Frequently-quoted answers to simple questions

Pogge asks:

Is (Brad) Wall so uninformed that he doesn't know about (federal subsidies for the oil sands)?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

This has been a first edition of frequently-quoted answers to simple questions.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday...

- Susan Delacourt rightly questions why any political party would work as hard as the Cons to tell Canadians not to bother participating in their democracy:

It's worth thinking about how we keep being told that participating in the country is a nuisance.

Canada's long-form census is now voluntary, not mandatory, just like our elections. In other words, feel free to throw that census form or ballot in the garbage can, and go back to whatever you were doing before that intrusive question was foisted upon you. And don't forget taxes. They too are annoying, if you listen to the political noise. Parliament -- that thing you elect -- just a place where people play games. The public service -- a burdensome obstacle. Is there anything about the civic life of this country that stands above insults from the political class?
...
The politicians we've elected ought to stop pandering to this democracy-is-so-annoying stuff. It's not consistent with the praise that's repeatedly (and rightly) heaped on the Canadian troops, who sacrifice much for democratic ideals. It also assumes that people, other than the soldiers, are idiots.

The fact that folks got angry about Parliament being prorogued, about the mandatory census being scrapped, tells me that Canadian citizens are not stupid at all, and they don't like being called lazy or uninterested. Besides, practically speaking, insulting the electorate doesn't seem to be the best way to get people's votes.

- But not all the parties are that cynical. And Brian Topp nicely sums up the NDP's position going into the federal election campaign:

Mr. Layton is the most liked, respected and trusted national leader on the opposition bench. The New Democrats are working from the base of the largest caucus of incumbent MPs they've had in two decades. The New Democrats came in first or second in over a hundred ridings in the last election -- excellent room for growth. They will field the best-funded campaign in their history, led by a seasoned team who have worked together in three recent previous campaigns. Given that Mr. Ignatieff agrees with Mr. Harper on substantially all of the key issues before the country, Mr. Layton is, on the issues and in much of the country, the most credible alternative to Mr. Harper.

Which is to say that while Mr. Layton and his party weren't anxious to have this election, and worked seriously to see if Canadians could see some progress in this Parliament, they enter this campaign in excellent shape.

- Now the bad news: the federal election campaign will of course take place under #harperball rules (as per CC's astute idea). Read and contribute for reference during the campaign.

- Murray Mandryk notes that the Sask Party's budget yesterday may be falling into a familiar trap, with overly optimistic projections making it likely that today's promises will again turn into tomorrow's excuses:

Finance Minister Ken Krawetz's 2011-12 budget, presented Wednesday, was filled with pre-election, pie-in-the-sky nonsense, beginning with a predicted 4.2-per-cent increase in real gross domestic product when private forecasters are only predicting 3.9per-cent growth for 2011. Finance officials attribute this to early, more-pessimistic forecasts, but it should also be noted this economic growth number is based on an average crop year. Considering the 10 million unseeded acres last year and similar snowfall this year, that's overly optimistic.

Also overly optimistic is a mere 5.5-per-cent spending increase (to $10.7 billion) in the face of potential spring flooding problems and simply unsustainable spending initiatives. For instance, the budget sets aside a meagre $1.5 million for its 300 rental housing units under the Saskatchewan Rental Incentive Program. (Surely, there's got to be more here?)

And while credit should go to Krawetz and company for the $335-million debt paydown that will slice an additional $10-million worth of interest charges out of general revenue fund (departmental) spending, it's noteworthy that there will (sic) no more such debt reduction for the entire second term of the Sask. Party government (working on the logical assumption that this budget gets the Saskatchewan Party re-elected) and that Crown and overall debt will continue to rise. This government's policy of stripping dividends from all Crown corporations except SaskPower (to the tune of 70-to 90 per-cent this year) to pay for departmental spending and tax cuts is short-sighted. We inevitably wind up paying for it on our utility bills.

- Finally, from the "simple answers to simple questions" department, here's pogge's post title:

Remember the Afghan detainee docs?

Not if the Cons, Libs and Bloc have anything to do with it. This has been another version of "simple answers to simple questions".

Simple answers to simple questions

Leftdog:

Does the National Citizens Coalition Also Claim That Canada's Federal Court Of Appeal Is Retaliating Against Harper With In/Out Charges?

Yes. Along with Harper's own Director of Public Prosecutions. And the cursed inventors of paper and e-mail who are to blame for allowing damning evidence to be preserved. And reality in general, with its well-known anti-Harper bias.

