Monday, October 19, 2009

Harper's Pre-Recession deficit

Ralph Goodale does it again. Goodale has been one of my favourite members of parliament for years, and today he's come out with a real gem for progressives to sink their teeth into.

After months of denial, the Conservatives finally had to release the audited financial statements of the Government of Canada for last fiscal year (2008/09). They revealed that for the first time in more than a decade, this country fell back into the red by about $6 billion.

Here’s a key point to note: This deficit began BEFORE, not because of, the recession!

These financial statements reflect primarily what was happening BEFORE the recession hit last fall.

We all know the factors that put Canada into deficit. We were tax cut into the black and spent into the red. Goodale charges that by the time the recession is over and all the money has been spent, we'll have $170 billion dollars to pay back tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that...

I don't want to be very rosy about the Liberal Red Book - it slashed a lot of money from essential public services like health care. I'm not keen on going back to lean days where underfunded programs become starved for fiscal help from the government. Which leads to option number two, taxation. Which is a tricky issue for the Keynesian at a time like this.

Right now, we should be cutting the GST further, so the theory goes, to spur on consumer spending. Income taxes should also be cut, to stretch the incomes of Canadian families. But that would prolong government deficit and, with less money coming into Ottawa, we're left with program cuts anyways.

Our last two quarters have shown growth in the economy, officially "ending" the recession. But that doesn't mean surplus' and all the good things that come with a growing economy. Not the way Harper has played our cards.

Unfortunately for Mr. Goodale, and progressive Canadians, I cannot seeing this news - as important as it is - having any impact on the mood of the electorate. Similarly, as much as Cheque-gate seems to stir the ire any who didn't vote Conservative, I believe that the public is simply "scandaled-out." Furthermore, I'm not sure if Canadians view the LPC as having the moral authority to call the CPC out on their poor ethics. But Dipper's shouldn't raise their glasses in celebration yet, since it is painfully clear that the electorate doesn't believe the NDP has the moral fiber to replace the Liberals or the CPC as the government/government-in-waiting.

Let's count them up: Broken Income Trust promises; the Cadman Affair; In-and-Out Scheme; the CPC sues Elections Canada; countless CPC candidates being forced out of their positions because their views differed from Harper on social issues and party politics; Garth Turner leaves the CPC caucus; Bill Casey is forced out from the CPC caucus; and now, Cheque-gate and the misappropriation of taxpayers dollars to pay for partisan advertising under the guise of Canada's Economic Action Plan.

Where's the outrage? Where are the feelings that we have been duped by a man and his party that was launched into 24 Sussex on a platform of accountability, transparency and fiscal conservatism? When will Canadians wake-up and realize that we traded a fiscally sound, yet, morally questionable Liberal government for a fiscally unbalanced and morally contemptuous Harper PMO?

Polls say that Canadians trust Harper more than any other leader. I'd like to know how those ostriches could answer the phone with their heads stuck in the political sand.

I suppose that just like Paul Martin, Stephen Harper's days as PM are numbered, just as long as Canadians stop questioning the agenda of the government-in-waiting and it's leader, and start focusing on the ills of the government-of-the-day.

(H/T to penlan at Politics - for the people for bringing Goodale's post to the blogosphere first.)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Sir Francis said...

Your Freudian slip was subliminally spot-on, Dylan. ;)

Yes, the fraudulently pontifical CPC is indeed "morally contemptuous". More importantly, though, they're also morally contemptible...

9:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home