Justify the olympics.
I read Pacific Metropolis from time to time. The writer does a good job of covering development in Vancouver, and today they tried their hand at justifying Olympic spending. Check this out…maybe it’s just me, but it’s quite an awkward justification:
“So, during the 2004-2010 period (during which most of the $580 million in taxpayers’ money will be spent), the federal government will also spend $204.6 billion on interest payments on the national debt, and $72 billion on social assistance programs.” [see post]
Basically the author is spreading the “580 million” over the six year period in which it’s being allocated, and comparing that to six years worth of debt interest and social assistance spending. Regardless of whether the data is accurate, you can’t compare a one time expense (for a two week event) with six years of on going costs.
I’m not going to argue for or against the Olympics, but I do think that our opinions need to be based on some seriously sound ratios.