- The Harper Shell Game? - I'm in for 2.8

Posted: 8:43am, (Alberta time) National Post
Don Martin: Harper has flair for dramtic, despite not walking with the cool kids, Don Martin June 26, 2010 – 6:00 am
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/26/4973/

I found Jim Fleherty with his explanation as to where the 2.8b (I thought it was more like 4b from Canada over 5 years) is coming from to be vague and obscured to say the least, nothing more than a shell game. Further, the expression on his face gave me the impression that, and to his credit, he could hardly believe anyone would actually buy what he was selling.

The fact of the matter is that whether it is old money or new money, it is money, it is 2.8b, and it is during a time when Harper and the Con's are racking up the largest deficits Canada has ever seen and at the same time calling for fiscal restraint.

Huge deficits and debts both national and individual are the result of spending beyond your means. The solution is, by the very meaning of " spending beyond your means" is to reduce spending and/or increase your means. For governments, it means austerity and increased tax. It also means making people aware of the seriousness of the ramifications of their spending, encouraging people not to spend above their means and, one way, of course, is thru example. Harper, Fleherty and the Con's are failing miserably on these accounts.

Just think, if Stephen Harper simply had canceled the G8-20, there would have been at least half of the 2.8b in 'old money' freed up.

Also these 2.8b are being distributed through a policy - "The veto on using Canadian funds for African abortions" - that simply is a theo-conservative, narrow based policy, contrary to the will of the Canadian people and contrary to the policies of many of the other G8 countries. Perhaps, Harper will argue that excluding abortion is part of the Con austerity program, since this additional procedure would entail increased financial requirements.

One thing that is not mentioned is whether these other countries who are contributing are imposing the same restrictions on their funding and which countries are refusing to provide funding with such restrictions.

Helping families in Africa is a good thing and presumably when Harper and his Con's get the boot, the policy will be opened up to meet the realities and need of these people.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html