babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Sean perhaps I think your frustration lies in that we aren't talking about it as whole often (or at all) enough. I think many here realize it to one degree or another. But pointing it out and making others aware is certainly helpful. You should actually start a tread about it and give it a roman numeral because I believe it will have many parts to it
JKR The problem is the muddy waters effects. I have seen this a lot in recent years. The NDP get tarred with the same brush on all things, even when we take a principled stand. To me the biggets problem in Canada, bar none is media. They aren't doing theor job as journalist(they are as big business) and have been allowed to get too big to smother any disident voices that could have risen. They shape discourse far more than public policy does.
If a story gets axed or thrown to the 1 inch section on g27 who cares, while something of little practical importance gets 1 inch headlines. So we get a lot of fluff while the real criminals are given a pass. Why in Canada are white collar crimes almost not reported yet break in or muggings etc get the headlines. White collar crime sometimes hurt a lot more people than a mugging. I guess that is the unreported crime stock day was talking about.
Yesterday some country(TV was on in the background) was charging some ceo and throwing him in jail. Why didn't this happen here or in the states? Its not like the public doesn't have animositty to banks. If the papers called for it people would call MPs and demand Tough on CEO legislation.
Oh just remembered. Its the CEO of the comapny in Hungary for the chemical spill.
Maybe the left should try to go around the MSM?
A lot of creative people are suffering in this economy. Creative lefties could produce YouTube videos and distribute them through social media and other friendly outlets like Babble.
Babble is part of the solution. Maybe people here should figure out more ways to get the progressive message out there.
Does Babble/Rabble have a strong presence on social media?
Exactly in part but also I see people here falling for the distractions and interpretations-- assumign the Cons are doing things by accident and incompetence when they are by design. And of course my deep frustration has been for many years with large numbers of people who identify with the left who refuse to discuss any economic issues at all-- speaking in terms of social justice as if it is in a vacuume. At least that does not often happen here-- several: Thorin, George, Ken, Remind, Ottawa Observer, Catchfire, North Report, Fidel and Unionist to name a few do actually engage in the economic issues (even though they don't all agree) and that is why I stay herer even though it can get frustrating at times. But still, I look for macro visions of these things and am very interested in systems behind these trends rather than just political posturing. I also am keenly aware that the left is being played often by the right on these-- falling in to many traps.
- not sure if you have seen this yet, I put out a link every now and then, but it is what I see as the 'macro vision' of what has been going on in Canada the last 30 years of necon ascendency - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html .
I am lucky(so to speak) I got time because the system has put me on layoff right now. SO I can speak to economics conditions at least from my perspective and from what I learned in grade 12 along with extensive reading online. And yes we need ot be discussing economic perhaps moreso than social justice(though that is important) because until we have a more fair general economic system it won't matter if you are a minority of some sort because we are all caught in the big deception.
So while I talk to people who will and sometimes don't want to listen about immigration , bigotry or racism etc, I still have to explain how taxation or other economic factors have more of an effect on them then how many "of them foreigners" we let in. Social Justice actually flows nicely from economic justice.
Sean speakin to your theory one should also include in the discussion something I forgot to mention. Fire in the Belly. That is con voters always vote more so than any other base. No matter how much people get turned off by politics cons always go to the polls. This also serves them well. Esp in the long game. Make your base rock solid(by playing to them) and have them ready to go to war no matter what and what you get is a higher percentage of votes just by having your people make it to the polls while everyone else gets fed up and stay at home from atrophy and apathy. So even if the number of voters is stagnant as the % of voters drop it just means they get a larger share of those that make it to the polls,.
I'm going to follow up and pobe Sean's theme of 'why arent people more up in arms about the Harper Cons deliberately starving the beast'... hobbling the fiscal capacity of future governments on program spending.
First point, although of less than secondary importance... sort of a 'houskeeping detail': I'm sure you are wrong Sean, that this has been discussed here more than you think. As noted, I've been saying it since before May 2007- whenever Flaherty or Harper announced that the second point was coming off the HST. But we agree that it isnt discussed much. If it is not virtually none as you think, then for the purposes of your point, thats even worse. Because it means that people have been hearing it, and not up in arms.
And here's what I think about that.
Siamdave started a thread on the topic of what the neocon agenda has been for years and what it is doing to us. Without getting into details, it looks at a broader range of fiscal and monetary agendas. Thats too sweeping for me, and I'm guessing for you as well Sean. While I disagree with some of the analysis of what has been done over the last X years and decades.... saying it is too sweeping is primarily a point about the politics that you aspire to put into play. I think that such a broad sweeping agenda is not just daunting, it is guaranteed to drown... flooded before it could [hypotheticaly] start. Nor do I think its necessary for people to have anywhere near such a comprehensive analysis before they will be sufficiently motivated and capable.
But lets not get into whether that is or is not true- its not the point here. I bring up siamdaves concerns as an example of something.
You, Sean, are frustrated because people arent waking up to what you think it is absolutely vital they understand. Siamdave feels the same way about something that is even bigger- where what troubles you is just part of the picture.
And other people have totally different absolutely essential issues: knowing full well how many important issues are out there, still, this one really should be seizing peoples' attention.
And so it goes. Its part of the nature of progressive politics. Getting ahead of myself a bit: I think our politics are pretty immature. Infantile a lot of the time. But I think this aspect of people seeing very different things as rightfully being the top priority is something that would / will be with us even if our politics was more developed.
That said. Sean's concern about this and mine overlap. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that I've been ringing this bell for longer, but Seans the one that is more disturbed. Am I just resigned? I dont know. But part of it would be that bottom I accept the priorities that others set. If I think its unfortunate... well, thats just my opinion.
And who does really know what is most likely to get people moving? What is most 'necessary' might seem like its more conducive to disciplined debate; but in practice, I think its just as ceaselessly debateable, and just as driven in practice by unacknowledged political agendas.
With that caveat in mind, I think its true that even politicaly active progressives tend to mentally glaze over when it turns to discussing economic issues. Even more so, when it comes to issues of government finances.
"Capitalism is bad. More social spending is good. Neocons [and others] dont want that. So what else is new?"
And I think thats operative when people hear the alarm bells being rung about the specifically longer term wrecking being done by the Harper Crew [who by the way were able to build upon the nifty start by Chretien and Martin].
I dont think most people even here on Babble could point to what was done and how. And the audacity of some of the details, or the fact they hadnt heard anything about it, may surprise them. But only a bit. "Thats what they are all about anyway."
And it ends there.
Thats what I meant when I was referring upthread to the unfortunate sub-cultural phenomena of the left. Before our very eyes a situation is being arranged where the obstacles we face in the near future will be even more daunting. The Liberals, for example, will not even consider challenging the limits being constructed now by Harper and Co.
But if you see yourself as definitionaly oppositional- what difference does it make, eh?
You can forget about the Liberals doing anything on this front.
And I open in principle to hopes of common ground with the Liberals.
But on the tax and fiscal front- they are hopeless. Chretien and Martin set this situation up.
They didnt have in mind the extreme version of Harper and friends. Their idea was that you download responsibility to the provincial government and lower overall spending, but in setting up the overall fiscal structure you leave room for a little bit of discretionary spending.... the kind of programs which the Liberals buy votes every few years.
The Liberal version is highly cost effective. Most of the time you just promise programs- like in the Red Books waved around before and during each election. And what is really cool, you get to reapeat some of those pomises across multiple elections.
But eventually, you do have to throw out a few bones in actual program spending. No sweat- it isnt much, and it leveraged all those recycled promises you bait left of centre voters with.
Cheap, but you still need some fiscal room for it. So you have tax cuts, but you keep the surpluses coming.
Harper and Company come along, and they werent at all above using the cookie jar to buy votes. But they are more into the longer term of ending this practice of discretionary fiscal capacity available for the odd bit of new or enhanced program spending.
So starve the beast to make sure that even when you arent governing, the successors have to live with smaller government. Starve the beast by lowering revenues and by eliminating surpluses or the capability to produce a surplus. Since so much government spending cannot be pushed down over the near term even by conservatives, structurally lowering revenues in increments of 1 and 2% has a MANY fold eeffect on capacity to elect for and support discretionary spending.
Getting back to the Liberals: the Liberals will consider program spending improvements when there is 'slack' designed in the budget. But thats gone now, and so is their willingness to even make promises. Now promises of any amount at all will have to be covered by tax increases- and the Liberals just will not go there.
It already had an effect on them. Last year they talked about delaying the corporate tax cuts. Which meant they were willing to promote several billion in new spending.
This year and next those tax cuts are in. So the Liberals are promising chump change, and saying that EI enhancements they would have fought an election over last year are 'not necessary' because the economy has improved.
This is just the beginning. And if you want to fool yourselves that it will be different if they are governing- thats willful delusion. Becasue they'll be looking over their shoulders at the Conservatives in opposition.
And the NDP- they are going to have to be more creative and up front than they have been. Its too late to be doing more than beginning to nip at the big questions before the coming election. But it cant be put off forever. Its a bit bizarre to be always talking about focused little pocketbook issues while the thiefs are blowing up the safe.
I think the Obama's campaign figured out the antidote to "starve the beast."
It's very simple: campaign on raising taxes on the super elite, the very rich and on the biggest corporations. The multi-millionaires and billionaires who have driven the world's economy into the ditch.
I dont think they did. Or at least, not what might work for us.
Tax increases on the wealthiest is just scratching the surface. If anything, more so in the US.
We have to go beyond the easy stuff that can be pulled off with existing populist sentiments out there. Let alone that those sentiments are stronger in the US than here.
How far beyond the "easy stuff"?
What kind of tax increases and by how much and on who? Income taxes, business taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes etc....
The answer to "starve the beast" is probably "nourish the beast." How much nourishing does the beast require?
(It would probably be a good idea to get away from the pejorative word "beast" that right-wingers have come up with to frame the issue and disparage government.)
Tax cuts on the 'middle classes' [down into the working class] will ultimately have to be rolled back.
We cant start out going there. But there does need to be an awareness of where we are headed.
First the issue of taxing the rich:
The NDP walked away from tax increases on the rich after the 2004 election when they proposed an inheritance tax-- Canada does not have one and the US does. that is a wealth tax.
The closest thing we have to a wealth tax in Canada are municipal property taxes but they tax housing without considering if the house is free and clear and also tax rental property (apartments etc.) at a higher rate than houses.
The tax people confuse with a tax on the rich is a tax on high income earners (who usually are rich). Of course there are many very wealthy people who avoid taxable income and have their wealth untaxed in Canada and can pass it on to their children untaxed.
Second the so-called "starve the beast" discussion:
"Starve the beast" refers to the removal of money through indexing and other increases to social programs. I have not seen it used as consistently to refer to government itself and certainyl not to deliberately damaging the fiscal position of the government.
When "starve the beast" comes up there is this fiction that increased activity and a bigger tax base to make up for the difference will in the end leave a healthier, leaner government, not one that is chronically broke. It has never included spending in the mix-- getting rid of money through overspending in other areas.
Again if I am not new to linking these then please show me who else has brought it up. I raised it quite a while ago with defence spending and nobody seemed that interested. I raised it again when the stimulus money was announced and few seemed interested. I would like to see some kind of link regarding this since people are saying this is a popular notion but I don't think it is. This is not about spending cuts and fiscal conservatism as was the older notions of "starve the beast" which applied to the welfare state not the state itself, and goes beyond shrinking government. This is about the deliberate undermining of the nation's finances through a combination of long-term commitments and massive spending as well as capacity reduction through tax cuts. The object is not to just hobble social spending but to effectively bankrupt the government as a means to that end. Yes they are similar but this is a different charge because by any ideology, this is destructive (even if excused for the wider benefit of nipping that socialism bud).
The linking of the Liberals is a part of the problem. Their approach may have helped but it was different and more traditional. In fairness to the Liberals this is not the strategy they have been a part of. They did cut spending -- in a ham-fisted, short-sighted and irresponsible way. However, they were not trying to damage the capacity of government. In fact they argued that the improvement to the nation's finances would allow future expenditure and in fact, it did. At the time Harper was elected, the country could have easily afforded all the spending it had and to support cities and a national child care program. The NDP proved that it could with a balanced budget.
The Liberals are bad, but they were not actually trying to destroy the nation's finances or to make future programs impossible. Their strategy was to fix federal problems on the backs of the provinces and return the country to surplus. They did it in a costly way on the backs of provinces and social programs. The Con plan is to break the federal bank in every way possible-- through spending, long-term commitments, and tax cuts as well as cultural shifts in political discourse. There is an important distinction here. I don't believe that any party prior to this one has come in to office with a desire to break the budget before. Each party had its own ideas of priorities and its own ideas of what deficits could be tolerated but only this current incarnation wants the federal budget to fail in my view. Yes, I mean in a way that could be described as treason as that is what we are talking about. These people do not believe their ideology will work to fix the federal finances-- they don't want those finances fixed. Indeed that is the fundamental difference between this Con government and previous right wing Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments. those governments thought additional activity, growth and other things would fix the budget and aimed at those. Their ideas are partly discredited. The current government cares little about fixing the budget-- it wants to break forever if possible the ability for the government to interfere in the economy. This sounds like the definition for the "starve the beast" term but it isn't. This is new and it is different than what has come before. It is not only different in degrees, it is different in intent and in method including the use of spending even if necessary to get rid of capital from the economy. The only precedent for this was the government of Mike Harris that also wanted to wreck the institution itself. These are also incidentally the only two governments that made no attempt to reach out at any time to the wider citizenry content to serve only their supporters. They share many of the same people including the philosophy of creating a crisis to sell a specific solution. They also believed in heavy public manipulation. Other governments of the right wing persuasion have devastated the public finances, some have stolen from them. But this objective of damaging the finances as a goal in itself is new. It is reflective of a change-- giving up on the notion that lower taxes pay for themselves and going after the health of government itself.
You are right Ken in that I am indeed frustrated about the inability of most people to grasp this-- and it is not a single issue in my view -- the economic capacity of government is a prerequisite to almost anything else it may consider doing-- if we disregard this, what can we address? And very few people on the left seem willing to engage in debates surrounding taxation and economics-- a huge exception to that is of course unions, the CLC in particular. To their credit the Canadian Labour Congress has been focusing on economic issues for a long time and remains a credible, responsible and well-considered voice even though so many are led to disregard union voices. Still far too many people explain away the stimulus spending as a mistake/something the Cons were forced to do/for partisan purposes only/ as a victory of the opposition etc. rather than the tool it was to further this agenda.
Specifically, can someone point me to another person arguing that the stimulus spending has been hijacked as a tool to damage government deliberately-- making sure little value is delivered in to public hands in terms of addressing important infrastructure needs but making a lot of money go away as an end in itself.
Of course, as Canadians we should be rioting in the streets and forming lynch mobs, as our own Quizling banksters create money out of thin air for loans that allow foreign corporations to control our major industries and natural resources.
Loans that they would never in a million years grant to their hard-working fellow Canadians.
If you mean that thesis specifically, no I dont know of anyone else advancing it here.
And the reason I didnt respond is because I dont think that it is the case. And because I dont think my difference of opinion is politically material. I see your thesis as a sort of 'sub-species' of the general understanding that it is the unprecedented in Canada goal of the Harper government not just to do the overt thing of cutting taxes and spending, but also by stealth to structure the future fiscal situation so that no Liberal government even has the option of initiating spending without touching the third rail of raising taxes.
I thing that people broadly understanding that is necessary and sufficient.
If you or anyone else think that what the Cons are doing is substantially more pernicious than that, I dont see any reason to argue the point. But I dont agree.
Where I believe we get into territory where it is necessary to explore such differences is if you are arguing that it it is necessary for people to understand and accept your thesis. That I think, is fundamentally politicaly mistaken- and becomes a distraction when proponents of such a thesis insist that subscribing to it is a minimum condition for sustained political action. More than a distraction- its a well worn route for activists to become terminally discouraged.
Why I do not subscribe to your thesis is I beleive not the primary concern. Its the political reality of the mere fact I and other politically astute progressives do not and will not agree. Because if we dont buy it, what chance does it have of becoming a broad popular understanding?
Not only would such a political education task be very daunting... it isnt necessary.
Because we can take action in concert with the minimum shared understanding that the Cons are out not just pushing this and that cut, but to hobble democratic choices in the future.
What does it matter, precisely what is and what is not part of the Cons master plan?
For this to even have a shot at percolating down through the popular concious its going to have to be boiled down to something really basic anyway. Like, "They are out to get us." Etc.
