Marissal Says What I've Been Thinking Since Budget

As soon as the QC budget came out, I thought it was a set-up, since the regressive health tax was so obviously inequitable, and the proposed regressive user fees so stupid, and the political consequences so obvious. I like Charest, as a person, and I'm a federalist, so I didn't want to cramp his style, in case I was right. But I saw Marissal say part of what I've been thinking out loud, so here goes. There seem to be four ways to explain the Charest Govt approach:
1) They're serious, and stupid-foolhardy-suicidal, and either didn't foresee the reaction such regressive taxes would have, or didn't/don't care, and are willing to lose power over it. Since the taxes could easily have been designed better, and been progressive, as in Ontario, it's hard to see why they would want to introduce measures that will lead to their certain defeat and the measures' repeal, assuming they were serious. The mere statement they make, about needed cultural shift, was important enough to bring them in, knowing that at best they would be amended and made progressive by the following PQ Govt? Hard to believe, given politicians' ingrained survival-success instincts.

2) As mentioned by Marissal, the most obvious reason is they wanted to advance a "culture-changing" agenda, and so purposefully included these measures, fully expecting they would have to be amended, but in so doing, they would get credit for their response, while having still introduced a separate health tax, and who knows, maybe user fees as well. They'd have a go, see if they could get them through as is, in their current regressive form, and if not, they would amend them, and get credit for flexibility, while drawing attention away from all the other explosive measures in the budget. They know how Catholic Quebeckers are, psychologically, and that there's nothing we like better than an Easter story, the death & resurrection, or sin-atonement-forgiveness narrative. And also (implicit), a good drama/melodrama. So play the meme, sin with budget, say you won't change a word, have everyone use up their protesting energies on those two specific egregious regressive measures, say you recognise you were wrong, atone by making the measures progressive, and be even better appreciated for your act of atonement, receive forgiveness. Everything else in budget is ignored and goes through no problem, and even amended measures are more than Finance could have hoped to get through previously. A complete set-up.

Makes sense, but if so, one wouldn't have expected Bachand & Charest to be so firm in their rejection of amendments proposed by the Govt's closest friends, Castonguay, Pratte, etc.. I understand that in bargaining, the stronger one 's apparent position, the less one has to give up, eventually. But in this case, their language is so firm that they would be seen as having completely crumbled if they changed position. This is not a normal negotiation, this is politics, with serious consequences on innumerable levels, short-, medium-, and long-term. Given their language, I don't think they could survive, or will suffer even worse, if they seemingly crumble, forgiveness meme be damned. It may be a set-up, and they may be just be staking out as extreme a position as possible, for eventual changes to be as weak as possible. But when you think of all the work that goes into a budget, their language, and how these two measures, whose revenue is rather small in overall scheme, and yet which are tainting the entire budget, and the entire idea of "culture-shift", and the entire Govt, it seems hard to believe, or is tribute to the miscalculation, stupidity and insensitivity of Govt.

3) Incompetence. Incompetence is usually the explanation for public policy and political mistakes rather than machiavellian calculation. It's always hard to believe, because one thinks: but they're the Govt?! Surely, given all their resources, and knowledge, and skills?! Whatever. Most such mistakes are pure incompetence. Maybe they're out of touch - been in power a while, and it's been an exhausting environment. Knowing the world, I usually put my money on plain incompetence.

4) If it's not mulish dogmatism, nor a negotiation-PR-political tactic, nor incompetence, then it's an even more machiavellian plan than Marissal supposed, a desire to safeguard the Canadian & QC models of progressive fiscal & social policy, notably health care, for good. It may not even be Bachand or Charest, but some advisor or bureaucrat who got their ear and convinced them it was a good idea to bring in regressive, access-limiting health taxes. Maybe Bachand & Charest don't even know they're being played. But the idea all along was to bring in measures so obviously disgusting and unacceptable that they would cause a revolt, an uprising of Canadians & Quebeckers determined to defend progressive taxation, social policy and health care, the Canadian-Quebec model. Where better than QC? I mean, if you were to pick one province where this kind of thing would be sure to cause a revolt, where the protestors' networks are sufficiently deep and strong to respond overnight, you would pick QC. Isn't that the strangest thing in the story, that the Finance Minister & Premier who would be trying this on, without forewarning or preparing the terrain, would be in QC OF ALL PLACES?! So you bring this stuff in, the response is so strong the Govt has to retreat, their numbers in the toilet, and all other governments say to themselves: "well, that settles it - not touching that, ever. We will rely on progressive taxes to finance these things, for good, and not even dream of user fees, or privatisation of health care, etc.". I mean, I find it hard to see, however this ends, how this doesn't end very badly for PLQ Govt, and that is the moral of the story, reiterated once again: don't mess with health care! Stick to progressive measures to pay for services!

Whichever it is, I am fairly sure of one thing: This will probably prove, in the end, one of the greatest victories for progressive forces in Canadian history, settling the question and setting the agenda for the foreseeable future, maybe for a generation, even.

Thank you Bachand & Charest!

PS. I like the idea that B&C are bringing all this down on themselves on purpose, in order to set in motion a process that will safeguard the Cdn-QC model for good - self-sacrificing deep moles if you will. That's my favourite - B&C playing dumb and sacrificing their political careers to ensure that the progressive model endures. Inspiring improbability.