Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Spending restraint: Roadmap to a balanced budget

Published

3 months ago

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

A Case for Spending Restraint: How the Federal Government Can Balance the Budget

By Grady Munro and Jake Fuss

Since 2015, there has been a deterioration in the federal government’s fiscal situation. Annual
nominal program spending has increased an estimated $193.6 billion since 2014/15; adjusted for
inflation and population growth this represents an extra $2,330 per person. Prior to the COVID
pandemic, spending increased faster than population, inflation, and other relevant economic
indicators. These spending increases have resulted in a string of large budgetary deficits that have
contributed to an estimated $941.9 billion increase in gross federal debt from 2014/15 to 2023/24.
This accumulation of debt, along with recent hikes in interest rates, has raised the cost of interest
on the federal debt to one of the largest budget expense items.

Moving forward, the federal government plans to slow nominal spending growth, which will keep inflation-adjusted, per-person spending relatively constant to 2026/27. Despite this, the federal government will continue running budget deficits and accumulating debt. It is also uncertain whether the federal government’s current estimates are truly reliable as the estimates do not incorporate expected spending on pharmacare or the level of defence spending to meet Canada’s NATO commitment. Moreover, the federal government’s track record of exceeding previous spending commitments calls into question the reliability of the current spending targets. Therefore, it is clear the federal government is not implementing the level of spending restraint necessary to reverse course towards a stable fiscal situation.

An approach to federal finances that continues to run budget deficits and accumulate debt is economically harmful to both current and future generations of Canadians. Research shows that significant increases in debt-financed spending harm economic growth by reducing capital accumulation and labour productivity.

Furthermore, accumulating debt today increases the tax burden on future generations of Canadians, as they will be responsible for paying off this debt. Despite these effects, the federal government plans to continue running deficits and accumulating debt for the foreseeable future.

This need not be the case. The federal government can undertake decisive spending reform starting in 2024— similar to the reform by the Chrétien government in the 1990s—that balances the budget within a year or two. The federal government could balance the budget in 2026/27 by limiting annual growth in nominal program spending to 0.3% for two years. This would result in a 5.9% reduction in real per-person spending. Alternatively, the budget could be balanced in 2025/26 if the federal government reduces spending 4.3% for one year; the next year, 2026/27, would see a budgetary surplus. In this scenario, inflation-adjusted per-person spending would decline by 7.5%. Key trade-offs between the two approaches include the extent of the spending reform and the speed of the return to balanced budgets. Balancing the budget in one year, as opposed to two years, would
result in $30.0 billion less debt accumulated by 2026/27.

Though it is beyond the scope of this study to discuss how such spending reforms should be implemented, there are three areas that might be considered for reform. Business subsidies are a significant expense, yet research suggests they have little if any economic benefit, and may actually harm economic growth when governments pick winners and losers in a free market. Reviewing business subsidies might provide opportunities to find savings. Aligning government-sector wages
with those in the private sector would also provide savings, as government workers in Canada currently enjoy an 8.5% wage premium (on average) relative to comparable private-sector workers. Finally, studies show that government fiscal waste can be significant. From 1988 to 2013, more than 600 government failures cost the federal government between $158.3 billion and $197.1 billion. Moreover, more than 25% of all federal COVID spending was wasteful. Addressing inefficiencies within government might also reveal savings.

  • Canada has seen a deterioration in the federal government’s fiscal situation since 2015. A distinct lack of spending restraint has resulted in a string of large budget deficits, which have contributed to rising government debt and debt interest costs.
  • Despite current fiscal plans promising more of the same, the federal government could implement decisive spending reform starting in 2024/25, similar to reforms implemented in the 1990s, and balance the budget within one or two years.
  • To balance the budget by 2026/27, the federal government would need to limit growth in annual nominal program spending to 0.3 percent for two years. This would translate to a 5.9 percent reduction in inflation-adjusted, per-person spending.
  • Alternatively, the federal government could balance the budget in one year, by 2025/26, by reducing nominal program spending by 4.3 percent. Adjusted for inflation and population, this would be a 7.5 percent decrease. In 2026/27, the federal government could then record a $8.2 billion surplus even while increasing spending from the previous year.
  • While this study does not provide an in-depth analysis of where potential savings should be found, research highlights three potential areas that could be targeted for spending reform: corporate welfare, aligning government-sector wages with those in the private sector, or eliminating government fiscal waste.

