Finance Minister Charles Sousa’s three Rs budget reduces take-home pay for affluent Ontarians, reuses rhetoric from last spring, and recycles campaign pledges like a provincial pension plan.

On Monday, Sousa tabled an identical big-spending $130.4 billion fiscal blueprint to the one he introduced May 1, which sparked last month’s election.

“It’s a little bit of déjà vu, but a lot has changed,” the treasurer told reporters, referring to the fact Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were re-elected June 12 with a majority government and no longer need opposition support to pass the budget.

More on thestar.com:

Ten highlights of the Ontario budget

“Seventy-four days ago, we tabled a plan in the legislature for the people of this province for a brighter, stronger future,” the treasurer said.

“Since I last tabled this budget, we took that plan to the people from Sault Ste. Marie to Scarborough, Windsor to Walkerton, Kingston to Kitchener; from Barrie to Burlington and they entrusted us and our plan.”

Despite a $12.5 billion deficit for this fiscal year, Sousa’s only significant tax hike was to slap 220,000 Ontarians making between $150,000 and $514,090 with a new levy that will bring in a total of $635 million annually.

With credit-rating agencies breathing down his neck, the treasurer emphasized nine times in an 11-page speech to the legislature that Ontario will stop bleeding red ink within three years. On May 1, he mentioned the deficit only three times in a 30-page address.

“We acknowledge there are skeptics, but let me be clear, we will balance the budget by 2017-18. We will limit growth in expenses, we will eliminate the deficit, we will continue to cut where we can, but we will continue to cut where we must,” he said Monday.

Sousa pointedly ducked media questions on whether public-service jobs could be cut — even though the Liberals won the election by campaigning against former Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak’s controversial plan to cut 100,000 positions over four years.

The finance minister did, however, rule out raising Ontario’s 11.5 per cent corporate tax rate despite each percentage point increase adding $650 million to provincial coffers.

Tory interim leader Jim Wilson said the Liberals are kidding themselves if they believe Ontarians actually endorsed their plan in the campaign.

“I don’t think the people of Ontario voted for this budget as the government says. They voted against us because of the mistakes we made. It was that clear,” said Wilson, adding it’s “dishonest and disingenuous” for the Grits to claim all public servants’ position can be protected.

Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, predicted labour unrest looms.

Thomas warned of Wynne’s $1.25 billion in planned cuts over three years and the possible contracting out of government jobs.

“I do not trust her. I don’t think she is being totally honest with the people of Ontario and if they want a war, well, they’ll bloody well get a war,” he said.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said she opposes the “Trojan Horse budget” because it will lead to “a fire sale of public assets,” such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario as the Liberals scramble to pay down the deficit.

“A lot has happened since May and that’s important to acknowledge, but unfortunately a lot of things have stayed the same,” she said.

Still, Horwath grudgingly praised the new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, which echoes past NDP policy.

It is designed to complement the Canada Pension Plan, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to bolster even though benefits max out at $12,500 a year.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The mandatory ORPP, which takes effect in 2017, will force Ontarians who do not have an employers’ pension plan, to set aside 1.9 per cent of their pay.

That will mean an additional $788 deduction for someone making $45,000 a year. It will eventually pay out up to $25,000 a year to future retirees.

Because contributions would be matched by employers, some have warned it could cost jobs.