Last week, Finance Minister Kevin Falcon introduced the provincial budget for fiscal 2012-2013. He did it wearing a pair of old shoes as a symbol of making do with what we have instead of spending on new programs or initiatives.
A stand pat budget.
Lower taxes, smaller government, economic growth.
Mr. Falcon is just the latest finance minister to parrot this philosophy. It has been pretty much the constant refrain from the B.C. Liberals for the past decade.
But is it really working?
According to B.C. Stats, while the economy grew by 53 percent in the past decade government spending only increased by 41 percent. That sounds like a good thing. We are spending less for the services that government provides.
The result is that in 2001, there were 94 British Columbians for every direct government employee. That number had climbed to 131 by 2010. Doing more (or servicing more) with less seems to be a government mantra.
However, government spending pays for much more than direct government employees. It funds doctors, nurses, hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, and a myriad of other social needs.
From paving roads to sheltering the
elderly, government spending is essential.
Waiting too long in the emergency room? Hey, at least you have a tax break.
Can't seem to get your aged mother into supported living? But you have an income tax break and more money in your pocket.
Stuck in a traffic jam due to outdated infrastructure? At least you can spend those tax breaks on the things that you think are important.
This is our dilemma. No one wants to pay taxes but taxes are a payment for services and goods that we do want and need. And generally speaking, the return on investment is pretty good. We get a lot more than we actually pay for directly.
Consider the costs of schooling. If we didn't have government funding, a family with two children would be paying $16,000 per year. Who could afford that?
University and college tuition would be well in excess of $15,000 per year without taxpayer funding.
Medical services would be on the order of $5,000 per year per person if we did not collectively fund it. A family could go bankrupt paying medical bills.
It happens all the time in the United States.
So, Mr. Falcon's budget - which leaves 13 of 16 ministries without any increases in funding - will result in cuts to services and programs that we want and need. One could make the argument that it is far from a good news budget.
But it is not just this budget that is problematic. It is not just a matter of money or economics. The government's agenda for the past ten years has had deleterious effects on the province.
Consider the final update from the B.C. Progress Board which was a watch dog put together under Gordon Campbell. According to the Board, our rank in Canada on crucial economic indicators fell over the past ten years.
Between 2000 and 2010, our economy moved from fourth to fifth, personal income from third to fourth, and jobs from fifth to seventh. Collectively, these indicators tell us that the B.C. Liberal
economic strategy has been a failure.
Add to this the report from the auditor general that our forests are in trouble.
The report is an indictment of the government's handling of the forestry
portfolio for the past ten years.
Multiple reports from the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth indicate that more of our children are living in poverty. It is one of the areas that B.C. leads the country and has for the past ten years.
And then there is a doubling of the provincial debt over the past 10 years - with a prediction of a $66.4 billion dollar debt by 2014. Where are the debt clocks and outraged local business people over such a massive increase in our debt?
New shoes or old, the 2012 budget and the three year fiscal plan are more of the same and the same is not working.
To the mayor and council:
Last Thursday's Citizen featured a Letter to the Editor from Norman Dale pointing out that cities aren't corporations. I certainly hope that it is a letter that you read as it makes the argument very well.
I would only add one more point to ponder. Most companies, in addressing their customer's needs, are not required to take into account the needs of other customers that may be in direct opposition.
Making business easier for developers and businesses sounds like a good idea until you realize that sometimes what they want to do conflicts with the public interest.
Cities aren't corporations nor are they businesses and shouldn't be run that way.
