The Globe’s editorial of today is entitled “Enough with the 'surprises'” and deals with budget surpluses. It calls upon Harper to “live up to past promises”.
A little bit late don’t you think? The problem has self corrected, as there won’t be any surpluses for some time.
Meanwhile, on the question of "surprises" how cataclysmic of an issue are budget surprises? You want to talk about surprises, did someone lose $35 billion of their life savings from any budget surprise? No, but income trust investors did.
Does this practice benefit one group of Canadians at the expense of the other? No, but the income trust issue did.
And here we have the Globe calling upon Harper to honour some obscure past promise.
What about Harper's solemn promise not to raid seniors nest eggs that were invested in income trusts? Votes actually turned on that promise. This budget promise that the Globe is fixated on, played no role in the last election.
The Globe supports the income trust broken promise because it serves the interests of its owners.
The Globe has zero credibility by being 100% hypocritical in its contradictory editorial positions.
The Globe is more concerned about issues of semantics and ignores the complete abuse of our democracy arising from 18 pages of blacked out documents as “proof” of alleged tax leakage.
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Enough with the 'surprises'
July 28, 2008
Renewed criticism of the federal government's continuing practice of underestimating annual revenues, particularly where it appears to be a deliberate political strategy, should compel the Conservatives to live up to past promises.
Monday, July 28, 2008
More editorial hypocrisy from the Globe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Harper only made promises to dupe us into voting for him. I don't believe he ever intended to keep his Income Trust Promise. I'll never support the conservative Party of Canada again.
I'm fed up with all journalists for not challenging Harper and Flaherty on their Lies and Blacked out pages. It seems there is no journalistic integrity anymore.
The Globe & Mail is not unlike so much of the rest of the media when it came to the income trust legislation.
There was some small amount of grumbling right after the announcement on Oct 31st 2006 which rapidly died off.
The biggest one day loss of wealth in our country`s history & it rapidly turned into a non-story.
Now why would this happen.
Was the story not juicy enough to fly on it`s own.
Were the people affected by huge losses not important enough to care about.
Was there pressure from the upper echelon of the media owners that made this story disappear.
Was the gov`t able to exert some influence .
At any rate , this story became a non-story in a very short time.
And yet , it still seems important to me & a few million other investors.
Dr Mike Popovich.
When media is controlled by private corporations it is always going to be driven by the profit motive. Every editor sits thinking of the "big story", and how a story will "play" with the public AND advertisers - rather than the news-worthiness of the story itself. That's why there's a "Sunshine Girl/Boy". That's why it's "smarter" to put soft drivel in many pages of papers - to bury the "dry" hard news.
If advertisers - especially major ones - won't like a story, it will be edited/changed so they can at least accept it.
Public broadcasters like NPR/PBS, BBC, and CBC are more level-handed, due to their lack of dollar interest. Advertisers are not the only reason they exist. Public ombuds-persons exist to ensure their integrity. There are fallacies about public media, but are really just right-wing/corporate scare tactics using examples from 3rd world dictatorships - not democratic Western nations.
Post a Comment