Over at RGL, Liam is predictably ecstatic about the GST cut proposal from Stephen Harper and seemingly perplexed by my comments earlier today. And since he's in full Connie campaign mode, Liam has to embellish my comments and add his own twists of meaning to everything.
Set up the straw man and knock 'em down.
Or should we take this as a hold-over from Liam's previous career as a journalist when he admits sitting in meetings where reporters plotted to get someone they didn't like?
Sticking to the facts and the issues are never good enough for some people.
But let's deal with the issues in reverse order:
3. In order to change the Harmonised Sales Tax, Liam, the three Atlantic provinces that are party to the deal all must agree.
My question was simple: did Harper check with Loyola Sullivan and da byes before springing this tax cut thingy out the door? This is a huge issue for federal provincial relations and contains a disturbing echo of Harper's pledge last time to alter equalization radically - and unilaterally.
That's really the key point. The Atlantic provinces would lose cash, at least as it looks to me, but hey on this point, I am willing to admit I could be wrong. Maybe there won't be any revenue loss for the provinces. But let someone show me some facts.
At least, I can admit when I may be off base. With Jason Kenney, he can only continue to make ludicrous accusations...and stick to them despite his own admissions he has no evidence to support his manic claims.
In the meantime, let's see if there actually was any consultation at all with the three provinces using HST before the Harper announcement.
2. Why wait five years to drop two points? Liam doesn't really answer this one at all, but it is a question that screams for an answer almost as loudly as the one about Harperian unilateralism. If Harper is going to slash the GST by two points, sure it will cost billions, but why the slow drop? There is no logical explanation why Harper can drop a few billion in revenue in one year and then take four years to chop the rest.
1. Why not zero? It's a simple, rhetorical question. If Harper can drop the GST by two points over five years, why not hack it even further? In for a penny, in for a pound.
And before Liam trots out the tried 1993 Chretien promise, let's just face facts - as Liam says, the GST is a source of considerable cash for the feds. We needed it in 1993 to pay off the huge debt load run up by previous governments, including the Gucci-level spending of the Mulroney Tories. Now that we are in good fiscal shape - thanks to Paulie Martin - then maybe we can look at different tax relief measures as part of the reward for the lean times.
Too late. He uses that tired old chestnut repeatedly. Liam even claims Liberals lied in 1993. To lie means to tell a falsehood knowingly. Like saying that Newfoundland government oil money is sucked off to Ottawa when, in fact, as the premier admitted, he collected and kept every cent. Gee, the fact truck never seems to make a stop in Connie-land.
Rather than the rhetoric of the parties, though, I am going to watch closely for comments from the business community and the public on this one.
