Conflict in the Engkeylish camp of Tax Cuts, asset sales and increased Borrowing.

A simple question: How does a party leader this answer these questions and maintain logic:
"How will you fund the infra-structure building you plan to do with a reduced tax take from the large tax cuts you have promised?"
Answer""By borrowing thus increasing the public debt."
Question: "But aren't you borrowing to fund the deficit created by introducing huge tax cuts?"
Answer: "No we'd be borrowing to build infra-structure."
To any intelligent listener the logic of this series of answers is as somewhat tenuous and revealing of the speaker's fundamental lack of economic logic as the increased borrowing must logically follow from the reduced income created by the tax cutting programme that he espouses. If the Government has a decreased income flow because the tax take doesn't fund the planned spending then the borrowing is necessary to fund the tax-cuts.
Then the real answer must be that given by the man John Key says he'd be happy to resign to after one term holding the reins of power - Bill English who declared in a taped interview at the National Party Conference "We'll sell State assets - i.e. KiwiBank." (Un-said by underlying the message: at least not until we've been wielding power for a term... and have convinced the public that asset stripping, like the cane was said to be, good for the state as the country's assets are best held by foreign companies.) After all selling the family silver will allow National to reduce state taxes and allow private enterprise to levy taxes in the shape of tolls and increased charges and prices.

The evidence for Engkeylish use

A brevity:
Has anyone noted the number of times Key, under the influence of his minders, used the verb "struggling" in his recent press releases. Along with the concept of the "strugglers" we have a key example of weaselly word use in national party speeches.
The blatant attempt to identify with those they have traditionally spurned, through the use of emotively loaded terms, is obvious.
On the same issue I wonder if Fran O'Sullivan actually asked John to explain what he actually meant in his sound bite statement: "When householders are struggling to pay the weekly bills. Helen Clark's decision to spend the thick end of a billion dollars to buy back the rail rolling stock does not make sense."
Does he mean that the Government should not invest in the development and enhancement of the country's infrastructure or does he mean that the Government should not use its reserves to the advantage of the people or does he mean that the government should pay everyone less than the price of a chewing gum pack immediately?
What ever he means it becomes obvious he has little grasp of wise investment policies.
Then, again perhaps we should ask why he has adopted the policy of increasing state aid to private schools when those who actively support private schools are so adamantly opposed to social welfare? Surely increasing the State's contribution to Private Schools amounts to making these same people welfare dependent?
Oh well hypocrisy is such a shallow thing when it comes to poll driven policy creation.