Category: Economy

See? This is why you shouldn’t have voted Conservative!

Well, that didn’t take long.

I actually cannot believe that Parliament has just opened, and Stephen Harper already has me in a blind rage.

Step 1: Economic statement focus

Earlier in the week, I heard that the government’s economic statement was to focus on preserving a small surplus, plus some initial cuts.

I thought that was a very strange approach in a time when most economists, including conservative (small “c”) ones, seemed to be saying that spending and stimulus were the most important priorities at this time.

Still, I was only mildly irritated at this point. Sure, it suggested the Conservatives were bad economic managers. But I already knew that, and there is some comfort in being right. Plus, I still have a job, for the time being at least, and it’s Christmas. So why fuss about politics now?

Step 2: Cutting federal funding for political parties

This, I was not happy about, even before all kerfuffle arose.

Bully for the Conservatives that they’re so great at fund-raising they don’t need any help from the taxpayer. That’s what happens your party is the one that attracts most of the rich people.

But parties who attract more lower-income people who can’t afford to donate (NDP, Greens), or are currently in some disarray (hello, Liberals), still have the right to exist. No, more than the right; they must exist, or we don’t have a democracy. We have a Conservative dictatorship.

Step 3: The opposition rises

That is some hubris that caused Harper to think the other parties would actually vote for their own demise.

Now, it may well be politically wise for the other parties to say it’s the economic statement itself, and not the cutting of federal funding to political parties, that is the tipping point. I’ll come back to that.

But my opinion is that the party funding alone is enough reason to defeat this bill.

  1. It’s unbalanced. This bill came in to compensate for loss of other ways for political parties to raise money. Previously, corporations and unions could donate; now they cannot. Previously, individuals could give as much they wanted; now they’re capped at $1000. You can’t take the funding away without making other legal changes that allow the parties to compensate for that loss.
  2. It’s undemocratic. Funding is calculated on a per-vote basis (with the exception of parties earning less than 5% of the popular vote). It’s one of the very few ways in our system that (almost) every vote counts. Some people, particularly Green Party supporters, do cast their votes exactly for that reason: to get federal funds to their party of choice. Taking away the funding disenfranchises all who voted for a major party.
  3. It doesn’t help the economy. The amount is too small to matter. Now, there is something to be said for the mostly symbolic gesture. Freezing top-level government salaries and cutting perks also probably doesn’t really help the economy, but it’s just bad optics to be flying all over in first class while people are losing their jobs and savings. But party funding isn’t a luxury; democracies aren’t completely cost-free.

    If the Conservatives don’t want their share of that funding, they can give theirs back and dare the other parties to do the same (knowing that they won’t). That way the Conservatives can get on their high horse, where they like to be, without kneecapping their opposition.

But party funding probably is a dicey thing to defeat a government on, so the opposition is instead focusing on the content of the economic statement. And frankly, there is plenty to be against there, too.

  • Claiming they already stimulated the economy with 2006 tax cuts. Huh? Even ignoring that they selected the most non-stimulative form of tax cut possible—the GST—something you did three years ago is not going to have a new effect now.
  • Claiming a surplus based on bogus number, such as inflated projections for the price of oil.
  • No infrastructure programs at all, though it’s not difficult to find excellent candidates for these across the country.

But even at this point, I wasn’t quite in a blind rage. I was really kind of excited that the opposition was showing some teeth, and acting cooperative, and refusing to roll over for the bully at the helm. Until…

Step 4: Harper claims a coalition government is undemocratic

While we have been working on the economy, the opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters. They want to take power, not earn it.

Stephen Harper

Overturn the results? No consent of voters? Makes me crazy ever time I read or hear it.

Mr. Harper, the majority of Canadians voted against you and your party.

The majority of Canadians voted for four center-left parties who agree on a number of major issues.

Three of these parties won seats. Two are discussing forming a coalition government, with the backing of the third.

This could be the closest Canada has ever had to the makeup of the government reflecting their actual votes.

Step 5: ?

Who knows how this plays out. But if the Conservatives don’t change their statement, they deserve to go down over it. And that better not lead to an election!

In the midst of a global economic slowdown that may plunge Canada into a deep recession and threaten the livelihood of many Canadians, it would helpful if there were some adults in Ottawa. … While there is certainly a crisis, there is no semblance of crisis leadership here, and therefore no chance for national cohesion. The responsibility for that lies squarely on the shoulders of Stephen Harper.

— Globe and Mail editorial, How to compound an economic crisis

Martin Luther King dreamed of the day when men would be judged “by the content of their character.” By that benchmark, Stephen Harper has proved himself to be a nasty little man.

— Peter Blaikie, letter to the Editor, Muzzling the opposition

The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper’s strategy has accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and NDP together.

He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad.

— Jeffrey Simpson, Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear

Whatever the debatable merits of distancing parties from taxpayers, this isn’t the time or way to change payments peripheral to dangers facing Canadians. It won’t save a single job, meaningfully reduce the ruling party’s runaway spending, or somehow make the democratic exercise cost free.

— James Travers, Harper has needlessly provoked this crisis

Excuse for me for not blogging, but I’ve been a crazy person

Woke up in a panic
Like somebody fired a gun
I wish I could be dreaming
But the nightmare’s just begun

Ever do that? Wake up from a dead sleep in full panic mode, heart pounding, mind racing?

It’s happened to me a few times in the past couple weeks, and it’s quite unpleasant. I do not recommend it. And as sleep deprivation accumulates, the brain gets less and less effective. For the first time, I feel I have just a tiny understanding of what parents of babies and young children go through.

Don’t know why I feel so bad
Is it the weather, or am I going mad?
Don’t know why I feel this way
I don’t know whether I’m coming or I’m going
Can’t cover up, ’cause it’s obviously showing

Normally, I’m a fairly calm person, not given to emotional outbursts. So the number of times I’ve heard “You’re stressing me out!” in the past few weeks must be some sort of record.

I didn’t actually know, before, that stress was catching.

“Nice to know you’re human, too,” I also heard. Well that’s over-rated, I say.

Standing on an island
In the middle of the road
Traffic either side of me
Now which way do I go?
I should have stayed at home
I should have never come outside
Now I wish I’d never tried
To cross to the other side

So what’s been bothering me? Well, I’m not going to say. It’s personal, and it’s nothing dire—no cancer, no house burned down. It’s just stuff, that’s led to a lot more introspection than I’m used to, which is clearly bad for me. Frankly, I’m getting quite sick of myself.

Lyin’ awake in a cold, cold sweat
Am I overdrawn, am I going into debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get
No escape from this state of confusion I’m in

The Kinks: State of Confusion

And anyway, it’s gone beyond anything real, and I actually am panicking about going in debt, even though I have no real reason to do so, upcoming trip to Europe or no. And hearing all this bad economic news—not helpful! I’m like a walking Dow Jones average, overreacting to every new bit of information.

I thought, maybe a news break would help, then noticed how much news permeates my life. I wake up to CBC news (business news at 6:45), get up and get the paper (hard to get to the Arts section without passing by Business news with all its downward red arrows), cook dinner to CTV News 1: Your News first! (Business report at 6:30 pm).

So anyway, that’s why I haven’t been writing about politics much. But I suppose I should say something about the federal election results.

Given how bad the Liberal campaign was, it’s fortunate Conservatives managed to lose the majority on their own, scaring the Quebecois with thoughts of arts cuts and 14-year-olds in jail. But they did get a stronger minority, one that will take two parties to bring them down. Stéphane Dion didn’t dither in doing the right thing and stepping down, though this means the Liberals will again be spending all their money on getting a new leader, and not on winning power. There’s been lots of talk of uniting the Left. I’d love to see it, but won’t hold my breath.

