“A debate that will lead us into the next election” — Pierre Poilievre
While Ignatieff’s blindingly obvious remarks to a breakfast audience in Cambridge the other day that Canadians may face increased taxes if, after an economic recovery takes hold, there still remained a long-term “structural deficit” are easily enough defended on grounds of common sense, it also has to be said that the Liberal leader’s attempted clarification — some might call it backpedaling — wherein he brazenly stated: “This deficit is Stephen Harper’s deficit, it’s not my deficit. It’s his deficit,” is mightily disingenuous and terrifically galling to say the least.
Wasn’t it Ignatieff (together with the NDP and BQ) that pushed hard for massive amounts of deficit spending to get the economy out of the ditch its in at the moment? And isn’t the Liberal leader currently demanding even more deficit spending with his calls for a second wave of “stimulus” money to combat the recession? Not to spoil the mystery or anything, but the answer to both those questions is: yes. Unfortunately, he can’t have it both ways: at once disavowing any responsibility for urging the government to spend beyond its means, while presumably taking credit for doing exactly that should it eventually prove to be a successful strategy.
Perhaps it’s a bit much to expect consistency from our politicians (and before Conservatives get too smug here, their leading lights are some of the most egregious offenders in this regard), but it would be refreshing if they didn’t behave as if we were all complete idiots incapable of recalling what they said or did from one day to the next. If Ignatieff was truly attempting to be “honest” and upfront with Canadians about the different options on the table down the line in terms of dealing with the deficit, well then why not just leave it at that — or better yet, simply put the onus on Stephen Harper to explain how he plans on getting the government’s books in order once the economy pulls itself into some form of recovery mode.
Surely it would have been better to shift the focus of debate here to the Conservatives’ post-recession plans instead of shirking any responsibility for the current deficits… It’s perfectly reasonable for people to ask whether there will be tax hikes or expenditure cuts made to pay for all of the government’s stimulus spending. Harper’s favourite attack poodle, Pierre Polievre glibly states that “the recovery will bring new revenues; that will balance the budget” a patently ludicrous notion that hardly addresses the deficit, let alone the significantly increased national debt burden. I’d love to see him attempt to explain exactly what these unidentified “new revenues” are and how they’ll fill the rather large hole the Conservatives’ have dug for themselves (even before taking into account the stimulus spending, it’s important to note) with the enthusiastic help of the opposition parties.
RT
I’m a bit surprised you’ve bought the Conservative argument that all of this deficit is merely a function of the stimulus. That view absolves the reckless tax policies, the pork barrel spending, the cancellation of the contingency fund, all of which means that a large percentage of the current deficit comes before a new dime of spending was added. It’s true that the Liberals wanted the stimulus, but it’s disingenious to pretend that once that is exhausted we will return to a balanced budget. The Conservatives share some responsibility for the size of the deficit, and the Liberals would be crazy to forget, or not remind Canadians, how we got here, because in many respect this is “their deficit”, stimulus aside.
Steve — Did you read the last sentence in my post? I’ve bolded the salient point to make it clearer…
Now, you were saying what, again?
The larger problem, RT, is that it feeds the growing frame of Ignatieff as completely disingenuous. He’ll say something sensible (on Asbestos, or taxes, or whatever) and then a few hours/days later will issue a “clarification” that clearly stems from the team of apparatichiks propping him up.
The WORST thing you can look like in politics is a hypocritical politician, and the Liberals have to fight constantly to avoid that pigeonhole. Iggy seems to given up that fight, and I’m not sure how he thinks it can help him.
“Now, you were saying what, again?”
That you’re admitted that this is a Conservative deficit, irrespective of the added stimulus expenditure. Is that about right?
Steve — I don’t have all the figures to divvy up the responsibility (or “blame” if you prefer) with any precision, but would say that a good part of it can be attributed directly to the Conservatives’ poor fiscal management since taking office (for various reasons you cited). It’s fair to guestimate however that the largest part of the deficit this year and next will be in connection with the stimulus (economic “action plan” or whatever it’s called). So the Liberals have to share some complicity in that portion as they encouraged and endorsed it.
Sorry, but there’s no way to escape that fact.
Granted, it would have been a lesser amount had the Conservatives’ not cut the GST (twice) and blown the contingency fund, but they would still have been looking at a deficit of around $15 billion by some estimates (I’m thinking of Don Drummond there, in particular).
Demosthenes — Yeah, well this is what did him in during the first leadership contest… To my mind, anyhow. After a while it just became impossible to defend his flip-flops on this or that issue. (Kind of reminiscent of Kerry in the 2004 election in that regard.)
