irishtimes.com/opinion/pat- … -1.3684207
Pat Leahy in today’s IT asks a basic question: what was the balance between tax cuts and expenditure increases? Remember the 2:1 ratio promised by the FG/FF confidence and supply agreement which is now being re-negotiated. To be exact the agreement promised
OK, “investment in public spending” always meant increased public spending, whether current or capital. But you would also be mistaken if you thought “tax reductions” meant less tax. It meant “tax cuts” i.e. any measures which would reduce anticipated tax revenues, although everyone knew that tax revenues were bound to rise in a buoyant economy. What a wonderful world for government when its citizens simply assume that the government are entitled to revenue increases whenever the economy improves.
So what was agreed was that government will increase spending by twice as much it “cuts taxes”. But the latest budget fails even that test of “tax and spend” although you would never know it from the acres of newsprint devoted to the latest Budget and the preliminaries for an extension of “confidence and supply”. Pat Leahy, one of the best informed Pol. Corrs. , has to do his own “back of the envelope” calculations (i.e. no one in the Dail has dared to ask) and he discovers that the recent Budget had
He goes on to claim that, in this unannounced swing away from tax cuts, FG and FF
Pity the IT’s leading political commentator doesn’t read his own paper’s latest opinion poll
irishtimes.com/news/ireland … -1.3664554
Or perhaps he just didn’t read all the way to the bottom of the IT report where this gem was buried. I love how the minority opinion is quoted first and very affirmatively
while the more popular view is put second, and is expressed conditionally
Just in case their readers might be confused about the “right” opinion.