# Checking Peter MacKay’s math

Terry Milewski quibbles.

Jacques Bourbeau sees the same problems.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report is here.

Meanwhile, the Globe compares Mr. MacKay’s September 2010 talking points with what the Department of National Defence seems to have known at that time.

## Checking Peter MacKay’s math

1. Nothing prevented these people from saying “we’re concerned about the escalating costs, but there’s no decision yet and we’ve decided to change our minds and have an opening bidding process” from day one.  All of the crap, bafflegab and posturing was a mess of their own making, like so much the CPC has done wrong.

2. Body language. “I’m just an optimistic guy.” Shakes his head “No.”

•  He’s just disappointed at all the opposition MPs who hate jobs and lives, is all.

3. Here’s some simple math:  The current unit cost of the F-35 is \$197 million.  65 x 197M = \$12.8 billion.  Even ignoring the operating costs, that’s an underestimate of \$3.8 billion dollars, or >30% of the \$9 billion talking point Mackay has been running with.  If the \$9 billion number actually represented anything real at any point in time, the original unit cost of the F-35 must have been ~\$138 million.

Not that the operating costs should be ignored, but even the basic sticker price is increasing, and has been consistantly ignored by both ministers and DND officials.  People following this know that the sticker price has been ballooning since ~2009, and this talk about how bad the government is at basic accounting (because of omitting operating costs) kind of misses that point.  They’ve been knowingly downplaying the per-unit cost, even as reports from the US DoD have been raising red flags about the aircraft’s increasing costs.

• Remember:  The funds have been frozen!

(I’m still trying to figure out the logic behind that talking point…)

4. Well now we have an apple pie, that’s both half-baked, and burnt.

5. Another example of the toy soldier’s many retroactive truths.