money money money
lets see...
1. the conservative party: er. right. can you say mulroney? almost - at least he could *conceivably* blame deficit spending on trudeau seeing as he inherited a deficit. harper will not be inheriting a deficit, so he has no scapegoat but his own policy for the fact he will accumulate an $11 billion deficit by 2009.
can you say spending cuts? harper can only say "spending control" but canadians arent idiots - its plain to see this shortfall will be alleviated by new cuts he hasnt yet mentioned for fear of alienating the red tories and disillusioned ex-liberal voters. if he doesnt have cuts in mind, then his numbers simply dont add up. harper kept saying this election was about good management and governance over lofty ideological considerations and fearmongering. perhaps he could start this good management and governance kick by fixing his budget.
you cant sit around and say the liberals are notorious for being out of touch with fiscal realities and overspending/forecasting badly when youre sitting on an unrealistic plan.
2. the liberals: a status quo budget in an election where people are dissatisfied with the status quo? riiight. liberal surplus estimates are on the stingy side cos they trust themselves with money so much they like to hide the surplus as a slush fund for large-scale screwups. i suppose thats why harper wants to spend more - he doesnt think his government will have any boondoggles, so there will be no need for rainy day money. right.
the liberal platform is somewhat difficult to analyse cos it doesnt go into very many specifics. based on the liberal record, its fair to assume theyre not going to make huge cuts, theyll probably lose track of some money in québec, and they wont regress into deficit spending with martin at the helm. i think theyll keep up with debt repayment. sponsorship and the gun registry were quite bullshit, though. also, it was *chrétiens* government last time - martin was just the minister of finance. id like to credit chrétien for the decent (we are using the word 'decent' loosely here, to refer to anything that is a smidge better than the economic hell we had under mulroney) fiscal management, not just martin as people (mainly western canadians, the media, martinite hacks, idiot poli sci students) did before the honeymoon was over.
3. the ndp: this is a pretty detailed program. the 'fair tax' scheme seems it will maintain a workable financial base for expanded programs. unfortunately, the ndp *always* overspend to the point where voters get all fed up and vote in some psychotic deranged common sense revolution type five year rampage come election time. luckily for them, a few think tanks say they have underestimated their surplus. like the 'fiberals' they can use that slush fund to cover up their tracks.
conclusion
1. harper = mulroney (hes even courting his old advisors)
2. martin = more of the same
3. layton = the ndp is like a box of chocolates, you never know what youre going to get. whos still taking him seriously after the debate? probably the 80% of people who didnt tune in. you know if the government was full of women there would be no such thing as corruption...
1. the conservative party: er. right. can you say mulroney? almost - at least he could *conceivably* blame deficit spending on trudeau seeing as he inherited a deficit. harper will not be inheriting a deficit, so he has no scapegoat but his own policy for the fact he will accumulate an $11 billion deficit by 2009.
can you say spending cuts? harper can only say "spending control" but canadians arent idiots - its plain to see this shortfall will be alleviated by new cuts he hasnt yet mentioned for fear of alienating the red tories and disillusioned ex-liberal voters. if he doesnt have cuts in mind, then his numbers simply dont add up. harper kept saying this election was about good management and governance over lofty ideological considerations and fearmongering. perhaps he could start this good management and governance kick by fixing his budget.
you cant sit around and say the liberals are notorious for being out of touch with fiscal realities and overspending/forecasting badly when youre sitting on an unrealistic plan.
2. the liberals: a status quo budget in an election where people are dissatisfied with the status quo? riiight. liberal surplus estimates are on the stingy side cos they trust themselves with money so much they like to hide the surplus as a slush fund for large-scale screwups. i suppose thats why harper wants to spend more - he doesnt think his government will have any boondoggles, so there will be no need for rainy day money. right.
the liberal platform is somewhat difficult to analyse cos it doesnt go into very many specifics. based on the liberal record, its fair to assume theyre not going to make huge cuts, theyll probably lose track of some money in québec, and they wont regress into deficit spending with martin at the helm. i think theyll keep up with debt repayment. sponsorship and the gun registry were quite bullshit, though. also, it was *chrétiens* government last time - martin was just the minister of finance. id like to credit chrétien for the decent (we are using the word 'decent' loosely here, to refer to anything that is a smidge better than the economic hell we had under mulroney) fiscal management, not just martin as people (mainly western canadians, the media, martinite hacks, idiot poli sci students) did before the honeymoon was over.
3. the ndp: this is a pretty detailed program. the 'fair tax' scheme seems it will maintain a workable financial base for expanded programs. unfortunately, the ndp *always* overspend to the point where voters get all fed up and vote in some psychotic deranged common sense revolution type five year rampage come election time. luckily for them, a few think tanks say they have underestimated their surplus. like the 'fiberals' they can use that slush fund to cover up their tracks.
conclusion
1. harper = mulroney (hes even courting his old advisors)
2. martin = more of the same
3. layton = the ndp is like a box of chocolates, you never know what youre going to get. whos still taking him seriously after the debate? probably the 80% of people who didnt tune in. you know if the government was full of women there would be no such thing as corruption...