Federal budget’s scale of spending and debt reveal a government lacking self-control

Had the government simply limited the growth in annual program spending to 0.3 per cent for two years, it could have balanced the budget by 2026/27 and avoided significant debt accumulation.

Instead, the government chose to increase annual program spending by an average of 4.4 per cent over the next two years and kick the debt problem down the road for another government to solve.

Time and time again, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland have emphasized the importance of being fiscally responsible with federal finances. Unfortunately, this year’s federal budget ensures once again their rhetoric rings hollow due to their ongoing mismanagement of federal finances.

This mismanagement is rooted in the government’s insatiable appetite for new and expanded programs or services, which has endured for nine years and will continue for the foreseeable future. The budget introduces billions of dollars in additional spending for a national school food program, housing initiatives and artificial intelligence. As such, program spending (total spending minus debt interest costs) is now expected to be $77.2 billion higher over the next four years than the government forecasted last spring.

In 2024/25 alone, federal program spending will reach a projected $483.6 billion—an increase of $16.1 billion compared to the previous budget’s estimates. On a per-person inflation-adjusted basis, federal program spending is forecasted to reach $11,901, which is approximately 28.0 per cent higher than during the final full year of Stephen Harper’s tenure as prime minister (2014/15). The Trudeau government has already recorded the five (2018 to 2022) highest levels of federal program spending per person in Canadian history (inflation-adjusted), and budget projections suggest it’s now on track to possess the eight highest levels of per-person spending by the end of its term next autumn.

This is despite recent polling data that shows the majority of Canadians (59 per cent) think the Trudeau government is spending too much. Nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of Canadians are also concerned about the size of the federal deficit.

As it has done nine times before, the Trudeau government will borrow to fund some of its spending spree, resulting in a projected budget deficit of $39.8 billion this year, which is $4.8 billion higher than previously forecasted. And it doesn’t intend to stop borrowing, with annual deficits exceeding $20 billion planned for the subsequent four years. This represents a notable increase in deficits compared to what was expected in the last year’s budget. Simply put, there’s no plan for a return to balanced budgets any time soon. As a result, federal debt (net debt minus non-financial assets) is expected to climb $156.2 billion from now until April 2029.

To make matters worse, the government is also increasing the capital gains inclusion tax rate from 50.0 per cent to 66.6 per cent for capital gains realized above $250,000. This will act as a huge disincentive for individuals and businesses to invest in Canada at a time when the country already struggles to attract the very investment we need to improve productivity, economic growth and living standards. Businesses and individuals will now simply invest their capital elsewhere.

There’s a large body of research that finds low or no capital gains taxes increase the supply and lower the cost of capital for new and growing firms, leading to higher levels of entrepreneurship, economic growth and job creation—precisely what Canada needs more of today and in the future.

While the government did boast about its ability to hold the 2023/24 deficit at $40.0 billion, this had little to do with responsible fiscal management. Instead, the government enjoyed higher-than-anticipated revenues of $8.3 billion, but repeated its all too frequent and ill-advised approach of spending that money and wiping out any chance to reduce the deficit.

Growing federal debt leads to higher debt interest costs, all else equal, which eat up taxpayer dollars that could otherwise have provided services or tax relief for Canadians. For context, the government now spends more ($54.1 billion) on debt interest as on health-care transfers to the provinces ($52.1 billion). Accumulating debt today also increases the tax burden on future generations of Canadians who are ultimately responsible for paying off this debt. Research suggests this effect could be disproportionate, with future generations needing to pay back a dollar borrowed today with more than one dollar in future taxes.

But again, it didn’t have to be this way. As we pointed out before the budget, had the government simply limited the growth in annual program spending to 0.3 per cent for two years, it could have balanced the budget by 2026/27 and avoided significant debt accumulation.

Instead, the government chose to increase annual program spending by an average of 4.4 per cent over the next two years and kick the debt problem down the road for another government to solve. Simply put, the government’s fiscal strategy is not all that different from an overzealous child that eats all their Halloween candy in one night even though they fully understand it won’t end well.