I’ve got no problem with a politician changing their position or modifying their stance on a particular issue, but there has to be some logical (or circumstantial) underpinning to it, otherwise it just looks like cynical pandering or a lack of inner conviction. I’m not suggesting that’s the case here, but as you rightly noted, when it’s part of a pattern of behaviour, that’s not very encouraging.
“Sorry, but there’s no way to escape that fact. ”
RT, I don’t think anyone is trying to do that. What I worry about is that Harper is able to absolve himself of all responsibility under the guise of the stimulus. Page actually said the deficit would have been 13 billion (don’t quote me, might be off a bit) prior to the stimulus, but that is lost now. From the Liberal perspective, I can’t fault Ignatieff from trying to focus attention, because these guys made some terrible errors and demonstrated no foresight with their misguided policies. How do the Liberals highlight that, while still taking some responsibility on the stimulus side?
How do the Liberals highlight that, while still taking some responsibility on the stimulus side?
By changing the channel…Why does Thomas Mulcair always look like he’s two minutes away from climbing a university tower with a submachine gun?
I really don’t know how any politician (apart from Conservatives, who can just lie all the time) can respond to this with an electorate that still can’t understand that you have to pay for things, goes nuts when the word “tax” is mentionned and is completely unaware that the tax burden of Canadians is well below the OECD average.
Steve — Good question. Aside from simply noting that fact and possibly setting it out there as a marker of how little the Conservatives can be trusted as responsibile fiscal managers, I don’t think there’s all that much to be gained from dwelling on it excessively, but as I suggested, better to shift the focus onto how the Conservatives plan on dealing with the deficit/debt problem post-recession.
Well Red, this seems like a fair post.
Sadly, neither the Libs or Conservatives will see it that way.
To be sure, Harper and his fuckwits fucked the economy with their ideology over substance, and surely putting Canada in a worse economic situation with regards to what it could do without going into massive debt.
some might call it backpedaling — wherein he brazenly stated: “This deficit is Stephen Harper’s deficit, it’s not my deficit. It’s his deficit,” is mightily disingenuous and terrifically galling to say the least.
That it is – the reality is that Iggy is as responsible for it.
Sure, we all know that Harper will wear the deficit, but it’s there in part because of Iggy.
The “Iggyheads” would like us to think otherwise.
It all goes to underscore that partisans on both sides can be as obtuse in their own way.
(wonder if Steve V has dirty knees…)
To be sure, Harper and his fuckwits fucked the economy with their ideology over substance…
This is objectively untrue. Harper fucked the national government’s finances, but the economy fucks itself. And we are *all* to blame for that.
CWTF — Actually, I thought Ignatieff’s initial “honesty” was good. Nice to hear some staight talk about taxes for a change instead of always being lied to, but then he had to go and wreck things with his pointless “clarification” that (as is amost always the case) just muddied the waters and made him seem indecisive.
And the optics of the Liberals through 2006 through 2008, supported and/or abstained, and/or sat on their hands as the Cons “emptied the coffers.”
Next, Iggy and the libs voted for the 2009 budget and stimulus package, whereas the NDP and Bloc did not. Iggy owns it and no amount of attempting to “shift that focus” is going to budge that optic and reality.
Ditto for EI reform – liberals have no credibility on this policy, as it was changes they implemented that put Canadians in this predicament.
Thanks Red for stating the obvious.
Ti-Guy — No, Harper can’t be blamed for the state of the economy. He can however be held responsible for being in denial about it and/or deceiving Canadians (the witless, gullible ones at least) into thinking that we’d avoid the inevitable effects of the U.S. recession. He can also be held to account for not better allocating resources during the spring/summer of last year to cushion its effects and for not getting some amount of stimulus money (infrastructure projects and other such “shovel ready” public works) sooner rather than allowing billions of dollars to get mired in bureaucratic red tape for months on end. Oh, and for not having fixed the EI system so that it was better capable of responding to the coming downturn.
So, every major party was calling for stimulus yet somehow the deficit is all Ignatieff’s fault?
If the Liberals fiscal management had been in place for the past 3 years, we wouldn’t be talking about a deficit figure that explodes to $80 Billion dollars over the course of a couple of years, as there would have been a reserve and structural changes wouldn’t have handicapped the government to respond to the sinking economy. Heck, perhaps the funds that were spent would have gone to building the economy instead of candy to toss around to ridings for the eternal election campaign Harper has run.
Instead, structural tax changes Harper introduced were plunging the country into deficit even before the economic slowdown and before the stimulus. And now those same structural changes will make it much harder to ever recover from any deficits.
