Liberals' deficit trajectory unsustainable, warns Parliamentary Budget Officer

Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer Jason Jacques warns that the federal Liberal governments' current fiscal path is unsustainable,

Budget watchdog sounds alarm about Ottawa's 'unsustainable' fiscal path | Yahoo News | Craig Lord, Canadian Press:

Interim PBO Jason Jacques (from X).

September 25, 2025 -'Stupefying,' 'shocking' and 'unsustainable' — those were just some of the words Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog used Thursday to describe his scathing forecast for federal finances ahead of a long-anticipated fall budget. 

"Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer Jason Jacques published an updated economic and fiscal outlook on Thursday where he projected the federal deficit would balloon to $68.5 billion this year, up from an estimated $51.7 billion last year. 

"He also expects the federal debt-to-GDP ratio — previously a major fiscal anchor for Ottawa — will no longer decline in the coming years. Jacques told a parliamentary committee Thursday afternoon it is the first time in 30 years he has seen a projection where that key metric rises over time. Based on public statements from federal officials, spending plans announced over recent months and a weakening economy in the U.S. trade war, he said the path for federal finances appears broadly 'unsustainable.'

"'I think everybody should be concerned,' Jacques told MPs on the government operations and estimates committee. ]We’re hoping, and certainly expecting, the government as part of Budget 2025 to clearly indicate what the government plans to do to address … this problem, because it’s certainly not sustainable.'

"The PBO is a non-partisan officer of parliament. The office's updated fiscal and economic outlook offers parliamentarians a baseline estimate of the state of federal finances heading into the Liberals' fall budget on Nov. 4....

"The previous Liberal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau set an anchor of capping the annual deficit at one per cent of GDP and maintaining a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. The PBO report forecasts that Ottawa will blow past those anchors in the upcoming budget.... The PBO expects deficits to decline slightly but to remain close to $60 billion annually over the forecast horizon. The Liberals projected a deficit of $42.2 billion for this fiscal year in its most recent update last December.

"The watchdog’s update does not include plans to incrementally ramp up defence spending to meet the updated NATO benchmark of five per cent of GDP by 2035.... Kristina Grinshpoon, the PBO’s director of fiscal analysis, told the committee that she believes there’s about $20 billion of proposed spending included in the Liberals’ spring election platform that’s not included in the office’s updated outlook....

"Jacques was named parliamentary budget officer on a six-month interim basis earlier this month, before the House of Commons began its fall sitting. A permanent appointment must be approved by the House, and the Conservative party has pushed to keep Jacques in the role."

Read more: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/parliamentary-budget-officer-set-release-164430685.html

Good news about homeschooling

About six percent of American parents now homeschool their children. Two provisions in this year's Big Beautiful Bill look likely to boost that number. 

Good News for Liberty | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

September 22, 2025 - "The covid lockdowns caused many Americans to stop trusting the government’s propaganda and led to a 39 percent increase in homeschooling in the 2020-21 school year. While the number of homeschoolers did decline some after this jump, homeschooling has continued growing in popularity over the last several years. Today, approximately six percent of American school children are homeschooled.

"Parents choose to homeschool for a variety of reasons, including objections to certain political and social agendas promoted by some government schools. Many parents became aware of how many government schools were sacrificing education for indoctrination while observing their children’s covid-era “virtual” classrooms.

"Some parents started homeschooling as a temporary measure but discovered they could teach their children as well, or better, than the so-called experts. This makes sense. No one knows a child’s skills, interests, strengths, and weaknesses better than the child’s parents.

"Two recent developments are going to increase homeschooling’s popularity.

"First is the troubling results of the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is commonly referred to as “the nation’s report card.” In NAEP’s latest assessment the average eighth grade science score was significantly lower than the pre-lockdown 2019 score. Other scores including for twelfth grade mathematics and reading are lower than they were ten or more years ago. To put this in perspective, consider that in 1992 spending per pupil was an inflation-adjusted 12,000 dollars, whereas the average per pupil spending in 2021 (the most recent year for which figures are available) was 17,500 dollars — a nearly 50 percent increase. The decline in scores also follows a series of federal education “reforms” that were supposed to “fix” American education by giving more power to the federal government.

"The second reason homeschooling will grow even more popular is two provisions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB). These provisions provide tax benefits for parents who choose alternatives to government schools, including homeschooling. First, the BBB expands the use of tax-free 529 Education Savings Accounts. Money in these accounts can be used for a variety of expenses such as curriculum materials, online education, and tutoring.

"The BBB also provides tax-credits for donations to Scholarship-Granting Organizations (SGO) SGOs provide scholarships to families, including homeschooling families to cover a variety of educational expenses. Giving Americans more control over the education dollar will do more to improve education than any centralized 'reform.'