Yet for all this spending and debt, living standards have not improved for Canadians. In fact, inflation-adjusted GDP per person was actually lower at the end of 2023 than it was nine years prior in 2014. And going forward, the OECD predicts Canada will record the lowest growth rates in per-person GDP up to 2060 of any industrialized country—meaning countries such as New Zealand, Italy, Korea, Turkey and Estonia would all surpass Canada with higher living standards.

The combination of tax hikes and scale of spending and debt in this year’s federal budget demonstrate the Trudeau government has no interest in being fiscally responsible or improving living standards for Canadians. Instead of showing restraint, the government chose to repeat its mistakes and lead federal finances down an increasingly perilous path.

Authors:

Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Related Topics:#2024Budget #FraserInstittute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss feature

Up Next

Federal government remains intransigent on emissions cap despite dire warnings of harm

Don't Miss

28-year-old Dutch woman to be killed by assisted suicide after doctors deem her autism ‘untreatable’

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

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 5 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Economy

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

Many Canadians are unhappy about the carbon tax. Proponents argue it’s the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is true, but the problem for the government is that even as the tax hits the upper limit of what people are willing to pay, emissions haven’t fallen nearly enough to meet the federal target of at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Indeed, since the temporary 2020 COVID-era drop, national GHG emissions have been rising, in part due to rapid population growth.

The carbon tax, however, is only part of the federal GHG plan. In a new study published by the Fraser Institute, I present a detailed discussion of the Trudeau government’s proposed Emission Reduction Plan (ERP), including its economic impacts and the likely GHG reduction effects. The bottom line is that the package as a whole is so harmful to the economy it’s unlikely to be implemented, and it still wouldn’t reach the GHG goal even if it were.

Simply put, the government has failed to provide a detailed economic assessment of its ERP, offering instead only a superficial and flawed rationale that overstates the benefits and waives away the costs. My study presents a comprehensive analysis of the proposed policy package and uses a peer-reviewed macroeconomic model to estimate its economic and environmental effects.

The Emissions Reduction Plan can be broken down into three components: the carbon tax, the Clean Fuels Regulation (CFR) and the regulatory measures. The latter category includes a long list including the electric vehicle mandate, carbon capture system tax credits, restrictions on fertilizer use in agriculture, methane reduction targets and an overall emissions cap in the oil and gas industry, new emission limits for the electricity sector, new building and motor vehicle energy efficiency mandates and many other such instruments. The regulatory measures tend to have high upfront costs and limited short-term effects so they carry relatively high marginal costs of emission reductions.

The cheapest part of the package is the carbon tax. I estimate it will get 2030 emissions down by about 18 per cent compared to where they otherwise would be, returning them approximately to 2020 levels. The CFR brings them down a further 6 per cent relative to their base case levels and the regulatory measures bring them down another 2.5 per cent, for a cumulative reduction of 26.5 per cent below the base case 2030 level, which is just under 60 per cent of the way to the government’s target.

However, the costs of the various components are not the same.

The carbon tax reduces emissions at an initial average cost of about $290 per tonne, falling to just under $230 per tonne by 2030. This is on par with the federal government’s estimate of the social costs of GHG emissions, which rise from about $250 to $290 per tonne over the present decade. While I argue that these social cost estimates are exaggerated, even if we take them at face value, they imply that while the carbon tax policy passes a cost-benefit test the rest of the ERP does not because the per-tonne abatement costs are much higher. The CFR roughly doubles the cost per tonne of GHG reductions; adding in the regulatory measures approximately triples them.

The economic impacts are easiest to understand by translating these costs into per-worker terms. I estimate that the annual cost per worker of the carbon-pricing system net of rebates, accounting for indirect effects such as higher consumer costs and lower real wages, works out to $1,302 as of 2030. Adding in the government’s Clean Fuels Regulations more than doubles that to $3,550 and adding in the other regulatory measures increases it further to $6,700.

The policy package also reduces total employment. The carbon tax results in an estimated 57,000 fewer jobs as of 2030, the Clean Fuels Regulation increases job losses to 94,000 and the regulatory measures increases losses to 164,000 jobs. Claims by the federal government that the ERP presents new opportunities for jobs and employment in Canada are unsupported by proper analysis.

