- If we really want to get rid of the deficit, give Harper and the Con's the Boot

Submitted: 7:02 & 7:26 am, PDT, 3 Aug.'10 The Toronto Star
PM’s actions, words at odds, Tue Aug 3 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/842900--pm-s-actions-words-at-odds

This article mentions nothing of the ideologically based 15% reduction in Corp taxes (the Conference Board came out last week with an analysis that emphasizes the important of Corp taxes to addressing the deficit - G&M 30 Jul.'10).

In fact, this does not benefit Canadians as a whole, but a small sector of our society, not the least of which being the large International oil companies in Alberta, where this reduction, along with maintaining the subsidies, can only mean a great percentage of profits will flow outside Canada,

Stephen Harper, Jim Fleherty's strategy to eliminate the deficit was essentially a do-nothing and we will grow out of it in 6 years (5 now, I guess).

First, why should we wait 6 years to eliminate the deficit. If Harper and the Con's were talking about the debt, then I could see this. But, the deficit simply adds to the debt and will continue to do so with Harper and his Con's for at least an additional 5 years.

However, as far as propaganda is concerned the message of 'we will grow out of the deficit' seems to have placated Canadian and lulled us into a false sense of security - he is telling us what we want to believe. This has given Harper the opportunity to spend like crazy.

The worst part is that this spending is totally partizan, designed to benefit a small per centage of people - Con supporters with epi-centre in Alberta, or enhance Harper's chances of getting a majority.

As Laurie Hawn is quoted: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35"

You Got that 'Right' (ideologically as opposed to morally) Laurie.

Harper admonishing the other Western countries about reducing spending was, obviously, just Harper acting the 'big-shot' while in the International spotlight.

That the elimination of the Long Form in the Census is wholly ideologically based hardly needs stating at this point and is wholly for the consumption of Con supporters.

As far as this spending is concerned, Harper certainly wouldn't lose any of his core die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, and who knows perhaps he would pick up a few additional supporters here and there.

Mega billion dollar price tag? what does that matter, it is not Harper or the Con party that is paying the bill.

The question here is how much of Canadians' hard earned money can Harper and the Con's spend for partizan purposes before Canadians put a stop to it. Apparently, we have not reached that threshold yet.

If we really want to get rid of the deficit, give Harper and the Con's the Boot, and the sooner the better.

PS: this post number 500 - thanks Steve.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog