New ad campaign mocks Conservative austerity message

With Thursday's budget, the Conservatives were determined to send a message of austerity, of belt-tightening. of deficit fighting. But a rash of new Economic Action Plan ads flooding the airwaves mocks this message, and exposes it as a fraud.

Austerity was the message they wanted to send. There was empty symbolism like promising to freeze MP and Senator salaries. There was a freezing of operating budgets. Promises to find efficiencies and cut waste they've apparently been tolerating for nearly four years. And there was a pretty chart of reducing deficits. Read the fine print and you'd see it's all pretty much a sham, with no real plan for deficit reduction to back their rosy projections.

Still, some of the more gullible members of the media swallowed the message uncritically. The most glaring example of this was John Ibbitson. In a Globe column that made me regret actually dropping $1.50 for a print newspaper for the first time in two years, Ibbitson called this the "the most austere, hell-and-high-water, deficit-fighting document since Paul Martin set out to balance his budget in the nineties." And I'm the King of Siam.

The austerity message was patently absurd from the start, as a look inside government operations clearly shows.

• Stephen Harper has made no move to trim his bloated cabinet, which would generate real savings on salaries and perks. Reducing cabinet to the level Jean Chretien did when he was fighting the deficit would save $3.9 million.

• Though Harper once boasted he didn't govern according to polls, spending on polling skyrocketed under his government. Just bringing polling spending back to the level it was at when Harper came into office would save $5 million.

• They're spending 156 per cent more on management consultants than the Liberals did, costing a whopping $355 million.

• And then there's the incessant, taxpayer funding advertising flooding the airwaves. The Reform-era Conservatives once railed against these ads. But the “Transport and Communications” budget which includes government advertising, as well as travel and communications contracts, has increased by 31.9 per cent under the Conservatives, costing a staggering $820 million. On Economic Action Plan ads alone, the Conservatives dropped $100 million. Yes, $100 million.

And they're not done yet. Watching the Leafs/Sens game tonight on Hockey Night in Canada, during the commercial breaks I was treated to a brand new round of Economic Action Plan ads. Clearly designed as a post-budget ad campaign, the ads tout year two of the stimulus program, and feature shots of the Hurdman Transitway station that bring back memories of my years in Ottawa.

How much will this new ad campaign cost? The Conservatives are still stalling on revealing how much they dropped on ads during the Olympics, when the price for a 30-second ad peaked at a staggering $365,000.

And what purpose will the new ad campaign serve? That there's any purpose at all is highly debatable. Stimulus for the broadcasters, perhaps. But one thing is for sure: it exposes as a laughable fraud the message of Conservative austerity, of serious deficit fighting, of any semblance of belt-tightening. Now when they're flooding the airwaves with ads.

Austerity begins at home. Unless you're a government that wants to use tax dollars to keep its poll numbers up, it seems.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Budget 2010: Bland, unimaginative, and largely inoffensive

As I perused the budget speech tonight, read the highlights and skimmed the 400+ pages, it occurred to me this certainly wasn’t the budget the Conservatives hoped to be bringing in. The plan was prorogue Parliament, starve the opposition of oxygen, position Stephen Harper as Canada fan #1 in Vancouver, come back high in the polls to a rousing throne speech and populist budget with a few carefully chosen poison pills, defeat themselves and to the polls and majority nirvana.

Of course, it didn’t work out that way. Prorogation backfired. The parties are neck-in-neck (sorry, Ipsos). The Olympic bounce is non-existent. So no one wants an election. Not the Conservatives. Not the Liberals. Not even the NDP, who are now safely back to their reflex opposition now that the Liberals have shifted tactics. This isn’t a budget to run an election on, or against. This baseball season is saved, even if not for the Blue Jays.

With an election off the table, its somewhat unfortunate how bland and inoffensive the Conservatives choose to be. They had some room to play with here. With no one wanting an election, themselves included, they had some political cover to get creative, with opposition silence, if not support. Perhaps a real idea of where they’ll trim to get the deficit balanced. Or some real action to begin addressing some of the major issues facing the country: the ballooning costs in health care, the need for a lifelong learning strategy, beginning a conversation of how to deal with the coming demographic glut.

I talked the other day about how we need as a country to think big. This budget utterly failed to do that. There’s no vision. No purpose. Its housekeeping and stay the course, but it also seems to be wandering blindly as so many swords hang above our necks by a thin, thin thread. Conservatives have never been big on the vision thing, so perhaps I’m wrong to expect much there, but I’m still disappointed.

