The Globe and Mail would know. They’re the experts at putting lipstick on pigs

Today we have the selectively sanctimonious Derek DeCloet writing about hedge funds in a Globe article entitled “No amount of lipstick can save these pigs”.

The Globe would know, as they are the experts at dressing up pigs with lipstick.

Take for example Jim Flaherty’s income trust tax that the Globe and Mail has been championing at every opportunity like the good Mary Kay cosmeticians that they are. The Globe and Mail has been the non-stop cheerleader for a policy that benefits its owners (BCE, Teachers’, Torstar and Woodbridge) but no on else, unless the idea of having Ottawa tax subsidize the foreign takeover of Canadian business and treating Canadian investors at a distinct disadvantage to foreign investors is your idea of good public policy. The Globe’s lipstick would have you believe that this pig of policy that has resulted in $108 billion of takeovers of Canadian companies which has caused the ongoing loss of $2 billion in tax revenue per year is a good thing?

The Globe was more than happy to promulgate the government’s lies that income trusts cause tax leakage and yet has yet to report on a single occasion that the LBO of BCE will cause the loss of $800 million a year in taxes to Ottawa? Doesn’t this strike you as a little one-sided and/or biased in their coverage? Tax leakage was the be all and end all for the Globe and Mail when it came to opining on the policy’s original merit, however tax leakage is not even worth acknowledging when is comes to the policy’s actual outcome? No amount of lipstick will hide the fact that the Globe is simply an instrument for its owners and an instrument that opposes equal and balanced coverage of a topic that has seen Canadians lose $35 billion on a complete falsehood. A falsehood advanced with glee by the Globe and Mail, whose mandate is to put lipstick on the many pig in the poke policies of the Stephen Harper government.