"Parents looking for a homeschooling curriculum incorporating the ideas of liberty should consider my online curriculum. My curriculum provides students with a solid education in history, literature, mathematics, and the sciences. It also gives students the opportunity to create their own websites and internet-based businesses. This provides students with “real world” entrepreneurial experience that will be useful to them no matter what career path they choose.

"The curriculum is designed to be self-taught, with students helping, and learning from, each other via online forums. Starting in the fourth grade, students are required to write at least one essay a week. Students also take a course in public speaking.

"The curriculum emphasizes the history, philosophy, and economics of liberty, but it never substitutes indoctrination for education. The goal is to produce students with superior critical thinking skills. If you think my curriculum may meet the needs of your child, please visit www.RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information.

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/good-news-for-liberty/

Ron Paul on Charlie Kirk

Ron Paul remembers Charlie Kirk, and speculates that there may be more than meets the eye to his assassination. 

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

Charlie Kirk in 2025. Photo by Gage Skidmore.
CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.

September 16, 2025 - "I had the pleasure of appearing on Charlie Kirk’s program a few times over the years and I always found him to be polite, respectful, and genuinely interested in ideas. 

"Even in areas where we might not have agreed, he listened carefully. He was a strong advocate of free speech and he made a career of trying to convince the youth of the value of free speech and dialogue regardless of political differences.

"At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country and as such he had enormous influence over the future of the conservative movement and even the Republican party. 

"As I discovered during my Republican presidential runs, the youth of this country are truly inspired by the ideas of liberty, peace, and prosperity.

"I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory, with an ever-changing plotline that makes little sense.

"Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more non-interventionist approach. Tucker Carlson recently recounted that Kirk had even gone personally to the White House to urge President Trump to refuse to take military action against Iran. He was rebuffed by President Trump, Carlson informed us.

"Likewise, conservative podcaster Candace Owens, who was a close friend of Charlie Kirk, has stated on her program that Kirk was undergoing a “spiritual crisis” and was turning away from his past embrace of militarism and in favor of America-first non-interventionism, particularly regarding the current unrest in the Middle East....

"If anything, those seeking to prevent the ideas of peace from breaking out would wish to cover it up, as they have done in so many past political killings. As I recounted in my most recent book, The Great Surreptitious Coup: Who Stole Western Civilization?, the turbulent 1960s saw several killings of major US figures, including JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, who were challenging the status quo and pushing for a shift away from the Cold War confrontationist mentality.

"The real assassins of these peace leaders from last century were nihilists who did not believe in truth. They only believed in power – the power that comes from the barrel of a gun. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas they preferred to snuff out any challenges and therefore decapitate any possibility that our country could take a different course.

"More than sixty years after the murder of President Kennedy, the vast majority of the American people do not believe the official story of how he was killed and why. Truth will eventually break through even when the wall of lies seems impenetrable.

"If it is true that Charlie Kirk was preparing to shift his organization toward a foreign policy embraced by our Founders, the killing was even more tragic. But no army – or assassin – can stop an idea whose time has come. That may be his most important legacy. Rest in peace."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/who-killed-charlie-kirk/

Professional regulators threaten free speech

Some professional regulatory bodies in Canada have begun the chilling practice of regulating the online and public speech of their members,  

Professional bodies have become a major threat to free speech | Free Speech Union of Canada | Lisa Bildy:

August 25, 2025 - "Fresh off his byelection win in Alberta, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre came out of the gates with a bold and definitive statement on social media: a professional body using its powers to regulate its members’ speech is 'authoritarian censorship.' As a lawyer who focuses on defending free speech cases, I couldn’t agree more. In recent weeks, developments in two of my cases demonstrated this problem and prompted Poilievre’s statement. 

"Nurse Amy Hamm in British Columbia received her penalty decision from the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives’ disciplinary panel, which had found her guilty of unprofessional conduct in March for her gender-critical advocacy for the rights of women and children.  

"In the lengthy written decision of the panel, she was told that ... statements prioritizing biology over gender 'are discriminatory towards transgender people as (they exclude) them from the possibility of being women and girls.' In other words: it is not possible to advocate for sex-based rights — respectfully or not — because males self-identifying as women must always be included in the category of women, whether in prisons, rape shelters or sporting competitions.

"In another case, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, a specialist physician in Ontario, received a 'caution-in-person' by a committee of her regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), for some of her online comments during the summer of 2020, when she criticized what she viewed as harmful, unethical and unscientific government-imposed responses to COVID, including lockdowns. The CPSO had issued an edict to all Ontario physicians, first published in April 2020, that they should not express views that did not 'align with information coming from public health or government' But physicians are also subject to other 'edicts,' such as their oath to 'first, do no harm,' which dictates that they speak out against harmful government policies.... Despite slow and grudging recognition over the last five years that lockdowns were indeed a panic and control-driven blunt instrument that caused irreparable harm and had little value, the caution proceeded.

