,
18 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
With respect to Mr. Scheer, tweets like this put the media in a very difficult spot: fact-check and be attacked, or let half-truths go by.
The figure he's using here is the cash-basis accounting figure from Trudeau's budget (over six years, which Scheer doesn't specify). See below image from Trudeau's budget.
But there are different ways to measure, and budgets tend to use accrual accounting.
But there are different ways to measure, and budgets tend to use accrual accounting.
If we're going to use cash-basis, guess who went EVEN CRAZIER with spending?! $44 billion over five years on a cash basis, instead of $41 billion over six?!
That is, of course, then-PM Stephen Harper's final budget in 2015. budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan…
Harper's budget, of course, was projecting balance, whereas Trudeau's are not. This is a key difference, obviously.
Harper's budget, of course, was projecting balance, whereas Trudeau's are not. This is a key difference, obviously.
Anyhow, it looks like then-PM Harper used cash-basis when he wanted spending to look bigger (Investments! In an election year!) but he doesn't actually use it on the final, bottom-line measure. See "total budget measures" here.
$13.8 billion in six years for Harper.
$13.8 billion in six years for Harper.
Here's the apples-to-apples equivalent from Trudeau's budget yesterday. $22.8 billion in new spending over six years.
(Essentially paid for by revenues being higher than forecast. Trudeau got new money and spent every dollar.)
(Essentially paid for by revenues being higher than forecast. Trudeau got new money and spent every dollar.)
So, almost double! That's notable! Thus, I don't get why it needs to be torqued...?
Why torque it if you have facts on your side?
Scheer could instead use the deficit figures ($19.8b next year vs the *0* Trudeau promised) or compare apples to apples...
Why torque it if you have facts on your side?
Scheer could instead use the deficit figures ($19.8b next year vs the *0* Trudeau promised) or compare apples to apples...
Mr. Scheer is also raising the fear of tax hikes if Trudeau is re-elected. The only notable tax hikes I see in yesterday's budget are on people who get more than $200,000 in stock options every year, and on mutual fund trusts who'd been getting a bit cute with the rules.
To assume tax hikes, you'd also have to assume the Trudeau Liberals actually want to balance the budget. There's almost no sign they do -- which, of course, the Conservatives attack them on. The Liberals seem perfectly happy with deficits where they are, below 1% of GDP.
So like, it's a bit jarring to a) bash someone for never wanting to balance the budget, and b) also for having a secret agenda to raise taxes to balance the budget.
Here's the debt-to-GDP ratio. Measured against Canada three decades ago, or many other nations now, it is not a crisis.
But if things go badly -- a recession, for instance -- Canada won't have left itself anything for a rainy day. Many observers/business figures lament that. Again, Scheer has plenty of people to point to in echoing this concern over deficits in good times.
Anyhow, short version: the leader of the opposition is using the biggest possible number over six years to illustrate spending, omitting some details and suggesting tax hikes there's no evidence of.
Difficult spot for the press, and hard to feel like it isn't bait.
Difficult spot for the press, and hard to feel like it isn't bait.
(I fell for it.)
On the bright side, I guess if Mr. Scheer becomes prime minister, he'd like us to use cash-basis figures on his spending measures...?
Annnnyhow. People are reading my first tweet as suggesting the press should just relay things unchallenged. That's not what I'm saying at all.
Press fact check for stories. Duh.
But what if a falsehood wanders by in the forest? Do you go up to it every time, or....?
Press fact check for stories. Duh.
But what if a falsehood wanders by in the forest? Do you go up to it every time, or....?
I agree :)
Still getting a lot of LOLZ UR A REPORTER, CALL OUT LIES ALWAYS comments
and like, yeah, of course, no one is arguing that the press should just relay lies and disinformation blindly. But what's the bar? and to what end? and does the answer change if it feels a lot like bait?
and like, yeah, of course, no one is arguing that the press should just relay lies and disinformation blindly. But what's the bar? and to what end? and does the answer change if it feels a lot like bait?
