Failed NDP Candidate Linda McQuaig Accuses Tim Hudak Of Misleading Ontario Voters, By Misleading Voters Herself

Failed NDP MP candidate Linda McQuaig has an editorial on iPolitics today where she mocks PC leader Tim Hudak's million jobs pledge as "imaginary" and tries to insinuate Hudak is misleading Ontario voters with his plan. The title of her op-ed says it all, "A million jobs? Heck, why not a zillion? She calls his plan nutty. Apparently nobody ever explained to her that Hudak was part of the Mike Harris government that created 1,175,000 jobs during it's two terms, which is similar to the timeline of Hudak's job strategy.

 But McQuaigs not done there. She takes issue with Hudak mentioning the Conference Board of Canada's review of the jobs plan. Check this out:

"But let’s look at how truly dishonest this is.

Yes, the PCs did pay the Conference Board to do an analysis. But Pedro Antunes, deputy chief economist at the Conference Board, told me in an interview that the Conference Board is not endorsing the Million Jobs plan — nor did it even see the plan.

Antunes also acknowledged that data produced by the federal Finance department shows that far more jobs are created by government spending than by corporate tax reductions.

For instance, a 2009 Finance department chart estimates that if Ottawa spent $1 billion on support for unemployed and low-income individuals, it would generate 18,755 jobs. The same chart shows that if Ottawa gave up $1 billion in revenue in corporate income tax reductions, this would create only 3,310 jobs.

In other words, the federal Finance department — not known for progressive economics, particularly in the Harper era — concluded that government spending on the poor and unemployed creates substantially more jobs than cutting corporate taxes."

I've always found that when you accuse someone of being dishonest, it might not be a good idea to be dishonest yourself. Questioning Hudak's integrity while misleading and deceiving herself ? Can you say HYPOCRITE? McQuaig also quotes  Antunes. "He also agreed that big spending cuts — such as slashing 100,000 public sector jobs — could more than offset the economic benefits of lowering taxes"

 I'd be willing to bet McQuaig never told Antunes the majority of those eliminated jobs would be through attrition, rather than firings and layoffs. Obviously someone leaving the workplace with a comfortable pension and benefits has a completely different economic effect than someone going on EI or social assistance. Now for the most damaging part for McQuaig though. Remember that 2009 Finance Department chart that she claims shows Hudak's platform will fail. I wonder if she's actually even seen it. I knew which chart it was right away. It's the same one CAW economist Jim Stanford used to make all the same claims as McQuig did today back in 2009. Problem is if you look at that chart, or rather look at the full REPORT  McQuiag quotes you will see this at the bottom of the chart:

" Corporate income tax measures have limited impact on aggregate demand over the periods displayed in the table but have among the highest multiplier effects in the long run. This is because they increase the incentive to invest and accumulate capital, which leads to a higher permanent capacity to produce goods and services."

You see that chart represented a period of 2 years, and was based on stimulus spending by the federal government. Only a fool would believe spending billions more on social programs would have a better effect than actually creating jobs for people to pay taxes rather than getting a cheque from the government.. A dishonest fool at that!

paulsblues45@hotmail.com