And people will necessarily have all manner of ideas of what that does and doesnt extend to.
Try as they might, the Conservatives are a long way away from bankrupting the government. The national debt now is something like $550 billion. It's been growing lately but it's actually less now then it was in 1997. And the economy is much bigger now so debt as a % of GDP is much lower now then in 1997. And compared to the rest of the world our debt levels are not so bad.
I think the next government after the Conservatives will still have the fiscal wherewithal to implement programs such as national day care, a green economy, pharmacare, home care, early childhood education, infrastructure improvements, the Kelowna Accord part 2, etc....
If the Conservatives were bankrupting the Canadian government the dollar would be showing weakness. There's no evidence of that happening but there is a lot of evidence that is what is happening in the US.
Canada's national debt was $543,022,147,241.02 at 11 a.m today. Or according to the Economist Magazine, $32,506 US for every man, woman and child in this country. Ottawa posted the largest federal deficit in Canadian history last year.
We're right behind Greece. And bananas don't grow too well in our Northern Puerto Rico. DAY-O!
Ken, there are two points being made here and two different related arguments--
I am arguing that we do need to all understand that this government has moved from a battle over the current government to a future one. I don't think that is widely understood or believed. I do believe that it is essential to understand this since people will not understand otherwise what is at stake.
The second point was the issue that you had said all I was arguing had been said before and was old hat. I don't think that is the case and I have linked the quick turnaround and willingness to go with massive stimulus spending as connected to a desire to damage the government into the future with the objective of making the kind of spending that is practically possible but the Cons disapprove of no longer practically possible-- in other words take the decision out of the realm of ideology (even though it is sourced there) and force it in to a practical impossibility.
I am arguing that the governemnt does not want the government to be economically successful -- which I believe is unprecedented.
Ken, there are two points being made here and two different related arguments--
I am arguing that we do need to all understand that this government has moved from a battle over the current government to a future one. I don't think that is widely understood or believed. I do believe that it is essential to understand this since people will not understand otherwise what is at stake.
The second point was the issue that you had said all I was arguing had been said before and was old hat. I don't think that is the case and I have linked the quick turnaround and willingness to go with massive stimulus spending as connected to a desire to damage the government into the future with the objective of making the kind of spending that is practically possible but the Cons disapprove of no longer practically possible-- in other words take the decision out of the realm of ideology (even though it is sourced there) and force it in to a practical impossibility.
I am arguing that the governemnt does not want the government to be economically successful -- which I believe is unprecedented.
JKR-- I do not mean literally bankrupt since a government of a country such as Canada can't be literally bankrupt.
However, it is possible to damage the government's finances such that future programs are no longer possible.
If we accept that immediate massive tax hikes are not possible (indeed the reductions in taxes came over many years) and running deficits not possible, I believe that the Cons intend to leave the government in such a state that major social programs will not be possible in the short term and a government runnign a long program of tax hikes may not be viable over a long term.
In other words if we reduce the fiscal capacity of the government to the point where it would take more than one term of progressive tax hikes you have made it no longer possible to enact much in the way of new programs. This is not a literal bankruptcy but it is in the sense that the government would be intentionally driven in to a place where it could no longer make decisions to enact programs.
I do not believe that we have ever had a party target the national finances with an eye on the viability of future government decision-making before but I am arguing that this is exactly what we are seeing. As outlandish as this accusation may seem it is a more simple and reasonable explanation that the chronic series of mistakes we would have to credit a bunch of people we have every reason to assume both know better and have a motive for pretending they don't.
I don't believe we have seen any Canadian government so purposely drive the national finances over a cliff before.
Apparently in the next two and half years, the last eight years' worth of federal debt service payments will be wiped out. Banksters love high quality debt like Canada's with 33 million co-signers, lax environmental laws, oils sands from here to eternity, and a government that doesn't believe in full employment or competitive economies in order that their parasitic creditor friends continue bleeding the country slowly but surely without actually killing the host.
I think many governments are able to tie the hands of future governments. Progressive governments do this by establishing programs like medicare and social security that conservative governments dare not touch. This is why Harper and company were so opposed to the national day care program that was almost implemented by the provinces and federal government.
