Governments more concerned with budget optics than substance
Voters should put more weight on whether our politicians are building a secure society
For upwards of 25 years, Canadian politicians have unduly focused on the state of annual budgets rather than responsible planning for the longer term. And the budgets released this week by both Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and Scott Moe’s Saskatchewan Party reflect a continued unhealthy obsession with nominal surpluses or deficits — even as they approach the same issue from opposite sides.
On the provincial level, the story is a relatively familiar one. The right-wing Saskatchewan Party government has run up massive deficits through years of tax slashing and mismanagement (even as it has underfunded vital public services and left citizens to fend for themselves). But with the 2020 election approaching, the Saskatchewan Party has finally decided it needs to be able to claim a balanced budget for electoral purposes.
As a result, Moe’s latest budget includes a continued refusal to even make up for the past damage done to our province’s education system in particular, to say nothing of any investment in the future. It makes no allowance for the circumstances of public sector workers who have been working under expired collective agreements for multiple years.
And in order to reach nominal balance, this year’s budget rightly includes a small amount of additional revenue from the potash sector — though the belated and selective inclusion of that income only for electioneering purposes should offer a reminder that we’re not getting our fair share from Saskatchewan’s natural resources.
The result is that if one ignores rising longer-term debt, the budget can be spun as being balanced. And if students face overcrowded and under-resourced classrooms, or if people who depend on social assistance are falling still further behind an acceptable standard of living … well, those outcomes are of far less concern to Moe than whether a single summary budget number is printed in red or black.
Meanwhile, the federal level has seen a twist on the usual balanced-budget rhetoric — but one which is no better for the public interest.
Trudeau’s 2015 election victory was chalked up in large part to his spin — accepted uncritically by much of the national media — that his willingness to promise deficits meant that he was running to the left of the NDP.
Needless to say, that claim was never remotely plausible to observers who considered the balance of the parties’ platforms. But the conflation of deficits with progressive politics looks to have worked in Trudeau’s favour once — and sadly, it’s the one campaign theme which has actually been reflected in his governance.
Instead of balancing the federal budget (which could have been done by holding off on a couple of election-year baubles and following an additional recommendation or two to increase taxes on higher incomes), the Liberals have thus chosen to project small deficits into the future — even as they punt any meaningful funding for housing, pharmacare, child care or any other genuine policy progress into future terms in office.
In other words, Trudeau is betting that he can polarize this year’s federal election around themes of larger versus smaller government at a time when voters would prefer improved social supports — but also that voters will be more interested in whether he’s running a deficit than in whether he’s actually delivering on the public service side.
Ultimately, voters shouldn’t be fooled by either side of the deficit-obsessed coin.
Regardless of the deficit or surplus number on a public balance sheet, the most important consideration is whether our elected representatives are building the secure and supportive society we deserve. And there’s a reason why neither Moe nor Trudeau wants to see that as a ballot question.