Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Uncategorized

Trump aides struggle to show some shutdown empathy

Published

7 minute read

NEW YORK — One White House aide mused that the shutdown was like a paid vacation for some furloughed workers. President Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law said employees’ “little bit of pain” was worth it for the good of the country. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross questioned why cash-poor workers were using food banks instead of taking out loans.

The president himself says workers simply need to “make adjustments.”

With hundreds of thousands of federal workers going without pay during the monthlong partial government shutdown, Trump and his team, which includes the wealthiest Cabinet ever assembled, have struggled to deliver a full dose of empathy for those who are scraping to get by.

Ross set off howls when he was asked on CNBC on Thursday about reports that some of the 800,000 workers currently not receiving paychecks were going to homeless shelters to get food.

“Well, I know they are, and I don’t really quite understand why,” he said. “The obligations that they would undertake, say borrowing from a bank or a credit union, are, in effect, federally guaranteed. So the 30 days of pay that some people will be out … there’s no real reason why they shouldn’t be able to get a loan against it.”

In a subsequent interview with Bloomberg, Ross said he was “painfully aware” that workers were suffering hardships. He added that in his earlier remarks, he’d been trying to let workers know that credit union loans were available for those “experiencing liquidity crises” — hardly the language of those living paycheque to paycheque.

It all contributed to perceptions that the Trump administration was out of touch with workers bearing the brunt of the shutdown impact.

“Is this the ‘Let them eat cake’ kind of attitude?” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Or call your father for money?” With that, the speaker evoked Marie Antoinette and took an indirect jab at Trump for inheriting family money to launch his business career.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Ross’ comments “reveal the administration’s callous indifference toward the federal workers it is treating as pawns.” He added: “Secretary Ross, they just can’t call their stock broker and ask them to sell some of their shares.”

Deeming air traffic controllers who are calling in sick “disappointing,” Ross said that workers will eventually get their pay and that there is no reason why a loan would not be a reasonable option for workers who have been staring at zeros on their pay statements.

“Now, true, the people might have to pay a little bit of interest, but the idea that it’s paycheque or zero is not a really valid idea,” said Ross, whose financial disclosure forms reveal $700 million in assets.

The president said he hadn’t seen Ross’s comments but added: “I do understand perhaps he should have said it differently.”

Trump said the commerce secretary’s point was that grocery stores, banks and other local entities were “working along” with federal employees to ease the shutdown’s impact. He added that Ross has “done a great job.”

Other Trump officials have been more effective in conveying their sympathies for those affected by the shutdown.

“Nobody, including myself, likes the hardship caused, the temporary hardship caused by the government shutdown,” Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, said Thursday. “I have young people on my staff, devoted young people. You know, when you’re 28 years old, you don’t save a lot. I get that, and I think a lot of people have to get through this.”

Trump, for his part, has repeatedly maintained, without providing evidence, that federal workers support the need for a border wall even if it means going without a paycheque. The president did not mention the furloughed workers during his Oval Office address to the nation earlier this month and has said that government employees “will make adjustments” to get by.

Asked Thursday what his message to furloughed workers was, Trump said: “I love them. I respect them. I really appreciate the great job they’re doing.” He continued to insist that “many of those people that are not getting paid are totally in favour of what we’re doing because they know the future of this country is dependent on having a strong border.”

Kevin Hassett, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said early in the shutdown that some furloughed employees were, “in some sense, they’re better off” because people who were already taking vacation over the holidays ultimately would not be charged for their already-planned trip. Hassett has since said that his remarks were taken out of context.

Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law and campaign aide, said this week that for the furloughed workers, “It is a little bit of pain, but it’s going to be for the future of our country.”

On Thursday, she tried to explain the comment, insisting to Fox News that “I am incredibly empathetic towards anyone right now without a paycheque” and blaming the mainstream media for misrepresenting her message.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Kevin Freking and Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Follow Lemire on Twitter at http://twitter.com/@JonLemire

Jonathan Lemire, The Associated Press





Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Uncategorized

Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Carson Binda 

BC Government promised carbon tax would reduce CO2 by 33%. It has done nothing.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the British Columbia government to scrap the carbon tax as new data shows the province’s carbon emissions have continued to rise, despite the oldest carbon tax in the country.

“The carbon tax isn’t reducing carbon emissions like the politicians promised,” said Carson Binda, B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Premier David Eby needs to axe the tax now to save British Columbians money.”

Emissions data from the provincial government shows that British Columbia’s emissions have risen since the introduction of a carbon tax.

