McGuinty has got to go? What would you have done differently? Does being a fiscal conservative mean that you agree with their policies of disproportionately huge tax cuts for the wealthy while all the rest of society sinks? Do you agree with the policies of selling off public assets to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy (ie: selling off Hwy 407 - now we are paying triple the tolls than we would have otherwise.) Even Warren Buffett thinks that the taxation policies of the US are way out of whack and the wealthy should be paying MORE, not less. Canadian tax policies are on track to become like those of the US with the Conservatives in power federally.
First thing, that I would have done, is I'd have failed to lie. Repeatedly. The second thing is I wouldn't have spent all of the money that we did have, that certainly could have been put to better use once things started to fall apart. Buying votes is less important than financial solvency.
I hope that you're being facetious, because otherwise your comments are grossly insulting.
Being a fiscal conservative isn't a political affiliation, it's a way of viewing disbursement of funds. To put it in the most simple, personal terms you don't buy a new TV if the old one works fine, and you can't afford food. You don't just throw money at a problem, hoping that it'll fix it. You monitor how the funds are used and make sure that they aren't being wasted. At this point Canada does not have a fiscally conservative party. It has three spendthrift parties, one of which just happens to be socially conservative. Don't mistake one for the other. Social conservatives expand prisons and push for harsher sentencing, which increases spending in ways that are unnecessary. Fiscal conservatives look at things like needle exchanges realizing that just two or three people, who don't become infected with AIDS, pay for the entire programme in saved health care costs.
You tax those who can best bear the load. Look at the tax rates from back in the 1950s. Somehow the rich still managed to be rich, back then, despite paying multiples of their current percentages.
As Canadians we have a commitment to state funded education, universal health care, and a basic social safety net. When people become comfortable enough in that safety net that they see no need to go back to work, despite being healthy and capable, then that safety net has bloated beyond reason. It needs to be properly monitored and those who abuse it, need to be punished for it. I favour "Workfare" over "Welfare", where it's practical in application. No one in Canada should starve. No one in Canada should get a free ride either.
Fiscal conservatism is about
APPROPRIATE spending.
