29 November 2010

That evil, double-dealing Stephen Harp...

...wait a minute...

The McGuinty government’s relations with the incoming mayor of Toronto are off to a bumpy start, with Ontario’s Finance Minister calling on Rob Ford to stick to his penny-pinching ways when it comes to provincial funding.

Finance Minister Dwight Duncan suggested that Mr. Ford, who campaigned in the mayoral race on reducing “waste in the system,” should be agreeable to lowering the city’s funding request.
Except, Dwight... you dumb bunny... this is an agreement you already made with the socialist chuckleheads who ran Toronto smack into the red zone......
For his part, Mr. Ford declined to discuss the funding request made by his predecessor, saying he will address the matter next month when he meets with Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Stuart Green, spokesman for outgoing Mayor David Miller, said he fully expects the province to meet its obligation.
I dunno, Stuart... sounds like they pulled one over on you too.


17 comments:

Anon1152 said...

Well. The McGuinty government has for some time wanted to reduce or delay funding for various things it said it was ready to fund. E.g., transit city-the funding and delayed funding of which was an issue before Rob Ford looked like a serious candidate.

Their wanting to lower the cost of Toronto to themselves is hardly a change of character, and appealing to a guy who is supposedly all about reducing costs doesn't seem weird at all. It doesn't even seem politically motivated (though it may well be, given that we're talking about politics).

As for pulling anything over on anyone.... the article you link yo seems to be saying that the province wants the city to reduce the OVERALL cost.

Two key quotes from the article you cite here:

1. "Although the province has agreed in principle to pay half the cost of administering the program as part of a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement with all 445 towns and cities in Ontario, it has not agreed on an amount, said Finance Minister Dwight Duncan."

2. "'We have assurances from Minister Duncan’s office they will meet that 50-50 commitment and the matter of the specific dollars and cents is just being finalized literally as we speak,' he said."

*

Given what's in the article (again, the article that you are referring to) I don't think that anyone has "pulled one" (or two, or three) over anyone just yet.

I suspect that IF anyone has pulled anything over on anyone, it might be Rob Ford, who claims that he can cut taxes and do the other things he wants to do without cutting services of any sort.

I suspect he may be sincere. But I'm not at all convinced that he's being honest. If he's pulled anything over anyone or anything, he's pulled the proverbial wool over his own eyes.

Speaking of eyes that don't see (and speaking of segues)...

I'd be careful about references to "socialist chuckleheads who ran Toronto smack into the red zone..."

Personally, I'd vote for a chucklehead before a knucklehead any day. (Does that make me a socialist? What if I think Ford is both?). But the chuckle/knuckle distinction probably doesn't matter here.

What matters more to me here is what you mean by "red zone".

Do you you mean something like... a red light district? Do you mean... the socialist/commie zone?

Before I started thinking too much about this, I thought that you meant "in the red", as in, "in deficit".

But then I recalled that "Toronto's outgoing city council has an early welcome gift for the incoming mayor and council: A $275-million budget surplus for 2010 – almost $100-million more than was projected in June."

Toronto isn't in "the red" budget wise. So you must be talking about something else. So... what is it?

Anon1152 said...

Well. The McGuinty government has for some time wanted to reduce or delay funding for various things it said it was ready to fund. E.g., transit city-the funding and delayed funding of which was an issue before Rob Ford looked like a serious candidate.

Their wanting to lower the cost of Toronto to themselves is hardly a change of character, and appealing to a guy who is supposedly all about reducing costs doesn't seem weird at all. It doesn't even seem politically motivated (though it may well be, given that we're talking about politics).

As for pulling anything over on anyone.... the article you link yo seems to be saying that the province wants the city to reduce the OVERALL cost.

Two key quotes from the article you cite here:

1. "the province has agreed in principle to pay half the cost of administering the program as part of a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement..."

and

2. "'We have assurances from Minister Duncan’s office they will meet that 50-50 commitment and the matter of the specific dollars and cents is just being finalized literally as we speak"

*

Given what's in the article (again, the article that you are referring to) I don't think that anyone has "pulled one" (or two, or three) over anyone just yet.

If anyone has pulled anything, it's probably Rob Ford, pulling the metaphorical wool over his own eyes, by claiming he can cut taxes the way he wants and maintains services at their current levels.

I suspect he may be sincere. But I'm not at all convinced that he's being honest. If he's pulled anything over anyone or anything, he's pulled the proverbial wool over his own eyes.

Speaking of eyes that don't see (and speaking of segues)... I'd be careful about references to "socialist chuckleheads who ran Toronto smack into the red zone..."

Personally, I'd vote for a chucklehead before a knucklehead any day. (Does that make me a socialist? What if I think Ford is both?). But the chuckle/knuckle distinction probably doesn't matter here.

