The journey from there to here

I found this interesting. These statistics, if true, seriously indict our own national economy:

If you’re feeling short-changed by Ottawa, it turns out you’re right. Every year, the federal government spends an average of $3,919 per Ontarian, not including federal interest payments on the national debt. When it comes to spending, per person, Ontarians get the least. The feds spend $4,375 per westerner, $4,974 per Quebecker, and $8,209 per Atlantic Canadian.

I found this on a blogexplosion blog site, so I don't know how to find the direct link, but it could probably be googled easily enough if you're inclined to verify the facts.

What I found compelling was that the per capita spending of the HIGHEST demographic ($8,209; Atlantic Canadian) is substantially below our own government's per capita expenditures of $8566 per person. Sadly, I am without information as to whether these statistics are in US or Canadian dollars, if the latter, the gap is substantially wider.

Canada's high per capita expenditure is understandable when you consider that there are many elements of Democratic Socialism that guide the Canadian government. Canada's health care system, though oft maligned by the American press, is certainly better than the zero health care that is the reality for all too many Americans. At least, one can look at the government and see where the money is being spent.

Our taxes have provided many good programs; the electricity we enjoy and the roads upon which we drive are but a few examples of this. But our government is grossly inefficient in the administration of funds, and we would be well served to explore ways to increase government efficiency and reduce taxes that must support such government overspending. Personally, I don't advocate for a national health care as such, but rather for reductions of taxes that would ultimately reduce costs for many Americans and increase income. Certainly, when our per capita spending is so much higher than Canada's while providing less, there is room to cut.


Comments
on Apr 22, 2005
It only refers to the federal spending. The separation of powers between the federal and the provincial in Canada is different. The provinces are responsible for a lot more than the states are in the United States. That’s why the federal spending per capita in Canada is lower than in the United States.
on Apr 23, 2005
Thanks for the clarification, JE.
on Apr 23, 2005
I'm happy to see you point out my biggest pet peeve with this country, Gid. "Equalization", where the feds jack up the overall federal tax rate and send money to the poorer provinces so they can afford similar health care, education, etc. as the richer provinces, is actually entrenched in our Constitution. The net effect of this is that my province - one of the 2 "rich provinces" - pays $23 billion more than it gets from the feds.

As a result, my province has a large deficit and hiked taxes, while "poor" provinces like Saskatchewan and Quebec are at or near a surplus and are reducing taxes. It's a $#$@$%@!!! outrage, and I plan on making this issue #1 for Ontario voters in the next election, which is likely to be held in about 2-3 months.

A separate issue from equalization is that a big chunk of federal revenue is given to the provinces with virtually no strings attached, ostensibly for provincial matters like health care and education but in reality a blank cheque. The provinces have the ability to raise that revenue themselves and the feds need to get out of the blank cheque writing/vote buying business.
on Apr 23, 2005
I'm happy to see you point out my biggest pet peeve with this country, Gid. "Equalization", where the feds jack up the overall federal tax rate and send money to the poorer provinces so they can afford similar health care, education, etc. as the richer provinces, is actually entrenched in our Constitution. The net effect of this is that my province - one of the 2 "rich provinces" - pays $23 billion more than it gets from the feds.

As a result, my province has a large deficit and hiked taxes, while "poor" provinces like Saskatchewan and Quebec are at or near a surplus and are reducing taxes. It's a $#$@$%@!!! outrage, and I plan on making this issue #1 for Ontario voters in the next election, which is likely to be held in about 2-3 months.

A separate issue from equalization is that a big chunk of federal revenue is given to the provinces with virtually no strings attached, ostensibly for provincial matters like health care and education but in reality a blank cheque. The provinces have the ability to raise that revenue themselves and the feds need to get out of the blank cheque writing/vote buying business.


Hey DSH...get your head screwed on straight. Gideon was/is talking about the US NOT Canada. The government of one does not affect the other in that fashion.
on Apr 23, 2005
Still got those anger issues, huh Doc? We're having a civilized discussion here; your bitter words are unnecessary.
on Apr 23, 2005
Still got those anger issues, huh Doc? We're having a civilized discussion here; your bitter words are unnecessary


And what "bitter" words might that be? The ones pertaining to you going off in left field somewhere?
on Apr 23, 2005
In the US, I think we have very, very little need for a federal government at all. There are some things that need to be done nationally, sure, like defense, but the vast majority of these tasks can and should be handled at the state level.

To me, the main reason the federal government has become so "important" is a kind of half-assed socialism. Federal "aid" for education, social security, etc., is just a covert form of wealth re-distribution. You see it in Canada, too, but there they are now even admiting it is wealth redistribution and expanding on the idea.

Some states with much lower average income wouldn't have the resources to have equitable benefits with states like California. Some states would have worse roads, less effetive education, etc. So, instead of correcting the reasons these states lag behind, we just "redistribute" federal funds to them and let them stay backward.

People like the Col pretend that the Federal government is working in the red because they don't tax enough. I think the federal government is working in the red because they are trying to do a job that is redundant 50 times over.