Yet Ignatieff and the Liberals are supposed to “wear” that as well? And Ignatieff isn’t allowed to point that out?
I’ve got a better idea, CWTF. Don’t worry so much about anyone how dirty someone else’s knees might be. You might instead want to figure out the reason for that stench around your ears.
You might look into purchasing a calculator as well.
Oh, Red….I’m not letting the Harpy off the hook for anything. But in a decade, this little episode will be seen as an aberration, as the Harrisite rule in Ontario is now perceived. Re-educating the demographic of idiot-savants and moral imbeciles who allowed this to happen will take a bit longer, unfortunately.
Hey Moonbat Jan: what’s 7×9?
…that oughta keep her from trolling Liberal blogs for a few hours.
Jan — Next, Iggy and the libs voted for the 2009 budget and stimulus package, whereas the NDP and Bloc did not.
Oh, come on, Jan… that too is disingenuous and you know it. The NDP and the BQ were calling for $30 billion in stimulus spending back in December right along with the Liberals, so you can’t disavow culpability now simply because your party chose not to support the government for purely ideological reasons.
The fact of the matter is that ALL parties will have to wear the coming deficits and debt situation and, to my mind at least, it seems incumbent on them to tell us how they plan on dealing with it when they get to that bridge.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with stating what seems quite obvious to most people on planet Earth, that there may be a combination of modest tax hikes and spending cuts. I’m not generally in sympathy with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, but I think they’re on the right track when they suggest a top to bottom review of government services to cut waste and ensure that programs are being delivered efficiently.
That’s the kind of “honesty” I’d like to see from our politicians.
Ti-Guy — But in a decade, this little episode will be seen as an aberration, as the Harrisite rule in Ontario is now perceived.
Perhaps, or maybe not. It could be a lasting millstone around the Conservatives’ neck in much the same way as Bob Rae’s spending was/is. Although, the crippling stigma of that surely has been significantly blunted now given that Harper is trying to spend his way out of the current recession. Rather a cruel irony for poor old Bob considering that was the biggest knock against him each time he attempted to become leader of the LPC. Oh well.
(wonder if Steve V has dirty knees…)
Hmmm…what a class act – charming.
Mulcair gives me the creeps – he’s a loose cannon, on the edge.
NDP bitching about taxes? Now there’s the joke of the day.
Rather a cruel irony for poor old Bob considering that was the biggest knock against him each time he attempted to become leader of the LPC. Oh well.
I don’t think he really cares. The joke really has been on the rest of us, who are herded like sheep from “debt walls” and threats of IMF intervention to debt-financed economic growth.
It’s a circus, and they all know it.
Keep blaming the news media, is all I have to say.
Sandi — I kind of like Mulcair, actually. I don’t get what people find so “creepy” about him. The guy always comes across sounding quite level-headed.
Ti-Guy — No, he seems not to be overly concerned by it, and if anything, quite happy to support Ignatieff (if his recent interview with TRNN is any indication) without much qualification, so that’s all to the good. Just kind of an unfortunate bit of timing for his ambitions as he’s been vindicated to a degree now and would have been better positioned to contest the leadership had circumstances played out somewhat differently. Merely an observation on my part.
Regarding the bigger joke, yes, it’s a “circus” to an extent, but then what can you expect when it was demonstrated back in December that an alarming number of people don’t even understand the most basic elements concerning how our government works?
By the way, I checked out Ronald Wright this morning after you mentioned him. Very interesting. There’s another book added to my ever-growing reading list.
It seems very unlikely that Harper’s scattershot approach to stimulus will have the effect and track the same recovery as a more thoughtful, focussed approach on things like lasting infrastructure, research, and help for specific sectors where the future is sound but there is a hurdle to get over. Since Harper controlled the scattershot approach I think he should largely wear it.
RT – here’s some help on the “how much” front: The Cons “killed” the $13 Billion contingency – so that, in itself, puts the Conservative “starting deficit” at $13 Big ones. The Auditor and Independent Budget officer (appointed by Harper) both indicated that the Cons increased the deficit by at LEAST another $12 Billion (due to their hair-brained GST cuts), and this was ALL BEFORE THE OCTOBER ELECTION and the Fall “economic downturn”.
So, basically, the Conservative Deficit or Harper Debt is roughly $25 BILLION just for starters. That is before their increased irresponsible spending SINCE the election. There are ways to do stimulus, and there are ways to do stimulus. Some bring revenue back to the government by increasing the paying tax-base, but some just give tax breaks to the rich (which is what the Cons mainly supported – they should have done MUCH more for infrastructure and R&D).
