Earlier today I wrote about a National Post article datelined today and written by Mark Mullins. Shortly afterwards I discovered another Mullins article in the Globe and Mail also datelined today and on the same subject - the $5.6 billion Ontario deficit that was announced yesterday afternoon.
I'm struck by the difference in tone and focus between the two pieces. The NP piece gets right down to business - the deficit is McGuinty's problem and "no amount of spin" can change that (and I somehow don't think the use of the word "spin" was accidental). The G&M piece, on the other hand, provides context and takes governments and the system in general to task.
What in Hades is wrong with Ontario that successive governments have had such difficulty balancing the books? Going back 20 budgets (including this year and next), 13 have been in deficit, one barely balanced, and one or two are subject to revision under potential new accounting standards coming from this government. By my count, this means that the province lives within its means only one year out of every five. That is a failing grade in anyone's eyes.The first article states flatly that the budget must be in balance in five months, ignoring the fact that even the recent Tory legislation allows for a deficit when a new government takes over and finds that its predecessor left things in a mess. The G&M piece takes a somewhat more conciliatory tone - not a lot, but a little - and allows that deficits may be a fact of life for a while. The NP article concludes that cuts must be made to health care and education while the second column points out that health care makes up the biggest part of the budget and leaves us to draw our own conclusions.Part of the problem is surely the electorate. People here associate better service with more money expended -- and there is a mighty call for improvement in health and education. Another broad factor is that there is such misinformation about the state of the province's finances. How many know that health spending, far from being gutted, has increased by almost $10-billion -- or 60 per cent -- since the mid-1990s? How many know that this province already spends more than almost all jurisdictions in North American on primary and secondary education?
Other reasons lie deeper in the political system...
I'd find the difference between the two approaches interesting enough, but it seems particularly worthy of note when the same author is involved. And the other difference I noticed is in the short "about the author" paragraphs that end both articles. The NP story simply stated Mullins position with the Fraser Institute. The G&M story ends thusly:
Mark Mullins is an economic consultant and financial markets analyst. He is also Director of Ontario Policy Studies at the Fraser Institute. Any views expressed here are strictly his own and not necessarily those of the Fraser Institute.So are the views expressed in the National Post those of the Fraser Institute? Or the Post? Is there a difference between the two?
