“The greatest government theft of private wealth in history”

So says columnist Gerry Barker in this article in the Guelph Mercury.

Barker aptly likens Jim Flaherty to MAD’s Alfred E. Neuman (“What, me worry?”) and proceeds to articulate just a few of the boneheaded moves of this ex-ambulance-chaser now Finance Minister that make his judgement highly suspect when it comes to getting Canada through this recession with as little long-term damage as possible.

But the main thrust of his piece is focused on the Cons lies about income trusts. According to Barker, Flaherty and Harper were acting under pressure from senior corporate and insurance industry lobbyists whose companies were being negatively impacted by the growing popularity of the income trust investment vehicle. And so, without a shred of hard evidence and using highly suspect tax calculations, Harper and Flaherty reneged on a major campaign promise a mere 9 months into their mandate. As a consequence $35 billion or so of wealth in the  Canadian markets was effectively vaporized overnight, affecting thousands upon thousands of seniors and RRSP holders.

And the pain continues.  Now, current projections are that the government will lose billions in tax revenues annually as trusts (which were taxed in the hands of the taxpayer at rates of 40% or so) convert to corporations (which are taxed under the corporate tax laws at a maximum of 15%). However Flaherty still insists he made the right decision, and still refuses to provide the financial analyses that supported the decision in the first place. But let’s face it, he will never provide those figures for the simple reason that as soon as he does, everyone will see just how incompetent he and his “economist” boss really are.

As Barker says (MAD meets Pogo), “Alfred E. Flaherty met the enemy and, guess what? They is us!”

They just can't seem to keep from lying.

I just listened to Flaherty and McCallum on Don Newman's Brooooaaaadcast, and the discussion turned, naturally, to income trusts. Flaherty insisted, on at least two occasions, that the income trust sector had rebounded, showing a 14.5% increase since September 2006. According to him, the only people who lost money in the income trust fiasco were "people that lost early on when they panicked and they sold". McCallum called him on it claiming that he (McCallum) had checked the figures this very morning and the sector had not rebounded. He was promptly told he was "wrong" and "totally inaccurate".

Then I find this chart posted at CAITI-ONLINE-MEDIA that clearly shows an 11.1% DROP in the income trust index since September 2006.

I'm beginning to think they really just cannot help themselves. It's pathological.

Fiscal mismanagement, thy name is Flaherty

The income trust fiasco is just one of several financial missteps by the fiscally-challenged Minister of Finance and his puppet-master, but probably one of the most damaging to Canada’s economy.

Now Diane Francis (National Post) again brings the incompetence of the government on this issue to the forefront with a report claiming that “A B.C. by-election was lost as a result of the income-trust flip flop and was a critical issue according to the losing Tory candidate.”

The article goes on, quoting Sue Riddell Rose, CEO of Paramount Energy Trust:

Ottawa's attack has ruined the junior oil sector, too, since October, 2006, despite soaring oil prices, she said.

"The junior oil sector is no longer vibrant. There is no exit strategy, which was to sell oil and gas assets to trusts," she said. Put another way, if oil prices had remained the same as when Flaherty made his tax announcement on Oct. 31, 2006, the oilpatch would be in "dire" straits. "They did not do their homework. They did not understand the industry and they have deceived the Canadian public," she said.

....

She said a rough guess is that Flaherty's folly has cost governments at least $1-billion in tax revenues ...

This was all a massive fraud perpetrated on Canadian taxpayers and income trust investors, and as I said back in December, is one issue that will not go quietly into the night. Nor do we want it to.