"Many important discoveries and insights throughout history have come from dissident voices who were often censored or vilified for going against the perceived consensus. We are in such a time again, in which dissenting opinions are suppressed to protect preferred narratives that are often so steeped in misinformation and dogma that allowing a bit of evidence or common sense through the cracks would cause the whole edifice to fall.... [A]ll it can take is a complaint from a disgruntled member of the public to jump-start the process to 'correct' those opinions. In the cases of both Gill and Hamm, the complainants were not patients — they were strangers on the internet who saw an opportunity to weaponize the regulatory complaints process.....

"In Hamm’s case, she lost a job she held for 13 years at a Vancouver hospital after a group of her co-workers, most of whom express radical left-wing views, often while representing themselves as employees of the hospital, ganged up online and called for her termination. She endured a year-long workplace investigation, including aggressive questioning by the investigator, and was ultimately fired without severance. Nothing appears to have happened to her accusers, who were also regulated professionals. This double standard is not lost on the public, who can see it plain as day.

"Regulators have the power to punish professionals to such an oppressive degree that many simply sign undertakings not to speak on certain issues, make their social media accounts private or attend educational courses on 'professionalism.' The alternative — defending yourself against an accusation of unprofessional conduct — can mean paying exorbitant costs for your own prosecution. In Hamm’s case, she was ordered to pay over $93,600 to the college for its legal costs. Somehow, our society has decided that all of this is just fine.... And the courts defer to the 'expertise' of this managerial class, rendering it nearly impossible to successfully judicially review such decisions. In Gill’s case, she tried to appeal the cautions all the way to the Supreme Court, but was denied leave....

"I reject the premise that regulators, or any government or administrative body, should get to control anyone’s speech. For one thing, the people working in these institutions are fallible and have their biases like anyone else. Many are activists who are intent on forcing their views on anyone they can. Too much is left to the managerial class to decide when speech crosses some imaginary and entirely subjective line of ‘harm,' or is 'against the public interest.'

"Professionals, like everyone, should be allowed to speak freely. There will be concerns about this — we won’t always like what we hear — but we should get to hear them if we choose. In rare instances where speech rises to the level of criminality, police can deal with that. We must demand that our governments remove the powers of these bodies to regulate speech and opinions — they simply cannot be trusted with the job."

Lisa Bildy is a lawyer at Libertas Law and executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada.

Read more: https://fsucanada.ca/lisa-bildy-professional-bodies-have-become-a-major-threat-to-free-speech/

Trump endorses corporatism

President Trump has recently endorsed a policy that is arguably as socialist as anything proposed by New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani or Sen. Bernie Sanders — partial government ownership of private corporations.

Making Corporatism Great Again | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

Sep 8, 2025 - "President Trump has recently endorsed a policy that is arguably as socialist as anything proposed by New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani or Sen. Bernie Sanders — partial government ownership of private corporations.

"Earlier this year, as a condition of approving Nippon Steel’s purchase of US Steel, President Trump demanded Nippon give the US government a 'golden share' in US Steel. This golden share allows the US government to overrule Nippon’s management if the government determines Nippon is acting against US 'national security,' which means the government can overrule many decisions made by Nippon‘s management.

"Unfortunately, Nippon was not a 'one-and-done' excursion into corporatism. President Trump recently struck a deal with computer chip manufacturer Intel to give the company 8.9 billion dollars in government subsidies in exchange for ten percent of Intel’s stock. This deal makes the US government Intel’s largest stockholder!

"The Trump administration has promised that it will not use its position to undermine Intel’s board. However, the administration is reserving the right to counter Intel’s board if the administration determines the board is taking an action that would adversely impact the relationship of the company or its subsidiaries with the US government. So, the Trump administration is yet again giving itself power to manage a nominally private company.

"Enabling the government to control a private company (even if the government does not actually exercise its power) means the company’s management will base its decisions on what will please those currently in power, rather than on the desires of consumers.

"Government investment in corporations will cause politicians to make decisions based on what will profit the companies the government has 'invested' in while those companies’ competitors will seek to attract government investment in order to win special privileges for themselves.

"A corporation partially owned by government will be considered 'too big to fail' since its failure would cause the government to lose the money 'invested' in the businesses. So, the argument will be that a bailout will save the taxpayers money.

"According to a 2024 analysis by the World Bank — an organization not known as a supporter of free-market economics, companies of which government owns ten percent or more are six percent less profitable and have workforces that are 32 percent less productive.

