The Lemonade Stand test -

The Lemonade Stand test


As noted, the “revenue” part of the government’s new argument against cap-and-trade is a red herring. But Greg Fingas is willing to respond to it anyway.

Now, keep in mind that this is a minister within the same government which is shutting down and selling off vital public services – depriving countless Canadians of life, limb or livelihood in the process – in the name of deficit reduction. Or, put another way, in the name of closing a gap between expenses and revenue. One might then think that any even faintly competent administrator would consider more revenue to be a plus. And that goes doubly if the increased revenue is paired with a more efficient means of reaching another stated policy goal.

But according to Kent, the Cons’ overriding principle in making government decisions is the glibertarian theory that “revenue = bad”. Which would thoroughly disqualify his party from holding office based on the elementary test of being competent to run a lemonade stand … Moreover, by any reasonable comparison of climate change policies, the Cons would then be choosing to impose higher compliance costs on industry (and ultimately consumers) for the sole purpose of avoiding the “evil” of revenue – even when that revenue would serve to reduce exactly the deficit they claim to be fighting.


The Lemonade Stand test

  1. People who don’t like govt shouldn’t be allowed to run one.

    • That’s just silly.

      A country holds an election, one of the parties in that election says that they don’t like government, it get’s in the way of a proper functioning economy, it interferes with too many personal freedoms, and if they get elected they will trim the size and reach of government.

      That party gets elected – yes, they get to run the government, simple as that.


      • LOL yes, Grover Norquists the lot of them.

  2. The CPC’s apparent abhorrence of government revenue feeds into the conviction, valid or not, that ultimately their hidden objective is the permanent weakening of Canada’s central government, beyond its ability to provide national defence and to conduct a robust war on crime, real and imagined.

  3. Brilliant rebuttal to Kent’s mindless drivel.

  4. Wither the “invisible hand of the free market” on this file? I’m surprised that Conservatives want to regulate emission rates rather than setting up a market-based solution to the issue. Perhaps amused is a better word than surprised.

    (I’m being a bit disingenious here…I know full well that this government doesn’t actually intend to regulate greenhouse gasses nor move towards their reduction in any meaningful way. That would require an acknowledgement that climate change is a real problem, which requires an understanding of science and evidence.)