Canada’s federal government disregards its own fiscal rules—unlike Sweden

During the 1970s and 1980s, Canada and Sweden both saw a deterioration in government finances. However, hard times in the early 1990s transformed the approach to fiscal policy by governments in both countries, including reducing spending and borrowing, and ultimately returning to balanced budgets. While Swedes have carried on the legacy of fiscal responsibility in subsequent decades, Canadians seem to have forgotten the hard lessons of recent history and have fallen back on the fiscal approach that got us into trouble in the first place.

In his recent book, Swedish economist Johan Norberg explains that for most of its modern history Sweden has been a testament to the success of the free market, rather than a model socialist economy. The country only experimented with socialism for a short period, with disastrous results.

Sweden’s socialist experiment during the 1970s and 1980s saw substantial income redistribution and the introduction of a large welfare state. As a result, the size of government doubled as a share of the economy (measured by GDP). Yet despite increases in taxes, particularly targeting corporations and the wealthy, the government could not raise the funds to pay for such a sizable expansion of the welfare state. Instead, Sweden ran deficits in every year from 1970 to 1987, government debt rose from less than 18 per cent of the economy (GDP) in 1970 to over 70 per cent in 1985, and the private sector completely stagnated.

This approach brought about a financial crisis in the early 1990s that saw interest rates briefly rise as high as 500 per cent. In the wake of this crisis, the Swedish government declared the socialist experiment a failure, and the country saw substantial reform that emphasized balanced budgets, lower taxes, and an open business environment. Rules were set in place to ensure fiscal discipline, and as a result the country has enjoyed consistent surpluses and government debt has fallen from 83.2 per cent of the economy in 1998 to 58.8 per cent in 2021, despite still maintaining a large welfare state.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Canada also experienced a deterioration in government finances. Canada’s issues stemmed from a substantial expansion in the size and role of government in conjunction with rising interest rates. The federal government ran uninterrupted budget deficits from 1970 through to the mid-1990s. Federal government debt rose to over 70 per cent of GDP during this period and debt interest costs were consuming more than one-third of federal government revenues.

By the early 1990s federal finances were in shambles and the economy was stagnant. A new federal government was elected, led by Jean Chrétien, which implemented significant fiscal reform in 1995 based on spending restraint, balanced budgets and lower taxes. The provinces enacted similar reforms, and from the late 1990s through the 2000s, Canadians enjoyed consistent surpluses, debt reduction, and strong economic growth.

While there are clear parallels between the countries, unlike Sweden, Canadians has since reverted back to the risky fiscal approach of the 1970s and 1980s. Since 2015, Canada has seen historically high federal spending, and a string of federal and provincial budget deficits. Consequently, government debt and its associated costs have grown substantially.

Since the 1990s, both Canada and Sweden have had fiscal rules in place to help ensure the health of government finances. But while the Swedish government has largely stuck to its surplus goal by being disciplined with finances, Canada’s current federal government has consistently disregarded its own commitments. Indeed, it has violated its own fiscal anchors several times since 2015, and rather than adopt the discipline necessary to get back on track, the government simply moves the goalposts.

Simply put, Swedes have learned their lesson from their experience in the 1970s to 1990s, whereas Canadians appear to have forgotten. This raises the question—do Swedes have better memories?

Authors:

Grady Munro and Jake Fuss

Related Topics:#CanadaEconomy #CanadaVSSweden #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss #JohanNorberg #SwedenEconomy

Up Next

Safe supply opioids based more on ideology than evidence?

Don't Miss

Feds hike taxes and MP pay today

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

All 49 GOP senators call on Biden admin to withdraw support for WHO pandemic treaty

conflict / 4 hours ago

Immigration Experts Warn Possible Biden Plan To Import Gazan Refugees Would Be ‘National Security Disaster’

Addictions / 8 hours ago

Canada’s ‘safer supply’ patients are receiving staggering amounts of narcotics

Economy

‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources

Published on May 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

New government data shows that wind power generation fell in 2023 despite the addition of new capacity, a fact that energy sector experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation demonstrates its inherent flaw.

Wind generation fell by about 2.1% in 2023 relative to 2022 generation, despite the 6 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity that came online last year, according to data published Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That wind power output dropped despite new capacity coming online and the availability of government subsidies highlights its intermittency and the problems wind power could pose for grid reliability, energy sector experts told the DCNF.

