Pre-election spending by the federal government has been compared to that of a drunken sailor on shore leave, but such a comparison is grossly unfair. It’s likely to give drunken sailors a bad name.
At last count, federal government promises amounted to nearly $14 billion, an incredible amount of money by any standard. But considering the state of the country’s public debt, the inability to reduce our annual deficit despite economic good times and the likelihood that those economic good times will come to an end over the next 12-24 months, such spending promises are unconscionable.
The government isn’t alone in its pre-election profligacy. The Liberals have also promised to spend billions of our money if they are elected government. The NDP, too, is well versed in the rules of spending money one doesn’t have.
To be fair, some of the projects are, in principle, worthwhile. And the billions these would-be leaders promise to spend is strung out over a number of years. But then, it would have to be. Even the drunkest sailor would have difficulty spending that kind of money in a single 12-month period.
What is particularly galling, however, is to see projects that make no economic sense coming from a government that was expected to provide responsible fiscal leadership. And these latest promises come on top of some incredibly dubious spending plans already made. Most notable is Defense Minister Perrin Beatty’s nuclear submarine scheme’s $8-billion-plus price tag.
This Tory government was elected largely because it was expected to offer an alternative to the free-spending Liberal regime. The governments of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau brought Canada to the point where it now appears impossible for the nation to ever get out of debt.
Liberals might argue that being debt-free is not necessarily a desirable thing. In order to provide the social programs “that all Canadians desire” one has to put future generations in hawk.
It may be true that debt is not necessarily a bad thing. As a means of increasing the value of one’s assets, it is a useful tool. And, of course, when times are tough, it’s good to be able to borrow what’s needed to see you through.
Most homeowners, for example, are well aware of the value of debt when it can be handled properly. They either have or used to have a mortgage on their home, often their most valuable asset. They realize that debt is a useful means of accumulating assets. But most responsible homeowners also know that it is folly to live beyond their means, that they can’t spend more money than they earn and ever expect to pay off that mortgage.
Liberal governments never learned that lesson. Judging by the Liberal Part y’s unswerving insistence on such burdens on the public purse as universality of programs such as family allowance and old-age security cheques, it still hasn’t. Can they not see the lunacy of providing every single Canadian with a monthly $30 cheque for each of their children? And when the CEOs of Noranda or Rio Algom or Lac Minerals retire, should they get a cheque for $316 a month from the public treasury despite annual incomes today that are well into six figures?
The Conservative government, too, has faltered in its commitment to improving the situation and its latest spending spree raises doubts about its ability to even contain the deficit let alone lower it. Its admirable but politically foolhardy theme of “short term pain for long term gain” has apparently been well buried.
The power to spend public money seems to weave an irresistable spell on even the best-intentioned government. The temptation to buy votes with money over which it is supposed to exercise judicious stewardship is just too great.
When it comes to mortgaging the country’s collective future, there appears to be very little difference between the major political parties. All are willing to spend like there’s no tomorrow, regardless of how frightening the prospect of tomorrow’s eventual reckoning.
My father, ken, was the third miner. He nearly lost his ability to walk and Lives in extreme pain and poverty to this day. I personally know the brother of Bruce Braman both of which would probably be willing to talk about the mistreatment they received. If you want their contact information, let me know. It should make for a good article.