Sadly, we have come to expect that politicians don't always tell the truth based on our understanding of the word.
We expect them to equivocate, to misdirect, to evade awkward questions or take things their opponents say out of context. But it's still rare for them to out-and-out lie. It's even rarer to for them to aggressively repeat a lie once it has been exposed as such.
But lie and lie again is exactly what the Conservatives in Ottawa are doing in the radio attack ads now running across the country denouncing NDP leader Thomas Mulcair's "carbon tax" plan.
According to the ads, Mulcair wants to bring in a carbon tax that will take $20 billion out of the pockets of Canadians, add 10 cents to the cost of a litre of gas and "make everything you need cost more."
"We can't afford Mulcair's NDP, we just can't," the ads conclude.
If the ad sounds familiar, it's because it's similar to the assault that was launched on then Liberal leader Stephane Dion for what the Conservatives called his "tax on everything."
While both campaigns are aimed at defining a political opponent in negative terms, the difference is that Dion had proposed a carbon tax, while Mulcair has not.
When the Conservatives unveiled this line of attack in September, journalists quickly picked it apart, pointing out that it was both false and hypocritical.
Aaron Wherry, who covers Ottawa for Maclean's, put together a comprehensive guide on his blog to "the Conservatives' carbon tax farce."
In it, he linked to some of the many public sources that undermined the Conservatives' claims.
For the record, Mulcair has never called for a carbon tax.
He has advocated a cap-and-rade plan to put a price on car-on as a way of addressing cli-ate change.
The Conservatives now argue that a cap-and-trade plan is the same as a carbon tax because it will put a price on carbon and provide revenue for the government.
That claim is both nonsensical and destructive. It dumbs down a crucial environmental and economic debate that to be worthwhile requires a high level of understanding of complex issues.
And it rakes Mulcair over the coals for a position that the Conservatives, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, until recently supported as part of the party platform.
Naturally, a party can change its position on an issue. But any suggestion when the Conservatives supported cap and trade that it was the equivalent of a carbon tax would have been met with the derision it deserves.
Earlier this month, there was a suggestion that the possibility of a carbon tax may be working its way back onto the agenda in the U.S.
The idea that the destruction wreaked by superstorm Sandy may be a portent of things to come has given the issue of climate change new life, as has the re-election of President Barack Obama.
But it's also being seen as a potential revenue measure that could break the deadlock over taxation that is leading the U.S. to what's being called the fiscal cliff.
Obama's press secretary said recently the administration would not propose such a tax, but didn't rule out the possibility that it could support one if it came in as part of a way out of the financial crisis the country is now facing if no agreement on balancing the budget is reached by January.
Canada's Environment Minister Peter Kent said that even if the U.S. adopts a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, Canada won't follow suit.
The government has now decided that its support of cap-and-trade was a mistake and it is going to achieve its climate change obligations through regulations.
When we will see those regulations is an open question, especially given the rate at which the Conservatives are jettisoning their previous positions on climate change.
It's also an open question over whether a cap-and-trade system would be either effective or efficient in our economy.
What I'm fairly certain we can't afford, however, is to treat the truth as an expendable commodity.
Politicians who believe otherwise, who deliberately choose deceit as a campaign tool, who support obfuscation over understanding, lead us down a dangerous path.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Craig McInnes
We expect them to equivocate, to misdirect, to evade awkward questions or take things their opponents say out of context. But it's still rare for them to out-and-out lie. It's even rarer to for them to aggressively repeat a lie once it has been exposed as such.
But lie and lie again is exactly what the Conservatives in Ottawa are doing in the radio attack ads now running across the country denouncing NDP leader Thomas Mulcair's "carbon tax" plan.
According to the ads, Mulcair wants to bring in a carbon tax that will take $20 billion out of the pockets of Canadians, add 10 cents to the cost of a litre of gas and "make everything you need cost more."
"We can't afford Mulcair's NDP, we just can't," the ads conclude.
If the ad sounds familiar, it's because it's similar to the assault that was launched on then Liberal leader Stephane Dion for what the Conservatives called his "tax on everything."
While both campaigns are aimed at defining a political opponent in negative terms, the difference is that Dion had proposed a carbon tax, while Mulcair has not.
When the Conservatives unveiled this line of attack in September, journalists quickly picked it apart, pointing out that it was both false and hypocritical.
Aaron Wherry, who covers Ottawa for Maclean's, put together a comprehensive guide on his blog to "the Conservatives' carbon tax farce."
In it, he linked to some of the many public sources that undermined the Conservatives' claims.
For the record, Mulcair has never called for a carbon tax.
He has advocated a cap-and-rade plan to put a price on car-on as a way of addressing cli-ate change.
The Conservatives now argue that a cap-and-trade plan is the same as a carbon tax because it will put a price on carbon and provide revenue for the government.
That claim is both nonsensical and destructive. It dumbs down a crucial environmental and economic debate that to be worthwhile requires a high level of understanding of complex issues.
And it rakes Mulcair over the coals for a position that the Conservatives, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, until recently supported as part of the party platform.
Naturally, a party can change its position on an issue. But any suggestion when the Conservatives supported cap and trade that it was the equivalent of a carbon tax would have been met with the derision it deserves.
Earlier this month, there was a suggestion that the possibility of a carbon tax may be working its way back onto the agenda in the U.S.
The idea that the destruction wreaked by superstorm Sandy may be a portent of things to come has given the issue of climate change new life, as has the re-election of President Barack Obama.
But it's also being seen as a potential revenue measure that could break the deadlock over taxation that is leading the U.S. to what's being called the fiscal cliff.
Obama's press secretary said recently the administration would not propose such a tax, but didn't rule out the possibility that it could support one if it came in as part of a way out of the financial crisis the country is now facing if no agreement on balancing the budget is reached by January.
Canada's Environment Minister Peter Kent said that even if the U.S. adopts a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, Canada won't follow suit.
The government has now decided that its support of cap-and-trade was a mistake and it is going to achieve its climate change obligations through regulations.
When we will see those regulations is an open question, especially given the rate at which the Conservatives are jettisoning their previous positions on climate change.
It's also an open question over whether a cap-and-trade system would be either effective or efficient in our economy.
What I'm fairly certain we can't afford, however, is to treat the truth as an expendable commodity.
Politicians who believe otherwise, who deliberately choose deceit as a campaign tool, who support obfuscation over understanding, lead us down a dangerous path.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Craig McInnes
No comments:
Post a Comment