Largely, this budget was a re-hashing of previously announced spending and initiatives. One more year of stimulus, but only one more year. There were some limited new programs. A few million here, a few million there. A few promises to study things. Hard to get excited about committees. Forming one to look at cutting red tape seems a contradiction in terms.

They promise deficit reduction, and they give a pretty chart on how to get there in 4 to 5 years. But just how still seems to be determined, as even their promises of program restraint only make a bare dent. Once they end the stimulus, they still have a ways to go, pointing to an underlying structural deficit that needs to be addressed. I’m fine with running a deficit for a time, slash and burn isn’t the way to go. But we do need a plan, and all I see are unanswered questions.

There were a few positives I’ll point to. I was happy to see the government acknowledge, even if belatedly, that the untold crisis of this downturn is youth unemployment. They’ve been disproportionately hit by the downturn. There’s $60 million in funding this year to help youth, and for a few other programs. I’m not clear on how that will work, but at least it’s getting some attention. There’s also funding for improving elementary and post-secondary education for aboriginal youth, something very much needed.

There was a fair bit around university research, infrastructure, and support for the granting councils. It sounded almost reminiscent of some of the late Chretien/Martin budgets I read back when I was a tech reporter in Ottawa, locked-up at the Congress Centre. And like I did then, I’d prefer to see more attention to working the provinces to restructure core post-secondary funding and improving student assistance.

It’s definitely not the budget I’d have written. Nothing on a lifelong learning strategy. Health care. Social housing. Poverty. It’s a budget that fails to seize the opportunities of today, or set the stage for the future prosperity this government claims to covet.

It’s certainly not an offensive ultra-conservative document though either. Harper’s base will be annoyed at the continued stimulus spending, the refusal to get serious about deficit reduction.

It’s an unimaginative document from a government that seems to lack vision and purpose. It’s a going through the motions document. They don’t want an election, but they don’t seem to have much they want to do in government either. That’s what strikes me the most. What is motivating Harper these days, what are they seeking to accomplish? Is he bored?

Whatever it is, it won’t be done through this budget. We’ll see what they get up to on the legislative front as Parliament gets back to work.

P.S. I reserve the right to revise my view once people much smarter than me pore through the ways and means fine print for possible trickery, tomfoolery and what have you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Throne Speech thin gruel before budget beef?

When it comes to events such as throne speeches and budgets I like to read the text myself before reading any broadcast or print coverage, so I can form my own opinion before wading into the barrage of media, pundit and politico spin. Of course, I can’t tear myself away from Twitter, but other than some 140 characters-or-less commentary, I largely avoided the spin before reading the speech after work.

I printed the speech out over 10 pages, but the volume certainty didn’t indicate heavy content. While throne speeches generally are thin gruel – broad statements of direction rather than specific proposals – this one seemed more empty than usual.

Perhaps they’re saving the meat for the budget tomorrow; that likely is the case. Still, they needn’t have gone to 10 pages if that was the case. Because they didn’t really say much that they haven’t said before. Key word being said. There was a long laundry list of things they’ve long been talking about and promising action on, but by and large they’ve failed to deliver, or have continually lowered the bar.

We can draw some signals from the text. Stimulus spending will continue for one more year but that’s it. Cuts will be coming was the underlying message. A few areas are out of bounds – no cuts to pensions or health and education transfers and no tax increases (except jacking-up the airport security tax and the payroll tax on job creation). Everything else, it would seem, will be fair game. Later.

There will be some symbolism now. Freezing MP/Senator and ministerial salaries. Freezing departmental operating budgets. An administrative efficiency drive, and a departmental program spending review.

A few thoughts come up here. One, if they wanted real symbolism on salaries the Conservatives would slash the size of their cabinet, saving real money on ministerial salaries, travel and perks while also clearing cabinet deadwood. Second, freezing departmental operating budgets is amusing when they’ve been spending crazy amounts on useless ads pimping their Economic Action Plan, which during the Olympics started at $90,000/spot and peaked at $365,000 during the men’s hockey final. Cut there if you’re serious, and also look at your massive increase in spending on polling. Third, I don’t buy them finding much of anything around administrative efficiency and waste. They supposedly looked at this a few years ago. Did they decide to leave some waste for later?

