However, an internal government analysis of Mr. Dion's spending plans, obtained by the National Post, suggests that when Canadians take a closer look at what the Liberals are proposing, they may decide the country can ill afford.
Yet the analysis of the Liberal poverty plan calculated that increased funding for the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB), improved child benefits and a richer Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors would cost upward of $5-billion a year.
This, of course, assumes that spending buckets of taxpayers' money in the teeth of an economic downturn has the desired effect on lifting low-income earners out of poverty.
McCallum gets it right:
He dismissed the analysis as "speculative" and "wrong," and said it was inappropriate for the government to ask its officials to cost the Liberal platform.
The column mentions taxpayer money, but the irony is that the government is wasting taxpayer money studying a Liberal proposal. Is it ethical for the government to use civil servant resources to build a case, that can be used against the Liberals during an election? Shouldn't criticism, or cost analysis be done by party hacks, because clearly the motivation for this "analysis" was partisan advantage. Why is the government wasting time and energy studying a theoretical proposition, from a party that holds no levers of power? I don't think Canadians would be comfortable with the idea of using the government apparatus to develop a talking point in an election campaign. There is something intuitively wrong here, whatever the cost incurred, it should be transferred to the Conservative Party of Canada.
The Jurist also smells a skunk