The next government will be able to tie the hands of future Conservative governments by establishing programs such as enhancing medicare to include pharmacare, home care, optometry, dental care, national daycare, mass transit, etc...
We'll tie our stooges' hands with expanded social programs that have existed for years and years in a gaggle of other rich capitalist countries!
If we accept those things, we are doomed. But we don't have to accept them. This is especially true concerning deficit spending.
I think the taboo of running deficits has been broken during this "great recession." Ottawa and the provinces have all taken on deficit spending to spur economic growth and the world has not come to an end. I think governments in Canada have the political capital to implement new programs and run mid-size deficits until the economy grows enough to cover the deficits.
The problem in the US is that their economic stimulation package was too small. It should have been for $2 trillion instead of $1 trillion. If they had added $1 trillion to their rescue package, unemployment would be way down from where it is now. More people would be working and paying taxes to reduce the deficit. Paul Krugman has done a wonderful job explaining this. Keynesianism is back.
The next government could spur economic activity by implementing new social programs and new infrastructure programs. This would bring unemployment down and increase government revenues in the long term that would bring us back to surplus budgets. A strong economy can turn huge deficits into surpluses in a very short time as we saw 10 years ago. As long as unemployment is high and inflation is low, governments should make huge investments to spur the demand side of the economy. This will provide long-term economic growth.
Tax increases can wait until the economy is going strong again.
I think deficit will still be taboo if you don't have the pedigree of the cons...for some damn reason?
I know I have brought it up, but like many things on babble it does often take a back seat. Of course I AM a conspiracy theorist so I am not taken serious on some of this stuff. Unfortunately it sounds more tin foil hat to those that don't see this onion of devilish details. How could something so complicated be enacted without it falling apart? For that reason alone-people don't believe it could happen so it easier to get away with. It seems too grotesque for it to happen in our own country even if it is true.
Of course it will still be possible to break the taboos of raising taxes and short term deficits for program spending. But it vastly overstates to sy the taboo has been broken. Tax increases are still a third rail. Look at the Liberals: we're past the extreme hysteria about deficits and obsession with tax cuts, but the Liberals will still not go near tax increases.
And thats what the Harper government is doing, not making program spending impossible. But hobbling it at least Liberals through the Chetien years up to the present as opposition were only willing to propose program enhancements when there was a cookie jar of contrived surpluses [foscal slack built into budgets short and long term] in the Martin years, or when there was a short term cookie jar around [Ignatieff last year]. When programs can only be paid for with a tax increase- even a very modest one like a point back on corporate tax- the Liberals just wont go there [Ignatieff this year]. And they wont change when they are governing, frightened of the Cons shadow.
The Cons changed the landscape by structurally removing from the Liberals the only way they are willing to fund any new or enhanced program spending. That doesnt make it impossible to achives, but it is a big pile of new boulders in the road.
We agree on this.
And I'm not sure what to make of you continuing to say, 'show me where people have been talking about this'.
Above I distinguished this thesis which has been around and which I've been saying since the first half of 2007, then there is your thesis saying among other things that the stimulus spending is designed to fail, etc. [post#46]
I already said your specific thesis- sort a sub-species of the other one- I have not seen here.
I asked, and you have not clarified, whether recognition of what is in the quote above here is sufficient.... or whether you think people also have to 'wake up' to the reality you see that planned failure and waste in the stimulus spending??
I.E: not that you can support your idea that it the Cons go so far as to have planned failure of spending, and that it is solely/mostly for wrecking purposes. But whether you think its a minimum neccesity that people understand this is happening? Becasue I dont agree it goe that far. But I also dont think it matters. Because what I agree happened and is happening leads to the same conclusion as your quote above.... which I think is "all" people need to understand.
You know along this same vien, of starving future governments Sean, we have watched it happen with our local government body.
And it was planned.
The former mayor, who was retiring, supposedly in a vacuum/whim decided to enter into all these private enterprise contracts of surface (read cosmetic) revitalization, as opposed to infrastructure spending. So now, the finances of the community are so tied up that nothing can be done for at least 5 years. And the tax base is now so high that should something befall the community, they can't even raise taxes to pay for it.
Even right down to privatizing garbage pick up, we have followed the destruction of government model proposed and now undertaken by the CONs. One wonders how many other cities and communities have had the same thing done?
Micro and macro really.