Total emissions in 2007, the last year without a provincial carbon tax, stood at 65.5 MtCO2e, while 2022 emissions data shows an increase to 65.6 MtCO2e.

When the carbon tax was introduced, the B.C. government pledged that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent.

The Eby government plans to increase the B.C. carbon tax again on April 1, 2025. After that increase, the carbon tax will add 21 cents to the cost of a litre of natural gas, 25 cents per litre of diesel and 18 cents per cubic meter of natural gas.

“The carbon tax has cost British Columbians a lot of money, but it hasn’t helped the environment as promised,” Binda said. “Eby has a simple choice: scrap the carbon tax before April 1, or force British Columbians to pay even more to heat our homes and drive to work.”

If a family fills up the minivan once per week for a year, the carbon tax will cost them $728. The carbon tax on natural gas will add $435 to the average family’s home heating bills in the 12 months after the April 1 carbon tax hike.

Other provinces, like Saskatchewan, have unilaterally stopped collecting the carbon tax on essentials like home heating and have not faced consequences from Ottawa.

“British Columbians need real relief from the costs of the provincial carbon tax,” Binda said. “Eby needs to stop waiting for permission from the leaderless federal government and scrap the tax on British Columbians.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The problem with deficits and debt

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

This fiscal year (2024/25), the federal government and eight out of 10 provinces project a budget deficit, meaning they’re spending more than collecting in revenues. Unfortunately, this trend isn’t new. Many Canadian governments—including the federal government—have routinely ran deficits over the last decade.

But why should Canadians care? If you listen to some politicians (and even some economists), they say deficits—and the debt they produce—are no big deal. But in reality, the consequences of government debt are real and land squarely on everyday Canadians.

Budget deficits, which occur when the government spends more than it collects in revenue over the fiscal year, fuel debt accumulation. For example, since 2015, the federal government’s large and persistent deficits have more than doubled total federal debt, which will reach a projected $2.2 trillion this fiscal year. That has real world consequences. Here are a few of them:

Diverted Program Spending: Just as Canadians must pay interest on their own mortgages or car loans, taxpayers must pay interest on government debt. Each dollar spent paying interest is a dollar diverted from public programs such as health care and education, or potential tax relief. This fiscal year, federal debt interest costs will reach $53.7 billion or $1,301 per Canadian. And that number doesn’t include provincial government debt interest, which varies by province. In Ontario, for example, debt interest costs are projected to be $12.7 billion or $789 per Ontarian.

Higher Taxes in the Future: When governments run deficits, they’re borrowing to pay for today’s spending. But eventually someone (i.e. future generations of Canadians) must pay for this borrowing in the form of higher taxes. For example, if you’re a 16-year-old Canadian in 2025, you’ll pay an estimated $29,663 over your lifetime in additional personal income taxes (that you would otherwise not pay) due to Canada’s ballooning federal debt. By comparison, a 65-year-old will pay an estimated $2,433. Younger Canadians clearly bear a disproportionately large share of the government debt being accumulated currently.

Risks of rising interest rates: When governments run deficits, they increase demand for borrowing. In other words, governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing. In response, interest rates rise, and subsequently, so does the cost of servicing government debt. Of course, the private sector also must pay these higher interest rates, which can reduce the level of private investment in the economy. In other words, private investment that would have occurred no longer does because of higher interest rates, which reduces overall economic growth—the foundation for job-creation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, as government debt has increased, business investment has declined—specifically, business investment per worker fell from $18,363 in 2014 to $14,687 in 2021 (inflation-adjusted).

Risk of Inflation: When governments increase spending, particularly with borrowed money, they add more money to the economy, which can fuel inflation. According to a 2023 report from Scotiabank, government spending contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022. As a result, many Canadians have seen the costs of their borrowing—mortgages, car loans, lines of credit—soar in recent years.

Recession Risks: The accumulation of deficits and debt, which do not enhance productivity in the economy, weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges including economic downturns because the government has less fiscal capacity available to take on more debt. That’s because during a recession, government spending automatically increases and government revenues decrease, even before policymakers react with any specific measures. For example, as unemployment rises, employment insurance (EI) payments automatically increase, while revenues for EI decrease. Therefore, when a downturn or recession hits, and the government wants to spend even more money beyond these automatic programs, it must go further into debt.

Government debt comes with major consequences for Canadians. To alleviate the pain of government debt on Canadians, our policymakers should work to balance their budgets in 2025.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X