"Some members of the Trump administration have suggested that the federal government take a partial ownership interest in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has pointed out that big defense contractor Lockheed Martin, for example, is “basically an arm of the US government” since almost all its revenue comes from the US government. Secretary Lutnick has a point, but the closeness between the Pentagon and big corporations is an argument for restoring a noninterventionist foreign policy. Giving the government an ownership interest in defense contractors would allow the war party to argue that militarism is good for the taxpayer because it boosts the value of the government’s “investments”!

"Government 'investment' in private businesses will only worsen the twin plagues of corporatism and cronyism that afflict our political and economic systems. Instead of further entangling government and business, those seeking to make America great again should work to end the welfare-warfare-regulatory state and the fiat money system that makes it possible. The only path to prosperity is through a true free market, limited government, and a foreign policy of peace and free trade."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/making-corporatism-great-again/

66,000 more jobs lost in Canada in August

Another 66,000 jobs disappeared in Canada in August, coming on top of a loss of 41,000 jobs in July.

Canadian economy bled 66,000 jobs in August as unemployment rate at its highest since 'pandemic days' | CBC News - Abby Hughes:

September 5, 2025 - "Canada's unemployment rate reached nearly its highest point since 2016 as the economy shed 66,000 jobs in August, according to new data from Statistics Canada. The unemployment rate rose 0.2 percentage points in August to 7.1 per cent, a level last seen in May 2016 if the COVID-19 years of 2020 and 2021 were excluded....

"The unemployment rate, or the number of people unemployed out of the total labour force, has been rising consistently this year, up from a 6.6 per cent rate in January.... 

"Reduced hiring and layoffs largely fuelled those numbers, Statistics Canada said, with the layoff rate rising to one per cent in August, compared to 0.9 per cent at the same time last year. 

"This comes after the economy lost a total of 41,000 jobs last month.....

"Statistics Canada says most of the jobs lost — some 60,000 — were part-time ones, while there was little change in the number of full-time jobs. Most of the losses were also among workers between 25 to 54 years old, with little change in youth employment.... 

"Pedro Antunes, Chief Economist at The Conference Board of Canada, says the report overall is bad news. He points out that while youth unemployment also remained high in August, that age group had previously made up more of the drag on jobs. But now, the losses in August were among the core age group in the workforce....

"A critical metric, called the participation rate, that shows how many people were economically active — either in jobs or actively looking for them — was at 65.1 per cent, also at its lowest since the pandemic.

"The transportation and warehousing sector lost 23,000 jobs and manufacturing bled 19,000. The scientific and technical services sector also dropped 26,000 jobs... Geographically, Canada's manufacturing hubs were also hit harder, with Windsor, Ont., reporting an unemployment rate of 11.1 per cent and Oshawa, Ont., reporting a nine per cent rate. Persistent uncertainty around U.S. trade policy has kept Canadian businesses on tenterhooks, leading to minimal hiring and investment.... 

"Chief economist at BMO Capital Markets Douglas Porter said ... the weak report could open the door to rate cuts by the Bank of Canada later this month though with inflation remaining high, that factor hasn't given them the 'all clear'.... Porter expects a rate cut when the central bank announces its next interest rate decision on Sept. 17."

Read more: cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-economy-bled-66-000-jobs-in-august-as-unemployment-rate-at-its-highest-since-pandemic-days-1.7625918

Should U.S. Department of Defense rebrand?

U.S. president Trump wants to rebrand the Department of Defense as the "Department of War," its name before 1947. Ron Paul sees potential risks to the rebrand, but also some potential benefits if it's done right. 

Department of War? | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul: 

Sep 2, 2025 - "Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the 'Department of War.' The President explained his rationale for the name change: 'It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too … As Department of War we won everything…and I think we…have to go back to that.'

"At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A 'Department of War' may well make war more likely – the 'stronger sound' may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort. As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, 'What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?'

"So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the 'Defense Department' has been in any way a defensive department. With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.

"If we return to a 'War Department,' then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.

"Dropping the notion that we have a 'Defense Department' would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more 'defense appropriations' bills in Congress. Let’s call them 'war appropriations' bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not 'defense.' It’s 'war.' And none of it has benefitted the American people.

"Trump misunderstands one very important thing in his stated desire to return to a 'War Department,' however. A tougher sounding name did not win the wars. Before the name change, which happened after the infamous National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and the permanent national security state, we won wars because for the most part we followed the Constitution and had a Congressional declaration of war. That way the war had a beginning and end and a clear set of goals. Since World War II the United States has not declared war even though it has been in a continuous state of war. It is no coincidence that none of these 'wars' have been won. From 1950 Korea to 2025 Yemen and everything in between.

"So go ahead and change it back to the 'Department of War.' But let’s also stop pretending that maintaining the global US military empire is 'defense.” It’s not."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/department-of-war/