It's come to this...
Rodney MacDonald and Darrell Dexter, you've brought me to a low that I never thought that I would ever see. You have forced me to write a sentance that I thought not possible to write - one that, under other circumstances I might attribute to the random keystrokes of burned out crackhead monkeys on a coffee course. Here it is, and I can't believe I'm writing this:
Just reading this made me throw up in my mouth a little.
What brought this on was today's announcement by Rodney MacDonald that the offshore oil and gas money from Deep Panuke, estimated to be about $450 million over ten years, would go into general revenue rather than be set aside to pay off the mountainous provincial debt. This is doubtless the result of the remarkable heap of expenditures promised in this year's budget and then added to during the election campaign that very nearly made MacDonald a one-session premier.
If this was a reliable and long-term source of income I could understand, however there is very likely going to only be ten or so years of this money and I think that instead of getting used to it being there and having to reduce expenditures at the other end, it would be wiser to earmark it now for debt maintenance. Short-term pain, long-term gain. In fairness to my pinko soul, I would then take the savings and put them into social programs. I expect that me and AIMS would differ on that point.
I agree with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.
Just reading this made me throw up in my mouth a little.
What brought this on was today's announcement by Rodney MacDonald that the offshore oil and gas money from Deep Panuke, estimated to be about $450 million over ten years, would go into general revenue rather than be set aside to pay off the mountainous provincial debt. This is doubtless the result of the remarkable heap of expenditures promised in this year's budget and then added to during the election campaign that very nearly made MacDonald a one-session premier.
If this was a reliable and long-term source of income I could understand, however there is very likely going to only be ten or so years of this money and I think that instead of getting used to it being there and having to reduce expenditures at the other end, it would be wiser to earmark it now for debt maintenance. Short-term pain, long-term gain. In fairness to my pinko soul, I would then take the savings and put them into social programs. I expect that me and AIMS would differ on that point.
Ewwww, having to agree with AIM really is one of those things that leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Worse, I have to join you in that agreement. Now excuse me while I go throw myself off Dingle Tower to escape the horror of having to live with that agreement...:)
Posted by
Scotian |
Tue Jul 18, 03:30:00 PM
That's like having a salary of $40,000, getting another job at $20,000 a year in addition to your current job, being in debt $200,000, and deciding not to bother using any of that money to pay down your debts, and instead going and buying a Hummer.
D-uh. Makes you wonder what kind of mess Premier MacDonald's bank accounts are in.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Thu Jul 20, 03:42:00 PM