Most disappointing for me had to be the local results, losing two excellent Liberal MPs: Andrew Telegdi (by 43 votes!) and Karen Redman. Redman lost to yet another “holy roller”—a social conservative, against gay marriage, pro-life, etc. So the whole region is now “served” by undistinguished Conservative members who will be as muzzled in office as they were running for it.

At least south of border, knock wood and all that, election results are looking to be much more promising. In fact, I was listening to Mr. Obama read from his own Audacity of Hope book today. It was very relaxing. He’s so smart, so well spoken.

It did, indeed, provide me some escape from the state of confusion I’m in.

Doing my bit for democracy

For the first time in my life, I voted in the early polls. That’s it, I’m done. Now I can focus on a truly inspiring Canadian contest: Who is Canada’s favourite dancer? (Seriously, if you haven’t seen So You Think You Can Dance: Canada? You should. It’s been delightful so far.)

But the economy is tanking, the polls are tightening, and the election is beginning to look like a bit of a booby prize—whoever wins this one is going to be blamed for the bad times, even if it’s not their fault.

So with all the market turmoil, can we just forget about combating global warming now? Wouldn’t that be nice. Remember, economic crises—we’ve gotten over them before, we’ll get over them again. Ecological crises—not so much. I’m going to quote Andrew Nikiforuk quoting Thomas Friedman, because they’re both real conservative guys:

By Friedman’s evocative accounting, the globe has now entered the “Energy-Climate Era” and faces several hot emergencies: petropolitics (it gives power and money to leaders who have earned neither); dramatic climate disruption; the rise of middle classes in India and China; and a real weapon of mass destruction, the catastrophic loss of biodiversity in the world’s forests and oceans. The global economy has become “a monster truck with the gas pedal stuck and we’ve lost the key.” Unless we switch to cleaner fuels, “our lives will be reduced, redacted, and restricted.”

And we’ve got about 10 years to do it. Cheery, huh?

Also interesting—because I just haven’t heard about it anywhere else—was Doug Saunders article about a scheduled meeting between presidents of the EU and whoever is Prime Minister on October 14. Subject: A potential economic partnership with Europe. Problem: All the Canadian provinces would have to agree with this, and Canadian provinces don’t agree on much. Saunders blames Harper’s policy of “open federalism” for just making this disunity worse.

Despite Europe’s stock market also being in a “boomerang” crisis, it’s still likelier to be a healthier trading partner in the next few years than the US, the source of the collapse. And it would be nice to have a PM who wasn’t philosophically opposed to getting all the provinces into one trading agreement with that lucrative market.

Canadian election week 3. Sigh.

By the end of the week, I was getting pretty grumpy with all involved.

  • The Liberals, for being organized enough to put together a great platform, but not organized enough to sell it.
  • The NDP, for being on the wrong side of the carbon tax issue, even though they have a leader who should have credibility and integrity on this issue, above all others.
  • The Conservatives, for… well, for a lot of reasons, as you know, but especially for pandering to the worst sides of human nature.
  • Far too many of my fellow Canadians, for responding to that appeal.
  • And the Greens, for… Actually, I didn’t get annoyed with the Greens. But I’ll also not convinced they’re quite ready for prime time.

So took a little break on the weekend, took in a little of that arts and culture ordinary Canadians don’t care about, traveled green (bus, train, feet), and found a few little positives.

  • My local candidates debate, where nobody seemed awful. And yes, I even mean the Conservative guy, who can’t be completely hopeless, since they actually let him talk to the media and all that. (Thanks be I’m not in Harold Albrecht’s riding!)
  • Some Facebook vote trading group has been started, in an “anyone but the Conservatives” bid. Say you want to vote NDP but live in a riding where they don’t have a chance, you trade your vote with someone in a more NDP-friendly riding, and you vote their choice for them.
  • All of our parties are still better than the Republicans and their leaders. There’s always that.
  • And, our media, at least some of it some of the time, providing the analysis and details that politicians won’t discuss.

And on that last point… A few favourites from last week.