What matters more to me here is what you mean by "red zone". Do you you mean something like... a red light district? Do you mean... the socialist/commie zone? Before I started thinking too much about this, I thought that you meant "in the red", as in, "in deficit". But then I recalled that "Toronto's outgoing city council has an early welcome gift for the incoming mayor and council: A $275-million budget surplus for 2010 – almost $100-million more than was projected in June."

Toronto ISN'T in "the red", budget wise. So you must be talking about something else. So... what is it?

Anon1152 said...

Well. The McGuinty government has for some time wanted to reduce or delay funding for various things it said it was ready to fund. E.g., transit city-the funding and delayed funding of which was an issue before Rob Ford looked like a serious candidate.

Their wanting to lower the cost of Toronto to themselves is hardly a change of character, and appealing to a guy who is supposedly all about reducing costs doesn't seem weird at all. It doesn't even seem politically motivated (though it may well be, given that we're talking about politics).

As for pulling anything over on anyone.... the article you link yo seems to be saying that the province wants the city to reduce the OVERALL cost.

Two key quotes from the article you cite here:

1. "the province has agreed in principle to pay half the cost of administering the program as part of a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement..."

and

2. "'We have assurances from Minister Duncan’s office they will meet that 50-50 commitment and the matter of the specific dollars and cents is just being finalized literally as we speak"

*

Given what's in the article (again, the article that you are referring to) I don't think that anyone has "pulled one" (or two, or three) over anyone just yet.

If anyone has pulled anything, it's probably Rob Ford, pulling the metaphorical wool over his own eyes, by claiming he can cut taxes the way he wants and maintains services at their current levels.

Speaking of eyes that don't see (and speaking of segues)... I'd be careful about references to "socialist chuckleheads who ran Toronto smack into the red zone..."

Personally, I'd vote for a chucklehead before a knucklehead any day. (Does that make me a socialist? What if I think Ford is both?). But the chuckle/knuckle distinction probably doesn't matter here.

What matters more to me here is what you mean by "red zone". Do you you mean something like... a red light district? Do you mean... the socialist/commie zone? Before I started thinking too much about this, I thought that you meant "in the red", as in, "in deficit". But then I recalled that "Toronto's outgoing city council has an early welcome gift for the incoming mayor and council: A $275-million budget surplus for 2010 – almost $100-million more than was projected in June."

Toronto ISN'T in "the red", budget wise. So you must be talking about something else. So... what is it?

Anon1152 said...

Well. The McGuinty government has for some time wanted to reduce or delay funding for various things it said it was ready to fund. E.g., transit city-the funding and delayed funding of which was an issue before Rob Ford looked like a serious candidate.

Their wanting to lower the cost of Toronto to themselves is hardly a change of character, and appealing to a guy who is supposedly all about reducing costs doesn't seem weird at all. It doesn't even seem politically motivated (though it may well be, given that we're talking about politics).

As for pulling anything over on anyone.... the article you link yo seems to be saying that the province wants the city to reduce the OVERALL cost.

Two key quotes from the article you cite here:

1. "the province has agreed in principle to pay half the cost of administering the program as part of a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement..."

and

2. "'We have assurances from Minister Duncan’s office they will meet that 50-50 commitment and the matter of the specific dollars and cents is just being finalized literally as we speak"

*

Given what's in the article (again, the article that you are referring to) I don't think that anyone has "pulled one" (or two, or three) over anyone just yet.

If anyone has pulled anything, it's probably Rob Ford, pulling the metaphorical wool over his own eyes, by claiming he can cut taxes the way he wants and maintains services at their current levels.

Speaking of eyes that don't see (and speaking of segues)... I'd be careful about references to "socialist chuckleheads who ran Toronto smack into the red zone..."

Personally, I'd vote for a chucklehead before a knucklehead any day. (Does that make me a socialist? What if I think Ford is both?). But the chuckle/knuckle distinction probably doesn't matter here.

What matters more to me here is what you mean by "red zone". Do you you mean something like... a red light district? Do you mean... the socialist/commie zone? Before I started thinking too much about this, I thought that you meant "in the red", as in, "in deficit". But then I recalled that Toronto ISN'T in "the red", budget wise.

So you must be talking about something else. What is it?

Anon1152 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anon1152 said...

Well. The McGuinty government has for some time wanted to reduce or delay funding for various things it said it was ready to fund. E.g., transit city-the funding and delayed funding of which was an issue before Rob Ford looked like a serious candidate.

Their wanting to lower the cost of Toronto to themselves is hardly a change of character, and appealing to a guy who is supposedly all about reducing costs doesn't seem weird at all. It doesn't even seem politically motivated (though it may well be, given that we're talking about politics).

As for pulling anything over on anyone.... the article you link yo seems to be saying that the province wants the city to reduce the OVERALL cost.

Two key quotes from the article you cite here:

1. "the province has agreed in principle to pay half the cost of administering the program as part of a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement..."

and

2. "'We have assurances from Minister Duncan’s office they will meet that 50-50 commitment and the matter of the specific dollars and cents is just being finalized literally as we speak"

*

(to be continued)

Anon1152 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anon1152 said...

