Cuts: This time it's personal

Starting today, when Parliament resumes, and right up to the budget, we're going to be hearing a lot about cuts. The government's sales job on the cuts is worth watching -- to see what it thinks about the way we think. 

The last time we had a restraint budget, in 1995, the Liberal government used fear to get us sold on the need for cuts. There was talk of hell and  high water, of Canada being an economic basket case,  of potential IMF intervention, and of course, the children. The poor children, the next generation, were going to be saddled with our debt. (I kept having visions of Dickens' workhouses.) 

Now, 17 years later, I'm intrigued by how fear has been largely replaced by anger. When we cast around looking for where the cuts are coming, we look at where the government and its allies have been  trying to whip  up scorn and  rage: the CBC, the public service, generous pensions, unions, provinces, (certain) foreigners, and pretty much anyone who is seen to be standing in the way of Conservative dreams of prosperity. 

It's interesting -- this is something that probably couldn't work in the private sector. (And probably shouldn't.) When downsizing cuts are made  in this realm, our bosses have to go to some lengths to prove that the job losses weren't the result of a grudge or personal antipathy. Funny how when it comes to government, or at least this government, we simply assume that those being cut are going to get cut down first in the eyes of the public. 

I'm wondering if it is possible for this government to make any cuts without first demonizing the target of them. Do we have to be angry in 2012 (as opposed to scared in 1995) to contemplate budget cuts?   Without anger,  though, I guess we'd back to fear -- and all those poor, debt-ridden children. 

Comments

[hollinm]

There is nobody angry other than the lamestreet media and the opposition parties who have no power. Do you think it is right for opposition parties to scare the crap out of senior citizens? Talk about fear and loathing. It is the opposition parties and some in the media who are prone to be angry, fearful and full of scorn.

[W.B.]

I hope the Star will take a very close look at who will be impacted by the 65 to 67 OAS delay whenever it is scheduled to happen.
I think you will find a high proportion of mostly widowed, single women, living alone with few resources.
I remember the uproar when the spousal allowance had to be created after so many women were suddenly left penniless while under 65 when their over 65 husbands died.
The other impacted group will be labourers with few retirement sources of income or support, who will find it very difficult to work in physically demanding jobs, often in all weathers, for another two years. A few may have full CPP, but I suspect many are under the table, or contract workers with nothing much in RRSP or other savings.

[Rod Croskery]

What astounded me was how easily Sunday's Star article on villanous federal public servants contributed to that anger.

[D. Peturk]

The Media Party and the Opposition are the ONLY ones who will try and scare Canadians, especially senior Canadians. They have no morality when it comes to bashing the Conservatives. All you have to do is think about the entire "detainee" scam perpetrated by the Media Party and the Opposition, trying to paint our Forces as breakers of international law, finally coming to their senses (a little) when they saw the documents. Practicing the ols Jerry Seinfeld mantra, " a lot about nothing." Hopefully, Canadians will be wiser, and call out these Media Party/Opposition charlatans for the pathetic fear mongerers they are.

[A Guy Watching Politics]

Susan,

In my opinion, the points you have made in this blog are spot on. I think when we get to the budget, we will be in a position to draw a lot of lines between what we see in terms of cuts/spending reductions and what has been said over the past 18-24 months.

It will be interesting to see how cuts are explained/justified, and whether we will gain any insight as to the basis upon which decisions have been made.

[Linda]

Harper's roll backs, should start with a 30% reduction of Harper, and his ministers salary's. Politicians gold plated pensions, are obscene. They earn enough to pay for their own pensions, they should not be taken out of our tax dollars. Politicians and their outrageous pensions, are not sustainable.

Then, there are the $1,300 per night, Flaherty and MacKay spend on luxury hotel suites. No doubt that's what they all do. The $50 million on gazebos. $3 million on MacKays air fare. The $11,000 per hour jet, to take in a hockey game. Harper's out into orbit security bill of $ 47,000, is unbelievable. There was Harper's ridiculous, $1 billion dollar fake lake.

Harper gives the wealthiest corporations in the world, $13 billion of our tax dollars. He just gave those greedy corporations, ANOTHER tax reduction. Harper steals from us, to give to huge businesses that should be taxed, 30% off the top. Paul Martin, even left a $13 billion surplus. Harper also wasted that money.

[ed]

Always love the humour columns run by the Daily Worker in the name of journalism. Glad to see that overstuffed civil service unions are under attack. There is no excuse for fully indexed pensions, sick banks or impossible work rules.

[Freeb1]

That's BULL that no one is angry commenter above me. Harper is a disaster! He's worse than Bush was for the U.S. Playing "see no evil" won't make the anger you refuse to acknowledge less real.

[Alexandra]

Disclaimer: I'm a very proud Liberal, so no surprises about my comments!

I generally agree with the tone of your column, Ms. Delacourt, but I do find it a bit far-fetched to compare Canada's fiscal situation in 1995 (a pretty dire one, thanks to the Mulroney years!) to the one we are facing today.

Most of the deficit generating pressures were created BY this government since 2006: GST cuts, corporate tax cuts, G-8/G-20 spending frenzy, etc. Add to that their totally "neurologically-challenged" approach to the justice system and the Canadian Army's race to weaponry folly, and voilà, we go from a $13 billion dollars SURPLUS, to the disgrace of having to "review" our Old Age Security programme!

This is what provokes nightmares of "all those poor, debt-ridden children".