution arising from the Vancouver riot… to trials and sentencing hearings” to only “the sentencing of those found guilty”. I guess Clark also came to realize that her great idea was not that great after all.
Several hours after Clark’s radio appearance, when the radio and web media were still reporting Clark’s position to seek the broadcasting of the riot trial sentencing, the court ruled against the government’s application for the public broadcast of the first rioter case. Shortly afterwards, British Columbians heard on the news that the premier and her attorney general were trying to explain why they’re now abandoning the pursuit of riot TV.
From HST, China-India trip to riot TV, such major policies of Clark’s were supposed to have gone through a vigorous examination before being announced to the public. These policies were shallow and unable to stand public scrutiny.
The veteran pundit Vaughn Palmer’s recent column has highlighted Clark’s shortcoming. When Clark was on the above-mentioned radio show, she was asked by a caller on the fairness of tolling the Port Mann bridge. Clark’s response was this: “The previous government’s policy was to only have tolls on new highway infrastructure.”
Her answer prompted the host to cut in and pointed out that the government Clark referred to was actually her government. Clark declared that she wasn’t part of the Liberal government in the past five years because she was hosting a show at the radio station.
Palmer rightfully pointed out in his newspaper article that the selective tolling policy set up by the “previous government” was in fact adopted at a cabinet meeting in April 2003 when Clark was the deputy premier of that government.
So would Premier Clark change the policy of the “previous government”? Clark said she won’t because “Fiddling with it at this stage would be very, very difficult. The government of the day came up with the fairest policy they could do.”
The exchanges truly reflect Clark’s craftiness and unwillingness to take responsibility. When the premier is confronted with one of her government’s unpopular policies, she would shift the responsibility to “the previous government.”
Even though Clark refuses to take responsibility for the “previous” Liberal government, she has been saying a lot and has even launched an ad campaign claiming that the Opposition Leader, Adrian Dix, is responsible for the NDP government in the 90s.
No wonder Clark’s public support is going downhill fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)