That $25 BILLION would have placed us in much better stead when the recession started. Our collective deficit would have been around 55 Billion, rather than 80-Billion-plus. Also, given factors from maintaining the “safety net”, there would have been less net strains on government finances via job losses, etc., meaning the country would probably have been much better off than the $25 Billion itself…
So… Harper/Conservative deficit? You betcha!
To all Iggy supporters – Iggy wears the deficit as much as Harper as he put the government on probation. Full stop. Enough of this bullshit politics.
There was never any Liberal alternative economic plan.
We get it, Iggy is God to you, and in your immense stupidity don’t even realise that many are emulating the blogging tories in your love of the dear leader. Many of you spent years mocking the BT only to be exactly like them. Congrats.
Even when someone agrees with you, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.
As for Mulcair, he’s a decent enough person and was good while in the Charest government. Hardly on the edge in his handling of cronyism within the Charest-Lib-in-name-only.
If the Liberals fiscal management had been in place for the past 3 years, we wouldn’t be talking about a deficit figure that explodes to $80 Billion dollars over the course of a couple of years, as there would have been a reserve and structural changes wouldn’t have handicapped the government to respond to the sinking economy.
It took Paul Martin long enough to want to spend some money. Let’s not forget that he balanced the budget by cutting services and offloading many cost to the provincial level. While it is what had to be done, I’m not sure how he would have handled this recession/depression.
Yes the honesty of saying taxes will have to be raised was honest but hardly a way to win elections given the pathological need of most parties to outright lie…
WG — Thanks for the breakdown of numbers. My point still remains that Ignatieff (and the other opposition leaders) can’t entirely disown the deficits and debt situation going forward. As to how much of the “blame” (or credit, as the case may be) they take for that is debatable. And, at the end of the day, there’s still the problem of tackling the pile of deficit spending that will have been accumulated and heaped on top of our existing national debt ($450 billion or something). To me, how this may be approached by future governments is a reasonable subject for discussion and even, as Poilievre maybe somewhat inadvertently stated: “A debate that will lead us into the next election.”
…or as Poilievre maybe somewhat inadvertently stated: “A debate that will lead us into the next election.”
…which translates into “yet another fatuously conceived pseudo-discourse, spawned by a trivial pseudo-event, spun into significance by a contemptible CPC noise machine, and endlessly re-animated by slothful, nihilist media”.
That said, it’s historically very dangerous to admit the inevitability of taxes. Joe Clark found that out, the hard way, in ’79.
This guy found it out, in an even harder way, in ’84.
Well said and nicely put.
Sad, isn’t it? No truth told ever goes unpunished…
Iggy emotes/thinks simultaneously
Often this causes him to verbalize his strong feelings & thoughts.
He forgets that he no longer has an producer/editor as safety net.
Last week it was his love of Brian M.
Now this distraction.
Count Iggy needs to learn how not to feed the machine
ie self discipline
NPoV — Is it really necessary to call him “Count Iggy”? Sorry, but that crap really irritates the hell out of me. I know I call Harper the “Dear Leader” a lot of the time, but that’s more to mock his slavish, braindead followers than him personally. Can we keep the critiques on a more mature level, please? (And I’ll try to restrain my own urges to denigrate Harper that way too.)
Now, to your point… Yes, he does have a tendency to speak off the cuff and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. As I said, the problem always seems to arise when he starts “correcting” himself after the fact. Which really isn’t so much of a clarification as an obfuscation cum retraction or apology to some group or other that he’s managed to tick off with his remarks. Almost invariably, it just seems to make matters worse. I wish he’d stick with his original intents and more truly refine rather than attempt to redefine them.
Pingback: Lizard Attack - The Blog Wars | Vancouver Secrets
Sorry if the Count thing bothers you. It is kind of my grudgingly affectionate term for Michael – he is the leader of the party I am a member of after all, but he does have that aristocratic air that can be annoying.
as for “the problem always seems to arise when he starts “correcting” himself after the fact”
this is such a good case in point – first he talks about “honest politicians” then backtracks so far and fast that he looks like a typical dishonest politician –
he can win the next election if he can learn not to feed gaffes and dumb comments to his opponents and the media
No big deal… it just peeves me a little. Like when Conservatives used to call Dion “Citoyen” or now refer to Ignatieff as “Iffy”… Fair enough, I guess, but I find that it detracts from legitimate argument.
Although in the latter case, Ignatieff is, as you suggested, simply feeding into the preconceptions of his opponents.
Well, I will say that one of the biggest budget disasters is that crazy child care benefit they gave out, that has zero relation to income levels. $100/per child regardless of whether or not you make 10K/yr or 100K/yr is moronic.
It alone cost taxpayers billions, and there have been many more tax cuts and giveaways just like it besides the GST, so I really do think that the Tories should wear this deficit, never mind the stimulus issue. We have to reverse some of this stupid shit when we get into office, and God love any politician who tells the truth. Why on earth am I staring at a monthly cheque for a $100 when we made so much money last year? What kind of shitty moral code are we practicing with in this country when we think that people like me need fucking handouts?
Seriously, not only do I want Iggy to reverse all the GST cuts and other Harper tax cuts, I want him to increase it on luxury goods. In fact, I want him to turn it into a luxury tax, totally restructured. Tax consumption the right way and you will see deficits disappear.
Any sort of a “cut” that simply gets clawed back at tax time is a farce.
The Liberals’ childcare plans may have left much to be desired, but just mailing people $100/mo. doesn’t really do much to address their needs. Certainly not those who could use the help most.
That $100 thing really gets me. In Edmonton we recently had a drive organized by a youth group to provide strollers to poor mothers. Apparently said stroller is considered a luxery item, and parents on social assistance had to choose between a stroller or a crib (or some other necessity the powers that be decided was not a necessity).
Knowing that, it is hard to understand why the wealthy get 100 dollars of my money to raise their kids with.
Yikes! Maybe some grammar lessons are in order…
Damn WordPress seems to think that a preview function in the comments is a “luxery” item.
But seriously, people should not have to be forced to make stupid, self-defeating choices like the one you’ve pointed out here. I should however point out however, that in fact, “the wealthy” don’t really get that $100/mo. because it’s clawed right back in full at tax-time. Child care (such as it is) in this case, but it applies to other things as well, becomes something of a pointless shell-game with the government giving and taking with no effective net result for the taxpayer (if anything a negative one if you factor in the administrative costs involved).
I don’t preview. I rarely even proof read. I’m just lazy (I know you are not impressed with that, but there it is). I just thought I would point out that I am not completely stupid….just lazy.
I actually was not aware the entire amount was clawed back at tax time. I knew part of it was.
That said, the term “wealthy” is pretty relative. My sister is not wealthy, but she hardly needs the $200/month she gets for her kids. It is painful because I work with the people who really could use that money.
I was just funnin’ on ya. Hey, I’m supremely lazy too. Certainly loo “lazy” to get this place set up on my on dot.com site and kit it out with all the tools that would afford commenters with a preview feature.
Indeed “wealthy” is a relative term. I’m sometimes flummoxed by panhandlers that hit me up for spare change when really that’s just about all I’ve got and I have to tell them, sorry, but it’s not only my bus fare home, but all I’ve got. Period.
Funny how Pierre’s moaning and whining about Iggy’s moderate honest sounds familiar doesn’t it?
I mean the same kind of question was asked of Dion during the election about deficits and when he answered nearly identically (‘nothing is off the table’) he was crucified by the sanctimonious Cons who were already about $10 billion in deficit at the time, but simply not telling anyone.
I think this post is fair and well said Red. I have no love for Iggy or the Liberals, but he is being honest in saying taxes are an option. Poilivre and Flaherty know this too, they are just too cowardly to say it. And while the Cons certainly did mismanage over the last 3 years – out-spending, as Andrew Coyne loves to point out, even the Paul Martin Liberals beholden to Jack Layton for survival by over 8% – it was the Keynesian madness of the Libs, NDP and Bloc that forced even more “stimulus” spending. As if the previous 3 years of spending like a drunken sailor had not proved that the spending didn’t work to stimulate the economy.
So the question is then, if Harper and the Cons are so clearly incompetent with the public purse, why would one want to push them to spend more? As others have said, it was a scatter-shot approach, having more to do with punishing ideological enemies and helping friends than actually stimulating the economy. It was about saving Harper’s political skin than saving the economy.
The answer is, of course, that none of this has been about the economy, from any side, but about how to use the crisis to gain political favour and power, to smear your enemies and to buy votes from people with their own money. Its about getting or maintaining power and nothing more. None of them care a whit about actually doing something for the economy, but about gaining the upper hand. That why we have Pierre the attack poodle repeating nonsense and Iggy issuing constant clarifications.
A pox on all of them. Its a sad day when the guy from the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation is the one making sense…
Mike
It’s hard not to get pretty cynical about the whole mess. None of our so-called leaders inspires me with much confidence.