What Andrew Coyne should have wrote

If Andrew Coyne didn't hate conservatives, this is the article he would have wrote:  Canada's Stephen Harper: Radical?

Last weekend I wrote a post in response to Coyne's disingenuous article slamming the Conservative Party for doing rather unconservative things in Minority.  He never mentions that those were the most conservative decisions politically possible at the time.  They are history and a matter of public record.

I was challenged by my readers that day to write a post directly refuting Coyne's complaints.  My comments were full of advise on what I should have wrote.  The trouble is, I don't care for their advise.  Coyne was right for the most part.  It's true that he lies by omission.  He also made 3 direct and eloquent lies in his poisonous admonishment.  

Niel Edmonson points out:

Last week I caught Andrew Coyne fibbing about the Conservative party. He claimed in a column that the Conservatives said OAS was in imminent danger of "collapse". I called BS, he acknowledged the error (but didn't correct it, as per standard Canadian media practice). See my Twitter timeline for details.
The Conservatives came to power Jan 23 2006. The fiscal year ends March 31. The last fiscal year of Liberal government ending March 31 2006 saw spending of $220.5 billion dollars (www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/govt48b-eng.htm). The most the Harper government spent in one year was in fiscal 2011: $274 billion (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cp-rc/2009-2010/cp-rc02-eng.asp). Spending has come down since then and will come in this year at about $250 billion.
274 billion minus 220 billion is 54 billion. Harper increased spending by this much at most; how does Coyne report it? "having increased spending by nearly $70-billion since taking office." That's a pretty big error for a London School of Economics grad to make. Worse, Canada's population growth and inflation under Harper make Coyne's fib even bigger.
Coyne claims the Conservatives added "$150-billion to the national debt". The real number is about $75 billion, see www.debtclock.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=42 . There are somewhat understandable (but still unpalatable) reasons why the Conservatives did that but it's beyond the scope of this comment.
Coyne said that the Conservatives raised spending by 7% a year. If that were the case they'd be spending well over $300 billion annually after 6 years in power. In fact, spending this year will be $250 billion.
Coyne pulls numbers and quotes out of his ass to bash the Conservatives and he does it on a consistent basis. The Rule of Coyne is divide whatever he says by 2 to get the real number.
Harper and company have in fact increased spending by far too much and there is no need to make up facts to prove that point.

(h/t  SDA)

So everyone agrees.  The Conservative Party has involuntarily drifted.  It was the result of hard fought political battles.  Battles that were won at a heavy cost.  The wounds have not fully healed yet either.

Coyne is not here for the healing.  Coyne is here to demoralize Conservative supporters and suppress them.  He is an unwelcome parasite to our common cause.  He speaks our language and knows our views, but uses this to destroy, not to build.

People who were disappointed with my post, seem to have missed the point.  Coyne was not wrong even if he did lie occasionally.  The Point is that Andrew Coyne hates the Conservative Party.  The point is that Andrew Coyne cannot be a conservative if he advocates for higher or new taxes. The fact that he proudly votes Liberal is a side point here.  Its the diaper that comes with the bastard baby.

I want to make this absolutely clear.  A person who wants to reduce spending but increase taxes is a progressive.  Whatever logic they use, it is not conservative logic. It is progressivism, that catchall listener friendly replacement word for socialism.  Higher taxes and their imagined revenue are the precursor to whatever perceived emergency demands higher spending in the future.

Surplus and deficit pivot on an arbitrary break even point governed by spending and revenue.  Starving the beast, cutting taxes, insures the pursuit of government efficiency and lower spending.  Surplus and deficit are as arbitrary as the break even point itself but a commitment to lower taxes brings the burden and size of government down in the long run.  It must, or face ruin.

Emergency spending may come and go that temporarily drives spending into deficit.  An unexpected car repair for example could put you personally into deficit for a time.  The Coyne answer is to demand a raise from the boss.  The people of this country are the boss and when the government asks for more we have to say "NO, SPEND LESS."  We all know there is plenty of waste in government.  We must be resolute as people and politicians that there cannot and will not ever be an increase in taxes.  Enough is enough.

Whatever emergencies have transpired n the past, the Harper Government has committed to lower spending and lower taxes.  There is always more to do.  There is always good conservative policies that will be enacted in the future.  Does last week's flat tire affect today's driving?  Why should the battles of the past haunt this bright future of ours? 

Already the Long Gun registry is gone and the Wheat Board is gone.  The deficit is shrinking ahead of schedule. The economy is strong and stable.  I'm confident that Stephen Harper has not only done a great job but will do an even better one now that the yoke of minority parliament has been lifted.