Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,309
- Points
- 1,040
>repaying debt when times are good is prudent fiscal management - but that also implies that when times are bad, it may be warranted to run a deficit.
Usually the Keynesians phrase it the other way, to emphasize the importance (to them) of "investment". Add to that the probable increase in social spending as the means of people constricts. But when good times arrive there is almost nothing to be heard but the chirping of crickets from the parliamentary benches, muted by the thunder of whinging from special interests.
There should never have been a "surplus" if past governments had properly paid every unbudgeted penny to buy out federal debt. The Liberals, however, used part or much of the windfall (if you believe it was truly unexpected) to shower a few gifts on voters. (The Conservatives have not been entirely immune to the temptation.)
The Liberals are responsible for every penny of the federal debt, which is the sum of their spending (principal) and the interest on that spending. You can't run up the credit card and then blame someone else when you hand off the household finances for a few years. Any future Liberal government still owes Canadians an effort to use revenues in excess of program spending to pay down debt - and to keep program spending modest.
The current government can not easily cut spending in some non-essential quarters. It is clear that immense investments - time, money, "face" - in Quebec can be quickly wiped out by trivialities. One alternative is to transfer program responsibility to the provinces. It would not be playing "headwaiter to the provinces" to shift grant and subsidy programs to the provinces, eliminate some federal tax points equivalent to the necessary funding, and tell the provinces to fill their boots.
Usually the Keynesians phrase it the other way, to emphasize the importance (to them) of "investment". Add to that the probable increase in social spending as the means of people constricts. But when good times arrive there is almost nothing to be heard but the chirping of crickets from the parliamentary benches, muted by the thunder of whinging from special interests.
There should never have been a "surplus" if past governments had properly paid every unbudgeted penny to buy out federal debt. The Liberals, however, used part or much of the windfall (if you believe it was truly unexpected) to shower a few gifts on voters. (The Conservatives have not been entirely immune to the temptation.)
The Liberals are responsible for every penny of the federal debt, which is the sum of their spending (principal) and the interest on that spending. You can't run up the credit card and then blame someone else when you hand off the household finances for a few years. Any future Liberal government still owes Canadians an effort to use revenues in excess of program spending to pay down debt - and to keep program spending modest.
The current government can not easily cut spending in some non-essential quarters. It is clear that immense investments - time, money, "face" - in Quebec can be quickly wiped out by trivialities. One alternative is to transfer program responsibility to the provinces. It would not be playing "headwaiter to the provinces" to shift grant and subsidy programs to the provinces, eliminate some federal tax points equivalent to the necessary funding, and tell the provinces to fill their boots.