Simple answers to questions that wouldn't have been asked by anybody paying a modicum of attention

The National Post's latest editorial on Omar Khadr contains this embarrassing bit of shoddy research:

In many cases, the treatment of different suspects has been wildly inconsistent. Why, for instance, has Mr. Khadr been kept at Gitmo for eight years, while many badder apples were repatriated to Britain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen long ago?

That would be because their home countries bothered to request their return. This has been another version of simple answers to simple-minded questions.

Simple answers to simple questions

Phillippe Gohier:

Whatever happened to Interprovincial Affairs?

It ran into the reality that the Harper Cons aren't any more interested in accomplishing anything socially useful working with the provinces than they are at the federal level.

Important answers to ill-advised rhetorical questions

Bob Rae:

If a voluntary census is ok, how about a voluntary income tax? Get rid of those obtrusive forms, and just send in dough if you feel like it?

Actually, Stephen Harper is in favour of that too. Which you'd know - and be countering - if you were paying attention.

Simple answers to simple questions

Referring to the Sask Party's elimination of Saskatchewan Savings Bonds, Trent Wotherspoon asks:

Why would the Wall government at this point in time prevent Saskatchewan people from investing in their own province and providing, subsequently, Saskatchewan people with a safe, secure investment?

Because the sooner the Saskatchewan public forgets the very idea of "safe, secure investments", the more likely it'll be to put up with the Sask Party's brand of casino capitalism.

Simple answer to many complicated questions

Andrew Coyne:

In what other democracy is it permissible for the government of the day to hide from the legislature for months at a time? To ignore explicit parliamentary votes demanding the production of documents? To stonewall independent inquiries? Perhaps the rules allow it elsewhere, but is it the practice? Does convention not still forbid it? Is it not viewed in other countries as dictatorial behaviour, and therefore, you know … not done?

In fact, none of the Cons' behaviour is any more "permissible" or in accordance with "the rules" in Canada than it would be anywhere else. But the next time Stephen Harper shows any conscience about demolishing laws, rules, convention or any other set of principles in the name of political gain will be the first - and what we lack are enforcement mechanisms to hold a sociopathic government to even minimal standards of behaviour.

Simple answers to simple questions

Greg asks:

The Tories have a minority government and need the support of only one other party. Whether we have an election or not is up to the government's willingness to negotiate with other parties, not the Liberals. The Liberals alone have no ability to bring down the government. Why won't they work with the other parties in parliament to avoid an election?

Because after three and a half years of staying in power by bulldozing weak opponents as part of a hyperpartisan strategy rather than compromising even once on anything of substance, they flat out don't know how to "work with" anybody. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Simple answers to simple questions

CC asks:

Refresh my memory ... when exactly did the way the Conservatives spend my tax dollars suddenly become "private" and none of my business?

It has always been thus. But don't worry: they'll be all for accountability just as soon as another party is in charge of spending those same dollars.

Incidentally, CC hints at one of the questions which strikes me as most significant about the Raitt revelations: how exactly were eight-figure expenditures on the Chalk River reactor kept away from public eyes to begin with?

Simple answers to simple questions

Andrew Potter:

The re-announce is an old game; it’s the political equivalent of Keynes’ multiplier effect, where one ounce of bullshit miraculously turns into a truckload. But with billions of money still unspent from the 2007 budget, with actual problems facing the country, is this really the best use of senior ministers’ time?

With this batch of ministers, it probably is.

And if so, doesn’t that raise rather profound questions about what we need any of these guys for?

Yes. But no more so than dozens of earlier indications which seem to be forgotten when they matter most.

Simple answers to simple questions

Robert asks:

Is it really fiscally responsible for the Harper government to have Conservative MPs winging off to various parts of the country on the taxpayer’s dime during an economic downturn in order to make announcements that could just as easily be made in Ottawa?

No. But the Cons are happy to let us pay the price to make sure that the media questioning one minister doesn't have any idea what's being promised by the others.

Simple answers to simple questions: gimme edition

Boris asks: Must (Conservatives) lie about everything?

Yes. In fact, it's in the fine print of their party guidelines.

Simple Answers to Simple Questions

Ted asks (with a very slight paraphrase):

Is there any low to which (Stephen Harper) won’t dig?

No, there isn't.

For more on Harper's attempt to claim Vimy Ridge as a partisan achievement for his government, see here, here and here.

(Edit: added paraphrase.)