Well that's nice. According to my morning paper, as Dalton Camp used to say, the Conservative government is shortly to release a new plan "demonstrating how it would return deficit-swamped Ottawa to balanced budgets."� The move is apparently designed "to bolster its fiscal stewardship credentials"� in advance of the allegedly imminent election.
I can just imagine. If history is any guide, the "plan"� will consist of a series of bars on a chart tracing the deficit's graceful descent to zero by the year"”well, we haven't been told that yet, but let's assume it will be some years after the government's present forecast of fiscal 2014. Which, for those with long memories, is five years after the government insisted it would never run a deficit at all.
But as to just how the deficit will be coaxed into submission, we will be told very little, except to say that it will require no tax increases, nor any specific spending cuts"”though there will be plenty of "rigorous spending discipline"� and another round of "program review,"� that exceptionally rigorous exercise that in several previous rounds has slashed spending to an all-time high.
Or in other words, more or less exactly the same as the Liberal plan. We're running $50-billion deficits, we're probably going to stay in deficit for the better part of a decade, we're going to add something like $160 billion to the debt in that time, and neither party has anything serious to say about it.
And that's the rosy scenario. That is, it assumes no double-dip recession or spike in interest rates, to say nothing of war or natural disaster or the hundred other things that can turn those majestically declining bars upside down in a flash. Nor does it pay any heed to the fiscal-demographic freight train fast closing in on us, the one carrying the baby boomers into old age. (Boomers themselves may be in denial about it, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.) By the C. D. Howe Institute's account, the extra costs, mostly for health care, associated with an aging population will add a net $2.5 trillion to the national debt over the next 50 years, assuming no change in policy. True, most of that will fall on the provinces' shoulders, but how much room will they have to finance that burden if the feds are already hip-deep in debt?
Perhaps it's just as well the parties aren't discussing it. Because discussing it implies not only that you have a plan to do something about it, but that you might tell us what it is"”and that what you say and what you eventually do will bear some resemblance to one another. Experience teaches us that this is unlikely. The only way any Canadian party will ever do anything about the deficit is when it has exhausted every other choice, and then only after it has been safely elected on the promise to do nothing about it whatever. See Chrétien, J., "Balancing the Budget Would Cause Civil War,"� June 1993.
But then, that's true of most issues. Of what possible use would it be to hear the parties pledge themselves irrevocably to some course of action"”on anything, never mind the deficit? After all the flip-flops, abandoned promises and even broken laws of recent years, why would anyone pay any attention to them? And so the parties, sensing their loss of credibilty though hardly shamed by it, have ceased even trying. Once, our politics was about something, big ideas and sharp differences, as it is in other countries. Today it is about nothing. Or not even about nothing. It's just"�."�."�."�about.
Pages: 1 2
PreviousWho's hit hardest by the recession: young workers or the old?
…and neither party has anything serious to say about it.
That just about sums up the value of political commentary in this country. We have something in the neighbourhood of a dozen parties in Canada, but if ideas don't come out of the arse of either the Libs or Cons they simply don't exist to our pundits.
"Compare the debate going on in the U.S. about health care reform. Sure, it’s messy, even crazy at times. But it’s a debate. Somebody is proposing to do something about an important national issue, based on his deepest philosophical beliefs. And somebody else is arguing against it, based on theirs. And while the leadership of the two parties butt heads over the President’s plan, individual congressmen and senators are drafting their own counter-proposals—actual legislation, on which they will vote
the MSM has done just a terrible job – any little thing is taken out of context and used to bash what ever politician said it. No wonder politicians end up with the most bland comments on issues facing Canada. Look at how the MSM deals with violence of Muslim men towards female relatives – the media goes out of its way to make it just another routine case of violence rather than calling it what every one knows it is – honour killings. We don't have a debate on our refugee system without someone in the media bringing up racism. We don't have a health care debate because the MSM portrays anyone who wants more options as threat to Canadian 'values'. It took the media a very long time to even acknowledge that there is a problem with the human rights commissions in Canada – and frankly if the current federal government attempted to repeal section 13, you can bet that the MSM would be condemning them. Bloggers are the only ones really dealing with substantive issues affecting Canadians.
99.999999999999999999999% of the blogs out there are even more demented and valueless than the emessem; especially the ones you're obviously reading.
Actually, I'll agree on this one, especially the first couple sentences. This isn't a conservative argument either, as I'm sure this problem would affect Liberals or NDP as well, had they actually formed government. Media thrives on sensationalism, and sensationalism feeds public resentment, and public resentment makes it difficult for the government to do anything significant.
Well, that's the problem with democracy, Mr. Conye.
If you are a leader in government, and your country happens to be a democracy, progress is inhibited for the following reasons:
1) If you make any significant change, even for good, The People will throw you out of office–unless the other options to replace you are obviously too weak, demoralized, incompetent, scary, or bankrupt to replace you (doesn't Harper's FU statement in December make sense now?)–this is because The People are by nature dim-witted and reactionary (which is why attack ads are so effective).
2) Making significant change sometimes includes an element of risk. If chance does not work out in your favor, your political career is over.
3) The painful truth is that there is no way to take care of all the people, all the time. No matter what decisions you make on EI, taxation, medicare, etc. someone or some group of people will be left behind. By at least putting forth the same plan as the opposing party, you will not have to shoulder the blame, as there is no viable alternative solution being put forward by any other party.
Because of this, I submit that in our government, it is arguably the Official Opposition which holds much of the real influence. They are free to bring up problems, propose solutions, and create pressure to act on certain social or economic matters (case in point: the Conservative Government is presently running a stimulus package). Remember that in the Chretien-Martin era, they were safely able to cut so much spending because that's exactly what the Official Opposition suggested should be done. If there's no difference between the political parties, then there's no political risk for the government.
"The People are by nature dim-witted and reactionary (which is why attack ads are so effective)"
But wait…….. Um…….. What about……..
Sigh!!!!!
It's horrible, but it's true.
Read Full Article »