Reading and listening to the media outrage over F35-gate, you would be convinced that the consensus opinion in Canada is to have gasoline and insurance costs included in the sticker price when you go to buy a car. If the dealership does not put your cost of fuel for the next 30 years in the purchase price, then it is lying deceit and the salesman should resign. It's that simple, or stupid, depending on how you choose to look at it. The dealership should attempt to guess what oil changes will cost in 2040, and then include their guesses in the 2012 price of purchasing the vehicle. It shouldn't matter if you are already paying a similar amount for maintaining and operating your existing car, you must guess how much the next 30 years of associated expenses will cost and put that in the current price. And if you're off, you must resign.
F35-gate has proven to be another case of crying wolf when there is no wolf present. The Tories campaigned on the cost of NEW expenditures, but others disagreed with what should be included in the price tag even before the election. If this was such a grand controversy worthy of the Prime Minister resigning, why weren't the opps able to hammer him on this during the campaign? This cost debate started well before election day. Now you have the media spinning Peter McKay's response of a difference in accounting procedures as him blaming an "accounting error". McKay never said it was an error, it was a matter of campaigning on the cost of new expenditures and not money we already spend on our current air force.
Today's poll question; Should costs already incurred by the Canadian air force be included in the purchase price of new jets?