Countless paragraphs were just boilerplate, jumbles of work that sound nice but say little. Small business good. Digital economy good. We like puppies, and volunteers. And volunteer puppies.

There were a few hard news nuggets. Lifting the foreign ownership restrictions on telcos and satellite firms is a big one, given the Global Live and MacDonald Detwiller decisions. That will need legislation and will generate interesting, and heated, debate. Then, of course, there was the pledge to make O Canada gender-neutral, which just screams distraction.

Otherwise, the word “continue” was common as the government rehashed old positions. They’ll still wage war with the Wheat Board. They’re still sorry for the residential schools, in case you were wondering if they’d changed their mind. The Quebecois are a nation, and that still means nothing. And they’re still promising things for the North.

They were adept at using a lot of words to say nothing. Nearly half a page on seniors, recognizing the demographic bubble coming, just saying basically we’re on it. And we did income splitting a few years ago. Hardly inspiring of confidence.

And, of course, they still think crime is bad, and they’re still going to do all those things they were going to do before but were never in much of a hurry to get done because it’s more fun to pretend everyone is against them and loves criminals.

All in all, a throne speech that would normally fade from thought in a day, all the more so with the budget coming Thursday. Hardly the call to action of a government looking to plot a new agenda. There’s no rationale for a prorogation reset here. They certainly didn’t spend the break putting this thing together.

For all its length, what’s notable is what the speech didn’t say: nothing on the challenges facing our health care system. The word poverty doesn’t appear once in this speech. Housing appears just once, an offhand mention talking about stimulus projects. Nothing on education and learning, which will be essential to create the jobs of the future they supposedly consider important.

The throne speech told me nothing about this government I didn’t already know. Perhaps they’ll surprise me in the budget. We’ll find out tomorrow. Based on this speech though, the Harper government remains an aimless ship adrift, oblivious to the challenges around it. Little hope that will change tomorrow.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What do Gerard Kennedy and The Fraser Institute have in common?

What do Gerard Kennedy and The Fraser Institute have in common? They both want to have a conversation about raising the GST.

To be fair, that’s probably about all they agree on. For example, I don’t think the PMO is preparing an attack piece against their think tank friends like they did on Kennedy. But they do both raise interesting points worth considering.

A couple of weeks ago Kennedy raised the issue in a press conference, saying that a growing chorus of experts say a sales tax increase to help tackle the deficit should be discussed:

Leading economists, former Finance officials and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page have all said sales tax increases are required to balance the books. It has not gone unnoticed among some Liberals that in Britain, the Conservative opposition is leading the polls and winning praise for "authenticity" after proposing specific deficit-fighting measures that include some tax increases.

"I think we do need to talk about it," Mr. Kennedy said yesterday in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

"I do think we need to talk about a fiscal plan. That debate is internal to the Liberal Party now and I'm not pronouncing on it."

Gerard appeared to be freelancing a little ahead of party policy here, as the Liberal powers that be quickly made clear. And the Conservatives wasted no time heading to the attack. They likely won’t be attacking their ideological cousins at the Fraser Institute, who came out in a recent National Post op/ed in favour of increasing the GST:

For the next several years Canada will be hamstrung by deficits that will hinder any improvement in Canada’s competitiveness, especially on the tax front. However, increasing the GST would create the revenue needed to reduce other, more damaging taxes (i.e. those on income and capital gains) that would dramatically improve Canada’s competitiveness.

I disagree with the Fraser Institute (probably Gerard does too) that we should use increased GST revenues to lower other taxes while making massive cuts to government spending. I don’t think the budget can be balanced on their rosy timeline (not without the massive structural cuts they want and I don’t) so we need that GST revenue to balance the books and preserve core programs. Still, we are agreed that a sales tax increase should be a legitimate topic of discussion for dealing with the current economic situation.

And were we in rosier times I’d actually find more agreement with the Fraser Institute on swapping income tax revenue for sales tax revenue. Long-term, cutting income tax makes sense. Heck, their op/ed is basically a validation of the Liberal taxation policy of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, who favoured income tax cuts once the budget was balanced and introduced the largest personal tax cuts in Canadian history. And the Fraser Institute op/ed is also a condemnation of Conservative economic policy, as it was the Harper Conservatives that raised income taxes (by cancelling planned Liberal cuts) to pay for their GST cut.

