The Dear Leader… hoisted on his own petard.
Update: Enjoy the apostasy! Olaf is in fine form with this one.
Parliament may be shuttered and our elected representatives locked out from doing what we pay them for, but the business of government carries on…
Canada’s parliamentary budget officer is publicly questioning the projected budget surpluses of the Conservative government’s recent economic statement and is asking for evidence to back up the predictions.
Kevin Page asked Finance Deputy Minister Rob Wright to turn over details on the projected spending reductions in departments and asset sales that the government has said will generate $10 billion in savings over five years. These are seen as key to the maintenance of a federal surplus.
Page’s letter, sent on Dec. 3, has now been posted on the budget office’s website. It asks for a reply this week.
He also asked for economic data and assumptions used for the 2008 budget and recent economic statement. Finance refused to give the data for the 2008 budget even though the numbers are routinely turned over to Bay Street forecasters. The assumptions, key to estimating the impact of economic volatility, used to be published by previous governments.
Imagine that. The economic data and underlying assumptions used to be published by previous governments. I guess that would be, um, the Liberals. Heh. Go figure.
But never mind that little quibble. Many of us have pretty much given up on the Harper government being anything more than a lot of hot air when it comes to accountability and transparency. Won’t it be interesting in the weeks to come to see what’s slated for some of Sunny Jim’s “belt-tightening” as part of the projected spending reductions, and more especially, what may be on the chopping block in terms of selling off federal assets.
Update: “Let’s have the books, please. If we’re going to have any discussions at all, we’ve got to know where we are. You’ve not told Canadians the truth. Let’s have some truth here.” — Ignatieff on CBC’s Politics this afternoon.
It’s interesting to view the dubious business practices of the automakers through the prism of the pending bail-out, err, “bridge loan” in the offing from taxpayers. In this case CBC News highlights the increasing trend of gouging people with exorbitant “repair” costs when leased vehicles are returned to the dealership.
Speaking of the bail-out, some Republicans aren’t happy about it…
A roundtable discussion with constituents in Etibicoke-Lakeshore during the last election campaign (that already seems like ages ago).
And here he is in one of the videos from his 2006 leadership campaign. This one on “citizenship” (which includes comments about the “grassroots” some might find highly ironic under the circumstances).
Apparently, he’s going to be on Politics with Don Newman today. And he has a press conference this afternoon (should be starting in minutes).
Larry Craig — still guilty.
Also, the “Lame Duck Watch” feature with some pretty amusing stuff about the “Bush Legacy Project” including extracts from the memo containing official talking points highlighting Bush’s achievements that’s been sent to cabinet members for them to weave into their communications (actually called a “speech topper”) over the next several weeks.
Roger Numbers, the animated host for a newish daily morning web newscast takes a look at the recent goings on in Canada.
This is a very cool feature created by the folks at GOOD magazine that I highly recommend checking out, or better yet, subscribing to.
It’s always kind amusing when people on the “left” or “right” of the political spectrum accuse “the other side” of some egregious moral failing or negative character trait while demonstrating a complete lack of self-awareness by committing the exact same sin they’re attributing exclusively to their opponents.
On recent post where Scott Ross is complaining rather bitterly that “the National Executive, the Liberal caucus, and the Leadership candidates are guilty of indirectly violating the right of its members to select their own leader,” I made the following comment:
Scott — While I respect your opinion, unfortunately, all you’re doing with grumpy rants like this is providing fodder to the “Blogging Tories” to seize upon with glee and then crow about the presumed disunity amongst Liberals and their deep dissatisfaction with the party in regards to the way in which the leadership “race” played out.
Certainly, the process was less than ideal and reform is in order, but the outcome is probably for the best. Perhaps it would be more prudent at this juncture to focus on that and leave grievances about the process for another time with a view to advancing them in a more constructive way at the upcoming convention in May.
To which, someone posting as “The Independent Blog” responded thusly:
hey redtory, let me put it politly, shut the fuck up, unlike the other side, we all have the right to our opinions, for or against, unlike you some of us enjoy disenting opinion, and we dont cry to the liblogs administrator when we dont agree with one…
realise that the liberal party, is not in agreement with your views, we are not the tories, we dont censure opinions, your in the wrong party little girl.
Alrighty then. I’d link to the blog in question, but the moron hasn’t even included his blog address in his profile. Apparently, the inherent contradiction of saying that “some of us enjoy disenting [sic] opinion” and “we all have the right to our opinions” while telling someone to “shut the fuck up” is lost on his individual. And isn’t it cute when “liberals” consider calling someone a girl to be an insult? What a terribly liberal point of view!