RT @Deb_Matthews: I have now declared my outdoor Christmas lights to be “winter lights” and I plan to leave them up through the winter. We….

Thoughtful analysis by UofC economist Ken McKenzie points to the need for a thorough reform of the Cdn tax system - where both efficiency and fairness are considered. Add it the post-pandemic to-do list.

Some big spending announcements by Govt in the last few days. Wouldn’t be great if every announcement came with info on a) how we plan to pay for it and b) impact on deficit and debt?.

We finally have a practical plan for meeting Canada’s 2030 emission target. It will depend on a lot of things and will probably needed to be adjusted going forward. If anyone has a better plan, let’s see it. However, the bar has been raised. Alternatives MUST be practical.

Actually, 10/10 dollars spent has been borrowed by Cdn taxpayers. Just saying. .

Timely analysis by John Lester in @FONCanada. In delivering govt programs, you can be fast or you can be targeted, but not both. We sensibly choose speed. Going forward, we should aim to target assistance as accurately as possible. Make every dollar count!.

RT @TrilliumMfg: On December 4th, @spaikin from @TheAgenda on @tvo asked the question: is #Ontario still a #manufacturing powerhouse? @Tril….

This is a very helpful chart for thinking about the future path of employment. Before we use it to judge govts (or for govts to set targets) we should remember that jobs are actually created by thousands of individual private sectors firms, not govts.

Very thought-provoking. thanks Nick!.

I’m no partisan, but having worked with many ministers and MPs, I know how hard their jobs are. Two great examples are @cathmckenna and @MichaelChongMP. They take a lot of abuse but continue to remain positive and focus on their jobs. A big thank you to you both!.

A somewhat hyperbolic headline. but the main point is critical: if you want to remake Canada’s social programs with new spending, we need to have a serious talk about taxes. Start with @FONCanada to get some facts and analysis!.

RT @michaelgsmart: Please everybody click on and retweet my FP column today (and read it!). I am up against the great @jackmintz today and….

Of course, everything may work out well (i.e. luck) and this may not matter. But, IMHO, given the gov't does not actually control the guardrails, they do not a) build credibility or b) provide a useful accountability mechanism. n/n.

Further, the guardrails may introduce an important inconsistency into gov't fiscal plans. The minister says that stimulus spending is time limited (3 years in her forecasts) but seemingly that she will keep spending until economic targets are met. 7/n.

Indeed there are lots of reasons that the guardrails might change that are unrelated to gov't actions - or not change despite gov't actions. 6/n.

I see some problems looming. First, the guardrails are not things the gov't actually controls. Gov'ts say they create jobs, but they don't actually do it - the private sector does. After some point, there is no guarantee that more stimulus spending will affect the targets. 5/n.

The 'guardrails' seem to be more like the outline of a fiscal strategy. Authorities set economic targets and then add stimulus until targets are achieved. 4/n.

An anchor also provides b) an accountability mechanism for voters (and other private sector actors) to judge the authorities' actions. 3/n.

An anchor is a device to a) build the credibility of fiscal authorities, so that when authorities SIGNAL an action, private sector actors believe it and respond accordingly rather than waiting to see if actually occurs. 2/n.

I'm trying to get my head around the idea of fiscal 'guardrails' vs fiscal 'anchors'. I am pretty sure they are not really substitutes. 1/n.