On carbon taxes

It doesn’t matter how often proponents pledge to recycle carbon tax money into lower taxes on incomes and companies. It doesn’t matter how many economists argue in favour of pricing carbon through a tax.

The Conservatives have distorted the carbon tax idea and scared people. The economy would be “wrecked,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper says. Funny then that Demark, with a carbon tax for a while now, had higher per capita growth than Canada from 1990 to 2006: 36 to 32 per cent.

What, therefore, remains? Policy incoherence across Canada, and Conservative and NDP plans that won’t get the job done. Mr. Harper has not spoken in the election about his “plan,” except to say he has one. What is it?

So in May, the government published the latest iteration of an incredibly complicated regulatory plan, many of the details of which are still unknown. Normally, Conservatives consider complicated regulations as to be viewed with great suspicion. But their “plan” offers the mother of all regulatory schemes.

The plan contains lots of little programs for conservation and renewables. They’re mostly inoffensive, but they won’t bring many emissions reductions.

The silliest is the public transit tax credit, introduced in the 2006 budget as an emissions reducer. The vast majority of people receiving the credit were already riding public transit. By the government’s own numbers, the credit will lower emissions this year by a risible 30,000 tonnes at a cost of $220-million – a staggeringly high per tonne cost.

Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail

That $773 dollar of your taxes per ton, folks. That’s so much better than the $10 a ton the Liberals are proposing! Those fiscal conservatives — they are so smart! I totally see why they vote for the party that is so wise about its spending.

On crime

The party’s obsession with crime-and-punishment policies repugnant to urban voters suggests one of two things: Either it is secretly worried about collapsing support on the Prairies – as if! – or else it actually believes that voters lust for vengeance against children (now known as “denunciation” among politically correct Martians – denunciation for life).

How is it that representatives who hail largely from Canada’s most badly policed, violent cities and towns presume so easily to lecture the leaders of Canada’s best-policed, safest city?

Torontonians both pay significantly more on policing per capita than other Canadians, according to Statistics Canada, and they enjoy significantly safer streets than the residents of virtually every town in the country – outside Quebec, which is both the safest and the most liberal-minded province.

Thus the fruits of being “soft on crime.” Crime rates have dropped an amazing 30 per cent since 1991.

John Barber, Globe and Mail

On leadership

Stéphane Dion is an odd case. He keeps yapping about his green plan even as party hotshots tell him the story line has changed, we’re off that stuff. Could he think it isn’t a show – that the planet really is in danger? Would that count as real leadership rather than the acted kind? Poor Stéphane. Could he ever play a leader? Doubtful, although if he got elected somehow, and everyone onstage – journalists, MPs – treated him as a leader, he might start feeling, and acting it. Ah, the magic of theatre.

Why hasn’t Harper the Strong pulled away from the field? Why is the Layton NDP stuck? How has the weak, frail Dion hung in – as if voters are seeking something outside the strong leadership box? Such as – weak leadership. Isn’t that what real democracy would be about? It would disperse leadership among its citizens. In ancient Athens, they chose most leaders by lot, after policies were established in public debate. They made an exception only for leaders chosen in wartime.

So maybe the leadership axiom isn’t so axiomatic. An Ipsos Reid poll this week found 62 per cent of Canadians say they’re most “swayed” by party stances on key issues versus 21 per cent by leaders. Pollster Darrell Bricker was so stunned, and so committed to official theology, that he insulted voters by saying he didn’t know if they meant it or were just trying to give “the right answer.” To gain what, his approval? Maybe someone should poll the pollsters on whether they think Canadian voters have any brains.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail

On quality of Conservative candidates

Among Conservatives, there is a lot of grassroots support for Chris Reid’s brand of conservatism. He wants to close the CBC and scrap the Indian Act and seems to have deep-seated rage issues – but Team Harper dumped him anyway. Word is that Stephen Harper draws the line at homosexuals with guns; and really, considering his record on that file, I can’t say I blame him.

