Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Actually, don't bother firing Jim Flaherty

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:31pm - 203 Comments

Actually, don't bother firing Jim FlahertyThere is nothing wrong with the Liberals calling for the head of Jim Flaherty. It would be hard to imagine a parliamentary system anywhere in which the finance minister’s validity wouldn’t be questioned by the opposition, on a day when he announced he had managed to turn 2% of GDP of fiscal stimulus, spread over two years, into 3% of GDP of deficit in the first year. Recall that we are still only five months from the good old days when Flaherty was projecting no deficit at all, in an economic update whose policy proposals were disowned by the transport minister two days later.

So I say the following with real regret. I’m the guy who endorsed Flaherty to replace Mike Harris for the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership in 2000, after all. (The OPC preferred to herd lemming-like off a cliff named Ernie Eves.) But come on. This guy is easily the most ineffectual federal finance minister in decades. Why believe a word from his mouth? Does anyone seriously believe he believes most of it?

So it’s fair for the opposition parties to call for Flaherty to be fired. But realistically now, would it make any conceivable difference?

Fun questions:

  • Who would replace Flaherty as finance minister?
  • Would that person have any more influence over budgetary policy, fiscal projections, his own public statements or objective reality than Flaherty has had?
  • Then why bother?

For comparison’s sake, look over at Environment, where the minister’s job has gone from Rona Ambrose to John Baird to Jim Prentice, arguably a considerable step up in clout and seriousness every time. (I know, I know. I said arguably.) And how’s that going? Risibly. By the government’s own standards, its environmental policy is now fully self-mocking. Excellent news for a government that wants to base its entire bilateral relationship with the new U.S. administration on a credible energy-environment partnership.

But I digress. What I’m saying, without believing for a second anyone will listen, is that since replacing Jim Flaherty will not address the real problem with this government’s pillar-to-post management of the economy, it is pointless to be cruel by calling for his replacement. He is a funny wee leprachaun, and as long as nobody ever listens to another word from his mouth, there is no harm in letting him continue to ride around in the fancy car.

Bookmark and Share
  • JamesHalifax

    Lets see…..

    Liberals, NDP, and BLOC try to take over power because Harper “Isn’t doing enough for the economY”
    The coalition demands bailouts, EI changes, and all manner of spending.
    Harper prorougues parliament….waits a while and brings back a new budget that:
    1. Provides bailouts
    2. Changes EI
    3. All manner of spending.

    These changes are far more expensive than Harper originally intended with his original budget.

    There will be a deficit.

    Liberals outraged that enacting all of their demands has resulted in a deficit. …..

    Hypocrisy anyone?

    On top of that…Liberals demanding even MORE spending for EI. Yep. Makes perfect sense. If you’re a Liberal hack.

    Oi vey!

    • Geiseric the Lame

      “Who allowed the companies to under fund thier pension plans?”

      You don’t suppose that not noticing that Flaherty can’t stick to his own budget sorta misses the point, do you?

      At the end of February the fed still had a budgetary surplus of $0.8B.

      NOTHING out of Flaherty’s control has possibly tanked so seriously as to rack up another $16B in deficit spending. NOTHING!

      • Geiseric the Lame

        gah. clipboard scraps.

        my kingdom for an edit button. I was replying to…

        “Hypocrisy anyone? “

  • brick tamlin

    The government can’t control the economy in any tangible fashion. Government revenue is beholden to the taxable amounts remitted from each person. If you don’t make money, neither does the government.

    When profit centres (tax revenue, EI contributions, CPP contributions, GST payables) become cost centres (you’re on the dole) en masse, the government loses A TON of money.

    if you pulled in 10K from Joe Smith, but he loses his job and collects EI, you’re now paying 6K to Joe Smith, a net decline of 16K. Multiply by 300,000. This is the problem. It’s not Flaherty, I’d be saying this if it were Goodale, or by some insane stretch, the poor bastard that Layton would put in charge of the coffers.

    A sharply declining tax base, mounting payment obligations, and no sound method to predict the economy 6 months from now is a perfect storm for screwing elected officials, PR-wise. There’s nothing Flaherty can do.

    • Mulletaur

      Wow, now there’s insight for you. The government can’t control the wind either, but it can certainly put up a windmill and generate electricity from it. Geeeesh.

  • CK

    I did not find this very insightful, nor a great example of unbiased journalism.

    • Joseph Blough

      Try saying that again, but with the voice of James Mason.

  • lorne

    As I commented yesterday, I have to love Jim Flaherty a little because he reminds me so much of Lou Costello, which got me thinking… (this reads much better if you substitute Bud Abbot’s voice for Harper’s. Nothing sounds funny in Harper’s voice.)

    ————————
    HARPER: Okay Jimmy. You’re my Minister of Finance, and I need you to get rid of all these surpluses.

    FLAHERTY: B-b-b-but Stevie. I thought soipluses was a good thing.

    HARPER: You idiot! If the Liberals get back in here and find all these surpluses, they’re just going to spend them! On gay weddings and abortions! We’ve got to get rid of all these surpluses before the Liberals get back into power. Now get to work!

    FLAHERTY: Youse can count on me, Boss!

    **TWO YEARS LATER**

    HARPER: Jimmy! Wake up! It’s a recession! Where are those surpluses?

    FLAHERTY: Bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-but… YOU TOLD ME TO GET RID OF da soipluses!

    HARPER: You idiot! We need to buy Chrysler and throw it at the Italians.

    FLAHERTY: What are we gonna do, Stevie?

    HARPER: I’ll tell you what we’re gonna do. You’re gonna get out there and lie like Brian Mulroney’s prom date.

    FLAHERTY: Ooohh… I knew I shoulda stayed in Oshawa.

    • CK

      Not that funny

      • hosertohoosier

        I thought it was a dead-on parody of A&C, and got a chuckle. Part of being a good parody of Abbot and Costello means one can’t be all that funny (part of a proud Canadian tradition continued by the likes of the Air Farce and Little Mosque – the only good home-grown Canadian comedy has come out of the east coast… eg. Trailer Park Boys, 22 Minutes*/Mercer and Codco, with maybe the exception of Double Exposure, which bombed when it left radio).

        *Which is hit and miss.

        So Paul, would you be willing to offer a similar critique to say, the Obama administration? The metric is different (unemployment versus deficits), but US unemployment is way higher than what they said it would be with their recovery plan thus far (actually it is even higher than what they said it would be without a recovery plan). So, should Geithner resign?

        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/Sg_k_FWWPFI/AAAAAAAAA68/VpHFMu9IWis/s1600-h/stimulus+effects.bmp

        (Incidentally, Canada added jobs last month. Why no corks popping in the media?)

        • Scott

          One big difference between Obama and Harper. Harper inherited surpluses and frittered them away. While Obama inherited massive deficits.

      • Joseph Blough

        Shut up, CK.

        • CK

          Well put! I think a child in grade two could put up about the same level of disagreement.

  • Tim

    Bob Rae’s National Post Article of February 3, 2009 can be found at

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1246057

    It’s addressed to Messrs Harper and Flaherty and concerns the reality of deficits.

    It’s worth reading or revisiting.

    My favourite bit:

    “Your deficits will be higher than you think and say they are. You can bank on it.”

  • MJH

    The $50 billlon deficit is much too high; but let’s spend more on stimulus and EI!! Duhh!.

  • lovellhouse

    One of the funniest and accurate pieces I’ve seen in a while.

    Thank you Mr. Wells.

    • lovellhouse

      sorry, comment above should read “most accurate”.

From Macleans