Anyway, we’re getting signals now that the Conservative budget coming in a few weeks, despite the vitally necessary prorogation, will largely stay the course with no major program spending cuts, no tax changes, basically nothing new. Basically they’re continuing with their “we’ll balance the budget by magic” plan.

That’s not good enough, and Canadians know it. Unfortunately, the Liberals have thus far opted for the magic approach to budgeting as well, wanting I suppose the Conservatives to show their cards first and also not wanting, I’d imagine, to set themselves up for easy attacks.

Well, it’s coming to put-up or shut-up time, and it may be time for one of those mythical “adult conversations.” It’s time to start having an honest conversation with Canadians about how we see the fiscal situation shaking-out in the next five to 10 years, how we’re going to get back to balance, and what the choices are going to be that we’ll have to make. And magic won’t be part of the equation.

Myself, I think we should consider a sales tax increase if we can tie it to preserving specific core services (or new ones, such as early learning and child care). Polling shows Canadians will support taxes if the revenue goes to services they value and think are important.

We need to lay-out a timeline for returning to surplus. And I don’t think it needs to be overnight. I want us balanced but we shouldn’t slash and burn to get there. We should chart a course that makes an argument for preserving important programs and even investing in new priorities (because we can’t afford to stand still and stop investing in the future), while outlining the measures that will need to be taken to return us to a surplus track.

It will be a challenging debate. The Conservatives will distort and attack any proposals made, while still refusing to admit to Canadians that hard choices will need to be made. We need to expose their empty rhetoric and the inadequacy of their projections.

And if this debate shapes up as one of interventionist government vs. small government that’d be just fine with me, and I know which side of that one I’d like to argue. And I think most Canadians would be with me too.

It’s starts, though, with adult conversations. Gerard and the Fraser Institute have gotten us started. Let’s all take it from there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper prorogues ... and still the world keeps turning

So the political twitter/blog world is all a buzz today with the word Stephen Harper -- surprise surprise -- will prorogue parliament until March.

Officially this allows him to reconstitute Senate committees with a Conservative majority following the Senate appointments he will make in a few days that will give his party its first majority in the upper chamber since Brian Mulroney stacked it full of Conservatives to ram through the GST. Of course, as a happy not so side benefit, he also takes some of the heat off his government on issues such as the torture of Afghan detainees, why his government seems to have mislead parliament and Canadians on what they knew and when, and how someone as staggeringly incompetent as Peter MacKay can be allowed to serve in a position of authority.

I agree with all the arguments being made about how Harper is tucking tail and running, thumbing his nose at parliament, ignoring the democratic will of the people. Andrew Coyne is particularly irate, and as a former history major I certainly appreciate appreciate any columnist who draws amusing historical parallels. Most columnists can't go back further than four years.

Really, though, as much as it saddens me, it doesn't really matter much. It's no coincidence that this announcement came during the post-Christmas, pre-New Year week when people are paying even less attention to politics than usual. And it's no coincidence it comes on the same day the Canadian Men's Olympic Hockey roster is being unveiled. Wonder which will lead the news tonight? Clearly, they're embarrassed and are trying to low-key this thing.

Really, though, I don't know why they'd even bother. If Canadians didn't care when Harper prorogued last December to avoid imminent defeat in the House of Commons, they certainly won't care he's doing it now for much less odious, although still suspect, reasons. It just won't resonate. Frankly, I'm having a hard time mustering anything more than pro-forma partisan indignation. Perhaps the Harper reign has numbed my sensitivities?

So sure, make the case about how Harper is thumbing his nose at democracy, turning tail and hiding from parliament, and all that. But focusing all our righteous indignation around making that argument and trying to rally Canadians in some kind of futile anti-prorogation, respect for democracy crusade would be a waste of time, and ultimately pointless.

Want to stop Harper from thumbing his nose at parliament and at democracy? Get into a position where you have a reasonable prospect of defeating him. Gain the confidence of Canadians as a credible and competent alternative to a government they're not enamored with, but like slightly better than the current alternatives.

The Liberals and Michael Ignatieff need to use these next two months as an opportunity to get outside of the parliamentary chatterbox and connect with Canadians. Get out from the scandal-of-the-day track that question period drives and talk about real issues that matter to real people. Discuss our vision for the country. Talk about the economy and the budget and our alternatives.

That's what will ensure Harper has to respect parliament and take it seriously: a credible, strong opposition he won't be able to ignore. Right now, that's just not the case.

So let's stop whining, get to work and play the long game here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers