While I understand what he's talking about, I still have trouble swallowing deficit spending when there are still plenty of luxury spending still occuring in our National Budget.

I mean seriously, do we need to be spending as much as we do on some of the smaller arts and culture programs that are more special interest than national in nature? Do we need to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on theoretical research that currently has no practical application now or in the forseebale future? Do we need to be spending as much money as we do through Federal unemployment support/programs? Seriously, do we NEED to?

I would argue that we don't.

Feel good programs and discretionary spending can, and should be encouraged during the good years. However, when the bad years come, everything needs to be put on a priority scale and spending starts at the top, working it's way down until the money is gone. After that, well, maybe next time.

However, we in Western societies have been raised in an atmosphere of entitlement and luxury, and we as citizens grow surly and unruly when someone proposes that we may need to "live without" for a little while, or at least until things start to turn up again.

Special/Narrow Interest Groups have convinced enough people that it is absolutly critical that their pet project continue to be funded by the tax-payer as it is, or could become, essential to the well being of the nation, when in reality, it is only absolutly critical and essential to their own pocket community and does relatively little, if anything for the nation as a whole.

Over the years, we as a nation have allowed our infrastructure to erode, but we forget when we complain "Why hasn't anyone done anything about the conditions of this highway that I'm driving on" that there are 30 million other people asking that same question and expecting immediate action. Our infrastructure problems can not be solved overnight.

While I could go on and on, the bottom line is this. There is room for the Government to cut spending. No politician likes to do it, so they look for every avenue to avoid doing so. By no means am I saying that our nation's finances are so simplistic that it's a matter of not spending here or there. Our economy and the needs of a nation like Canada is very complex and inter-dependant. But instead of avoiding starting the work on an overwhelming project like this, we truly need to start somewhere, and that process has already begun. We only need to follow through on the rest of it.

Identify unnecessary spending, prioritize essentials, and be willing to "live without" for a little bit.

Sean: You're talking about chipping away half a million here and a million there to try and make up the budget shortfall that will likely be in the billions.

At the same time, the Federal government's GST tax cut cost billions them in tax revenue. Currently, they're also proposing providing a subsidy to the auto industry which will likely run in the billions of dollars.

That's not to say there's not some merit to your argument, but cutting all arts and science funding isn't magically going to bring us out of deficit. There's much bigger spenders to point fingers at.

I agree that the examples I used won't solve the problem. My intent was to show that there are current spending projects in the budget that aren't exactly necessary and could be cut in order to give the government some room to work with.

Under normal circumstances, the possibility of a deficit isn't an issue, even with the GST cut. I won't get into the GST debate right now, but suffice it to say that it was a campaign promise that needed to be kept for myriad reasons.

And yes, there are much bigger spenders to look at. There are also untapped revenues that the Federal Government has turned a blind eye to in the past. Exactly the kinds of things that Danny Williams gets hot about when someone suggests that it could be collected....but that too is another discussion.

The recent announcement of the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia is a fine example of what we need to be focusing on. Such agreements will lower trade difficulties between countries and increase trade by virtue of ease. More money in the bank.

Still, as every household knows, just because you'll only save $20 out of $200, doesn't mean that you don't do it to make your budget.....

Perhaps the GST cut needed to be kept because it was a campaign promise, but that doesn't make it any less than a stupid tax cut that did next to zero to meaningfully stimulate the economy.

At the same time, the Conservatives have _increased_ spending to unprecedented levels. Their latest idea to save money: spend tens of millions on increasing the size of Cabinet.

Before the Conservatives go collecting that $20 from arts and science programs, perhaps they should audit their own activities...

At the same time, the Conservatives have _increased_ spending to unprecedented levels.

How much of that spending been one time spending. For instance, how much of that money was needed to bring our Military Forces up to spec so that we could honour our international obligations and ensure that they were provided with the necessary tools to do so? How much of that money went to the provinces in the new increased equalization payment formula?

Much of that spending was a result of previous needs that could not be put off any longer.

Something to mull over:
"When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

Who said it?
Adapted from Wiki:
"British economist John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas, called Keynesian economics, had a major impact on modern economic and political theory as well as on many governments' fiscal policies. He advocated interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. He is one of the fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics and considered by some to be the most influential economist of the 20th century."

Some may label PM Harper's change of position as a flip-flop; others call it pragmatism or realism, dealing with the present unprecedented situation.