As for the pro-drug, pro-prostitution Mr. Warawa, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office now says that, as of three days ago, he has changed his views and no longer believes anything he ever said on any issue whatsoever.

Rumour is that he has been run through a Conservative re-education camp. A few pistol whips from a flak-jacket-clad Peter McKay (“Who’s the bitch now, Warawa?”) topped off with a chemical lobotomy, and the boy is as good as new, a virtual Bev Oda – happy to be seen and not heard from ever again. He will make one hell of a cabinet minister some day.

By the sounds of it, when it comes to dealing with party dissidents, the Chinese government could learn a thing or two from our sweater-wearing Prime Minister.

Rick Mercer, Globe and Mail

Canadian federal election: Week 2 recap

The Liberals were much more visible this week, taking my advice by taking on Harper on a number of fronts, including childcare. The Liberal team was emphasized, which seemed wise. Dion explained the Green Shift on The Current podcast, and was, to my mind, clear and convincing.

The NDP and the Conservatives, meanwhile, were busily injecting a rare note of humour into the campaign. The NDP experienced the resignation of not one but two, toke-smokin’, car-drivin’, former members of the Marijuana Party as candidates for the party in BC, because they apparently didn’t bother to YouTube them before offering them the nomination. And the Conservatives, of course, had the whole “death by a thousand cold cuts” kerfuffle. Am I a bad person because that made me chuckle?

Anyway, this inspired the fourth apology by Harper since the campaign began (emphasizing why he’s so reluctant to let his candidates speak to the media), but the first that seemed to stick. And stick. Please, enough with the calls for his resignation, already! Lack of regulation might be the serious issue here. A dark sense of humour is not.

The US economy provided some excitement, with huge companies collapsing and stocks going on a roller-coaster ride in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It ended only when the Bush government reversed its laissez-faire policies and stepped in with massive investment. (Fun fact: $1 trillion could buy you 5 billion iPhones. Or 1 war in Iraq.)

Canada never allowed sub-prime mortgages, and so isn’t at risk of this exact same crisis. But there’s a more general lesson here about what happens when governments aren’t involved enough, when companies (banks, meat) that need regulation don’t get it, when governments are downsized to the point of ineffectuality.

[Harper’s] inability to think in a positive, passionate way about large political projects shows starkly at this tense economic moment. In policy, he prefers to act small. His favourite word is modest. “Our plan is simple, modest and practical,” he said about a tax break for home buyers. As if he’d rather do nothing but, in a pinch, will settle for the least possible. His modest GST cuts give little relief, but they whittle government revenues down so he can claim we can’t afford much anyway. This week, he announced a ban on tobacco ads, which are already banned, and sales to kids, ditto. I know this “modesty” reflects Stephen Harper’s political philosophy and he could rattle on passionately about why government should do the least it can, for the good of us all. It’s the reason he wants a majority: so he can do even less and eliminate more. But he may be the wrong leader at the wrong time.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Ontario bashing

The below, partly about equalization, was probably wrong and has likely changed since, but keeping it for the historical record, I guess.

Dalton McGuinty’s been fighting for a more equitable share of federal resources for a long time now—did you know there was a whole, official Ontario government website on this topic? It was informative. For example, while I already knew that Ontarians got considerably less per-person health care funding than other Canadians, I didn’t realize that Ontarians have to work longer to qualify for EI, and are eligible for fewer weeks of payout.

So twisted is the equalization formula, in fact, that even even if Ontario were to become a poor, “have-not” province, its residents would continue to be net contributors to the system. In other words, if Ontario’s economy were to tank to the extent that it qualified for equalization payments, that additional money would actually come in part from — Ontario.

So no wonder some argue that the system makes Ontario the “patsy” of confederation.

Now, much as I’d like to, I can’t really blame all of this on the Conservatives. They didn’t write all these rules, it is a long-standing problem, and I’ll accept that these things are complicated and expensive and can’t necessarily all be fixed in two years.

