Budgets are a seemingly nebulous thing, at least when it comes to government.
In the real world budgets are a more serious thing.
Budget poorly, fail to save for a rainy day, face an unexpected cost you can’t handle, and there are threats of electricity being cut-off, threats of foreclosure, collection agents, repossession and bankruptcy looming on the horizon.
In fact depending what government it is, debt seems to mean little.
If the country in question is Greece, Europe shudders, and the rest of the world is concerned.
If it’s the United States where federal government debt is nearing $20 trillion, a number few can even get their head around, no one seems too concerned.
Canada falls closer to Greece in terms of the perception of debt, both on the world stage and internationally.
Social media seems a twitter with concerns about the amount of deficit the new Liberal government is preparing to run in its first budget, a trend which given the general economy will not be an isolated, one-year, situation.
No one will ever completely understand the finances left by the Conservative Harper government. Some reports have it rosy, others suggests a much more sparse cupboard. That tends to be the trend of government transfer. The outgoing regime always talks a fat wallet left behind. The new government complains of being left little to work with. Welcome to politics, and the reality numbers can often be aligned in a way to support a pre-desired outcome.
The truth is likely lost somewhere between the two extremes.
While many worry of a larger deficit, there is no shortage of wants out there though.
The oil sector wants a bail out. Workers needing extended unemployment supports. The sector needs a mega pipeline.
Municipalities want more federal money to help repair and replace decades old water, and sewer lines, aging sidewalks and pock-marked asphalt.
Let’s not forget a growing need for someone to fund social housing, and the federal government is expected by many to be a leader.
First Nations want funds to deal with a backlog of issues they have fought for.
Health is a money pit that never seems satisfied in terms of funding.
The Armed Forces have a long list of needs.
And the list goes on.
The long list of needs and concerns about deficit seem at odds.
In Saskatchewan we have a government that has been loud, and proud about putting forward balanced budgets.
How much credit they should get for that accomplishment is a bit harder to determine given they managed the balanced budgets through arguably the best economic times in a half century. Even with the robust economy Premier Brad Wall and his party regularly dipped into the province’s ‘rainy day fund’ to keep the red ink at bay. In good times drawing down one’s savings would suggest missing the mark on a budget.
And that brings us home to Yorkton. A municipal government in Saskatchewan can’t budget a deficit. That is determined by statute. At some point it was determined locally elected officials could not manage deficits. Of course should a local councillor move up to be elected MLA or MP they can then bath in red ink and be just fine.
This is not to suggest we want deficits at the municipal level, but if they can make the decisions to raise taxes, or delay projects, or reduce services to keep the numbers in line.
So the question is, are we better off with a deficit, and the resulting debt, from senior levels of government, or should we tighten the belt and ride out the storm.
As an example, continue to redo a few kilometres of highway this year provincially with deficit dollars, or just put those projects on hold until the economy rebounds?
Those are the choices Trudeau and Wall have before them, and regardless of which path they chose, many will see them as getting it completely wrong, while others will applaud. Again such is the world of politics.
