On double-counting

If there was any doubt why the Cons are unveiling portions of their budget early, the first set of reports on today's PR stunts should provide the answer. The apparent game is to present specific funding plans as being tied to a number of mutually exclusive commitments - and from all indications the Cons figure the best way to do it is through multiple announcements which are unclear in their scope.

Let's start with this story, which describes a single fund apparently intended to cover re-training across all economic sectors:

The federal budget will include a $1-billion fund to help workers in hard-hit industries.

Government officials have told The Canadian Press the program -- a centrepiece of Tuesday's federal budget -- will be Canada-wide, and apply to industries ranging from forestry to agriculture to manufacturing...

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt offered some details of the fund in a speech where she specifically cited forestry workers.

She told a Nova Scotia audience that the new fund will help communities adapt to the changing economic climate...

Other federal ministers are expected to share more details of the fund at events across the country Friday.

But look what happens when a separate article focuses on Raitt's speech:

The federal government will spend $1.15 billion on new initiatives to help the forestry industry.

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said the federal budget, to be tabled Tuesday, will contain three new initiatives to help the struggling sector...

Raitt said that she expects the budget will contain a new community adjustment fund worth $1 billion to help rural areas adapt to the changing economic climate...

Raitt also said the budget would set aside more than $100 million to invest in the development of emerging technologies for the forest sector, including forest biomass utilization and the development of next-generation forest products.

The federal budget will also contain $50 million to promote the forest sector abroad. This had been one of the requests made by the Forest Products Association of Canada.

Now, it looks like one or both of the articles must be off in its assumptions. Indeed, even on Raitt's wording the second is seemingly wrong in counting the entire $1 billion as funding for forestry. And it's possible the first one is wrong as well in taking Raitt's words to apply to the same fund rather than reflecting two separate funds (one for retraining, one for rural communities).

But that may not be the reporters' fault so much as the Cons' design. If Harper wanted his government to set out a clear statement of exactly how much money he intends to commit to what industries and goals, it surely wouldn't be that complicated a task to do so - and indeed one would expect him to be responsible for any unclear messages coming from his sources and cabinet ministers.

Which makes it look likely that the Cons' plan is to spread their ministers out across the country to try to link one or two funding envelopes to multiple different industries and priorities, while hoping that the contradictions inherent in those announcements don't get pointed out until it's too late.

Of course, nobody involved would figure to be happy when they find out that the headline numbers don't actually apply to them. But the Cons are presumably happy to take that risk in the future if it means pushing the Libs to keep them in power now. And the illusion of "$1.15 billion for forestry!" - repeated for every industrial sector - may well induce some businesses to try to put pressure on Ignatieff if they haven't considered the fine print.

Fortunately, there's an easy answer to the Cons' shell game. Surely the opposition parties have every reason to highlight the Cons' misleading announcements as another indication that they're not interested in presenting an honest financial picture. And if Harper's apparent plan receives the skeptical reception it deserves, then virtually everybody who the Cons are apparently hoping to win over to their corner will have reason to want a change in government now.