I’m just not so sure, given their track record, that they’d start fixing them in the next four years, either.

You will recall Flaherty helpfully saying that Ontario is the “last place” that businesses would want to invest, as though he were any kind of example to follow in tax policy.

And you might not recall this, but they’re also trying to pass Bill C-22, which tries give Ontario less representation in Ottawa. The proposal gives BC and Alberta 1 new federal seat for every 100,000 increase in population, while Ontario gets half that—one new seat per 200,000 increase. Hmm. Couldn’t be because the westerners are more inclined to vote Conservative, is it? No, it just means that McGuinty is a “small man of Confederation”, according to Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Income trusts?

You know, I wasn’t going to do this one.

Yes, it was a broken promise. The Conservatives promised not to tax income trusts, and then they did it anyway, basically rendering them extinct by 2011.

But see, I’m not against politicians second-guessing themselves once out of the election heat, really researching the issue, getting advice from experts. And if they determine that their promise really isn’t in the country’s best interest—that it could actually be harmful—then I’m all for them breaking it.

And I actually thought this was one of those cases.

An article by the quite conservative Al Coates, in the KW Record, of all places, caused me to reconsider this.

The rational for banning income trusts—the reason I thought it might have been wise—was to avoid two problems:

  1. Tax leakage, because the trusts pay no corporate tax—all profit go directly to investors.
  2. The “hollowing-out” of corporate Canada—great Canadians corporations being converted into trusts.

But as with so many of the Conservative actions, the decision was a complete surprise to the investors and companies involved. Investors were hurt financially (famously, a lot of seniors), and companies counting on funding from them were left vulnerable.

And Coates argues that the widespread, unintended effect of the decision was this:

Many of those trusts have become takeover targets by giant private-equity players. They are being taken off the map and the radar, folded internally into big pension plans, never again to be seen as income-producing opportunities for Canadians.

Al Coates

He gives the example of BCE, one I’m very familiar with, having relatives living through the nightmare of BCE’s takeover by the Teacher’s Pension Plan.

The buyout will be financed through borrowing and BCE will be taken private, dismantled, chopped into pieces and perhaps sold off in parts. Already, thousands of BCE mid-level jobs have been whacked and there will be more to come. [It’s so true!]

BCE is a cash-flow machine and its free cash will be used to finance the debt. The new owners of BCE—teachers and its American partners—will pay no corporate tax because, in the first place, pension plans don’t pay tax, and for the other buyout partners, there also are offsetting cash-flow and debt-service factors at work. Ottawa will be lucky to see a wooden nickel in ongoing corporate tax proceeds.

Al Coates

I’m so far from an expert in this stuff, it’s not funny. But it sounds like, just maybe, this is not a case of “tough but necessary” decision-making, based on sober second thought and analysis; it could be yet another hasty and myopic decision that will only weaken Canada’s economy in the long run.

And that’s a lot worse than just a broken promise.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: The GST tax cut

Update from 2023: Of course, this lower GST rate remains in place to this day, 8 years into a Liberal government, with no suggestion of change from any party, far as I know.

An easy one for today: Cutting the GST, a policy so bad it actually united right and left [link removed as no longer valid] in opposition to it.

I think Jeffrey Simpson’s “A triumph of politics over economics” [link removed as no longer valid] summarizes the issue best:

Personal and corporate income tax cuts, as every economist knows, tend to stimulate savings and investment, which is what an economy needs to become more productive and competitive, thereby raising overall living standards. Lower consumption taxes stimulate more—wait for it—consumption, some of which leaks out of the economy in the form of purchasing imports and taking trips abroad.

The GST cut is the triumph of base politics over sensible economics.

Thus far, the Harper government’s tax and spending policies have been deeply disappointing for the country’s competitive position.

The government will have drilled a $10-billion hole in federal revenues through the two-point GST cut that will do nothing for productivity and competitiveness when compared with every other available tax cut, as the economists interviewed by the ROB illustrated this week.

Both policies represented the triumph of politics over economics, and short-term political considerations over long-term economic thinking.

Instead of this nonsense, tax policy should involve raising the GST, introducing carbon taxes, and then offsetting these new revenues by reductions in personal and corporate taxes to make Canada more efficient, competitive, fair and green.

Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail

(And as an aside, CBC’s Marketplace did an interesting story this year where they showed that, in many cases, the GST cut was just swallowed up by rounding, giving more money to the seller and less to the consumer. Examples included movie and theatre tickets, whose “price includes GST” didn’t change a whit as the GST rate did. The companies just made more profit on each ticket.)

Sigh. So more’s the pity that we pretty much stuck with this 5% rate now. Though both the Liberals and the NDP argued against the cut, neither will take the political risk of undoing it (despite Conservative ads claiming the contrary). Only the Greens, bless them, are willing to to pledge to raise the GST back to 6% and use the increase to fund mass transit in cities [link removed as no longer valid].

Reason of yesterday to not vote Conservative: It’s the deficit, stupid

2023 commentary: Well, this argument has not aged well. Certainly some Conservative governments (like Trump’s) continue to run big deficits, but so do a lot of Liberal ones, including a number cited below. Plus, whether this is such a bad thing is more of a debatable point now, especially with interest that until recently were at record lows. I had more links to sources for these points originally, but of course many no longer work, so I removed them.

Why do people just automatically think that Conservatives, right-wingers, are better at economics? How did they earn such undeserved plaudits?

Because it seems to me, based on evidence of recent years, that what’s most notable about the economic record of conservative governments is the size of their deficits.

Bill Clinton turned Bush Sr.’s $300 billion dollar deficit into a $200 billion surplus, only to have Junior Bush tax-cut and “war against terror” into the biggest deficit in the country’s history.

Ontario’s much-maligned NDP government managed to get to a balanced operating budget in recessionary times, only to have the Harris PC’s turn boom times into the biggest provincial deficit ever. Ontario was brought into the black by McGinty’s Liberals.

And federally? Well, yes, there again, the biggest deficit to date was accrued by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It was the Liberals, again, who brought Canadians into their current position of budgetary surpluses.

Until… Federal government runs a $157M deficit in April, May (CBC News, July 2008).

So the Conservatives came in with about a $13 billion surplus, and they have squandered it all.

Leaving us with less nothing in reserve to get through the looming economic downturn.

Cost of Conservative tax cuts and spending: $13 billion and change.

Cost of nevertheless having the reputation of being “best for the economy”: Priceless.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Lying about gas taxes

This is from 2008. Re-reading in 2023, I had forgotten that the initial Liberal carbon pricing proposal would have exempted gasoline prices.

Well, I’m very pleased at this breaking news that Elizabeth May of the Green Party will be part of the televised Leaders Debate after all. And in honour of that, let’s look at an environmental issue today.

Monday, I received yet another one of those delightful (🤢), taxpayer-subsidized little Conservative polls in the mail.

This one had a headline from the Vancouver Sun on the front, with a graphic of a car fuel tank: “New 2.3 cent carbon tax sends gas price up a dime in places.” Inside, it says “Just imagine how much Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax will raise the price of gas…”

The Conservatives are lying. Knowing what a hot potato it is, the Liberal Green Shift plan is clear on this point: “This won’t include any extra tax on gasoline at the pump.” The justification for this exemption is that there is already a federal excise tax on car gasoline, set at a rate higher than that proposed for the carbon tax.

There is a debate to have here.

Is it good that diesel and natural gas prices will increase, while car gasoline prices do not? Some environmentalists would said no.

Or, what about getting rid of the excise tax and replacing it with a carbon tax? Some might think that would be a beneficial move for consumers, as gas prices might actually go down initially.

Could be an interesting discussion. Too bad we won’t hear it–because the Liberals will be too busy fighting the Conservative lie that the carbon tax includes gas at the pumps.

Why debate the facts when you can just fudge them, eh? The truth is for wimps.