The decrease in wind generation is the first drop on record with the EIA since the 1990s; the drop was not evenly distributed across all regions of the U.S., and slower wind speeds last year also contributed to the decline, according to EIA. The Biden administration wants to have the American power sector reach carbon neutrality by 2035, a goal that will require a significant shift away from natural gas- and coal-fired power toward wind, solar and other green sources.

A table depicting the decrease of wind power generation in 2023 relative to 2022. (Screenshot via U.S. Energy Information Administration)

“Relying on wind power to meet your peak electricity demands is gambling with the grid,” Isaac Orr, a policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment who specializes in power grid-related analysis, told the DCNF. “Will the wind blow, or won’t it? This should be a moment where policymakers step back and consider the wisdom of heavily subsidizing intermittent generators and punishing reliable coal and gas plants with onerous regulations.”

Between 2016 and 2022, the wind industry received an estimated $18.6 billion worth of subsidies, about 10% of the total amount of subsidies extended to the energy sector by the U.S. government, according to an August 2023 EIA report. Wind power received more assistance from the government than nuclear power, coal or natural gas over the same period of time.

“This isn’t subsidies per kilowatt hour of generation. It’s raw subsidies. If it were per kilowatt hour of generation, the numbers would be even more extreme,” Paige Lambermont, a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “This is a massive amount of money. It’s enough to dramatically alter energy investment decisions for the worse. We’re much more heavily subsidizing the sources that don’t provide a significant portion of our electricity than those that do.”

“Policy that just focuses on installed capacity, rather than the reliability of that capacity, fails to understand the real needs of the electrical grid,” Lambermont added. “This recent disparity illustrates that more installed wind capacity does not necessarily correlate with more wind power production. It doesn’t matter how much wind you add to the grid, if the wind isn’t blowing at peak demand time, that capacity will go to waste.”

Wind power’s performance was especially lackluster in the upper midwest, but Texas saw more wind generation in 2023 than it did in 2022, according to EIA. Wind generation in the first half of 2023 was about 14% lower than it was through the first six months of 2022, but generation was higher toward the end of 2023 than it was during the same period in 2022.

In 2023, about 60% of all electricity generated in the U.S. came from fossil fuels, while 10% came from wind power, according to EIA data. Beyond generous subsidies for preferred green energy sources, the Biden administration has also aggressively regulated fossil fuels and American power plants to advance its broad climate agenda.

Biden’s Climate Bill Boosted An Offshore Wind Giant, But His Economy Brought It To The Brink https://t.co/AF7SPT2FNu

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) landmark power plant rules finalized this month will threaten grid reliability if enacted, partially because the regulations are likely to incentivize operators to close plants rather than adopt the costly measures required for compliance, grid experts previously told the DCNF. At the same time that the Biden administration is effectively trying to shift power generation away from fossil fuels, it is also pursuing goals — such as substantially boosting electric vehicle adoption over the next decade and incentivizing construction of energy-intensive computer chip factories — that are driving up projected electricity demand in the future.

“The EIA data proves what we’ve always known about wind power: It is intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on the energy sector, told the DCNF. “Any power generation source whose output is wholly dependent on equally unpredictable weather conditions should never be presented by power companies and grid managers as safe replacements for abundant, cheap, dispatchable generation fueled with natural gas, coal or nuclear. This is a simple reality that people in charge of our power grids too often forget. Saying that no doubt hurts some people’s feelings, but nature really does not care about our feelings.”

Blackmon also pointed out that, aside from its intermittency, sluggish build-out of the transmission lines and related infrastructure poses a major problem for wind power.

“Wind power is worthless without accompanying transmission, yet the Biden administration continues to pour billions into unreliable wind while ignoring the growing crisis in the transmission sector,” Blackmon told the DCNF.

Another long-term issue that wind power, as well as solar power, faces is the need for a massive expansion in the amount of battery storage available to store and dispatch energy from intermittent sources as market conditions dictate. By some estimates, the U.S. will need about 85 times as much battery storage by 2050 relative to November 2023 in order to fully decarbonize the power grid, according to Alsym Energy, a battery company.

The White House and the Department of Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

Alberta

Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans

Published on May 2, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill

Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.

And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.

Why should Albertans care?

First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.

For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.

Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.

Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.

In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.

By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.