Angry in the Great White North

Yesterday Michael Ignatieff promised to raise taxes:

Federal taxes must go up to pay off Canada's increasing debt, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said today.

Ignatieff's comments were in response to a question from Cambridge business leader John Bell, who wanted to known when the federal debt will be paid back.

"We will have to raise taxes," but not at the expense of hurting the recovery from this recession.

In his eagerness to raise taxes, Michael Ignatieff used the ridiculous excuse that raising taxes sharply and quickly would somehow be good for children.

Needless to say, Michael Ignatieff was quickly targeted for criticism:

Federal taxes will have to rise to pay off Canada's burgeoning deficit, but not at the expense of economic recovery, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Tuesday.

The Conservative Party quickly jumped on Mr. Ignatieff's comments, highlighting them at the top of their website.

In the past, when Michael Ignatieff allowed the rest of us mere mortals to bathe in the glow of intellectual brilliance by speaking off the cuff on some subject, Michael Ignatieff would often get into trouble and be forced into issuing "clarifications" soon after.

It happened on the subject of asbestos.

It happened on the subject of Israel.

It happened on the subject of Senate appointments.

Given that Michael Ignatieff's pledge to dramatically raise taxes quickly after coming to power was made in response to a question and not as part of a prepared statement, I made a simple prediction, and yet what I think was a bold one. 

Michael Ignatieff would, within days, issue a "clarification" of his taxation position.

I was wrong.  The clarification came within hours this time.  Clearly the Liberal backroom boys are getting better at this.

Almost immediately, Michael Ignatieff was distancing himself from his own words on higher taxes:

Tax increases to improve employment insurance or to slash the deficit are not on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's agenda during the current recession, he said yesterday.

Dealing with both issues will be costly, but the time to do it is when the economy begins to recover, he told reporters.

"No one in their right mind wants to shut off the recovery by raising taxes in any form," he said, adding he's troubled by the $80-billion deficit run up by the Conservatives.

"No responsible politician looking at that number can excuse, forever and a day, raising additional revenue ... No Canadian is going to believe you.

"Once recovery is underway and we are still stuck in a structural deficit, then we would need expenditure review, cutting back government expenditure," he said.

Ignatieff was trying to clarify comments he'd made earlier in the day, when he was quoted as saying taxes would have to rise to deal with the deficit. He later said that's one of many possiblities that lies ahead after the economy recovers.

Tax increases are not on the Liberal agenda?  But yesterday Michael Ignatieff clearly said something very different when he said "we will have to raise taxes".

Cutting back on government expenditure in the future?  But isn't that what Michael Ignatieff promised not to do when he said he would not "load the deficit on [our] children"?

And yet Michael Ignatieff is assuming there will be structural deficit.  I wonder if another clarification will be coming.

Perhaps one day, top Liberal scientists will perfect some sort of remote control that will shut Michael Ignatieff down when he finishes reading a speech written by other people.  Or perhaps they'll come up with some sort of animatronic Ignatieff as a stand-in for events in which Michael Ignatieff is expected to field questions.  Or something.

But anything is better than this Michael Ignatieff and his penchant for messing up answers to questions, and then issuing prepared statements that are in total opposition to what he had said earlier.

Not only is it embarrassing, it's becoming tiresome.

My neck is sore:  Here is a short list of Liberal apologists who posted justifications of Michael Ignatieff's "I'll raise taxes" statement of yesterday.  Though you have to admire the speed at which they jumped in to explain how raising taxes is good for an economy just getting off a recession, they should have waited for the inevitable clarification.  Now that Michael Ignatieff has stated that he's off the tax thing and for cutting expenditures instead, these people will have to turn 180 degrees.  Be careful not to get whiplash watching these knee-jerk Ignatieff fans as they careen right and the left trying to follow Michael Ignatieff as he fakes being a political thinker.

Liberal Arts and Minds: "In order to eliminate the deficit, it's likely that a government would have to do so through taxes." (Now Michael Ignatieff is saying that "we would seek to deal with the hit with effective expenditure review and reallocation".)

Far and Wide: "There is a way to pivot, turn this tax issue as a testament to a new kind of leadership, a new honesty, which is something we surely crave."  (Michael Ignatieff's new honesty means saying "We will have to raise taxes" in the morning and then "No one in their right mind wants to shut off the recovery by raising taxes in any form" in the evening.)

A BCer in Toronto: "If we're going to get back into the black after this economic storm passes, then there will either need to be tax increases, program cuts, or some combination of the two. I give Ignatieff credit for saying the politically unpopular: we'll need more revenue, ie. taxes." (Are you also going to give Michael Ignatieff credit for immediately repudiating his own politically unpopular statements?  Probably.  Ignatieff is a genius, after all.  Everyone knows that.)

Those other Liberals:  There are Liberals who are extremely concerned about Michael Ignatieff's inability to define a position and stick with it (not that they are fans of the few positions that Michael Ignatieff seems to have taken and not immediately abandoned).  They blog on that other Liberal blog aggregator, the one that tolerates criticism of Michael Ignatieff.  LeDaro is probably the most brutal of the Ignatieff detractors, and probably the one who says it best:

[Michael Ignatieff] scares the hell out of me. You never know what his positions are on different issues or positions he is going to take. It all depends on who was last with him. This man is out of touch with reality, Canada, and Canadians, as is Stephen Harper. Their heroes are U.S neo-cons. Maybe Iggy should take his talent somewhere else and he and his chums should release the hostage called the Liberal Party.

Yeah, he loses focus and goes after Stephen Harper, which leaves you wondering who he is supposed to be criticising, but if LeDaro could keep on message (and drop the childish cartoons), he could be an effective rallying point for Liberals tired of Michael Ignatieff's confused leadership.