A Case for Spending Restraint in Canada: How the Federal Government Can Balance the Budget

Authors:

Grady Munro
Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Click here to read the full report

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Energy / 19 mins ago

Houses passes bill to protect domestic oil production, protect Iñupiat community

Opinion / 4 hours ago

Climate Murder? Media Picks Up Novel Legal Theory Suggesting Big Oil Is Homicidal

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans

Business

When politicians gamble, taxpayers lose

Published on May 2, 2024

By

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Politicians are rolling the dice on the electric vehicle industry with your money.

If they bet wrong, and there’s a good chance they have, hardworking Canadians will be left holding the bag.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford announced a $5-billion agreement with Honda, giving another Fortune 500 automaker a huge wad of taxpayer cash.

Then Trudeau released a video on social media bragging about “betting big” on the electric vehicle industry in Canada. The “betting” part of Trudeau’s statement tells you everything you need to know about why this is a big mistake.

Governments should never “bet” with taxpayer money. That’s the reality of corporate welfare: when governments give taxpayer money to corporations with few strings attached, everyday Canadians are left hoping and praying that politicians put the chips on the right numbers.

And these are huge bets.

When Trudeau and Ford announced this latest giveaway to Honda, the amount of taxpayer cash promised to the electric vehicle sector reached $57 billion. That’s more than the federal government plans to spend on health care this year.

Governments should never gamble with taxpayer money and there are at least three key reasons why this Honda deal is a mistake.

First, governments haven’t even proven themselves capable of tracking how many jobs are created through their corporate welfare schemes.

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Five million dollars per job is already outrageous. But some recent reporting from the Globe and Mail shows why corporate welfare in general is a terrible idea.

The feds don’t even have a proper mechanism for verifying if jobs are actually created after handing corporations buckets of taxpayer cash. So, while 1,000 jobs are promised through the Honda deal, the government isn’t capable of confirming whether those measly 1,000 jobs will materialize.

Second, betting on the electric vehicle industry comes with risk.

Trudeau and Ford gave the Ford Motor Company nearly $600 million to retool a plant in Oakville to build electric cars instead of gasoline powered ones back in 2020. But just weeks ago, Ford announced plans to delay the conversion for another three years, citing slumping electric vehicle sales.

Look into Ford’s quarterly reports and the danger of betting on electric vehicles becomes clear as day: Ford’s EV branch lost $1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2024. Reports also show Ford lost $130,000 on every electric vehicle sold.

The decline of electric vehicle demand isn’t limited to Ford. In the United States, electric vehicle sales fell by 7.3 per cent between the last quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024.

Even Tesla’s sales were down 13 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 2023.

A Bloomberg headline from early April read “Tesla’s sales miss by the most ever in brutal blow for EVs.”

There’s certainly a risk in betting on electric vehicles right now.

Third, there’s the question of opportunity cost. Imagine what else our governments could be doing with $57 billion?

For about the same amount of money, the federal government could suspend the federal sales tax for an entire year. The feds could also use $57 billion to double health-care spending or build 57 new hospitals.

The solution for creating jobs isn’t to hand a select few companies buckets of cash just to lure them to Canada. Politicians should be focusing on creating the right environment for any company, large or small, to grow without a government handout.

To do that, Canada must be more competitive with lower business taxes, less red tape and more affordable energy. That’s a real recipe for success that doesn’t involve gambling with taxpayer cash.

It’s time for our politicians to kick their corporate welfare addiction. Until they do, Canadians will be left paying the price.

