The Blame Game

The fact that I experienced physical and verbal abuse at the hands of my teachers during my Catholic education probably has a lot to do with my visceral response to arrogance. Having someone presume to sit in judgement on another is both a humiliating and ultimately enraging experience, one that most of us have probably experienced at some point in our lives; however, even that realization does not not in any way make the experience more acceptable or palatable.

It is therefore within the above context that I take great exception to politicians who presume to lecture us on our shortcomings as voters. Either we are the victims of 'the politics of fear,' according to Andrea Horwath, or the dupe of unions, or the failure of Tim Hudak's leadership, both of which are popular views of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Consider what a truculent, unrepentant Horwath had to say after finally emerging from hiding on Wednesday:

The NDP leader insisted Wednesday her party lost on June 12 because the Liberals frightened Ontarians into voting against the Progressive Conservatives.
“Look, the people in this province, they made a decision to basically choose fear — or to vote out of fear — as opposed to choose positive change,” she said.

Just in case we might prove resistant to such a simplistic and insulting analysis, the NDP leader repeated and expanded upon her insights:

“Out of fear, the people of Ontario voted. They strategically voted to keep Mr. Hudak’s plan off of the books . . . . That’s their decision to make,” she said of the PC leader who will step down July 2.

“That means we have a lot of work to do around the strategic voting issue.”

Apparently not given to much introspection, she has not considered stepping down as leader, telling all assembled that it was “absolutely not” a bad idea to force the election by rejecting the May 1 budget.

The Star's Martin Regg Cohn takes a less enthusiastic view of Horwath's 'achievement.' In his article, entitled Andrea Horwath shows hubris over humility, Cohn points out an objective truth:

News flash for New Democrats: The NDP lost three key Toronto MPPs and elected three rookies in smaller cities, winding up right where it started — in third place with 21 of the legislature’s 107 seats. .... Horwath lost the balance of power she’d wielded since 2011. No longer can New Democrats influence a minority government agenda.

Cohn is puzzled by the oddly triumphant tone that Horwath has adopted in light of her non-achievement:

And what has she learned? Party members and union leaders “have all said to me you’re doing great, you’re a good leader, stay on.”

Reporter: “You said you have no regrets with the campaign, but are there any mistakes that you might have made during this campaign?”

Horwath: “We were able to connect with a whole bunch of people that decided to vote NDP for the first time ever. We’re excited about that.”

Mistakes? She can’t think of any.

It would appear that Ms Horwath may have to await the mandatory leadership review at her party's convention in November to be brought down from her current lofty perch of hubris.

In case you are interested in how the Progressive Conservatives rationalize their loss, Steve Paikin's The Agenda is worth a view as well:

Two Takes On Taxation

The contrast couldn't be more striking. As announced by federal Fiance Minister Joe Oliver the other day, Ottawa is well on its way to posting a $9 billion surplus, but Canadians shouldn’t expect any massive new spending programs. Instead, he plans to reduce taxes once the deficit is eliminated in the 2015-16 budget, likely next winter.

On the other hand, the Ontario government, under Premier Wynne, proposes a host of new spending and moderate tax increases under the budget it brought down yesterday.

Progressive measures include raising the wages of home care workers, more money for infrastructure, welfare hikes, new health benefits for children and a plan to hire at-risk youth in provincially funded infrastructure projects.

Perhaps the boldest proposal is an Ontario Pension Plan that will, years down the road, alleviate a good deal of the poverty faced by retirees who currently don't have company pension plans, it is the same model that the Harper regime rejected as "too risky for our fragile economy."

Two competing visions of the role of government; the federal one, which appeals to the selfishness that resides in all of us, and a provincial one which, albeit an election budget, appeals to our better natures.

Which one will prevail? Who knows? But now might be a good time to watch the following TVO podcast, taken from Alex's Blog, in which Alex Himelfarb talks with Steve Paikin about why taxes should not be considered a four-letter word:

An Economist Who Opposes Austerity - UPDATED

Unfortunately, I did not have time to write the blog post I had in mind, but fortuitously a friend alerted me to this video, a discussion between TVO's Steve Paikin and Mark Blyth, an author and Ivy League professor who discusses why the current austerity mania is a bad idea.

Coupled with the fact that two grad students detected a fundamental error in the spreadsheet calculations of the two Harvard professors upon whose shoddy work the justification for austerity largely rests, perhaps it is time for a larger consideration of its wisdom?

UPDATE: Here is solid evidence to support Mark Blyh's warning about the circular effect of widespread austerity efforts.