When luck ends, truth emerges

Posted

Weasel words, slippery 
synonyms, humongous hyperbole, effortless entitlement have fallen into common usage in political circles these days. 


And no matter which party you voted for in the last federal or provincial election, once government is formed, it represents all of us, and as such we all have a right to know what they are spending our tax dollars on.


Some people might have bought into the idea of lower taxes and based their choices on that, or that someone else was responsible for spending on a program they didn’t like.


But most farmers who have been at it for more than a few years have enough experience to understand the luck factor.


While being in the right place at the right time plays a role in successes and failures, luck seals the deal.


The Saskatchewan Party won the lottery in 2007, taking over a set of books that was balanced by the New Democratic Party. 


ADVERTISMENT

This, combined with a rising tide of natural resources revenue, carried Western Canada through the Great Recession of 2008.


That healthy, albeit inherited, bottom line allowed the Saskatchewan government to make ideological tax and royalty cuts and get away with it.


Claiming the years of economic success were due to the government’s right formula was more than a bit hyperbolic.


But now as the financial tide is ebbing and luck is running out, the weasel words from the Saskatchewan government are coming out.


It said it wouldn’t sell crown corporations without a vote but now it is peddling 49 percent shares in them. That smells of weasel.


ADVERTISMENT

Dave Marit, Saskatchewan’s minister of highways, has said that his budget shouldn’t include a price for accountability from the public, saying that all costs for freedom of information requests should be paid by the person who files the request.


That sends the message that you and I are not entitled to know what he did with our tax money and we should just trust him.


He might be a little too entitled.


Federally, the Liberal party is trying to financially restrict the Parliamentary Budget Officer from being able to assess the costs of federal programs.


Spending a few dollars in public budgets to ensure that governments are telling a story as close to the truth as they can might be a good idea because I think some politicians are giving the handshake a bad name.


ADVERTISMENT

  • Harold

    “When luck ends. truth emerges”; exactly what was this word nonsense supposed to mean? Luck only means that you are present to an event but the event facts determine whether the luck has been good or if the luck has been bad. Without a single truth the term luck is not definable. Simply, when you buy a lottery ticket you have made yourself present to the event of winning money. The facts/truth of the numbers drawn determines whether being present to the event was either good in nature or bad; the event is called Luck. The fact that you can go and buy another lottery ticket means that luck does not “run out” but it is only when you cannot ever buy another lottery ticket that luck has indeed run out. Un-lucky means not present to the event. “Lucky to be alive” means that the facts of the event that you were present to did not end your life; In the event of luck, the dead are of bad luck. Those with no luck at all, were somewhere else. When does luck end; when you are dead? According to the author opinion, it is the farmers who have “enough experience to understand the luck factor” and that 
”luck seals the deal”. Oh really?
    Further the author states in part that “we all have a right to know what they are spending our tax dollars on”. The Author goes on to say that Dave Marit, Saskatchewan’s minister of highways, “sends the message that you and I are not entitled to know what he did with our tax money and we should just trust him”; and the author concludes that Dave Marit,
 “he might be a little too entitled”.

    First of all, there is a difference between a faith and a trust. A faith is where and when there are no personal controls and a trust exists where the trust is supported by documents. That is why there are Trust Funds (documents) and not Faith Funds. (no documents) Where is it written by documentation that “we all have a right to know what they are spending our tax dollars on” to create this trust? The Author dries up with a; “I think some politicians are giving the handshake a bad name”.
 Until the public can find or create the document and present it; there is not a Trust. Until then there is only faith.(handshake) Did Dave Marit give “the handshake a bad name”?
    The author states in words lacking in clarity that; “weasel words, slippery 
synonyms, humongous hyperbole, effortless entitlement have fallen into common usage in political circles these days” unaware that the author and the public are doing the same, especially in the areas of “effortless entitlement”.