At the start of the preliminary round men's hockey game between Team Canada and Team USA, a Canadian fan held up a sign invoking Al Michaels' famous call at the end of the USA-Russia game at Lake Placid in 1980.
He asked "Do you believe in miracles" as the team of collegiate American boys defeated the Big Red Machine.
The sign asked "Do you believe in miracles". Just below, it answered itself with a "NO".
For me Olympic hockey has lost much of its lustre since watching that famous upset at Lake Placid. Canada won gold at Salt Lake City and as a Canadian I was happy. However, there is something strangely uninspiring about the best team with the best players winning the tournament.
The USA defeated Canada in that round robin game 5-3. However that fan was still right. This was no miracle. A solid Team USA filled with NHL players beat a star studded Team Canada filled with ......NHL players. The Canadians were favoured but it was no shock and no disgrace to lose to this American team.
They will play again in the Gold Medal Game on Sunday. These are the two best teams playing for the Gold and one of them will lose to a worthy opponent. It will be no miracle either way.
For me the great sporting moment of these Olympics was captured by Joannie Rochette. As many already know, her mother died of a heart attack shortly after arriving in Vancouver to watch her daughter skate in the Olympics.
A very emotional Rochette skated on and was third after the short program. She burst into tears at the end of her program undoubtedly thinking of her mother. After the long program she did not move up but she skated well and captured the Bronze medal.
Joannie Rochette's bronze medal was the miracle on ice this time. Watching her family and friends bursting with tears of pride as she stood on the podium it was clear that the colour of the medal did not matter. In fact, I'm sure they would have been just as proud had she not won a medal at all.
A team of millionaire professional Canadian hockey players will win either a silver or gold on Sunday. Our nation will weep if they fail to win gold and thump our collective chests if should succeed.
In a sporting sense, none of that will matter more than Joannie Rochette who reminded us that it's not whether you win or lose......it's how you play the game. She won simply by playing on.
Bravo Joannie!!!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Voodoo Economics
During the Republican primaries leading up to the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan's economic plan was famously called "Voodoo economics" by his chief rival George H.W. Bush.
One of the central tenets of Reagan's plan was that tax cuts would raise the deficit in the short term but the resulting economic boom would eliminate the deficit as the economy outgrew the deficit. It worked.....well kinda. Economic growth was substantial but the deficit persisted. What Reagan hadn't counted on was the boom in spending on entitlements. The growth in entitlements was such a factor that the President who authored one of the biggest tax cuts in history ended up signing one of the biggest tax hikes in history to ensure that Social Security remained solvent.
Fast forward 30 years and President Obama has proposed a budget that totals 3.6 trillion dollars in spending. This outflow of dollars exceeds the money coming in by a staggering 1.6 trillion dollars. Putting this into terms that one can relate to, imagine a family with $50,000 in take home pay spending $90,000 per year.
Obama's budget proposal claims to cut the deficit from 11% of GDP to 4% of GDP in 4 years. This is largely based upon rosy projections for economic growth. In fact, economic growth accounts for 6 of the 7% that the deficit is forecast to decline. Note however that his own projections show the deficits climbing ever higher towards the end of his second term as baby boomers retire and start drawing Social Security.
Such deficits are not only unsustainable, they are immoral. Deficits represent a legacy of debt being passed onto our children and grandchildren. We are impoverishing future generations in order to safeguard our standard of living.
So what should be done? First off, do away with rosy economic projections. Assume a recession or two. Why are politicians always surprised that recessions come along? Second make some hard choices on taxes and spending. Raise taxes across the board. Raise the age at which one qualifies for Social Security. (The age of 65 for eligibility was introduced when the average lifespan was 67 years. Now that the average lifespan is pushing 80, upping the retirement age is warranted.)
A balanced budget amendment should be introduced. It could have some flexibility built in so that some stimulus can be introduced at times, however it should be a condition that stimulus spending can only come from past surpluses. In other words, the government should put away for a rainy day. I would ask proponents of the idea that governments should spend during recessions and run surpluses in boom times why we can't reverse the order. Governments should first save money and then spend it during a recession. When that money runs out, so should the stimulus.
These are very simple common sense ideas. They are not likely to see the light of day in Washington or Ottawa.
One of the central tenets of Reagan's plan was that tax cuts would raise the deficit in the short term but the resulting economic boom would eliminate the deficit as the economy outgrew the deficit. It worked.....well kinda. Economic growth was substantial but the deficit persisted. What Reagan hadn't counted on was the boom in spending on entitlements. The growth in entitlements was such a factor that the President who authored one of the biggest tax cuts in history ended up signing one of the biggest tax hikes in history to ensure that Social Security remained solvent.
Fast forward 30 years and President Obama has proposed a budget that totals 3.6 trillion dollars in spending. This outflow of dollars exceeds the money coming in by a staggering 1.6 trillion dollars. Putting this into terms that one can relate to, imagine a family with $50,000 in take home pay spending $90,000 per year.
Obama's budget proposal claims to cut the deficit from 11% of GDP to 4% of GDP in 4 years. This is largely based upon rosy projections for economic growth. In fact, economic growth accounts for 6 of the 7% that the deficit is forecast to decline. Note however that his own projections show the deficits climbing ever higher towards the end of his second term as baby boomers retire and start drawing Social Security.
Such deficits are not only unsustainable, they are immoral. Deficits represent a legacy of debt being passed onto our children and grandchildren. We are impoverishing future generations in order to safeguard our standard of living.
So what should be done? First off, do away with rosy economic projections. Assume a recession or two. Why are politicians always surprised that recessions come along? Second make some hard choices on taxes and spending. Raise taxes across the board. Raise the age at which one qualifies for Social Security. (The age of 65 for eligibility was introduced when the average lifespan was 67 years. Now that the average lifespan is pushing 80, upping the retirement age is warranted.)
A balanced budget amendment should be introduced. It could have some flexibility built in so that some stimulus can be introduced at times, however it should be a condition that stimulus spending can only come from past surpluses. In other words, the government should put away for a rainy day. I would ask proponents of the idea that governments should spend during recessions and run surpluses in boom times why we can't reverse the order. Governments should first save money and then spend it during a recession. When that money runs out, so should the stimulus.
These are very simple common sense ideas. They are not likely to see the light of day in Washington or Ottawa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
