The federal budget has been blasted recently, especially by small-c heavy weights like Gerry Nicholls and Tasha Kheirridan. And rightly so.
Levant's column in today's National Post was supposed to be a rebuttle to the argument that the government is now conservative in name only. It didn't do the job. In fact, Levant unknowingly admits the futility of a big deficit budget. He writes:
"...by the time the spending in last week's federal budget kicks in, the economy will already be growing again."This begs the question, if the economy will be in recovery mode without the help of any stimulus, where's the justification for this spending spree?
Moreover, Levant tries to throw a bone to small-c conservatives by saying that all our criticism provides some kind of balance to our national discourse:
"That grumbling is a good thing. With all three opposition parties and much of the media to the left of the government, conservative dissenters provide at least some counterweight to those demanding even more spending."But what he fails to admit, is that all this counterweight does nothing. We elected a conservative government, but we got a statist big spending liberal government instead. Some "counterweight".
Sorry Levant, but the jury is back from deliberations.
"Mr. Federal Budget, you have been tried by a jury of your peers. How does the jury find?"
"Guilty". Case closed.
11 comments:
Couple of questions for you Kirk.
The spending is over 2 years.
Do you think we'll go 2 years without an election?
After watching Iggy's roll over for Danny yesterday, do you think a coalition or even a minority Liberal government would have spent 'less' than the Cons?
I'm thinking that when exact details (implimentation) come out about this budget,
it will appear alot more Conservative in it's parts than just a bottom line deficit.
""We elected a conservative government""
"We" being who? Thirty eight percent of the voters. What about the other sixty two percent?
What we have here is a failure to communicate. More specifically, some "conservative's" failure to communicate with the political reality of the situation at hand.
Judge Crash: " You stand accused of being an accessory to the high crime of aiding and abetting the opposition organization(s) Namely: Liberal, NDP & Bloc gang’s. (AKA: “the Coup KooKs”. How do you plead ?
Some Conservative’s : h’mmm….Not Guilty ?... Please ?... Maybe…?
Judge Crash : NOT GUILTY !!!! Good Grief! Your bunch is as guilty as sin! Now go to your rooms, and no internet for a week!
Blame Crash
Note to Anonymous- Apparently Jack layton hasn't checked his own election numbers. He was elected to represent his constituency with 42% of the vote. 58% didn't want him so nothing he says should be listened to as he wasn't really elected. There should be a coalition of his opponents caucusing to set policy for him.
Iggy wasn't elected with a maority either.
Wilson,
Interesting questions. I can't really say when the next election will be. I would say the chances are 50-50 we could have an election before 2011.
Whether the Conservatives spent less than if it was a real Liberal budget is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is we spent it, and we did it in spite of everything that Conservatives have stood for, and in spite of the mountains of compelling data that says spending of this sort is ineffectual.
What good are conservative principles if we throw them out the window just to remain in power?
I would rather spend a single day in the opposition benches standing up for what I believed in, than a lifetime in the front benches of government standing for nothing.
When the 'exact details' come out of this budget, as you say, the auditor general is going to have a field day. I can see it now. There will be claims that money was spent without proper oversight, estimates were artificially lowballed, program directors won't be able to 'remember' the details of dubious expenditures, the $48 Million spent on this or that program didn't produce expected results, etc. Same old story.
'What about the other sixty two percent?'
Sucks to be them,
they didn't vote for the individual party that won the most 'ridings' across Canada.
As sor points out, Jack won more votes than EACH the runners-up.
But not more votes than ALL their combined vote.
Should Jack step aside for a Liberal led coalition in his riding?
Same can be said about most Bloc MPs and all the Liberal MPs in Western Canada.
Should they all step aside because combined, their opponents total more votes than theirs?
Canadians have one vote,
for one person
that represents one party.
You want a coalition,
then you need to have a coalition candidate on the ballot to vote for.
Anon,
You wrote: "What we have here is a failure to communicate. More specifically, some "conservative's" failure to communicate with the political reality of the situation at hand."
Hmmm. Let's examine that statement. Harper created the 'situation at hand' by playing petty power games by trying to quash the vote subsidy. Talk about stirring the hornet's nest. In response, the opposition formed their coalition. This is what forced Harper's hand. Harper is solely responsible for getting himself into this, and now the country will pay the price. We could have gone to an election and fought it head on, but no. Instead, we capitulated. Let me repeat that. WE CAPITULATED.
