On structural choices

Predictably, the same Libs who have stuck with their party through years of propping up the Cons in exchange for absolutely nothing are aghast at the thought that the NDP might ask the Cons to meet its own demands rather than the Libs'. But let's take a closer look at what the NDP's proposal for a budget deal actually means.

To start with, it's worth noting why it is that the corporate tax cuts already passed with the Libs' help are so objectionable, as they represent one more in a long line of decisions which have done deliberate long-term damage to the federal government's ability to act in the interest of its citizens. Under Libs and Cons alike, tax cuts with massive structural implications have normally been accompanied by short-term social funding to give a false sense of balance - but the effect has been to provide rapidly-snowballing benefits to those who need them least, and one-time, politically-oriented funding to everybody else.

But leaving aside that corporate tax cuts don't figure to be up for a vote anyway, it stands to reason that if the problem with corporate tax cuts is the structural shift toward favouring the corporate sector, then the main question in assessing a budget which includes them is whether it creates enough structural benefits to justify the harm.

With that in mind, the NDP has implicitly offered two different options to the Cons. If they insist on the tax cut schedule approved by the Libs (as looks to be the case), then the price for budget support will be to meet the rest of the NDP's demands, including positive changes to health care and the GIS and CPP which figure to be no less permanent than any corporate tax cut. Or the Cons can retreat on corporate taxes and leave more structural room for future government action - in which case the NDP's ask can be somewhat reduced in turn. But either way, there has to be some point at which the pluses can potentially outweigh the minuses.

And of course, in either event the possibility of a non-confidence vote will remain open - with the NDP having every reason to want any gains from the budget to be passed as quickly as possible to ensure that the Cons can't avoid accountability on unrelated matters by dragging out a budget vote.

One way or another, though, the standard for the NDP is rightly whether a budget and its associated legislation will do more good than harm for Canada's long-term direction. And while I'd think it's more likely than not that the Cons will fall far short of the NDP's demands and precipitate an election, the fact that the Cons can't rely on somebody else supporting them for nothing means that the NDP has every reason to see what it can get accomplished.