🚀 go-pugleaf

Following up kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak):
>
>>This is a pie in the sky position if there ever was one.  Education and health care
>>are the big items in  our budget, the rest is peripheral.  Any cuts
>>to spending and taxes are going to adversely affect the  amount of
>>money available to administer these vital programs.
>
>Not necessarily.  If you cut $500 million in taxes and reduce spending by
>$700 million, you will end up with another $200 to allocate to education
>and health.
>
>Let's take a look at your "the rest is peripheral" statement:
>
>Ministry of Health spends $6.6 billion or 32.7%  of the total $20.186
>billion budget.
>
>Education spends $3.99 billion or 19.7%
>Social Services  $2.78 billion or 13.8%, hardly a "the rest is peripheral"
>
>Of course there is a reason why we spend 14% of every nickel on welfare:
>people are not working.  And of course the best way to get them back
>working is to create economic climate that would attract business and would
>more money into the hands of consumers so they can spend some. That is by
>cutting taxes.
>
>At the same time, we are spending a Billion a year paying interest on our
>debts.  You would like to spend some money on Education and Health?  Great,
>pay off the debts and instead of paying interest to bankers offshore, put
>the cash into classrooms and operating rooms.  Get rid of the $28 billion
>of provincial debt and you will not have to worry about not having money
>for ambulances or textbooks.
>>The budget looks good again and everyone theoretically saves a few bucks
>>in taxes.
>
>Surely you jest.  One Billion increase in provincial debt this year alone,
>that is AFTER cashing in a half a billion rainy day fund, is a good looking
>budget to you?  Thank you Mr. Hatter

This is scary.

The budget projects a reduction of $414 million in "Provincial Government
Direct Debt" and yet for an increase of $1 billion in "Total
Provincial Debt".

Shout alert.

   THIS MEANS THAT OFF-BUDGET SPENDING IS AROUND $1.414 BILLION, or 9% of
   all government spending. A government that thinks this makes sense,
   that this is balancing the budget, has lost touch with reality.


We can expect that much of the $1.414 billion off-budget spending, when
examined closely, is capital spending that must occur: schools, highways,
hospitals. Some of this may be frivolous, but most of it surely fills a
need: people benefit from it, voters benefit from it in some way.

In order to really balance the books, after a $500 million tax cut and an
increases in health and education, a Liberal government must cut $700
million on-budget spending PLUS all of the off-budget spending, for a
total of $2.114 billion.

Now, Karl also wants to pay down some of the debt in order to "get rid of
the $28 billion of provincial debt." So, another expenditure. How much
will the Liberals pay down the debt in the first year? A few hundred
million? So, they must find another few hundred million in cuts. The cuts
total is now heading for $2.5 billion.

To be honest with the voters then, the Liberals must propose spending cuts
that amount to at least $2.5 billion.

What do we have then?

   Budgeted spending            20,186.0
   Off-budget                    1,414.0
   Total                        21,600.0

less (untouchables)

   Education                     3,989.9
   Health                        6,642.6
   Debt Servicing                  979.0
   Total                        11,611.5

leaves

   spending available for cuts   9,989.0

To meet the above promises, the Liberal government would have to cut $2.5
billion from spending of $9.989 billion.

Pretty deep cuts. Probably not realistic. It would take some pretty
specific information to make me believe it.


DRR

PS. The sooner the Liberals admit that they are going to have to generate
savings in health and education, the better. They are high enough in the
polls to do it now and still get elected. Just do it!