We’re entitled to our entitlements – funded by your taxes

April 24th, 2006
Email This Post  Print This Post  

You read it here first: in this Calgary Herald op-ed last month we talked about how interest groups, primarily of the Left, were lobbying to maintain an unabated flow of taxpayers’ dollars amid their fears – not yet the reality, just the fear – of budget cuts by the new Conservative government.

Today the National Post documented a further round of whining by global warming and state-daycare activists. Greenpeace’s position was as hilarious as it was outrageous:

“I think it’s fine for a new government to come in and say, ‘We want to look at things a little bit. We want to rejig things a little bit.’ But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re cutting everything,” said Greenpeace spokesman Steven Guilbeault.

Start with the absurdity of a government that’s expected to spent billions more on health care transfers and numerous other programs being accused of cutting “everything.” Just how confined is Mr. Guilbeault’s personal universe, how limited his horizons? Grants to his outfit are, relatively speaking, penny-ante stuff.

Second is the unspeakable arrogance of an interest group – a movement of similarly minded groups, in fact – operating on the assumption that, once funded, it is entitled to similar – indeed, escalating – funding until the end of time.

New governments of a different ideological persuasion from the old are not to be permitted to reduce the funding of any group, even ideological enemies. What contempt for the taxpayer and for democratic government. But then, we long ago concluded that many on the Left are of a totalitarian mindset.

As amusing as all this was to Dr. J. and me, we were unsettled to see Canada’s ostensibly conservative newspaper shilling so shamelessly for groups that, in our view, have no claim on public money at any time, least of all under a Conservative government. Here’s one lamentable line from the “news” story by reporter Mike de Souza:

The government has already confirmed it would eliminate 15 programs dedicated to the fight against climate change, prompting an outcry from the groups affected.

Got that? The writer wasn’t satisfied with something neutral, such as “programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions”. Instead he presented what should be a factual debate over global warming theory as a moralistic crusade. How do you spell “bias”? We expected the Left to have such allies at the CBC, but not at the Post.

Blogmarks BlogLines del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google Reader Magnolia Yahoo! MyWeb Newsgator reddit SlashDot StumbleUpon Technorati