On deeper analysis

Susan Delacourt compares the current state of political discussion about possible cuts to that which prevailed in the 1990s. And while I'm far from sure that the earlier result was ideal in the amount of credulity given to the Libs' decisions as to what cuts were "necessary", the contrast in the media's ability to look at a story in any depth is still rather striking:

A while back, a friend who was deeply involved in the Liberals' tough, deficit-slashing 1995 budget told me that a similar exercise couldn't be pulled off today. Why? Because of the changes in my business -- journalism, which no longer seems to have the attention span or appetite to handle an ongoing story line. (Or "narrative," if you prefer that rapidly-becoming-overused term.)

The Liberals spent a considerable amount of time preparing the ground for the 1995 cuts, which were deep and severe. Read Double Vision, by Edward Greenspon and Anthony Wilson-Smith, for just what was involved in that PR spadework. It required an ongoing interest and debate in the public sphere; journalists who could spend days, weeks, months getting their heads around government spending priorities. It depended on a sophisticated, respectful relationship between journalists and politicians, which didn't send the reporter rushing to print with sky-is-falling stories every time he/she heard details of the cuts to come.
...
I don't note this phenomenon to wax nostalgic or whine for a return of what journalism/politics used to be. It is what it is. The folks grousing about the Internet today remind me of the grumpy old-timers in the 1980s, saying that nothing good would come of television journalism.

But if the government isn't telling us about what cuts are necessary in the coming budget, that may not be just the government's fault. It could have a lot to do with journalism, and you, the public, too.