Continue Reading

Business

WEF panelist suggests COVID response accustomed people to the idea of CBDCs

Published on May 1, 2024

By

Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

When asked how he would convince people that CBDCs would be a trusted medium of exchange, Bahrain’s central bank governor said that COVID made the digital transformation ‘something of a requirement’ that had ‘very little resistance.’

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will hopefully replace physical cash and become fully digital, a central banker tells the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Speaking at the WEF Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development on Sunday, Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan told the panel “Open Forum: The Digital Currencies’ Opportunity in the Middle East” that one of the goals of CBDC was to replace cash, at least in Bahrain, and to go “one hundred percent digital.”

Humaidan likened physical cash to being an antiquated “analogue” technology and that CBDC was the digital solution that would hopefully replace cash:

“I thank this panel and this opportunity. It forced me to refine my thoughts and opinions where I’m at a place comfortably now that I’m ready to verbalize what I think about CBDC,” said Humaidan.

If we think cash is the analogue and digital currency is the form of digital – CBDC is the digital form of cash – today, clearly we’re in a hybrid situation; we’re using both.

We know in the past when it comes to cash, central bankers were very much in control with all aspects of cash, and now we’re comfortable to the point where the private sector plays a big role in the printing of the cash, in the distribution of the cash, and with the private sector we use interest rates to manage the supply of cash.

The same thing is likely to happen with CBDC. Yes, the central bank will have a role, but at some point in time – the same way we don’t call it ‘central bank cash’ – we’re probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency.

“It’s going to be a digital form of the cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be one hundred percent digital,” he added.

When asked how he would convince people that CBDC would be a trusted medium of exchange, Bahrain’s central bank governor said that people were already used to it and that COVID made the digital transformation “necessary” and “something of a requirement” that had “very little resistance.”

“Right now, many of our payments are digital. The truth is, I said that we’re in a hybrid model; there’s less and less use of cash,” said Humaidan.

I think from predominantly digital with a little physical, I think the transition to fully digital is not going to be a stretch.

People are used to it, people have engaged in it and certain circumstances did help. Its adoption rates increased because of COVID.

“This is where contactless started to become something of a necessity, something of safety, something of a requirement, and because of that there is very little resistance; trust is already there,” he added.

Meanwhile, European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde has been going around the world telling people that the digital euro CBDC would not eliminate cash, and that cash would always be an option.

Speaking at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Summit in March 2023, Lagarde said that a digital currency will never be as anonymous as cash, and for that reason, cash will always be around.

“Is it [digital euro] going to be as private as cash? No,” she said.

A digital currency will never be as anonymous and as protecting of privacy in many respects as cash, which is why cash will always be around.

If people want to use cash in some countries or in some transactions, cash should be available.

“A digital currency is an alternative, is another means of payment and will not provide exactly the same level of privacy and anonymity as cash, but will be pretty close in terms of complete neutrality in relation to the data,” she added.

A WEF Agenda blog post from September, 2017, lists the “gradual obsolescence of paper currency” as being “characteristic of a well-designed CBDC.”

Last year at the WEF’s 14th Annual Meeting of the New Champions, aka “Summer Davos,” in Tianjing, China, Cornell University professor Eswar Prasad said that “we are at the cusp of physical currency essentially disappearing,” and that programmable CBDCs could take us to either a better or much darker place.

“If you think about the benefits of digital money, there are huge potential gains,” said Prasad, adding, “It’s not just about digital forms of digital currency; you can have programmability – units of central bank currency with expiry dates.

You could have […] a potentially better – or some people might say a darker world – where the government decides that units of central bank money can be used to purchase some things, but not other things that it deems less desirable like say ammunition, or drugs, or pornography, or something of the sort, and that is very powerful in terms of the use of a CBDC, and I think also extremely dangerous to central banks.

The WEF’s Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development took place from April 27-29 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties,” according to D.C.-based NGO Freedom House.

In the kingdom, “No officials at the national level are elected,” and “the regime relies on pervasive surveillance, the criminalization of dissent, appeals to sectarianism and ethnicity, and public spending supported by oil revenues to maintain power.”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X