What are the PCS talking about?

When the subject is deficits, it gets harder and harder to figure out what the heck the Redford PCs are talking about.

We’ve entered a zone of shifting meanings and verbal ice fog that is beyond my experience of finances in this province.

On Monday, Premier Alison Redford sent out a message to PC party members that seemed simple, and all too grimly believable.

It implied that the PCs will not balance the budget next year. Then it stated that the government is “working towards a balanced budget by the spring of 2014.”

That would be a mammoth downgrading of official projections.

In the province’s spring budget, the PCs forecast a surplus of $952 million in 2013-14, and $5.2 billion for 2014-15.

Is all that about to go down the twin drains of capital spending and slumping revenues?

If so, Redford’s admission would be akin to former premier Ed Stelmach saying he didn’t think the budget could be balanced in 2012-13.

Ed’s honesty got him into trouble with his MLAs over the 2010 year-end holidays.

The next month, he stunned the province by saying he’d quit. His moment of budget clarity was certainly a factor.

On this subject, the Redford crew cannot be accused of clarity.

Only hours after Redford’s party note came out, and reporters started ask- ing questions, the premier’s office said there was a mistake.

Whoever “put that together,” said communications boss Jay O’Neill, wrote down the wrong year.

The note should have said “working toward a balanced budget by the spring of 2013,” not 2014.

He reiterated the government will produce a balanced operating budget, a fully-funded capital budget, and a savings plan.

And yet, nobody says there will be a balanced budget in the usual sense, with revenue matching overall expenses.

And certainly, nobody mentions that $952-million surplus for next year.

Only two months ago, Redford said: “We know next year we can either balance or be in surplus. We are absolutely firm on that, we intend to remain clear on that, and haven’t deviated from that. We are completely committed to the promise we made to Albertans.”

In Monday’s note to her party’s members, the tone was quite different. “We have a balanced operating budget but have a shortfall when it comes to capital spending.

“We could easily balance that part ... as well if we cancelled all capital projects, such as critically needed hospitals and road(s) or the many needed new schools.”

Then came the intriguing stuff: “We have chosen to bear the criticism of having an unbalanced budget rather than abandon those needed projects.

“At the same time, however, we are limiting spending in other areas and are working toward a balanced budget by the spring of 2014.” (Or 2013, take your pick.)

That’s a world away from the confident projections that began with this year’s pre-election budget.

Since then, the PCs have thrown up the distracting distinction between capital and operating deficits, and casually revealed they’ve once again embarked on long-term borrowing.

The effect is that Albertans are gradually getting used to the idea that debt and deficits are normal and acceptable.

Maybe that’s what most people want.

Even small-c conservatives — or some of them, anyway — seem fine with borrowing for essential services, and aren’t yet alarmed by deficits.

But surely there’s a valid question for the PCs: If you’re changing tack here, why not just come out with it?