Restraint now is worse than wrong, it’s dangerous | National Union of Public and General Employees. – By Larry Brown
National Secretary-Treasurer, National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)
an excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
** Ottawa (7 Sept. 2010) – There seems to be a remarkable consensus in Canada, among government leaders of almost every political stripe, that now is the time to attack government deficits and the main way to do so is by slashing spending.
This consensus is remarkable because it is so glibly and commonly asserted and yet it is so fundamentally wrong-headed, even dangerous. **
Somehow, the forceful words of experts – in this case guys who are on our side, hopefully – somehow aren’t as forceful as I think they could be. What Brown here says is quite true, other than perhaps carelessly referring to evidence that, on the surface, isn’t evidence. Being sure that the murder weapon will be found isn’t the same as having found it. In regard to the stated deleterious effects of automatic spending cuts, also known as austerity measures, Brown lists some examples of “devastating results elsewhere,” and cites the case of Britain where “Britain has announced what are described as the harshest cuts in a generation and most observers expect that the result will be a major set-back to the economy…” I just would have worded all of this differently. Perhaps experts, like Brown and other educated folks, can readily see that what Brown and others say will happen will indeed happen. Brown makes his case, but for the layman reader, it might appear to be a weak case. But this is a quibble and not the point I want to make exactly.
Brown also writes that :
“The ongoing, basic problem is that Canada’s governments have slashed their tax revenue by giving tax break after tax break to large corporations and wealthy individuals. To fix that problem by cutting government spending, which means cutting public services that people rely on and cutting the jobs and incomes of public sector workers, is a classic case of misdirection.
“But to take the ‘slash and burn’ approach now is worse than simply wrong-headed. It’s also a dangerously misguided idea.”
I’ve noticed that the Left, certainly the mainstream (mostly fake) Left, has purged certain words and phrases from it’s vocabulary. After teaching us, for example, about the ‘neoliberal agenda’, we now are left to wonder whether discussions like this one, in Brown’s article, are about the neoliberal agenda. That most certainly is what Brown is discussing, but those – a lot of us – who might be scratching their heads and wondering whether they really grasp anything at all if this isn’t an example of the neoliberal agenda they were told about, are not really being served well. Is this gameplay, by our allies, with words and phrases helpful? And why is it being done?
Could it be that a certain type of elite wants to control the debate as badly as another kind of elite? That’s great. That’s just what we need. This article and discussion could take off around kitchen tables and coffee shop tables all over the place if the language was clearer and people, who, rightly or wrongly, are already distracted sufficiently, and deliberately, could readily grasp the ‘interrelated’ issues at hand. ‘Interrelated’ = expansion = equals more discussion, etc.. Duh!