I made the mistake of reading the Francis Russell column "
A toxic jewel in the neo- conservative crown" in the Free Press today. I have to remember not to do that anymore, because everytime I do I get frustrated that she's allowed to expose the public to her ignorant bile. Anyhoo ... since I did, I feel compelled to respond, at least to my modest little web audience.
The basis for Ms. Russell's column is a
paper from the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, written by a Mr. Marc Lee, who does not have PhD, nor any peer-reviewed journal articles that I could find. He has an MA in Economics (as do I, btw. It's not hard to get). Perhaps she should balance her views with some research from an
organization who's senior economists are actually PhDs? I may email that suggestion to her. Anyhow, despite the author being a quasi-economist with an agenda, she gives the impression that it is the product of a "team of economists from across Canada". Whatever. Let's look at what she's actually telling us:
She starts by citing the CCPA paper's claim that we are at risk entering a deficit situation because we've tax-cutted our economic buffer away. Mr Lee's aim is to steer economic policy away from tax cuts and towards social spending. Francis Russell, however, is more creative...
She tells us that Jim Flaherty is advancing a "supply-side" tax cut argument (her words), which allows her to get into this:
David Stockman called the Reagan administration's Kemp-Roth tax cut "a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle-down,'" Stockman continued. "So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle-down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
Keep in mind that Regan's tax cut dropped the rate for the top income bracket by 20% -- not comparable at all to Harper's tax cuts. But that doesn't slow Francis down:
Supply-side economics is neo-conservatism's jewel in the crown. Neo-conservatism rails against debt and deficits produced by government spending, but falls strangely silent when they are caused by tax cuts. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," Vice-President Dick Cheney famously said.
Are you following along? The government's modest tax cuts (which the Liberals started) are no different than the dramatic high-income tax cuts that Regan implemented, therefore Harper is a "staunch supply-sider" (again, her words), therefore he is a neo-conservative, a la Dick Cheney. What's next? Does this mean we're invading Iraq? No, better than that ... we're going to cause another Great Depression:
Inequality in the U.S. is at its highest level in 80 years. ... While total income increased almost nine per cent, incomes for the bottom 90 per cent fell. But the top one per cent saw their incomes rise by an average of 14 per cent.
The top 10 per cent of Americans now command a share of national income not seen since 1928 -- the year before the 1929 Wall Street crash that ushered in the Great Depression.
Reality is much more boring:
"We will be extremely cautious in the year to come," Harper said on New Year's Eve as his government's latest GST cut was about to go into effect. "We're not going to undertake any long-run spending or tax reduction initiatives unless we believe they are affordable on a long-term basis."-cbc-