Not good

Most of the commentary on Stephen Harper's interview with the Globe and Mail has focused on Harper's declaration that as far as he's concerned, any taxes are too many. But maybe even more remarkable is interviewer Eric Reguly's response to exactly that point:

Reguly: Do you regret cutting the GST now?

Harper: No, not at all.

Reguly: No?

Harper: No, it's ... First of all, I believe cutting all taxes is good policy, okay? I... I'm of the school that... You know, there's two schools in economics on this, one is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe any taxes are good taxes. It's important to remember when we cut the full two points of the GST, the budget was still in surplus. Anyone who says we put the budget in deficit by cutting the GST is wrong. I also think cutting the GST had some important effects. I think it's important to say why it was a good policy, besides fulfilling an electoral commitment to cut the GST, um... besides being a tax cut which as I say is good in and of itself. The problem at the time we cut the second point of GST was making sure we sustained consumer spending during what appeared to be a recession elsewhere. And all the evidence is that that was actually pretty effective, that we sustained consumer spending pretty late in the game. In fact consumer spending didn't drop in Canada until very near the end of 2008. So I think it was good policy. And I also think as well it was fair. I mean part of our tax cut package is to make sure you cut taxes for everyone. The GST is the one tax everybody pays. And cutting the GST, cutting a highly visible tax like the GST, was a strong sign of credibility to the population at large that we were serious about cutting taxes.

Reguly: Good.

Harper: Yeah.

Now, I can think of more than a few ways that this answer invited serious followup questioning. And that goes well beyond the most obvious response of "No taxes are good taxes? So your bottom line is that government should pay for and do absolutely nothing?"

One could challenge the assertion that the GST cuts were completely unrelated to the Harper government's mounting deficits when at the time of the January budget, they perfectly matched up with Canada's projected red ink. One could listen to the CAITI company line (however single-minded that may be) to point out an example of taxes being increased under Harper. One could point out that even Harper's chief of staff has admitted that the GST cut was an asinine move if one cares about "economic evidence" rather than political calculation. Or maybe point out that between the second GST cut and the recession which it was supposedly intended to plan for, Harper spent the better part of an election campaign pretending that the recession which he now claims the cut ws aimed at forestalling was utterly impossible (at least as long as he kept power). Or if one's preference is simply to talk about underlying phliosophies, the nature of the GST would also seem to be ripe for questioning: is it really as universal is Harper says, and more importantly should it be if that means adding to the costs associated with the necessities of life for Canadians who can't afford it?

Any of those would actually offer a prospect of actually inviting some genuine give-and-take about Harper's policies and prior statements - you know, what one might have called "journalism" a few decades ago. But instead, Eric Reguly's followup was..."Good".

"Good".

Not even with any apparent sense of "Okay, let's move on to another more important topic", as Reguly apparently left enough time interject a cheer for himself in response. Instead, the exchange reads with an underlying tone of "That's enough for me to put a check mark next to 'taxes'. Thanks for continuing to insult the intelligence of our readers".

Which of course fits nicely with Harper's usual PR strategy of counting on being able to sell his own message, secure in the knowledge that even the most compelling refutation won't receive enough play to move the needle of public opinion as far as his own messages. But the more the corporate media keeps playing right into Harper's hands, the less credible it's bound to become.