This Looks Like It'll Be A Stupid Editorial

Got to it thanks to Canadian Cynic. From the Vancouver Sun, Craig McInnes: "Budget deficit: An act of betrayal." I just started reading it and decided that it could stand a good drubbing. Let's see:

Today, hell freezes over.

The puffed-up posturing by opposition leaders in preparation for today's phoney showdown on the Rideau has distracted Canadians from an act of betrayal few of us ever thought we'd see.

This starts out as traditional pseudo-populist, mindless slagging of politicians. But note, how it's all going to descend into incoherence. McInnes refers to one of the few moments of genuine democratic debate in Ottawa as a "phoney showdown" but will go on to condemn the Liberals' Michael Ignatieff for even daring to defeat the government. Which is it McInnes? A "phoney showdown" or a "coup d'etat"?

A small-c conservative from Alberta is leading Canada into a new era of deficit budgets with a plan that over the next couple of years will turn back more than a decade of progress in reducing the national debt.

Yes, that's about right. A "decade of progress," which in reality means starving necessary programs of funds, ripping workers off via the "Employment Insurance" scam of all premiums and no benefits, all to bring the deficit down a couple of years earlier than it would have if only economic growth had had to have done it alone. (As well, this "economic growth" was pretty thin gruel. It was really just a needed respite from monetarist anti-inflation insanity which sent government deficits spiralling in the first place. Furthermore, this "debt-reduction" was mitigated by Paul Martin's touching dedication to giving Canada's wealthiest individuals and corporations continuous tax-cuts so that they could build monster homes or lose the money in the stock-markets. The depths of neo-liberal insanity and failure become mind-boggling once you really get going, don't they?)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's extraordinary reversal of a lifetime of bashing big-spending governments, deficits, debt and Keynesian economics is a stunning betrayal of his politics, the promises he made in the federal election just three months ago.

Well, first of all, harpo's political-economic convictions don't really rest on any principled theories or beliefs. What he's always on about is serving his corporate masters, although in his cold, shallow mental processes he's developed no real rationalization for his sycophancy. He just adores power. Secondly, any sane capitalist political leader would have to resort to Keynesian economics because, truth be told, they were designed to save the capitalist system from itself. All that 19th-Century rot about free markets and small governments is just for the rubes. Lastly, those weren't promises he made in the last election. The right word for those things was "lies." harpo broke his own fixed election law because he knew an economic shit-storm was coming and he didn't want to face the electorate in 2009, right in the middle of it.

Yet the only issue today seems to be whether he will be driving Canada into debt quickly enough. In the days leading up to the federal budget that will be tabled this afternoon, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has set himself up as judge and executioner for the Harper government if he finds the budget introduced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty falls short of his expectations.

So, which is it Craig? Is Ignatieff illegitimately granting himself the power to be Leader of the Opposition in a parliamentary system of government or is he just playing pretend? And I guess he's damned if he do, damned if he don't in your colouring book 'eh?

But unless Harper includes the kind of nasty surprise he dropped into November's economic update, the Liberals won't be keen to match their tough talk by forcing the prime minister to go see the Governor-General again, even if Ignatieff really believes Michaelle Jean will allow him to form a coalition government with the NDP rather than immediately face the voters.

But if he did match his tough talk, you'd be all over him for usurping the president prime minister, wouldn't you?

Even so, the budget Flaherty unveils today is the biggest test of Harper's political career. His startling and sudden conversion to deficit budgeting as a cure for economic ills rather than a cause may be useful in slipping through the political crisis he provoked in November. But it comes with a cost that has yet to be fully calculated.

"Deficits as a cause of economic ills," ... it is to laugh. Tell you what Craig, ... why don't you crack open a textbook about how economics works and get back to us? If McInnes has a mortgage or a credit card he should take a paintbrush and paint "Hypocrite" across his chest and wander the earth pleading for forgiveness.