(continued from previous post)
*

Given what's in the article (again, the article that you are referring to) I don't think that anyone has "pulled one" (or two, or three) over anyone just yet.

If anyone has pulled anything, it's probably Rob Ford, pulling the metaphorical wool over his own eyes, by claiming he can cut taxes the way he wants and maintains services at their current levels.

*

Perhaps you've done the same thing. What do you mean about "the socialists" bringing Toronto "into the Red Zone"? It has a sci fi sound to it that I like, but what you mean by "red zone"? Do you you mean something like... a red light district? Do you mean... the socialist/commie zone? Before I started thinking too much about this, I thought that you meant "in the red", as in, "in deficit". But then I recalled that Toronto ISN'T in "the red", budget wise.

So you must be talking about something else. What is it?

Neo Conservative said...

*
wow, 52... i've gotta say... that's, if nothing else, a pretty convincing argument for not drinking expresso after 10 pm.

unfortunately, the point here is, however you might feel about rob ford... and that's a post in itself... the mcslippery liberals had a funding agreement in place with mayor david miller... and now they're apparently gonna renege on it... simply because they they want to fuck with the people's overwhelming choice for a new regime.

is that a good thing... or just more slimy partisan politics?

you're not suggesting that we subvert democracy... and toss ford out on his ass because you find him personally objectionable, are you?

because that's what your 5 essays seem to suggest.

*

Anon1152 said...

Hm.
I seem to have hit "send" a few too many times.
It kept telling me that it didn't go through.
Or so I thought.

I'll avoid the espresso nonetheless, however.

And as I said (apparently too many times), the province is saying that they agreed to a 50/50 split, and want to spend as little as possible. It sounds like they want to reduce the overall cost, which is something Ford would be amenable to. And they did the same stuff with the previous regime.

...

I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that we should subvert democracy and toss Ford out.

Neo Conservative said...

*
the real question here is... should dalton mcguinty's liberals live up to the commitment they made to mayor david miller and the people of toronto... or do they get to renege on the deal, simply to try and make rob ford... who is arguably a reactionary troglodyte... look bad.

yes or no?

*

Anon1152 said...

"the real question here is... should dalton mcguinty's liberals live up to the commitment they made to mayor david miller and the people of toronto... or do they get to renege on the deal, simply to try and make rob ford... who is arguably a reactionary troglodyte... look bad."

I'm reluctant to call him a troglodyte. "Reactionary", on the other hand, is probably a fairly uncontroversial classification...

To answer your question: Yes. I'd say they should live up to their commitments. Did I say they shouldn't? But they say they will. The commitment your referring to is (according to the article) a percentage of the total cost, not a specific dollar figure.

And they've reneged or threatened to renege on promises long before Ford took office. Was it purely ideological partisanship at work then?

I would think that reneging on their promises makes THEM look bad, rather than anyone they renege on.

-anon1152

Glad to see you standing up for mayor Miller and the people of Toronto, by the way.

Chris said...

"At the same time, the number of people receiving social assistance benefits in Ontario has risen sharply since the onset of the global economic slowdown two years ago. At the end of October, 451,540 residents were receiving Ontario Works benefits, up 22 per cent from October, 2008"

.... that's depressing.

Anonymous said...

it was my impression the provincial liberals agreed to the funding based on a plan, not just, here ya go here's some cash, no strings attached, change your mind how ya spend it kinda deal.

So yeah, the provincial government can renege if the city decides to spend the money in a much different fashion.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... Glad to see you standing up for mayor Miller"

dwight donut says he's gonna play some more fuckaround with the taxpayers in toronto... simply to try embarrass a political opponent... and that's the lesson you draw from this?

seriously?

yup... go dwight, go!!!

*

Anon1152 said...

"dwight donut says he's gonna play some more fuckaround with the taxpayers in toronto... simply to try embarrass a political opponent... and that's the lesson you draw from this?"


Is "dwight" here McGuinty? I first thought that you were referring to ME, but I'm not named "dwight". And I'm not a donut. Though... I do feel empty inside... but I digress.

I don't think I've drawn any "lessons" from "this." My argument was that, given the evidence you've presented, I am not convinced that McGuinty is trying to "simply embarrass a political opponent". My comments have, I thought, argued against that premise.

That's why I must again ask: by "dwight" do you mean McGuinty? Or the Ontario Government? Or something or someone else?

Because the last time I checked, Rob Ford didn't run against McGuinty. And McGuinty didn't run against Rob Ford.

It's that different "levels of government" thing.

They might be ideological opponents. But when ideological opponents meet in the realm of politics, especially if they occupy different levels of government, they often become... "strange bedfellows".

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... I don't think I've drawn any "lessons" from 'this'."

my point, exactly.

*