The auditor general’s report on the F-35 joint strike fighter plane is a big egg. It can cover a lot of Ottawa faces. Click here to read the rest.
Practically everything about government budgets makes me want to scream, from reckless spending to vacuous rhetoric. Take Thursday’s federal “Economic Action Plan 2012”… please. First, it was awful. Then almost everybody said exactly what you’d expect if they’d written their press release, column, or news story before the thing even appeared.
Reaction on Thursday was predictable. The Green Party said Jim Flaherty delivered a budget that was "tough on nature"; the Ottawa Citizen said he delivered one that "includes major changes to ... the size of government"; the Communications Workers of America Canada said: "Federal budget threatens Canada's social and cultural fabric". But I was there and I can tell you the government did not deliver a budget at all. Click here to read the rest.
This Robocall business is really starting to worry me. Alleged attempts to tamper with democratic processes are bad enough. But the scandalous response of MPs is becoming a crisis. Click here to read the rest.
Canada's soldiers have been asked to do so much for so long with so little that, the Ottawa Citizen reports, chief of the army land staff Andrew Leslie just told the Senate national security and defence committee that our entire army may have to take a year off to recuperate. Fine. Just make sure somebody tells the bad guys "Don't do anything until we get back."
Everybody talks about empowering backbench MPs. But nobody seems to mean what they say. At any rate, in today's Globe and Mail Brian Laghi and Jane Taber report that Michael Ignatieff has announced that he'll protect sitting Liberal MPs from primary challenges provided they turn up enough members and enough donors to the party's coffers. Not that we're using centralized control mechanisms to reduce MPs to servants of the Leader's Office, you understand. It's just that if you simply hold your seat your way, well, shucks, see ya later buddy. Know what I mean?
During the campaign, the Tories said no deficits; wouldn't be prudent. Now they insist that only hair-raisingly huge deficits are prudent. As, apparently, is leaking your budget so it won't terrify people on the day. It's as if "prudent" were a magic word that justifies anything you decide to do. Except they didn't really decide to do this. Spending rockets up in good times and bad and when revenue drops off big deficits gape and none of it is the result of financial or political calculation. It's structural features of the budget the politicians neither control nor understand so they babble gravely in an attempt to look relevant. Happy budget day.
I see that Michael Ignatieff is double-talking tough on the new Tory budget, telling his first caucus meeting as leader
"This budget has three simple tests that it must pass. Will it protect the most vulnerable? Will it save jobs? And most important of all, will it create the jobs of tomorrow?"
The Ottawa Citizen added that "While Mr. Ignatieff did not directly threaten to defeat the government over the budget, Toronto MP John McCallum, the party’s economic policy critic, told reporters that Mr. Ignatieff has frequently said a Liberal vote against the Jan. 27th budget ‘is still very much a possibility.’”
Such appalling verbiage manages at once to be substanceless spin (what sort of infinitely flexible ruler is "protect the most vulnerable"? Especially when you're dug in on the hill of "very much a possibility") and to contain a grievous error: Does anyone now seriously think governments, rather than entrepreneurs, "create the jobs of tomorrow"?