First, there is his personal credibility. Consider this statement by Harper on Oct. 6, just over three months ago:

"I know economists will say well, we could run a small deficit, but the problem is that once you cross that line, as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control."

harpo's "personal credibility" was shot to shit when he called that election, remember? (It was probably shot to shit long before that, but what the hell.) With regards to his quote, it's sheer stupidity. If "nothing" prevents deficits from spiralling out of control, then how the hell did we manage to reduce them and eventually obtain surpluses? (Not that I'm praising Paul Martin's surpluses, just pointing out the meaningless drivel of harpo's statement.)

He argues that the world has changed in the past three months, and it has. Or at least the outlook for the coming year has changed as, one by one, economists have abandoned their optimistic
forecasts.

But Harper has yet to explain how even a rapidly deteriorating economic climate negates our previous terrible experience with red ink in Canada.

harpo has been forced to snap back to reality in order to save his political skin. My guess is the buffoon allowed half-wit Flaherty to concoct a 19th-Century economic update to which harpo added the poison pill knee-capping the opposition parties' finances in a game of chicken which would either force yet another election on Canadians or frighten the Liberals into agreeing to their own financial suicide. What harpo didn't count on was the opposition proposing to the Governor General the exact same coalition option he'd presented himself when he was busy toppling Liberal governments. Realizing his government was at death's door, the fat fuck ran shitting and pissing in terror to Rideau Hall to get his prorogation and time to put together something less idiotic. (Meanwhile, Flaherty stood their with his usual stupid expression babbling "What'd I do??")

Regarding Canada's last experience with deficits and debts; it isn't well reported but the real culprit behind those deficits was the monetary policy of the Central Bank. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Deliberate engineering recessions with high interest rates led to massive government spending on decaying social programs, that required borrowing at high interest rates. Don't worry though. The financial sector that benefited from all of that put our money to good use, gambling on tech stocks and then mortgage-backed securities and credit-default swaps. Assholes.

Neither has he pointed to any evidence of the kind that will persuade small-c fiscal conservatives that the benefits of a multibillion-dollar stimulus package can outweigh the cost of plunging back into the debt whirlpool from which we have only recently emerged.

Jesus, what empty-headed windbaggery! Perhaps all these "small-c conservative" ignoramuses can explain to us how government austerity will outweigh the cost of plunging into a recessionary whirlpool?? You know, the one we're experiencing now? As lack of spending leads to contraction of the economy, which leads to unemployment, which leads to less spending, etc., etc., et-fucking-cetera??? This isn't the time for brainless generalities Craig. The grown-ups have work to do!!

All we have really seen is the unending parade of supplicants who see the economic crisis as an opportunity to squeeze money out of the federal government for their pet projects.

As opposed to an endless parade of corporate hacks calling for more tax-cuts, deregulation, less job-security, more freedoms for themselves, more pain for everyone else. More criminal privatization schemes, more homelessness, more poverty, more imperialism, more surveillance, less civil rights, and on and on.

Politically, the Conservatives' conversion to deficit financing will cement the reputation of the Liberals, fairly or not, as the party of balanced budgets and leave Harper in league with Brian Mulroney, whose legacy includes the tens of billions of dollars that were added to our national debt while he was prime minister.

Newsflash for you Craig: "Conservatives" tend to be incompetent because they're stupid. But, in fairness, Mulroney's woes were partially the fault of monetarist fanatic John Crow of the Bank of Canada. Trudeau's big deficits came under the monetarism of Gerald Bouey who was going along with the Friedmanite insanity of the Reagan administration.

If the Bank of Canada is right, and the recession ends next year, this may all end well for Harper. But it's an awfully large gamble, for Harper, his party and the country.

Actually Craig, most mainstream economists have their heads up their asses. And most official pronouncements have been trying to stave-off panic more than be straight with the public, so they're not worth the air they're spoken on. If braindead disciples of discredited economic dogma such as yourself continue to pollute the political climate with this garbage this economic crisis will get worse and worse and last a long, long time.