"Seventy-five per cent of all the money we spend around here goes to health and education and supports for the vulnerable, so you can't take $5.1 billion out and not close hospitals, and not fire nurses, and not make cuts to education, and not give rise to dramatic increases in tuition, and not fire water inspectors and not make cuts to social assistance," McGuinty told reporters.
"It just can't be done. There's just not enough money in the other 25 per cent to fully give effect to that $5.1 billion tax cut. It's not there. I'm not prepared to do that."
What this type of answer does is completely declaw Flaherty, while at the same time reminding voters of the past regime. McGuinty presents a simple choice, corporate tax cuts vs cuts to hospitals and schools. I don't think it takes much imagination to see where mainstream voter opinion would side.
Quite clever of McGuinty to position himself as the champion of health care and education, defending a perceived threat. The federal argument means taking away resources for core departments, it reminds everyone of the Harris regime, a very unattractive alternative.
McGuinty frames the question down to a most basic premise- do you sacrifice your children's education, access to health care in order to give corporations a tax break? I know which side of that argument most resonates with voters. The "strategic geniuses" have been out-flanked by the calm Liberal Premier, BADLY.