The regional impacts vary. While the energy-producing provinces (especially Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick) fare poorly, Ontario ends up bearing the largest relative costs. Ontario is a large energy user, and the CFR and other regulatory measures have strongly negative impacts on Ontario’s manufacturing base and consumer wellbeing.

Canada’s stagnant income and output levels are matters of serious policy concern. The Trudeau government has signalled it wants to fix this, but its climate plan will make the situation worse. Unfortunately, rather than seeking a proper mandate for the ERP by giving the public an honest account of the costs, the government has instead offered vague and unsupported claims that the decarbonization agenda will benefit the economy. This is untrue. And as the real costs become more and more apparent, I think it unlikely Canadians will tolerate the plan’s continued implementation.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Economy

Kamala Harris’ Energy Policy Catalog Is Full Of Whoppers

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By DAVID BLACKMON

The catalog of Vice President Kamala Harris’s history on energy policy is as thin as the listing of her accomplishments as President Joe Biden’s “Border Czar,” which is to say it is bereft of anything of real substance.

But the queen of word salads and newly minted presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has publicly endorsed many of her party’s most radical and disastrous energy-related ideas while serving in various elected offices — both in her energy basket-case home state of California and in Washington, D.C.

What Harris’s statements add up to is a potential disaster for America’s future energy security.

“The vice president’s approach to energy has been sophomorically dilettantish, grasping not only at shiny things such as AOC’s Green New Deal but also at the straws Americans use to suck down the drinks they need when she starts talking like a Valley Girl,” Dan Kish, a senior research fellow at Institute for Energy Research, told me in an email this week. “To be honest, she’s no worse than many of her former Senate colleagues who have helped cheer on rising energy costs and the fleeing American jobs that accompany them. She doesn’t seem to understand the importance of reliable and affordable domestic energy, good skilled jobs or the national security implications of domestically produced energy, but maybe she will go back to school on the matter. No doubt on her electric school bus.”

During her first run for the Senate in 2016, Harris said she would love to expand her state’s economically ruinous cap-and-trade program to the national level. She also endorsed then-Gov. Jerry Brown’s harebrained scheme to ban plastic straws as a means of fighting climate change.

Tim Stewart, president of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, told me proposals like that one would lead during a Harris presidency to the “Californication of the entire U.S. energy policy.” “Historically,” he added, “the transition of power from a president to a vice president is designed to signal continuity. This won’t be the case, because a Harris administration will be much worse.”

But how much worse could it be than the set of Biden policies that Harris has roundly endorsed over the last three and a half years? How much worse can it be than having laughed through a presidency that:

— Cancelled the $12 billion Keystone XL Pipeline on day one.

— Enacted what many estimate to be over $1 trillion in debt-funded, inflation-creating green energy subsidies.

— Refused to comply with laws requiring the holding of timely federal oil and gas lease sales.

— Instructed its agencies to slow-play permitting for all manner of oil and gas-related infrastructure.

— Tried to ban stoves and other gas appliances.

— Listed the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard as an endangered species despite its protection via a highly-successful conservation program.

— Invoked a “pause” on permitting of new LNG export infrastructure for the most specious reasons imaginable.

— Drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for purely political reasons.

As Biden’s successor for the nomination, Harris becomes the proud owner of all these policies, and more.

But Harris’ history shows it could indeed get worse. Much worse, in fact.

While mounting her own disastrous campaign for her party’s presidential nomination in 2020, Harris endorsed a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing, i.e., fracking. She later conformed that position to Biden’s own, slightly less insane view, but only after being picked as his running mate.

Consider also that while serving in the Senate in early 2019, Harris chose to sign up as a co-sponsor of the ultra-radical Green New Deal proposed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. It is not enough that the Biden regulators appeared to be using that nutty proposal and climate alarmism as the impetus to transform America’s entire economy and social structure: Harris favors enacting the whole thing.

As I have detailed here many times, every element of climate-alarm-based energy policies adopted by the Biden administration will inevitably lead the United State to become increasingly reliant on China for its energy needs, in the process decimating our country’s energy security. By her own words and actions, Harris has made it abundantly clear she wants to shift the process of getting there into a higher gear.

She is an energy disaster-in-waiting.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.