Wilson,
No need to guess at how much the opposition would have spent. Flaherty's budget IS the opposition's budget.
The money has not been spent Kirk, it has been budgeted.
If as predicted by half the 'experts' we bounce out of this recession by years end
and worry then is an overheated economy,
year 2 spending (other than the permanent tax cuts) will not happen!
If the doomers win the day, Iffy will be hollering for more money to be thrown at the problem, PMSH will say NO.
'playing petty power games by trying to quash the vote subsidy'
PMSH found out that there was a coup in the making and gave Jack a choice, bird in the hand, kill the LPC thru financing.
Jack picked the wrong option, the bird in the bush flew away.
Couple more questions...
Do you think opting out of a stimulus package after agreeing with the G20 to provide one to the tune of 2% GDP is a good strategy for a trading nation?
Do you believe tacking in the opposite direction of our NAFTA partner with respect to the auto industry is a good way to ensure a strong voice in a sector so vital to our national interest?
The same taxpayers that elected a conservative minority in Ottawa also elected 13 different premiers and territorial leaders in our federation. These are the leaders on the front line who need a strong, stable partner in Ottawa to fulfill their responsibilities to Canadians. Aside from Danny Williams, is there any government in confederation demanding more instability, a constitutional crisis, or for the government to cease in its responsibility to govern?
I am glad to have you, Gerry Nichols and the like criticizing this budget. We need it on both ends to maintain a healthy democracy. Gerry Nichols also knows that the "ideologically pure" on either end will never govern Canada for the simple reason they are incapable.
Government means compromise. Confederation is compromise. And Canadians are a fair, generous and pragmatic lot. You really do have to search far and long to find a true partisan among them.
It is also why we have one of the longest, stable, and most successful democratic traditions in the world.
Isn't Canada great? ;)
(sorry for the rambling. i know i got a little carried away)
Revanche,
No need to apologize. You made perfectly valid comments.
But I must ask the question, why does it matter what our g20 partners say? Our banking system was one of the few in the world that did not need backstopping. Our own finance minister went to great lengths to reassure the world that Canada would not suffer a meltdown. And we haven't. Our GDP numbers haven't even dipped into official recession status yet, so for our G20 partner's to demand such action is something I don't understand.
You ask if I believe in taking the opposite direction of the U.S. with respect to the auto industry. Well, I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that these so-called 'investments' that are made is just a new way of saying 'Corporate Welfare'. As conservatives, we have made this point time and again. There is no justification for artificially sustaining an industry if it can't make it on it's own. But in Canada, we justify it by saying we're saving jobs. I don't buy it. It isn't politically correct or advantageous to talk about the opportunity costs involved with corporate welfare.
As for your comments about the premiers partnership with the federal government, I don't buy that either. Our constitution lays out precisely which jurisdiction one government has in relation to the other. But through the years, we have blurred those lines, so much so that it is virtually impossible to hold one level of government responsible for anything without finger pointing between federal, provincial and regional and municipal governments. How does this make our country great?
While we're on the subject of idealogical purity, do you know why it is so easy for people to criticize idealogy? It's because they have none. Idealogy is about ideas. It's what is makes one say "I don't believe in stealing", or that "I believe in love". Ideology mens ideals. Without them. We have nothing. Ideology goes hand in hand with things like integrity, principle, character.
It's one thing to come to an informed and logical conclusion that perhaps your idealogy or principles are flawed, or that you have changed your values system. It's an entirely different thing to betray them so fully and completely that your connection to the original value is no longer identifiable.
I agree with you that government means compromise. Of course, how could you come to any other conclusion? But was this budget really a compromise. As I said in previous posts, compromise is about give and take. We gave everything, and the opposition didn't have to compromise one bit. It was capitulation.
And yes, Canadians are fair and pragmatic. Which is why it is so hard for small-c conservatives to be brushed aside so casually when all they ask is for their voice to be heard once in a while.
Wilson,
In case you're still tracking this post...
As if in direct response to what I was talking about in my previous comments, this report comes out of the Auditor General's Office.
Post a Comment