Angry in the Great White North

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff made news by having a meeting.  I know.  It's ridiculous sometimes.  But there it is.  Michael Ignatieff talks to a bunch of people and it's big news.

In this case, though, I'm glad that it worked out this way, because we know that Michael Ignatieff spoke to David Dodge:

Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff has quietly reached out to an economic brain trust that includes former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge as his party begins developing a new platform that sources say would serve as an eventual trigger to bringing down the Conservatives.

Liberal sources said that Mr. Ignatieff met Mr. Dodge, TD Bank Financial Group CEO Ed Clark and two other notable economic thinkers at an exclusive dinner at his Stornoway home a few weeks ago.

The session with the economists was a brainstorming meeting where Mr. Ignatieff's ideas for revamping Employment Insurance benefits were discussed, as well as notions on how Mr. Ignatieff should further stimulate the economy if he becomes prime minister.

Quietly reached out?  Obviously it wasn't that quiet that it made the front page.

So Michael Ignatieff talked to David Dodge about stimulating the economy, which obviously means a discussion of how much the deficit should be.  That's interesting, because David Dodge has some words about the $50 billion deficit:

Former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge said today that the Canadian government's deficit, which will exceed C$50 billion ($46 billion) this year, is right given the recession, though lawmakers must commit to cut it later.

"The Canadian federal deficit of 3 percent of GDP, in a year where the output gap is as large as it's going to be, is certainly not inappropriate," Dodge, a former deputy minister with the Finance Department, said in remarks at an economics conference in Toronto.

Michael Ignatieff had words about the deficit that were remarkably different:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called on the Conservative government Thursday to reveal just how much higher the federal deficit will climb this fiscal year.

Ignatieff's query came during question period in the House of Commons after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty disclosed earlier this week that Canada's deficit for 2009-10 will balloon to more than $50 billion.

That is more than $16 billion above the amount projected by Flaherty in the January budget.

"Canadians are tired of these sorry 'guesstimates' - they want to know the truth," Ignatieff told the House.

And Michael Ignatieff seems to be angry about the size of the deficit:

Ignatieff ridiculed the Tories' claim that the deficit will be short-lived, saying "there is not a single Canadian who believes that is true."

Michael Ignatieff says Canadians want to know the truth.  Well, this particular Canadian wants to know the truth too.  David Dodge says the deficit is "right" under the circumstances.  Mere weeks ago, Michael Ignatieff had a not-so-secret meeting with David Dodge to discuss economic policy.  They brainstormed ideas about stimulating the economy, which means increased government spending, and that means having a deficit.  It seems obvious that David Dodge would have told Michael Ignatieff that an appropriate level of deficit would be in the neighbourhood of $50 billion.  Why?  Because Dodge's comfort level is based on the fact that the deficit is only 3% of the GDP, versus 12% in the US.  We don't know what David Dodge's comfort level is, but it might be 4% or 5% or even a bit higher, so in discussing stimulus and responding to the obvious question "How much do I have to work with?", David Dodge's response to Michael Ignatieff would have been $50 billion or more.  Nothing in the time between the meeting with Michael Ignatieff and David Dodge's recent public announcement has changed with regards to this calculation.

What did Michael Ignatieff say in response to the fifty billion dollar answer?  Was Ignatieff as angry with David Dodge as he was with Jim Flaherty?  Or did Michael Ignatieff agree with David Dodge?

If so, why is Michael Ignatieff mad at Jim Flaherty? 

I don't think Michael Ignatieff has genuine emotions.  He just pretends.  He pretends to be patriotic.  He pretends to be angry.  It's just an act for our amusement while he waits to find out just when he's going back to Harvard (sooner if he loses an election, later if he gets to be prime minister for while first).

If only Michael Ignatieff or his staff had not leaked the details of that meeting to the media.  If it had really been a "quiet" meeting, then I wouldn't have a reason to believe that Ignatieff was quite comfortable with a deficit of $50 billion, and that Michael Ignatieff's harsh criticism of the deficit is pure theatre.

Crappy lying skills:  It's a cheap shot to say so-and-so is faking it, since usually there is no way to be objectively certain.  But with Michael Ignatieff, it's different.  He says he's a patriot, but we've seen multiple occasions when he declared himself to be an American and disparaged Canada.  He says he's mad about the deficit, but recently he had a lengthy meeting on stimulus spending with the same person who just said that the deficit is to be expected and is appropriate.  It's not that Michael Ignatieff is a lousy liar.  He can fake sincerity when he wants to.  It's just that he leaves all these clues that point to his real opinions and beliefs.  To me, that makes him an incompetent liar.